SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS, FEBRUARY 10, MARCH 17,
JUNE 21, 1864.
The opening of the street-cars in Washington constitutes a
special chapter of effort, which, beyond its local influence,
was important as an example to the country.
February 27, 1863, the Senate having under consideration the
bill to authorize the Alexandria and Washington Railroad
Company to extend their road across the Potomac River and
through the city of Washington to the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad station, Mr. Sumner moved an amendment in the
following words:--
“_And provided, also_, That no person shall be excluded
from the cars on account of color.”
In making this motion, he called attention to what seemed to
him a new illustration of the barbarism of Slavery. An aged
colored person had been excluded from the cars and dropped in
the mud. He thought the incident discreditable, and that it was
the duty of Congress to interfere. The following dialogue then
ensued.
MR. HOWE (of Wisconsin). I should like to ask the Senator
from Massachusetts, as a question of law, whether, if
this railroad company, being common carriers, should drop
any person or refuse to carry any person who offered them
their fare, they would not be liable as the law now stands,
without any express enactment?
MR. SUMNER. If you ask me the question as a lawyer, I
should say they would be liable; but the experience here,
as I believe, is, that this liability is not recognized.
The Senator knows well, that, under the influence of
Slavery, human rights are disregarded, and those principles
of law which he recognizes are set aside. Therefore it
becomes the duty of Congress to interfere and specially
declare them.
MR. HOWE. Would the effect of the amendment be any more
than a reënactment of the existing law?
MR. SUMNER. That was said of the Wilmot Proviso, as the
Senator will remember.
The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted, Yeas 19,
Nays 18; so the amendment was agreed to. It was concurred in by
the House, and approved by the President, March 3, 1863.
This provision, though applicable to a single road, seemed to
decide the principle. But it was not so regarded by the other
railroads in Washington, which continued to exclude colored
persons, often under painful circumstances.
* * * * *
February 10, 1864, Mr. Sumner called attention to this subject
by the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the District of Columbia
be directed to consider the expediency of further providing
by law against the exclusion of colored persons from the
equal enjoyment of all railroad privileges in the District
of Columbia.”
Mr. Sumner explained the resolution.
MR. PRESIDENT,--It is necessary that I should call attention to a
recent outrage which has occurred in this District. I do it with great
hesitation. At one moment I was inclined to keep silence, believing
that the good name of our country required silence; but since it has
already found its way into the journals, I cannot doubt that it ought
to find its way into this Chamber.
An officer of the United States, with the commission of Major, with the
national uniform, has been pushed from a car on Pennsylvania Avenue
for no other offence than that he was black. Now, Sir, I desire to say
openly that we had better give up railroads in the national capital, if
we cannot have them without such an outrage upon humanity, and upon the
national character. An incident like that, Sir, is worse at this moment
than defeat in battle. It makes enemies for our cause abroad, and sows
distrust. I hope, therefore, that the Committee on the District of
Columbia,--I know the disposition of my honorable friend, the Chairman
of that Committee,--in the bills we are to consider relative to the
railroads in this District, will take care that such safeguards are
established as will prevent the repetition of any such wrong.
In reply to Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Sumner spoke again.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sure that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS]
is mistaken in regard to the provision for colored people. There may be
here and there, now and then, once in a long interval of time, a car
which colored people may enter; but any person traversing the avenue
will see that those cars appear very rarely; and if any person takes
the trouble to acquaint himself with the actual condition of things,
he will learn that there are great abuses and hardships, particularly
among women, growing out of this outrage. I use plain language, Sir,
for it is an outrage. It is a disgrace to this city, and a disgrace
also to the National Government, which permits it under its eyes. It is
a mere offshoot of the Slavery which, happily, we have banished from
Washington.
Now go back to the facts on which I predicated my motion. The Senator
from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] has referred to the colored officer. I have in
my hand his letter, addressed to his military superior, making a report
of the case, and, as it is very brief, I will read it.
“WASHINGTON, D. C., February 1, 1864.
“SIR,--I have the honor to report that I have been obstructed
in getting to the Court this morning by the conductor of car
No. 32 of the Fourteenth Street line of the city railway.
“I started from my lodgings to go to the hospital I formerly
had charge of, to get some notes of the case I was to give
evidence in, and hailed the car at the corner of Fourteenth
and I Streets. It was stopped for me, and, when I attempted to
enter, the conductor pulled me back, and informed me that I
must ride on the front with the driver, as it was against the
rules for colored persons to ride inside. I told him I would
not ride on the front, and he said I should not ride at all.
He then ejected me from the platform, and at the same time
gave orders to the driver to go on. I have, therefore, been
compelled to walk the distance in the mud and rain, and have
also been delayed in my attendance upon the Court.
“I therefore most respectfully request that the offender may be
arrested and brought to punishment.
