“This is the first time, within the recollection of your
correspondent, that any bill having the negro in it,
directly or indirectly, has been passed by the Senate
without debate. What a good time is coming, when the negro
questions shall all have been legislated upon, and when the
African race will no longer be a bone of contention in our
legislative halls!”
The bill was less fortunate in the House of Representatives,
where, May 20th, Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, reported it from the
Post-Office Committee with the recommendation that it do not
pass. In explaining the reasons for this report, he referred to
the original Act of Congress establishing the disqualification,
and said:--
“That law has been on the statute-book for more than a
third of a century. Among all the petitions presented
during that time to this House and the Senate, from people
in all sections of the country, there has not been, so far
as I have been able to discover, a single petition from
any person, white or black, male or female, asking for a
repeal or modification of this law. It has remained there
by common consent until the present time; and therefore I
think it unwise and inexpedient to pass the bill at the
present time, not being demanded by public opinion.
“In the second place, the repeal of this bill does
not affect exclusively the blacks of the country, as
generally supposed. It will throw open the business of
mail-contracting, and of thus becoming officers of the
Post-Office Department, not only to blacks, but also to
the Indian tribes, civilized and uncivilized, and to the
Chinese, who have come in such large numbers to the Pacific
coast.…
“By this bill, if it is to pass, you would allow all
over the South the employment by the slaveholder of his
slaves to carry the mail, and to receive compensation for
the labor of such slaves out of the Federal Treasury.
By the present law not a dollar is ever paid out of the
Post-Office Treasury to any slaveholder for the labor of
his slave.…
“Mr. Speaker, I am furthermore authorized by the
Postmaster-General to say that he has not recommended the
passage of this bill, nor does he regard it as promotive of
the interests of the Department. I cannot find that it is
asked for by any official or private citizen throughout the
length and breadth of this land.”
To these objections he added, that it was necessary to have
testimony by which you can convict mail depredators; and “in
some of the States Indians and negroes, and in California and
Oregon the Chinese also, are not allowed by the statutes of the
State to give testimony in the courts against white persons.”
Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts, inquired of Mr. Colfax, “whether
he supposes depredators upon the mails are tried in the State
courts, or whether they are tried in the United States courts,
and if the latter, whether he and I do not make the laws of the
United States and the courts of the United States, prescribing
who shall testify and who shall not?”
“MR. COLFAX. Not being a lawyer, and not understanding,
therefore, all the rules which govern the proceedings of
the courts, I, however, say that I am informed by those
who are lawyers that the rules of evidence in force in the
States respectively are adopted by the United States courts
in such States. And the gentleman from Massachusetts, who
is a lawyer, ought to have known the fact, and, knowing it,
ought not to have asked me such a question.
“MR. DAWES. The gentleman from Indiana has not quite
answered me.”[210]
Mr. Colfax moved to lay the bill on the table, which was
ordered, May 21st: Yeas 82, Nays 45. So the bill was lost.
In the next Congress it was again introduced by Mr. Sumner.
* * * * *
A letter from William C. Nell, of Boston, well known for his
volume on “The Colored Patriots of the Revolution,” shows how a
single individual suffered under this discrimination of color.
“Please accept my sincere thanks for your efforts to remove
the disqualification of color in mail-carrying.
“Mr. Phillips conveyed to me the substance of information
imparted by you, to wit, the postponement of the bill in
the House. To me the disappointment is heavy, presuming
said action to be a finality, at least for this session,
and the next one is not likely to be as liberal.
“I never had more desire or more need of chances to earn
money than now, and never were my opportunities so small.”
The existing law was general, and Mr. Nell could not be a
letter-carrier in Boston.