“I do not think, Mr. President, there was any need
for sticking the perpetual, the all-pervading, the
everywhere-to-be-found, the ever-in-the-way negro to this
bill. I hope and trust that the Senate and the Congress of
the United States will be allowed to mature and perfect
some few bills, in which the interests and the business
of the white man are involved, without having this
ever-present negro stuck upon them by the Senator from
Massachusetts. If he desires to bring up this matter of the
negro in connection with the rules of proceeding in the
Federal courts, let him introduce a distinct bill, and not
make everything odoriferous of his friend.”
Mr. Sumner then renewed his motion in the form of a proviso,
and afterwards the Senate adjourned. The bill was never taken
up again. But the same question was soon presented on another
bill.
July 15th, the Senate had under consideration a bill concerning
the competency of witnesses in courts of the United States,
which provided that this should be regulated by “the laws
of the State in which the court shall be held.” Mr. Sumner
offered his amendment again. It was opposed by Mr. Foster, of
Connecticut, who had reported the pending bill. In the course
of his remarks he said: “It is competent for every State to fix
its own rules for itself, and the independence of each State
of every other State requires that they should be protected in
that right of making their own laws.”