Obrazy na stronie

iels, praying for pay as second lieutenant of the third Minnesota battery from the 3d of February to the 28th of May, 1863, inclusive; which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia.

Offices and Post Roads, to whom was referred
a bill (S. No. 236) to authorize and establish
certain post roads, reported it with an amend-


Mr. POLAND. I present the petition of George W. Tarleton, setting forth that he was at the commencement of the rebellion a resident of Mobile, Alabama, and a loyal citizen. He was the owner of property to the amount of some five or six thousand dollars in the State of New York, bonds, mortgage, and other property; and proceedings were instituted against the property on the ground that he was a rebel in arms against the Government, and this without any notice to him or any opportunity to have notice; and the property was confiscated and taken by the Government. He prays that it may be restored to him. I move the reference of the petition to the Committee on Claims.

The motion was agreed to.

[blocks in formation]


Mr. CHANDLER. The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 89) to issue American registers to the steam vessels Michigan, Despatch, and William K. Muir, have directed me to report it back

with the recommendation that the Senate con

cur in the amendment of the House of Representatives, with an amendment. As this is an important measure, and it is important that it should be immediately acted upon, I ask the Senate to consider it now.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill, which was to add to it the following words:

And American registers, or enrollment and license, to the following-named vessels, that is to say, to the sloop Jenny Lind of Wolf Island, of Oswego, New York; the schooner Coquette, of Oakville: Trenton, of Trenton: Forest Queen; Two Brothers, of Wallaceburg: Minetta, of Gananoque; and Elizabeth, of Oswego, New York; the bark St. Elizabeth, of Provincetown, Massachusetts; the barks Advance and Acorn, and schooner Asia, of Chicago, Illinois; the steamer Prince Albert, of Georgetown, District of Columbia; the brig Maitland, propeller Niagara, and steamboat Canadian, of Buffalo, New York; the schooner E. P. Ryerse, of Cleveland, Ohio; the schooner Eureka, of Marzaretta, Ohio; the brigantine City of Toronto, of Erie, Pennsylvania; and the schooner Wavertree, of Cleveland, Ohio..

The Committee on Commerce reported in favor of concurring in the amendment of the House of Representatives, with an amendment,

as follows:

And American registers, or enrollment and license, to the following-named vessels, that is to say, the ship Sereamer, now called the Roamer, of Brunswick, Maine; the barge Mary, of Detroit; the steam-tug Sampson, of Detroit; and the schooners Caledonia and Enterprise, of Detroit; and the Anglo-Saxon, a Canadian-built vessel.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The amendment of the House, as amended, was concurred in.

The title of the bill was amended by adding the words, "and for other purposes."



Mr. RAMSEY, from the Committee on Post 39TH CONG. 1ST SESS.-No. 128.

Mr. ANTHONY, from the Committee on Naval Affairs, to whom was referred the memorial of John Ericsson, praying for compensation for his services in planning the United States war steamer Princeton and planning and superintending the construction of the machinery therefor, together with an opinion of the Court of Claims in his favor, submitted a report accompanied by a bill (S. No. 274) for the relief of John Ericsson. The bill was read and passed to a second reading, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. STEWART. The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred a bill (S. No. 215) concerning certain land granted to the State of Nevada, have instructed me to report it with amendments, for the purpose of having the amendments printed and the bill recommitted to the committee.

The amendments were ordered to be printed, and the bill was recommitted to the Committee on Public Lands.


Mr. SHERMAN submitted the following res olution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to:


Resolved, That the President be requested to furnish the Senate of the United States with any additional official reports or information he may have received relative to the condition of the southern people and the States lately in rebellion.


Mr. STEWART submitted the following


Resolved, That the Committee on Indian Affairs be instructed to inquire.into the expediency of transferring the Bureau of Indian Affairs from the Department of the Interior to the Department of War, and to report by bill or otherwise.

Mr. WILSON. I will simply say that I think there is now a resolution of that character before one of the committees. I have no objection, however, to the adoption of this.

The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to.


Mr. ANTHONY. I am instructed by the
Committee on Printing, to whom was referred
a resolution for printing the addresses delivered
on the announcement of the death of Hon.

Solomon Foot, with the funeral sermon of
Rev. Dr. Sunderland, to report it back without
amendment, and recommend its passage; and
I ask for its present consideration.

[ocr errors]

Mr. VAN WINKLE, from the Committee on
Post Offices and Post Roads, to whom was
referred a communication from the Postmaster
General on the subject of a patent canceling
and marking stamp used by that Department,
reported a joint resolution (S. R. No. 70) mak-
ing compensation to Shaver & Corse, assignees,
for the use of a combined post-marking and
canceling stamp by the Post Office Depart-
ment; which was read, and passed to a second

Pensions, to whom was referred a bill (H. R.
Mr. EDMUNDS, from the Committee on
No. 459) granting a pension to Anna E. Ward,
reported it with an amendment.

