MR. SUMNER. The Senator mistakes a substitute for equality.
Equality is where all are alike. A substitute can never
take the place of equality. It is impossible; it is absurd.
I must remind the Senator that it is very unjust,--it is
terribly unjust. We have received in this Chamber a colored
Senator from Mississippi; but according to the rule of
the Senator from Georgia we should have put him apart by
himself; he should not have sat with his brother Senators.
Do I understand the Senator as favoring such a rule?
MR. HILL. No, Sir.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not.
MR. HILL. I do not, Sir, for this reason: it is under the
institutions of the country that he becomes entitled by law
to his seat here; we have no right to deny it to him.
MR. SUMNER. Very well; and I intend, to the best of
my ability, to see that under the institutions of the
country he is equal everywhere. The Senator says he is
equal in this Chamber. I say he should be equal in rights
everywhere; and why not, I ask the Senator from Georgia?
MR. HILL. … I am one of those who have believed, that,
when it pleased the Creator of heaven and earth to make
different races of men, it was His purpose to keep them
distinct and separate. I think so now.…
MR. SUMNER. The Senator admits that in the highest
council-chamber there is, and should be, perfect equality
before the law; but descend into the hotel, on the
railroad, within the common school, and there can be no
equality before the law. The Senator does not complain
because all are equal in this Chamber. I should like to ask
him, if he will allow me, whether, in his judgment, the
colored Representatives from Georgia and South Carolina in
the other Chamber ought not on railroads and at hotels to
have like rights with himself? I ask that precise question.
MR. HILL. I will answer that question in this manner: I
myself am subject in hotels and upon railroads to the
regulations provided by the hotel proprietors for their
guests, and by the railroad companies for their passengers.
I am entitled, and so is the colored man, to all the
security and comfort that either presents to the most
favored guest or passenger; but I maintain that proximity
to a colored man does not increase my comfort or security,
nor does proximity to me on his part increase his, and
therefore it is not a denial of any right in either case.
MR. SUMNER. May I ask the Senator if he is excluded from
any right on account of his color? The Senator says he
is sometimes excluded from something at hotels or on
railroads. I ask whether any exclusion on account of color
bears on him?
MR. HILL. I answer the Senator. I have been excluded from
ladies’ cars on railroads. I do not know on what account
precisely; I do not know whether it was on account of my
color; but I think it more likely that it was on account of
my sex. [_Laughter._]
MR. SUMNER. But the Senator, as I understand, insists that
it is proper on account of color. That is his conclusion.
MR. HILL. No; I insist that it is no denial of a right,
provided all the comfort and security be furnished to
passengers alike.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not seem to see that any rule
excluding a man on account of color is an indignity, an
insult, and a wrong; and he makes himself on this floor the
representative of indignity, of insult, and of wrong to
the colored race. Why, Sir, his State has a large colored
population, and he denies their rights.
MR. HILL. If the Senator will allow me, I will say to him
that it will take him and others, if there should be any
others who so believe, a good while to convince the colored
people of the State of Georgia, who know me, that I would
deprive them of any right to which they are entitled,
though it were only technical; but in matters of pure
taste I cannot get away from the idea that I do them no
injustice, if I separate them on some occasions from the
other race.…
MR. SUMNER. The Senator makes a mistake which has been
made for a generation in this Chamber, confounding what
belongs to society with what belongs to rights. There is no
question of society. The Senator may choose his associates
as he pleases. They may be white or black, or between the
two. That is simply a social question, and nobody would
interfere with it. The taste which the Senator announces
he will have free liberty to exercise, selecting always
his companions; but when it comes to rights, there the
Senator must obey the law, and I insist that by the law of
the land all persons without distinction of color shall be
equal in rights. Show me, therefore, a legal institution,
anything created or regulated by law, and I show you what
must be opened equally to all without distinction of color.