“I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
“A. T. AUGUSTA, M. B.,
“_Surgeon Seventh U. S. Colored Troops_.
“CAPTAIN C. W. CLIPPINGTON, _Judge Advocate_.”
In my opinion, the writer of this letter had just as much right in
that car as the Senator from Indiana, and it was as great an outrage
to eject him as it would be to eject that Senator. I go further, and
I say--pardon the illustration--that the ejection of that Senator
would not bring upon this capital half the shame that the ejection of
this colored officer necessarily brings upon the capital. I do not
mean, of course, to make the remark personal; but, as the Senator from
Indiana has entered into this discussion, and chooses to vindicate this
inhumanity, I allude to him personally.
The resolution was adopted,--Yeas 30, Nays 10.
February 24th, Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, from the Committee
on the District of Columbia, made a report in the following
terms.
“That the Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the
Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company,’ approved May
17, 1862, makes no distinction as to passengers over said
road, or as to any of the privileges of said road, on
account of the color of the passenger, and that, in the
opinion of the Committee, colored persons are entitled to
all the privileges of said road which any other persons
have, and to all the remedies for any denial or breach of
such privileges which belong to any other persons. The
Committee, therefore, ask to be discharged from the further
consideration of the premises.”
February 25th, Mr. Sumner called attention to this report, and
moved to reconsider the vote accepting it. Mr. Grimes stated
that “the Committee hold that every person has a right to ride
in the cars, and that a colored person has the same remedies
open to him for any infringement of his rights by the Company
as anybody else.” Mr. Sumner then inquired, “whether it was
the understanding of the Committee that the ejection of a
colored person from a car was illegal.” Mr. Grimes replied,
“As I understood it.” Mr. Sumner. “That the ejection was
illegal?” Mr. Grimes. “Yes, Sir.” Mr. Reverdy Johnson united
in this conclusion. Mr. Willey said: “The law is now full and
perfect in all its provisions and adaptations to secure the
colored persons in the enjoyment of the privileges of this
railroad.” Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: “I think in law
he is right, but in practice it is an undeniable fact that the
spirit of the old law and the old practices still lingers to
some extent here in the District.” Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware,
followed: “I most heartily approve of the action of the officer
on board that railroad-car. I think he deserved the thanks
of the community. When these negroes go about sticking their
heads into railroad-cars, and among white people, and into the
Supreme Court Room, I think an officer is perfectly right in
telling them they have no business there.” Mr. Sumner remarked
as follows.
After the declarations made to-day, I am, at least for the present,
satisfied, and shall not proceed further with my motion. I was
particularly grateful to the Senator from Maryland for his very
explicit statement of the law. I do not doubt he is entirely right.
It has always been my opinion. I am glad to have it confirmed by that
distinguished Senator and lawyer. I am also grateful to the Senator
from West Virginia, who made the report, and who has so explicitly
stated his own convictions, and, as I understand him, also the
unanimous opinion of the Committee, to the effect that these people
have legal rights precisely as white persons to the full enjoyment of
all the privileges of the railroad in this District. If they have such
legal rights, they are at this moment unquestionably exposed to what
I must call outrage. If a white person were ejected from the cars on
account of his skin, we should all feel that it was an outrage. Is it
any less an outrage because the person ejected is simply guilty of a
different skin? I confess, that, to my mind, it is a greater outrage,
because obligations are greater in proportion to the humility and
weakness of those with whom we deal.
But, Sir, I have no desire to proceed further in this question. I am
for the present satisfied. My hope, however, is, that the railroad
corporation will at once take notice, and act according to law.
Mr. Sumner then withdrew his motion.
* * * * *
In the face of this report, the exclusion of colored persons
continued, often attended by intolerable outrage. Aged persons
were thrust into the street. At last an opportunity occurred of
bringing this question to a vote in the Senate.
March 16, 1864, the Senate had under consideration a bill to
incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company in the District
of Columbia, sometimes known as the F Street Road, when Mr.
Sumner moved the following amendment:--
“_Provided_, That there shall be no regulation excluding
any person from any car on account of color.”
A debate ensued, in which Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, and Mr.
Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, earnestly opposed the amendment.
March 17th, the latter, while acknowledging that there was
nothing in the bill giving “authority to exclude passengers
at all,” insisted that colored persons so excluded should
be remitted to the courts, and he did not see “why it is
necessary to provide more special guaranties for the black
man than are provided for the white man”; “if the black man
is improperly excluded from one of these cars, … he has the
right to go to the courts and seek his remedy there, and the
white man has no greater right”; that Mr. Sumner “might just
as well propose to pass a law providing that these black
men and black women shall have the same right to visit the
Presidential mansion on public occasions as the white men and
the white women”; and he then discussed the questions of social
and political equality, insisting that those just escaped from
Slavery “are not the people to exercise the elective franchise,
and to mix in society with the educated classes, of which and
from which the public councils of the country should always be
composed and taken.”