He also, from the same committee, to whom
was referred the petition of Cornelius Crowley,||
praying for an increase of pension, submitted
a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. 275)
for the relief of Cornelius Crowley. The bill
was read, and passed to a second reading, and
the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD, from the Committee on
Pensions, to whom was referred a petition of
citizens of Linn county, Iowa, praying that a
pension may be granted to Mrs. Jerusha Wit-
ter, widow of Dr. Amos Witter, late surgeon
of the seventh regiment Iowa infantry, submit-proposed to recognize. Sir, if you choose to
ted a report, accompanied by a bill (S. No. do it, if you choose to insult the public senti-
276) for the relief of Mrs. Jerusha Witter. ment of this age by such an act, do not do it
The bill was read, and passed to a second read- to-day.
ing, and the report was ordered to be printed.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I have made this motion this morning in pursuance of a notice which I gave yesterday. My colleague opposes it, as he has a right to do, although he was one of the most prompt men in the Senate to take up the proposition to authorize Colorado to do precisely what she has done. He voted not only to take up that proposition in preference to other business, but he voted for the bill to allow Colorado to make a constitution and come here, and that bill authorized her to make this distinction or not to make it, just as she pleased. That bill did not even make a sug gestion that she should secure equality before the law to all her citizens. On the 3d day of March, 1863, my colleague voted that the people of the Territory of Colorado should be authorized to frame a constitution, and that the President should admit her into the Union, when she framed it, on his proclamation. He did not then propose to provide that she should not make this distinction. He never suggested it; he did not dream of it. All of us on this side of the Chamber, I think, voted for that bill; and had Colorado framed her constitution immediately, she would be in the Union to-day just as Nevada is, for which he also voted. Although I voted against taking up the proposition when my colleague voted to do so, yet when it was up, and we came to a vote on the passage of the bill, I voted for it; and the vote was 18 to 17; but it was not passed until March 1864.

Now, sir, the people of Colorado have availed

[blocks in formation]


Mr. WILSON. I move to take up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill for the admission of Colorado was rejected.

Mr. SUMNER. The question is whether the Senate will take up the motion to reconsider. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the question. The question is, Will the Senate now proceed to the consideration of that subject?

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will not proceed with the consideration of that question to-day, and I assign two rea sons why they should not proceed with it to-day. The first is that on looking about the Senate I see many Senators absent who ought to be here at the consideration of so important a question. That is my first reason. The second reason is that this day in this city is dedicated to the cause of human freedom and human rights— of emancipation. The streets to-day are filled with a happy people, emancipated by act of Congress, who are celebrating the anniversary of their rights. It is, sir, no proper day in which to proceed to recognize human inequality and in which to receive into this Union a community which chooses to insult the age by appear ing here with a constitution setting at defiance the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence. Sir, this is no day in which to proceed with the consideration of that question. I insist that this day shall be kept consecrated to human rights, that it shall not be given up to an attempt to recognize the overthrow of human rights.

I may be told, sir, that there are but ninety colored persons in this distant Territory who are to be sacrificed. If there were but one, that would be enough to justify my opposition. Out of those ninety, more than seventy-five I am told have borne arms for you in the late war; and yet these people are now positively disfranchished in the constitution which it is

I find in a work by Mr. Bowles, entitled
"Across the Continent," these words in regard
to this Territory and what he witnessed there:
"Never was progress in wealth, in social and po-
litical organization, in the refinements of American
home life, more rapid and more marked than in the
brief history thus far of Colorado. Soon she will
enter the Union as a State, holding not only the ele-
ments, but the acquired realities, of a noble and proud
one, and contributing largely, as she has steadily
done, even as a Territory, to the common profit of
the nation. From the beginning Colorado has always
sent more gold to the East than she has brought back
in goods; and she is destined to be permanently a
profitable partner in the household."

Toward the close of his book, on page 353,
Mr. Bowles says:

"Looking back over our mining experience, and
taking the average testimony of each district as
equally reliable, I find myself impressed with the
superior richness of the Colorado gold mines. Their
ore averaged as uniformly $100 a ton, as that of Ne-
vada, either Austin or Virginia, or of California does
fifty dollars. The extraction is not as complete, be-
cause of the more intricate nature of the precious
deposits; but means to overcome this, though per-
haps at enlarged cost, seemed successfully initiated
while we were there."

themselves of the liberty which I gave them and which my colleague gave them, by our votes, and they have framed a constitution which they have presented here. I voted the other day against that admission, but I must confess that in doing so I did not feel satisfied that I was dealing fairly with the people of Colorado. I do not think it is fair play, after we passed the bill, which we did pass in 1864, and after the most enterprising and vigorous men in that Territory, who agree with a majority of us in this Chamber, have framed a constitution, and came here for admission, for us to refuse their application on the ground of a distinction which they have made in their constitution, when we did not ask them to refrain from making such a distinction; when we imposed no conditions on them; when we did not suggest any. After this course of legisla tion it seems to me too late now to raise a question upon that point.