Notoriously, the hotel is a legal institution, originally
established by the Common Law, subject to minute provisions
and regulations; notoriously, public conveyances are common
carriers subject to a law of their own; notoriously,
schools are public institutions created and maintained by
law; and now I simply insist that in the enjoyment of these
institutions there shall be no exclusion on account of
color.
…
MR. HILL. I must confess, Sir, that I cannot see the
magnitude of this subject. I object to this great
Government descending to the business of regulating the
hotels and the common taverns of this country, and the
street railroads, stage-coaches, and everything of that
sort. It looks to me to be a petty business.…
MR. SUMNER. I would not have my country descend, but
ascend. It must rise to the heights of the Declaration of
Independence. Then and there did we pledge ourselves to
the great truth that all men are equal in rights. And now
a Senator from Georgia rises on this floor and denies it.
He denies it by a subtilty. While pretending to admit it,
he would overthrow it. He would adopt a substitute for
equality.
…
MR. HILL. With the permission of the Senator, I will ask
him if this proposition does not involve on the part of
this Government an inhibition upon railroad companies of
first, second, and third class cars?
MR. SUMNER. Not at all. That is simply a matter of price.
My bill is an inhibition upon inequality founded upon
color. I had thought that all those inequalities were
buried under the tree at Appomattox, but the Senator digs
them up and brings them into this Chamber. There never can
be an end to this discussion until all men are assured in
equal rights.…
MR. HILL. … I do not know, that, among the guests that the
Senator entertains of the colored race, he is visited so
often by the humble as I myself am. I think those who call
upon him are gentlemen of title and of some distinction;
they may be Lieutenant-Governors, members of the two Houses
here, members of State Legislatures, &c. My associations
have been more with the lower strata of the colored people
than with the upper.
MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, there is no personal question
between the Senator and myself--
MR. HILL. None whatever.
MR. SUMNER. He proclaims his relations with the colored
race. I say nothing of mine; I leave that to others. But
the Senator still insists upon his dogma of inequality.
Senators have heard him again and again, how he comes round
by a vicious circle to the same point, that an equivalent
is equality; and when I mention the case of Governor
Dunn travelling from New Orleans to Washington on public
business, I understand the Senator to say that on the cars
he should enjoy a different treatment from the Governor.
MR. HILL. No, Sir; I have distinctly disclaimed that. When
he pays his money, he is entitled to as much comfort and as
much convenience as I am.
MR. SUMNER. Let me ask the Senator whether in this world
personal respect is not an element of comfort. If a person
is treated with indignity, can he be comfortable?
MR. HILL. I will answer the Senator, that no one can
condemn more strongly than I do any indignity visited upon
a person merely because of color.
MR. SUMNER. But when you exclude persons from the comforts
of travel simply on account of color, do you not offer them
an indignity?
MR. HILL. I say it is the fault of the railroad companies,
if they do not provide comforts for all their passengers,
and make them equal where they pay equal fare.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator says it is the fault of the
railroad company. I propose to make it impossible for the
railroad company to offer an indignity to a colored man
more than to the Senator from Georgia.
MR. HILL. Right there the Senator and I divide upon this
question.… I confess to having a little _penchant_ for the
white race; and if I were going on a long journey, and
desired a companion, I should prefer to select him from my
own race.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator comes round again to his taste. It
is not according to his taste; and therefore he offers an
indignity to the colored man.
MR. HILL. No, Sir.
MR. SUMNER. It is not according to his taste; that is
all. How often shall I say that this is no question of
taste,--it is no question of society,--it is a stern,
austere, hard question of rights? And that is the way that
I present it to the Senate.
…
In old days, when Slavery was arraigned, the constant
inquiry of those who represented this wrong was, “Are you
willing to associate with colored persons? Will you take
these slaves, as equals, into your families?” Sir, was
there ever a more illogical inquiry? What has that to do
with the question? A claim of rights cannot be encountered
by any social point. I may have whom I please as friend,
acquaintance, associate, and so may the Senator; but I
cannot deny any human being, the humblest, any right of
equality. He must be equal with me before the law, or the
promises of the Declaration of Independence are not yet
fulfilled.
