I am against the amendment on two grounds: first, that it proposes
to adjourn too soon; and, secondly, that it superfluously and
unnecessarily makes a new difference with the House of Representatives.
In the first place, it proposes to adjourn too soon,--that is,
to-morrow at twelve o’clock. The business of the country will suffer
by adjournment at that time. We are now in currents of business that
recall the last days of regular sessions, or the rapids that precede a
cataract. Senators are straggling for the floor, and perhaps are not
always amiable, if they do not obtain it. We ought to give time for all
this important business, so that there be no such unseemly struggle.
The calendar of the Senate shows one hundred and fifteen bills now
on your table from the Senate alone, of which only a small portion
have been considered; and looking at the House calendar, I find one
of their late bills numbered one hundred and two, showing that very
large number, of which you have considered thus far only a very small
proportion. I do not ask attention to these numerous bills, but
unquestionably among them are many of great importance. There are two
especially to which I have already referred, and to which I mean to
call your attention, so long as you sit as a Congress, and down to the
last moment, unless they shall be acted on. I mean, in the first place,
the bill providing for a change in the time of electing a mayor and
other officers in the city of Washington. Congress ought not to go home
leaving this question unsettled.
You have bestowed the suffrage upon the colored people here, and they
are about to exercise it in choosing aldermen and a common council; but
those aldermen and common councilmen will find themselves presided over
by a mayor chosen by a different constituency, and hostile to them in
sentiment, one possessing sometimes the veto power, and always a very
considerable influence, which he will naturally exercise against this
new government. Will you leave Washington subject to such discord?
Will you consent that the votes of the colored people shall be thus
neutralized the first time they are called into exercise? I trust
Congress will not adjourn until this important bill is acted upon. It
is very simple; it need not excite discussion; it is practical. Let it
be read at the table, and every Senator will understand it, and will be
ready to vote upon it without argument. Thus far I have not been able
to bring it before the Senate, though I have tried day by day. I have
not yet been able to have it read.
Mr. Sumner then referred again to the bill securing the
elective franchise throughout the country, vindicating its
constitutionality and necessity.
Mr. Wilson then moved to amend by making the day of adjournment
the 10th of April; but this was rejected,--Yeas 13, Nays 28.
Mr. Sumner then moved to amend by inserting “five o’clock,
Saturday afternoon,” instead of “twelve o’clock, noon,” saying,
“so that we shall have five hours more for work”; but this,
modified by the substitution of four o’clock, was likewise
rejected.
The substitute of Mr. Edmunds was then adopted,--Yeas 28, Nays
12,--Mr. Sumner voting in the negative. The House concurred,
and the adjournment took place accordingly.
* * * * *
In this episode began the differences with regard to President
Johnson. To protect good people against him was the object of
the earnest effort to prolong the session and to provide for an
intermediate session before the regular meeting of Congress.
Among those who voted for the adjournment were distinguished
Senators who afterwards voted for his acquittal, when impeached
at the bar of the Senate.
LOYALTY AND REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE TO THE REBEL
STATES.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SURVEYS FOR
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LEVEES OF THE MISSISSIPPI, MARCH 29, 1867.
March 29th, on motion of Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island, the
Senate proceeded to consider a joint resolution directing
an examination and estimate to be made of the cost of
reconstructing the levees of the Mississippi. Mr. Sumner
remarked that he was not against making this exploration
and inquiry,--that he welcomed anything of the kind,--but
he was anxious that Congress should not commit itself to
the expenditure involved. He therefore moved the following
amendment:--
“_Provided_, That it is understood in advance that no
appropriations for the levees of the Mississippi River
shall be made in any State until after the restoration of
such State to the Union, with the elective franchise and
free schools without distinction of race or color.”