“They [the Commissioners] shall have power to subpœna and
compel the attendance of witnesses, and to receive testimony
and enforce its production, as in civil cases before courts of
justice.”
Under this provision the old Maryland statute is left in full force.
This should not be.
Mr. Sumner moved to add at the end of this clause, immediately
after “courts of justice,” the words “without the exclusion of
any witness on account of color.”
Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, called for the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and, being taken, resulted, yeas 26, nays 10. So
the amendment was agreed to.
* * * * *
This was the first step for the civil rights of colored
persons, but it was limited to proceedings under the
Emancipation Act in the District of Columbia.
* * * * *
July 7th, the Senate having under consideration a Supplementary
Bill on Emancipation in the District, Mr. Sumner took occasion
to broaden the immunity by moving the following additional
section:--
“_And be it further enacted_, That in all judicial
proceedings in the District of Columbia there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.”
The yeas and nays were ordered, at the call of Mr. Powell, of
Kentucky, and, being taken, resulted, yeas 25, nays 11.
* * * * *
In the House of Representatives, while the bill was under
consideration, Mr. Wickliffe, of Kentucky, said: “I have no
hope of success; but I feel it to be my duty to move to strike
out the words ‘without the exclusion of any witness on account
of color,’ where they occur.… I presume it is intended to let a
man’s servant come in and swear that he is a disloyal man. I do
hope the friends of this bill will not so far outrage the laws
of this District as to authorize slaves or free negroes to be
witnesses in cases of this kind.” Mr. Thaddeus Stevens said,
“I trust that this Committee [of the whole House] will not so
far continue an outrage as not to allow any man of credit,
whether he be black or white, to be a witness”; and the motion
was rejected.[277]