And now, Sir, I pledge myself, so long as strength remains
in me, to press this question to a successful end. I
will not see the colored race of this Republic treated
with indignity on the grounds assigned by the Senator.
I am their defender. The Senator may deride me, and may
represent me as giving too much time to what he calls a
very small question. Sir, no question of human rights is
small. Every question by which the equal rights of all are
affected is transcendent. It cannot be magnified. But here
are the rights of a whole people, not merely the rights of
an individual, of two or three or four, but the rights of a
race, recognized as citizens, voting, helping to place the
Senator here in this Chamber, and he turns upon them and
denies them.
MR. HILL. The Senator is not aware of one fact, … that
every colored member of the Legislature of my State, even
though some of them had made voluntary pledges to me,
voted against my election to this body. I was not sent
here receiving a single vote from that class of men in the
Legislature.
MR. SUMNER. I am afraid that they understood the Senator.
[_Laughter._]
MR. HILL. That may be, Sir. I would not be surprised, if
they had some distrust. [_Laughter._]
MR. SUMNER. And now, Mr. President, that we may understand
precisely where we are, that the Senate need not be
confused by the question of taste or the question of
society presented by the Senator from Georgia, I desire to
have my amendment read.
The Supplementary Civil Rights Bill was then read at length, as
follows:--
SEC.--That all citizens of the United States, without
distinction of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, are entitled to the equal and impartial
enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility, or
privilege furnished by common carriers, whether on land
or water; by innkeepers; by licensed owners, managers, or
lessees of theatres or other places of public amusement;
by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers,
or other officers of common schools and other public
institutions of learning, the same being supported or
authorized by law; by trustees or officers of church
organizations, cemetery associations, and benevolent
institutions incorporated by National or State authority:
and this right shall not be denied or abridged on any
pretence of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
SEC.--That any person violating the foregoing provision,
or aiding in its violation, or inciting thereto, shall
for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of $500
to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an
action on the case, with full costs and such allowance for
counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall also
for every such offence be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than
$500 nor more than $1,000, and shall be imprisoned not
less than thirty days nor more than one year; and any
corporation, association, or individual holding a charter
or license under National or State authority, violating
the aforesaid provision, shall, upon conviction thereof,
forfeit such charter or license; and any person assuming
to use or continuing to act under such charter or license
thus forfeited, or aiding in the same, or inciting thereto,
shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor
more than $5,000, and shall be imprisoned not less than
three nor more than seven years; and both the corporate and
joint property of such corporation or association, and the
private property of the several individuals composing the
same, shall be held liable for the forfeitures, fines, and
penalties incurred by any violation of the ---- section of
this Act.
SEC.--That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby
conferred and the same duties enjoined upon the courts and
officers of the United States, in the execution of this
Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts and
officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten
of 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, and these
sections are hereby made a part of this Act; and any of the
aforesaid officers failing to institute and prosecute such
proceedings herein required shall for every such offence
forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved
thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with
full costs and such allowance for counsel fees as the court
shall deem just, and shall on conviction thereof be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000
nor more than $5,000.
SEC.--That no person shall be disqualified for service as
juror in any court, National or State, by reason of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude: _Provided_, That
such person possesses all other qualifications which are by
law prescribed; and any officer or other persons charged
with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who
shall exclude or fail to summon any person for the reason
above named, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000 nor
more than $5,000.
SEC.--That every law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
custom, whether National or State, inconsistent with this
Act, or making any discriminations against any person on
account of color, by the use of the word “white,” is hereby
repealed and annulled.
SEC.--That it shall be the duty of the judges of the
several courts upon which jurisdiction is hereby conferred
to give this Act in charge to the grand jury of their
respective courts at the commencement of each term thereof.