That, sir, is my position. I have moved this reconsideration, and shall sustain it for the reasons I have stated. I am free to say, however, that I will vote for no more enabling acts to allow the people of any Territory to frame a constitution that shall make any such distinction. Under no circumstances whatever will I ever authorize any of the other Territories which have not yet had enabling acts, to frame a constitution which shall make such a distinction. We have advanced in the career of our progress to that position, and I think it will be dishonorable in us to allow anything of that kind. We, however, gave this people an enabling act, in which we did not tell them that they should not make this discrimination, and did not even suggest it; and that enabling act came, too, from the men of this body who profess to be the strongest in their devotion to the equal rights of man.

Therefore, sir, I have made this motion, and I hope that this vote will be reconsidered. I do not wish to press a vote upon the bill if Senators desire it to go over until we can have a full Senate next week; and after the vote is reconsidered I shall not object to the postponement. I do not wish to crowd it down on anybody. But I have entered this motion. My only objection before to the bill for the admission of Colorado was in regard to this very matter of which I have been speaking. As to the alleged irregularity in their proceedings, that is nothing to me. Many of the States have been irregular, and the United States were irregular in the formation of their constitutions, but in the words of Mr. Madison, the vote of the people settled all those irregularities.

As regards the population and condition of this Territory, I have received a letter from the country possess the knowledge that he possesses in regard to California and all the Territories in the Rocky mountain region. He is thoroughly acquainted with this Territory of Colorado, and in his letter to me he says:

"I have witnessed the result of the late vote upon the admission of Colorado as a State with much regret, believing that her merits have not been fully known, and believing that reports respecting her population, &c., have been made which have been erroneous.

"The population of Colorado to-day is a more abiding one than ever before, and this summer will witness an emigration there greater, probably, than that of any other previous year. Our own State, Massachusetts, has probably more capital invested in Colorado to-day than any other State, and although you would hardly imagine it, there is scarcely a man of wealth and position in this city who has not some funds invested in Colorado. You may believe me personally interested when I assure you of my belief that Colorado is vastly richer in mineral deposits than any other section of our country, but such conviction in my mind is the result of personal acquaintance with the different mining sections of the country for which preeminent richness has been claimed." He sends me also a work of his, in which he says of Colorado:

She presents a region unequaled in its extent and of incalculable value; one that has all the resources and supporting auxiliaries of an empire, with water in abundance, and vast fields of coal and wood, and inexhaustible veins of gold, silver, copper, antimony, tin, nickel, lead, and iron; all of the essentials where with to erect and build and pay for. Her agricultural resources alone are sufficient to attract immense immigration."

Mr. SUMNER. Is it not time to begin? Mr. LANE, of Indiana. It is perhaps time to begin, but we should have begun when we passed the enabling act; and the vigilance of the Senator from Massachusetts should not have slumbered on that occasion

Mr. SUMNER. It did not, as I shall show you presently.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. If he desired such a restriction it should have been proposed then. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, if it may not be considered irrelevant, whether he did not vote for the enabling act for Colorado; whether he did not vote for the enabling act for Nevada; whether he did not vote for the admission of Nevada; and whether precisely the same provision does not exist in the constitution of Nevada, which we admitted less than two years ago by a deliberate vote?

I think Colorado should be admitted for many reasons. They are a peculiar people, isolated some six or eight hundred miles from the waters of the Mississippi, and some eight or In view of the fact that we passed an en- nine hundred miles, perhaps, from the Pacific abling act for Colorado, and that we imposed coast. They have a peculiar mining interest, no restrictions upon them in regard to their not common to the whole people of the United action; in view of the condition of that Ter- States. They think they require peculiar legisritory, of its vast mineral wealth, and of the lation, and that their legislation at home will character of its population, I believe that its be more adapted to develop their interests condition would be improved by admitting it than legislation here at Washington. They into the Union as a State. As to this inequal- think they have peculiar interests which should ity of suffrage, we all know that it is wrong; be represented here in the person of a member we feel it now; and had we felt three years in the other House and Senators in this branch ago as we feel and see now, we should prob- of Congress, and I can see no possible objecably have inserted a provision in the enabling tion to it. I feel that we are committed. We act of the Territory which would secure equal-authorized the organization of a State governity in this respect. I trust that such a pro- ment, we imposed certain conditions, and we vision will be inserted in all future enabling said if they would comply with these condiacts. I do not think that the admission of tions they should be admitted as a State. They Colorado will commit us or embarrass us in have substantially complied with every single any action that we may take in regard to other condition, not exactly in the time specified in Territories or in regard to any of the States the act, but time is not of the essence of this of this Union. I shall, therefore, give my contract. It is a continuing contract. We vote for this reconsideration, and shall then expressed our willingness to admit them upon be willing to postpone the further consider- certain conditions. They made one effort and ation of the bill. failed. Upon the second effort they complied with all our conditions, and I see no possible reason why they should not be admitted, uo reason resulting from the time at which the question is to be taken in the Senate, no reason resulting from the nature of the case. I think we should hail these new States, we should build them up as soon as possible; and there is another reason: the moment a State government is organized the Government of the United States is relieved from the burden of the territorial organization, and that whole burden is thrown upon the people of Colorado.

