REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL FOR THE FURTHER SECURITY OF EQUAL
RIGHTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JULY 16, 1867.
July 16th, Mr. Sumner offered a petition from citizens of
Washington, setting forth, that, under the existing charter
of Washington, colored persons are excluded from office, and
praying relief. He supported the petition with the following
bill “for the further security of Equal Rights in the District
of Columbia”:--
“_Be it enacted, &c._, That in the District of Columbia
no person shall be excluded from any office by reason
of race or color, and all parts of laws making any such
discrimination are hereby repealed.”
The bill was read, when Mr. Sumner asked unanimous consent to
proceed with its consideration.
I think there can be no objection to this bill. It is simply to carry
out what is understood to be the effect of existing legislation, but
which practically does not seem to be its effect. At the late election
in the District it appeared that by the terms of the charter colored
persons could not be qualified as aldermen, as common-councilmen, or as
assessors; and on examining the charter, which I have now on my desk, I
find that by its terms, strictly construed, these offices are confined
to free white persons. By our legislation, all persons, without
distinction of color, can be voters, but nothing is said about being
office-holders. I cannot doubt, that, under the Constitution, and
particularly since the recent legislation, the discrimination adverse
to colored persons is void; but practically it is not so regarded.
I submit, therefore, that it is proper in Congress to remove this
grievance.
Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, objected to its consideration,
when Mr. Sumner gave notice that he should endeavor to call it
up the next day. He gave further notice, that, if any objection
were made, he should move to suspend the rule limiting business
so far as to allow this bill to be considered.
* * * * *
July 17th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to
consider the bill. Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, then said:--
“The Senator from Massachusetts was the author of the
proposition that the colored people should vote. He made
the commencement of that policy with the District of
Columbia. He now claims--and I believe his party friends
have come up to his position--that that is to be made
universal throughout the States. I suppose he will be
frank enough to inform us whether it is intended as the
commencement of the policy that negroes shall be allowed
to become office-holders, to hold both Federal and State
offices throughout the country,--whether he regards this as
the inauguration of that policy. I suppose he does, from
the fact that he expressed with a great deal of warmth, the
other day, the desire that he might see colored Senators
here in a very short time. If we are to regard it as the
inauguration of the policy, it is well enough to know it.”
Without any reply, Mr. Sumner asked for a vote, when the bill
was passed,--Yeas 25, Nays 5.
* * * * *
July 18th, in the other House, the bill was reported by Mr.
Wilson, of Iowa, from the Judiciary Committee, with the
following substitute, intended to avoid in legislation the
repetition of the phrase “race or color.”
“The word ‘white,’ wherever it occurs in the laws relating
to the District of Columbia or in the charter or ordinances
of the city of Washington or Georgetown, and operates as
a limitation on the right of any elector of said District
or either of said cities to hold any office or to be
selected and to serve as a juror, be and the same is hereby
repealed; and it shall be unlawful for any person or
officer to enforce or attempt to enforce said limitation
after the passage of this Act.”
The substitute was adopted, and the bill thus amended
passed,--Yeas 90, Nays 20.
July 19th, the Senate concurred in the amendment, and, on
motion of Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, further amended the bill by an
additional section authorizing “the necessary grand and petit
jurors for the June term of the Criminal Court for the year
1867.” This amendment, though not relating to Equal Rights, was
concurred in by the House.
July 20th, the bill was duly enrolled and transmitted to the
President for his signature, but was not returned by him before
the adjournment, the same day, so that it failed to become a
law. Mr. Sumner complained that Senators “proposed to go home
and leave Equal Rights in the District without the protection
we owe them.”
* * * * *
November 21st, on the first day of the meeting of Congress
after the adjournment, Mr. Sumner introduced the same bill as
it had passed both Houses, and asked the Senate to proceed with
it at once; but this was prevented by the objection of Mr.
Davis, of Kentucky. Mr. Sumner forbore calling it up for eleven
consecutive days of the session, to see if within that time it
would be returned to Congress, with or without objections. It
was not returned, and on application at the Department of State
it was ascertained that it had not been received there.
December 5th, the bill was taken up, on motion of Mr. Sumner,
discussed, and again passed,--Yeas 32, Nays 8.
December 9th, it passed the House,--Yeas 104, Nays 39.
December 11th it was presented to the President.
December 20th, Congress adjourned for the holidays.
The President, by a message, January 24, 1868, in reply to
an inquiry of the Senate, stated that it was presented for
his approval December 11, 1867, but that “Congress by their
adjournment [December 20th] prevented the return of the bill
within the time prescribed by the Constitution.”
January 7th, Mr. Sumner a third time introduced the same bill.
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, thought “we ought to consider whether
it is not already a law.” Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said that
“this bill has become a law, if it has not been returned with
a veto.” Under these circumstances, the bill was referred to
the Judiciary Committee to consider its true condition and the
question of further legislation.
February 11, 1869, the bill being once more before the Senate,
Mr. Sumner moved it again, as appears by the following passage.
MR. SUMNER. I move that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Senate bill No. 228.
MR. DRAKE [of Missouri]. What is it?
MR. SUMNER. A bill for the further security of Equal Rights
in the District of Columbia. I will make one minute’s
explanation, and then the Senate will see that it ought to
be passed. This bill has already twice passed both Houses
of Congress, but immediately before recesses, and it has
fallen from the President failing to return it with his
veto, and from the unsettled condition of the practice or
law in such cases.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. MORGAN, of New York, in the
chair]. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate to
consider the bill at this time.
MR. DRAKE. I appeal to the honorable Senator from
Massachusetts on behalf of a poor and most worthy woman----
MR. SUMNER. Why should the Senator make that appeal to
me? I appeal on behalf of all the colored people in this
District, who ask the passage of this bill.
MR. CONKLING [of New York]. Whether the objection should
be made or not depends perhaps upon this, which I should
like to inquire: Has not this bill not only passed twice,
I think three times, but has it not become a law certainly
once?
MR. SUMNER. It has not become a law; at least, it has
not found place in the statute-book, and the courts have
declined to recognize it as law. Under the circumstances,
it has seemed the best and the shortest way for Congress to
pass it again, so as to remove all doubt.
The bill passed the Senate without a division, and, March 2d,
it again passed the other House without a division. Again it
failed to receive the signature of the President, nor was it
returned with his objections.
March 6th, at the opening of a new Congress, with a new
President, Mr. Sumner introduced it again, and asked unanimous
consent to proceed with its consideration; but Mr. Vickers, of
Maryland, objected.
March 8th, it passed the Senate without a division; March 15th,
passed the other House,--Yeas 111, Nays 46; March 18th, was
approved by the President, and so at last became a law.[236]