Objection was at once raised to the admission of any amendment
whatever, as imperilling the pending bill,--Mr. Alcorn, of
Mississippi, while pressing this, objected further, urging the
hazard to the measure embraced in the proposed amendment from
attachment to a bill requiring for its passage a two-thirds’
vote instead of the usual simple majority.
* * * * *
December 21st, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, objected to the amendment
of Mr. Sumner, on the ground suggested by Mr. Alcorn,--raising
the point of order, that, “being a measure which, if it stood
by itself, could be passed by a majority vote of the Senate,
it cannot be offered as an amendment to a bill that requires
two-thirds of the Senate.” The objection being overruled, and
Mr. Thurman appealing from the decision of the Chair, a debate
ensued on the question of order,--Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard of
Delaware, Mr. Trumbull of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, and
Mr. Sawyer of South Carolina sustaining the objection, and Mr.
Conkling of New York, Mr. Carpenter of Wisconsin, Mr. Edmunds
of Vermont, and Mr. Sumner opposing it. In the course of his
speech Mr. Sumner remarked:--
Does not the Act before us in its body propose a measure of
reconciliation? Clemency and amnesty it proposes; and these, in my
judgment, constitute a measure of reconciliation. And now I add justice
to the colored race. Is not that germane? Do not the two go together?
Are they not naturally associated? Sir, can they be separated?
Instead of raising a question of order, I think the friends of amnesty
would be much better employed if they devoted their strength to secure
the passage of my amendment. Who that is truly in favor of amnesty will
vote against this measure of reconciliation?
Sir, most anxiously do I seek reconciliation; but I know too much
of history, too much of my own country, and I remember too well the
fires over which we have walked in these latter days, not to know that
reconciliation is impossible except on the recognition of Equal Rights.
Vain is the effort of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. ALCORN]; he
cannot succeed; he must fail, and he ought to fail. It is not enough
to be generous; he must learn to be just. It is not enough to stand by
those who have fought against us; he must also stand by those who for
generations have borne the ban of wrong. I listened with sadness to
the Senator; he spoke earnestly and sincerely,--but, to my mind, it is
much to be regretted, that, coming into this Chamber the representative
of colored men, he should turn against them. I know that he will say,
“Pass the Amnesty Bill first, and then take care of the other.” I say,
Better pass the two together; or if either is lost, let it be the
first. Justice in this world is foremost.
The Senator thinks that the cause of the colored race is hazarded
because my amendment is moved on the Act for Amnesty. In my judgment,
it is advanced. He says that the Act of Amnesty can pass only by a
two-thirds vote. Well, Sir, I insist that every one of that two-thirds
should record his name for my measure of reconciliation. If he does
not, he is inconsistent with himself. How, Sir, will an Act of Amnesty
be received when accompanied with denial of justice to the colored
race? With what countenance can it be presented to this country? How
will it look to the civilized world? Sad page! The Recording Angel will
have tears, but not enough to blot it out.
The decision of the Chair was sustained by the vote of the
Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 26,--and the amendment was declared in
order. On the question of its adoption it was lost,--Yeas 29,
Nays 30.
Later in the day, the Amnesty Bill having been reported to
the Senate, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment. In the debate
that ensued he declared his desire to vote for amnesty; but he
insisted that this measure did not deserve success, unless with
it was justice to the colored race. In reply to Mr. Thurman,
he urged that all regulations of public institutions should
be in conformity with the Declaration of Independence. “The
Senator may smile, but I commend that to his thoughts during
our vacation. Let him consider the binding character of the
Declaration in its fundamental principles. The Senator does not
believe it. There are others who do, and my bill is simply a
practical application of it.”
Without taking any vote the Senate adjourned for the holiday
recess, leaving the Amnesty Bill and the pending amendment as
unfinished business.
* * * * *
January 15, 1872, the subject was resumed, when Mr. Sumner made
the following speech.