I understand, also, that there has been a great misapprehension existing in the minds of many Senators in reference to the number of people now in that Territory. A memorial has passed their Legislature memorializing Congress for the admission of their members, and stating positively that they have a population of fifty thousand. I doubt not a great mistake has pervaded the minds of Senators in reference to the number of the population.

the reason assigned by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] is that this is the anniversary of emancipation in this District, and of course we should not take up any subject of this kind upon this day. I certainly sympathize with the colored people of this District in celebrating their emancipation as much as the Senator from Massachusetts or any other Senator. I voted for that emancipation, and am proud of it. But I do not suppose that simply because this happens to be the day of that celebration, all public busi-petent to judge upon that question as we are, ness should be delayed on that account. I do not know how many Senators desire to participate in that celebration. If those opposing the admission of Colorado desire to participate in that celebration, they will have, I trust, no difficulty in procuring a leave of absence for the day until this vote can be taken.

But it is said they are not able to bear the burdens of a State government, and the taxation necessary to support the machinery of a State organization. They perhaps are as com

and they think they are able to bear all those burdens. Another thing is true: ten thousand or twenty thousand or fifty thousand persons in a mining district are better able to support the burdens of a State government than a quarter of a million of people in an agricultural country. They are wealthy; they are continually developing the capital of the country; and they feel that their interests would be subserved by this organization.

Another reason, important and controlling with me, is that the people there have a loyal and sound State organization. They have come in here under our invitation, and I do not now propose to slam the door in their faces.

Mr. GRIMES. There are other Territories which have enabling acts just like it.

Mr. LANE, of Indiana. This, as I understand it, is a motion to proceed to the consideration of this subject for the purpose of reconsidering the vote by which the bill for the admission of Colorado was rejected. I hope that we shall proceed to consider the subject now. Gentlemen have been here claiming to represent a sovereign State as Senators for the last two or three months. The subject has been referred to a committee; a report has been made, and full debate had on the subject in the Senate, and I see no

I am for the admission of Colorado. I voted for it before. Colorado comes in with the word "white" as a prefix to the qualifications for holding office and voting. I should prefer that that word had been left out, but it has not been left out in any single State organization of any Territory that we have ever admitted. I believe that there is no instance in the whole history of the admission of new States where that word "white" has not been the prefix to the qualification for holding office and voting.

Mr. GRIMES. How far the opinions of Professor Whitney, of Mr. Bowles, ought to

and Harry who may come here from Colorado, I will state what a gentleman told me-a very intelligent gentleman now of Montana, but formerly of my State, who left Montana in March, and who told me the day before yesterday that he believed there were six thousand of the citizens of Colorado then on their way to Montana and to Idaho.

Mr. SUMNER. I have heard the same. Mr. GRIMES. And that he did not believe there was more than two thirds the population in Colorado at this moment that there was dur

influence the judgment of the Senator from Massachusetts upon a question of this kind.is for him to determine. I think Professor Whitney, in his letter, if I did not misunderstand its scope, admits that he is interested in this subject, and seems to doubt whether or not the Senator himself would not think that his interest might preclude his giving a proper consideration to his statement. But I have always understood that we decided these questions, not upon the fact as to whether there was a certain amount of mineral resources in the mountains of a Territory, but upon the grounding that there was human population enough in the Territory to support a State organization; and whatever may be the opinions of either of those distinguished citizens from Massachusetts on a subject of this kind, they would have very little influence with me.

The Senator says that he thinks he is bound by the action of the Senate, inasmuch as we have passed an enabling act authorizing these people to form a State constitution. We did. They made an effort to form a State constitution, but did not succeed. There was the end of that transaction; our enabling act was func tus officio; it died the moment the other party refused to recognize the proposition that we laid down; and now we stand entirely uncommitted upon this subject. I understand that the Senator himself, in the latter part of his remarks, admitted as much as this when he spoke of the irregularities in their attempt to be admitted into the Union.

