May 13, 1870, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent
obtained, leave to bring in a bill “Supplementary to an
Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their
vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866,” which was read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.
July 7th, only a few days before the close of the session, Mr.
Trumbull, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported
a bundle of bills, including that above mentioned, adversely,
and all, on his motion, were postponed indefinitely.
January 20, 1871, Mr. Sumner again introduced the same bill,
which was once more referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
February 15th, Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee, again reported
the bill adversely; but, at the suggestion of Mr. Sumner, it
was allowed to go on the Calendar. Owing to the pressure of
business in the latter days of the session, he was not able to
have it considered, and the bill dropped with the session.
* * * * *
At the opening of the next Congress, March 9, 1871, Mr. Sumner
again brought forward the same bill, which was read the first
and second times, by unanimous consent, and on his motion
ordered to lie on the table and be printed. In making this
motion he said that the bill had been reported adversely twice
by the Committee on the Judiciary; that, therefore, he did not
think it advisable to ask its reference again; that nothing
more important could be submitted to the Senate, and that it
should be acted on before any adjournment of Congress. In reply
to an inquiry from Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, Mr. Sumner proceeded
to explain the bill, which he insisted was in conformity
with the Declaration of Independence, and with the National
Constitution, neither of which knows anything of the word
“white.” Then, announcing that he should do what he could to
press the bill to a vote, he said: “Senators may vote it down.
They may take that responsibility; but I shall take mine, God
willing.”
At this session a resolution was adopted limiting legislation
to certain enumerated subjects, among which the Supplementary
Civil Rights bill was not named. March 17th, while the
resolution was under discussion, Mr. Sumner warmly protested
against it, and insisted that nothing should be done to prevent
the consideration of his bill, which he explained at length.
In reply to the objection that the session was to be short,
and that there was no time, he said: “Make the time, then;
extend the session; do not limit it so as to prevent action
on a measure of such vast importance.” An amendment moved by
Mr. Sumner to add this bill to the enumerated subjects was
rejected. The session closed without action upon it.
* * * * *
At the opening of the next session, Mr. Sumner renewed his
efforts.
December 7, 1871, in presenting a petition from colored
citizens of Albany, he remarked: “It seems to me the Senate
cannot do better than proceed at once to the consideration of
the supplementary bill now on our Calendar, to carry out the
prayer of these petitioners”; and he wished Congress might
be inspired to “make a Christmas present to their colored
fellow-citizens of the rights secured by that bill.”
December 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill,
which had already passed the House, “for the removal of the
legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section
of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States,” Mr. Sumner, insisting upon justice before
generosity, moved his Supplementary Civil Rights Bill as an
amendment. A colloquy took place between himself and Mr. Hill,
of Georgia, in which the latter opposed the amendment.
MR. SUMNER. I should like to bring home to the Senator that
nearly one half of the people of Georgia are now excluded
from the equal rights which my amendment proposes to
secure; and yet I understand that the Senator disregards
their condition, sets aside their desires, and proposes
to vote down my proposition. The Senator assumes that the
former Rebels are the only people of Georgia. Sir, I see
the colored race in Georgia. I see that race once enslaved,
for a long time deprived of all rights, and now under
existing usage and practice despoiled of rights which the
Senator himself is in the full enjoyment of.
MR. HILL. … I never can agree in the proposition that,
if there be a hotel for the entertainment of travellers,
and two classes stop at it, and there is one dining-room
for one class and one for another, served alike in all
respects, with the same accommodations, the same attention
to the guests, there is anything offensive, or anything
that denies the civil rights of one more than the other.
Nor do I hold, that, if you have public schools, and you
give all the advantages of education to one class as you do
to another, but keep them separate and apart, there is any
denial of a civil right in that. I also contend, that, even
upon the railways of the country, if cars of equal comfort,
convenience, and security be provided for different classes
of persons, no one has a right to complain, if it be a
regulation of the companies to separate them.…
MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, we have a vindication on this
floor of inequality as a principle and as a political rule.
MR. HILL. On which race, I would inquire, does the
inequality to which the Senator refers operate?
MR. SUMNER. On both. Why, the Senator would not allow a
white man in the same car with a colored man.