A Bill to carry out the principles of a Republican form of Government
in the District of Columbia.
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That no person, in other
respects qualified to vote within the District of Columbia, shall be
excluded from that right by reason of race or color.
SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any person whose duty it
shall be to receive votes at any election within the District of
Columbia, who shall refuse to receive or shall reject the vote of
any person entitled to such right under this Act, shall be liable to
an action of tort by the person injured, and shall be liable, upon
indictment and conviction, if such act was done knowingly, to a fine
not exceeding five thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding one year, or to both. And where the person injured is
of African descent, one half the jury impanelled to try the action or
indictment shall be of African descent.
SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall molest
any person entitled to vote under this Act, in the exercise of such
right, shall, upon indictment and conviction, be liable to a fine not
exceeding three thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months, or to both; and if the person molested was of
African descent, one half the jury impanelled to try the indictment
shall be of African descent.
This bill was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered to
be printed.
December 6th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was referred to the
Committee on the District of Columbia.
* * * * *
At the formation of the Committee, Mr. Sumner became, for
the first time, a member of the Standing Committee on the
District of Columbia. According to usage in the Senate, the
Standing Committees are formed in a caucus of the predominant
political party, acting on the report of a Nominating Committee
appointed by the caucus. At the opening of the present
session Mr. Sumner was a member of the Nominating Committee.
While occupied in arranging the Committee on the District
of Columbia, he remarked that his only wish with regard to
this Committee was, that it should be so constituted as to
report in favor of suffrage without distinction of color in
the District. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, who was a member of the
Nominating Committee, said at once, “Then you must go on it.”
Mr. Sumner replied, that he was much occupied on the Committee
on Foreign Relations, of which he was Chairman, but that, if
the Nominating Committee chose to assign him this new duty,
he could not decline it. He was accordingly placed on this
Committee, where he continued until the opening of the session
in December, 1872, when, at his own request, founded on ill
health, he was excused from all service on committees.
The members of the Committee were Mr. Morrill, of Maine,
Chairman, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, Mr.
Sumner, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr. Yates, of Illinois,
and Mr. Riddle, of Delaware. At the earliest meeting of the
Committee, Mr. Wade’s bill to regulate the franchise in
the District of Columbia, being first on the calendar, was
proceeded with. At once the question arose of a general bill
regulating suffrage in the District. To relieve the Committee
from this embarrassment, and reach a prompt conclusion on
the main question, Mr. Sumner moved, “That the Committee
will report a bill simply prohibiting any exclusion from the
elective franchise on account of color, with proper provisions
to carry out this prohibition, and without undertaking to
regulate the qualifications.” This motion was adopted.
* * * * *
December 20th, Mr. Morrill reported Mr. Wade’s bill with
amendments, and, in reply to inquiry from Mr. Sumner, said that
he was “inclined to call it up at the earliest possible time,
but probably not before the contemplated adjournment [for the
holidays].” Mr. Sumner then said:--
“I am very glad my excellent friend proposes to proceed
with the consideration of that measure at an early day. I
believe the country requires promptitude in such act of
justice.”
* * * * *
January 10, 1866, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Morrill,
proceeded with the bill, and adopted several of the amendments.
An amendment providing that the elector “shall be able to read
the Constitution of the United States in the English language,
and write his name,” excited discussion, when the bill, on
motion of Mr. Yates, was recommitted.
January 12th, Mr. Morrill reported the original bill with an
amendment as a substitute. January 16th, it was taken up for
consideration, when Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, spoke at length
against it. From that date until June 27th it was not resumed,
but the Senate during this interval heard suffrage discussed,
especially on the Constitutional Amendment concerning
representation. At the latter date it was taken up, on motion
of Mr. Morrill. In the substitute there was no requirement of
reading and writing as a qualification; but Mr. Morrill moved
the amendment on this subject which had been reported before.
On this important proposition the vote stood, Yeas 15, Nays 19.
So it was rejected. After an elaborate speech from Mr. Willey,
in which he proposed a qualified suffrage, the bill went over
to another day, but was not resumed until the next session of
Congress. The pressure of business, the fact that there would
be no election until after the next session, the growing sense
that the suffrage must be without educational qualification,
and the uncertainty of carrying such a bill over the veto of
the President, were the reasons for this delay.
* * * * *
Meanwhile, after a debate of several days, the House of
Representatives, on the 18th of January, passed a short bill,
striking the word “white” from the election laws of the
District, and declaring that no person should be disqualified
on account of color.
* * * * *
December 3, 1866, being the first day of the session, Mr.
Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the consideration of
the Suffrage Bill, and then remarked:--
“It will be remembered that this bill was introduced on the
first day of the last session,--that it was the subject of
repeated debate in this Chamber,--that it was more than
once referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia,
by whose chairman it was reported back to the Senate. At
several different stages it was supposed that we were about
to reach a final vote. The country expected that vote. It
was not had. It ought to have been had. And now, Sir, I
think it best for the Senate, in this very first hour of
its coming together, to put that bill on its passage. It
has been thoroughly debated. Every Senator has made up his
mind. There is nothing more to be said on either side. So
far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that the vote
shall be taken without one further word; but I think that
the Senate ought not to allow the bill to be postponed. We
should seize this first occasion to put the bill on its
passage. The country expects it; the country will rejoice
and be grateful, if you will signalize this first day of
your coming together by this beautiful and generous act.”
The Chair, after recognizing the motion, ruled it not in order,
according to a former precedent.
* * * * *
December 10th, on motion of Mr. Morrill, the Senate proceeded
with the Suffrage Bill. Mr. Sumner joined in urging it:--
“Let us, so far as the Senate can do it, give suffrage to
the colored race in the District; let us signalize this
first day of actual business by finishing this great act.”
Debate ensued for four days, in which Mr. Morrill, Mr. Willey,
of West Virginia, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, Mr. Pomeroy, of
Kansas, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, Mr. Williams, of Oregon,
Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Yates, of
Illinois, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Gratz Brown, of
Missouri, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island,
Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin,
Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr.
Foster, of Connecticut, Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Lane, of Indiana, and Mr. Sumner,
took part. The remarks of the last will appear in their proper
place, according to date.[2] Among the amendments considered
was one by Mr. Cowan to strike out the word “male,” so as to
open suffrage to women, which was rejected,--Yeas 9, Nays
37. The amendment by Mr. Dixon, making reading and writing a
qualification, was also rejected,--Yeas 11, Nays 34.
December 13th, the bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 32, Nays
13. The announcement of its passage was followed by applause
in the galleries. On the next day the bill passed the other
House,--Yeas 128, Nays 46.
January 7, 1867, the bill passed the Senate over the veto of
President Johnson, by a two-thirds vote,--Yeas 29, Nays 10.
On the next day it passed the other House by a two-thirds
vote,--Yeas 113, Nays 38. And so it became a law, and also a
model for similar legislation in the reconstruction of the
Rebel States.