But the Senator says that his colleague did not object, or did not put any limitations upon the people of Colorado so as to compel them to send here a constitution that would not preelude colored men from voting. Why, sir, does not the Senator know that we have all made vast progress since 1863? Has not the Senator himself made vast progress since then? Have we not declared emancipation throughout the whole land? Are we to be governed by the same principles that we acted upon at that time? Now, what attitude are we placed in here? I think the Senator from Massachusetts will vote with me, whenever we shall get an opportunity, to allow colored people to vote under certain circumstances; and yet here he commits himself to the theory, in the face of the Senate and of the country, and he indorses it by his vote, that it is proper for a State to be admitted into the Union with a perpetual exclusion of all the colored people within the jurisdiction of that State from voting. Does it not strike the Senator as being somewhat inconsistent? With what sort of a face can he get up here to-morrow and insist that the people of the State of Virginia or the people of the State of Tennessee shall allow certain classes of the population in those States to vote when he says that it is competent and proper for the people of the Territory of Colorado to forever exclude the colored population of that State from voting? Mr. President, I do not consider myself bound by any past action of Congress to give so inconsistent a vote as that; and never, so long as I occupy a seat on this floor, will I consent to do it.

Now, with regard to the population in this Territory, everybody has the privilege to draw his own deductions from his own information on this subject, for we have not any official information in regard to it. Hitherto, when Territories sought to be admitted into the Union as States, there was an enumeration of the population. There has been none here. One man draws one conclusion from the facts that are presented to his mind, and another another. I draw my conclusion from the votes that have been given in the Territory at the regular annual elections from the foundation of the Territory to this moment; and taking that as a basis-and I think that it is the most accurate I can find-I come to the conclusion that there are not to exceed fifteen thousand people in the Territory of Colorado. Now,


you are going beyond this record, if you are going to accept the opinions of Tom, Dick,

the last winter. I do not ask anybody to accept that statement of the gentleman. I do not adopt it myself. It may be true or it may be false. I prefer to rely upon what is authentic, what we know to be facts, namely, the votes that have been given at the various elections in Colorado year by year, ever since she was erected into a Territory; and if there be anything like the same proportion of voters to population in that Territory that there is ordinarily in a Territory, then I am irresistibly driven to the conclusion that there cannot be to exceed fifteen thousand people in the Territory.

Now, sir, as I said the other day, I am not quite willing to say that a population of that size and of that description shall be entitled to come into the Senate and be represented, and have the same power in our deliberations as the State of New York or Ohio or Pennsylvania; nor am I quite willing to give such an inconsistent vote as I think I should be giving if I should indorse this constitution of the State of Colorado to-day, and then to-morrow come into the Senate under the leadership of the Senator from Massachusetts, and undertake to confer the elective franchise upon colored people in the seceded States.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, the question before the Senate, as I understand it, is on taking this proposition up; and the Senate will remember that in what I said I confined myself precisely to that point. I assigned two specific reasons why this matter should not be proceeded with to-day. I did not undertake, the Senate will remember, to go into the general question; I did not touch it. I made no allusion to the enabling act, no allusion to the population, and no allusion even to the constitution except so far as was needful to exhibit the glaring inconsistency of proceeding to recognize such a constitution on such a day as this. That was all that I said.

My excellent colleague, in reply to me, undertook to open the whole case. He has reminded you of the resources and the mineral wealth of Colorado. He has alluded to its population, and he has also invoked that ancient, departed, extinct enabling act. Had my colleague been in his seat when on a former occasion this question was amply discussed in all its parts, when that enabling act was exposed thoroughly, and it was shown that it had by no possibility any application to the present case, he would not have introduced that point; certainly he would not have introduced it by way of showing any inconsistency on my part, for on that occasion I fully met that suggestion

and there was no one here to answer.

Why, sir, the Senator from Iowa has already told you that the enabling act had expired. I have it before me; I will not read it; Senators are familiar with it. It authorized certain proceedings to constitute a new State. Those proceedings were had and they failed, and the enabling act then and there failed and came to an end. All the obligations of Congress under that enabling act then and there ceased. That enabling act is at this moment of no value so far as this question is concerned; it cannot be cited; it is useless to read it. It is simply a record of a past consent given by Congress, which, however, failed to be acted upon.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morn ing hour having expired, it becomes the duty of the Chair to call up the unfinished business of yesterday, which is House bill No. 238.

Mr. CONNESS. I hope the Senator from Massachusetts will be allowed to proceed to

finish his remarks on this subject, and that the other business will be laid over informally.

Mr. SUMNER. I should rather the other business should go on. [Laughter.]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. House bill No. 238 is before the Senate in the absence of any motion to postpone.

Mr. POMEROY. I move to postpone all prior orders and proceed with the consideration of this question.

Mr. CLARK. Fcan only express the hope that that will not be agreed to by the Senate, because it will be remembered that we had up the habeas corpus bill yesterday and proceeded with it to a considerable extent, and it was to come up in its regular order this morning, and I hope we shall be able now to finish that bill. When that shall have been done, I shall have no objection to any other bill coming up; but I do not like to have it interrupted in this way.

Mr. SHERMAN. I hope that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY] will allow a motion to be interposed here that the further consideration of the motion to reconsider (if that is up) be postponed until a day certain. It had better be fixed for some day next week, when it may be disposed of. If we continue the consideration of the Colorado question now, it will take the whole day.

Mr. POMEROY. My object was merely to take the vote on the reconsideration now, and then settle a time for the consideration of the bill.

Mr. CLARK. The question of reconsideration will lead to debate. I am perfectly willing to allow it to be taken up for the purpose of fixing its consideration for some future day, but not to have the motion to reconsider discussed at this time. I am aware that that motion will lead to discussion.

Mr. JOHNSON. Certainly it will.

Mr. CLARK. I was not here when the Colorado bill was up and considered by the Senate before, and I should not feel myself, though I do not wish to delay the Senate, like letting the vote be reconsidered without some opposition to it. But I do not urge that as a reason why it should not be taken up. What I desire is that we should keep to the order of business, and finish one thing at a time, and not lap one upon the other. If it can be taken up and assigned for some given time, when we can come at it considerately and with the understanding that we are to take it up at that time, I am entirely agreed, because that will facili tate the business of the Senate.

Mr. POMEROY. If it can be taken up and made the special order for to-morrow at one o'clock, I am willing. I only want to dispose of the question.

Mr. CLARK. If it can be considered as the general sentiment of the Senate, that it may come up and be made the special order for some future time, I shall agree.

Mr. CONNESS. I intended this morning to vote for taking this subject up with the special view of postponing it until the beginning of the next week, when there will probably be a full Senate; and I think the whole Senate is agreed to that. I hope that will be done. It is not a matter of much consequence whether a reconsideration shall proceed today or not, if a day be fixed for its consideration. I hope the friends of the measure, or whoever has it in charge, will agree to fix its consideration for Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of next week, when there will be a full Senate. I have objected to taking up this question for two or three days past, particularly while the Senator from Maine, who is ill, [Mr. FESSENDEN,] is absent, because I knew that he felt great interest in the subject, and desired to be present when it is considered. I hope that a day will be named by those who have the measure in charge, say Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is to postpone all present and prior orders in order to continue the subject which was laid aside at the expiration of the morning hour.

Mr. WILSON. I will simply say in regard to this question that I have no disposition to crowd it, because a measure cannot be forced through here when a strong opposition manifests itself. I wish to accommodate myself to the Senate, and for that purpose I give notice now that on Tuesday morning next I shall renew this motion and adhere to it until we can reach a vote on it if possible.

within sixty days, that they have got more than
fifty thousand people-a solemn act of their
Territorial Legislature-and the Senator says
they have not but fifteen thousand. You may
prejudice a case by that sort of argument when
the question is not up. I hope the Senator
from Iowa, if he is willing that we should con-
sider the question at all, will let us take it up.
now and make it the special order for Tuesday
next at one o'clock. I believe everybody will
agree to that.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is not
the motion before the Senate. The motion
before the Senate is the motion of the Senator Mr. GRIMES. Mr. President, the remark
from Kansas to postpone the present and all of the Senator from Illinois, that those who are
prior orders for the purpose of continuing the opposed to the passage of this bill are deter-
discussion of the motion of the Senator from mined that it shall have no hearing, is uncalled
Massachusetts. That motion of the Senator for, is unworthy of him, and so far as I am con-
from Massachusetts is not now before the Sen-cerned is not true. I have listened upon several
ate, and of course is not subject to be with- occasions to the kind of lectures with which the
drawn by him.
Senator is so familiar, and which he is so much
in the custom of delivering here in the Senate,
but so far as they apply to me, I wish to inform
him now that I am heartily tired of them, and
I shall be exceedingly obliged to him if he will
withhold them in the future.

Mr. POMEROY. I am willing to withdraw my motion if by common consent or by an arrangement we can agree to some day certain for the consideration of this subject.

Mr. President, what I said in regard to the population of Colorado I said in answer to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who called up this measure, [Mr. WILSON,] and it was not volunteered by me. And so far as it relates to the memorial of the General Assembly of Colorado, if the Senator from Illinois, with all his acumen, can convince the Senate that it is possible for the General Assembly of the Territory of Colorado to memorialize and enact a fact of which they are as ignorant as we are, and convince us that we ought to adopt that statement, he will show a great deal more shrewdness and acumen than I have ever known him to exhibit thus far.

Mr. WILSON. I am told by several Senators opposed to the bill that they are willing to take that course.


Several SENATORS. Let fix a day. Mr. WILSON. That is what I propose. Mr. GRIMES. I rise to propose that by universal consent we now agree that this matter go over until next Tuesday morning, and that it be then taken up and made the special order.

Mr. CONNESS. Why not now make it the special order for that time?

Mr. GRIMES. That is what I propose. My proposition is that the matter go over and by general consent be made the special order for Tuesday morning.

Mr. RAMSEY. Why not Monday? Mr. SUMNER. No; not Monday. Mr. TRUMBULL. It is very manifest that there are certain members of the Senate who are determined that this matter shall not be considered. The question now is simply on taking it up, and upon that motion, in disregard of what are the rules of the Senate, Senators have gone into a discussion as to the amount of population, and the Senator from Massachusetts has assumed that he showed that the law authorizing the people of Colorado to form a State government was defunct and should not be referred to and that nobody replied to it. I have no doubt he thinks so. I tried to reply to it in my feeble way. I tried to show him that in good faith Congress was committed to the people of Colorado by that law. Of course it did not amount to anything; but it is assuming a good deal to say that nobody attempted to answer at all.

Now, sir, the enemies of taking up this measure propose that you shall put it off for a week. Sir, let it come up now, and let us now make it the special order for some day when it can be considered, and not when we meet here next Tuesday be opposed again by the same arguments against taking it up at all. That is what we are met with to-day. The Senator from Massachusetts, who called the question up, gave notice that he had no desire to have action on the bill to-day. He wished to call the subject up; he had made a motion to reconsider the action of the Senate that it had on a former day, and this reasonable request to call up a measure which has the support, certainly, of quite a number of Senators, and, I hope, may have of a majority, is met by the objection that it shall not come up at all. And the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] tells us he has a speech to make. If he makes it he will make it out of order, for there is nothing in order on this question except simply suggestions as to the propriety of taking up the bill; its merits cannot be gone into.

Now, let us take up the bill, and let it be agreed to postpone it to the day named by the Senator from Iowa. He has made his speech; he has attacked Colorado on account of the population. I am prepared to show by a resolution of the Legislature of Colorado, adopted

Sir, in perfect good faith I made the proposition that by universal consent this question should go over until Tuesday, and that then nothing else should be considered until it was disposed of, and I am, I confess, not pleased with the manner in which that proposition is met by the Senator from Illinois when he tells us that those, including all of us, who are opposed to the passage of this bill are unwilling that it should have a fair hearing in the Senate.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, I have my
ground of complaint against my good friend
from Illinois. I do not mean to be very severe,

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President-
Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon;
I do not give way.

Mr. JOHNSON. I rose only for the purpose
of asking what is the question before the Senate.
Mr. SUMNER. The question is on post-
ponement, and I shall speak to the question, I
assure my friend.

Mr. JOHNSON rose.

[ocr errors]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Sen-
ator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor
and does not yield it.

Mr. SUMNER. I said I have good ground
of complaint against my excellent friend from
Illinois. He undertook to answer what I never
that is, he attributed to me something and
then he found it very easy to answer. Now, sir,
I never said that the argument that the enabling
act was defunct was never answered on this floor.
I said that the argument was made. I made it;
others made it; the Senator from Iowa, many
Senators, made it. I did not say that it was not
answered. I remember well the effort of the
Senator from Illinois to answer it. Whether
he succeeded or not, I give no opinion. What
I did say, however, was this: that on that occa-
sion the suggestion was made, which my excel-
lent colleague has made to-day, that I was guilty
of an inconsistency; and I said that then and
there I answered that argument. My colleague
was not here, and he did not hear the answer,
and therefore he has to-day without knowing
the facts revived that charge of inconsistency.
Holding the documents in my hand on that
occasion I showed that the enabling act pro-
vided as follows:

"That all persons qualified by law to vote for rep

resentatives to the General Assembly of said Territory, at the date of the passage of this act, shall be qualified to be elected; and they are hereby authorized to vote for and choose representatives to form a convention."

That is, the electors, according to this ena bling act, were the electors at that time, authorized as such by the territorial statutes. Holding the territorial statutes in my hand, I showed you that when that act was pending in the Senate of the United States, all persons, without distinction of color, were authorized to be electors. That was the answer that I gave before; that is the answer that I give now. Therefore, sir, I say that when I voted for this enabling act, I did not vote with any idea that there could be a discrimination founded on color; on the contrary, I voted with the positive con viction that all possibility of such discrimina tion was excluded; and still further, in that very enabling act I voted for this proposition:

"The constitution, when formed, shall be repub lican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."

Now, sir, I insist that the constitution which has been presented to us is not republican, and I further insist that it is inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence. My excellent colleague will certainly not maintain the contrary of that proposition. He will not say that a constitution which undertakes to exclude persons from their rights on account of color is consistent with the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence, and that, sir, is the very requirement of this enabling act for which I then voted. I insist that if you appeal to that enabling act you shall appeal to it not in any particular part, but in its whole. I appeal to it in that fundamental requirement that what is done shall be in harmony with the Declaration of Independence.

But, sir, I did not intend to argue the question. What I have said is merely in reply to my friend from Illinois. And now as to when we shall proceed with this question. If Senators think they ever should proceed with it, if Senators think that an effort like this to fly in the face of the Declaration of Independence, to fly in the face of those fundamental principles which we at this moment are striving to carry out through so large a portion of our country should be for a moment tolerated in this Chamber, then I am willing that you should fix a time to proceed with it. I think it ought hot to be proceeded with at all. I think that the cause of human rights suffers every moment that you give to the consideration of the question. But I began the debate this morning by simply opposing your consideration of it today. If you choose to make a sacrifice of human rights do it on some other day than this. Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, it seems that I have fallen under the animadversion of my friend from Iowa.


Allow meMr. TRUMBULL. I shall say but a few words.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I hope my friend from Illinois will allow me to make a suggestion to him.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Very well.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I think there is one fact that has escaped the attention of my friend from Illinois, and that is a statement which was made by the Senator from Iowa when he made his suggestion. He proposed that this question should go over to Tuesday next, and be fixed by unanimous consent as the special order for that day. I think my friend from Illinois could not have heard that proposition, or none of this subsequent debate would have occurred.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I did not so understand the Senator from Iowa. I understood him to propose that it should go over and be taken up at that time, and not now made the special order, as it could not be without taking it up


Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understood the Senator from lowa distinctly to say, "fix it as a special order."

ject from being taken up. I did not have the Senator from Iowa in my mind so particularly as the Senator from Massachusetts who had in an informal manner announced that he had his speech ready. Mr. SUMNER. I never said that.

I have no speech ready;

Mr. TRUMBULL. I beg pardon. I understood the Senator to say that he intended to speak against taking the matter up.

Mr. SUMNER. I began it, and I should have gone on if I had not been arrested.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I call that a speech, for when the Senator "goes on" he always makes a speech. [Laughter.] It seems that the Senator from Iowa thought what I said was a reflection on him. Certainly anything of that kind was the farthest in the world from any intention of mine. I understand that there is no objection on the part of the Senator from Iowa, and I hope there will be none from the Senator from Massachusetts, that we make this subject the special order for Tuesday next. So far as I am concerned I am entirely satisfied with that. That can only be done by taking it up and then making it the special order for that time. I am quite willing that it should be done by unanimous consent.

Mr. GRIMES. I did.

Mr. TRUMBULL. We cannot make it a special order without first taking it up. The Senator from Wisconsin must be aware of that. Mr. GRIMES. The proposition I made, and repeated twice, was that by unanimous consent it should go over and be made the special order for Tuesday morning, and be then proceeded with until disposed of.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That was as I understood it.

Mr. GRIMES. And the Senator from Massachusetts who has charge of this motion so understood me.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I supposed that when it went over we should have the same difficulty in taking up the matter on Tuesday that we find to-day; but it seems in the few remarks I made I fell under the very serious censure of both the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Massachusetts, and especially the Senator from Iowa. Now, sir, I never assumed to lecture anybody in the Senate, and least of all the Senator from Iowa. I should learn from him without attempting to teach him anything.

The Senator from Massachusetts thinks that I replied to the wrong part of his remarks. He understands that he made a statement which nobody replied to, and he reiterates it to-day, which was that when he voted for the enabling act he voted for an act which authorized all persons, without regard to color, to vote in the Territory of Colorado. Now, my distinguished friend from Massachusetts is laboring under a mistake himself, if he will allow me to say so. The truth about it is that the law of Colorado, when he voted for the enabling act, did not allow colored persons to vote. The statute of Colorado at the time the enabling act was passed confined the right of suffrage to white persons. The Senator from Massachusetts, therefore, when he voted for an enabling act that authorized the persons qualified to vote by territorial laws to form this State government, voted for an act confining the right of suffrage to white persons.

Mr. SUMNER. Will my friend allow me to correct him there?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

Mr. SUMNER. The date of the enabling act is March 21, 1864; it was then approved. My statement was, that when the Senate acted upon this enabling act all our information was that all persons in the Territory without distinction of color were electors, and we had before us the territorial statutes authorizing all to vote without distinction of color. Those statutes were altered eight or ten days before the approval of this act. I stated that on the former occasion in my remarks, and what I said was that when the Senate acted on this bill it was supposed that all persons, without distinction of color in that Territory, were electors. The alteration was made in that distant Territory between the action of the Senate and the approval of the act. Mr. TRUMBULL. Was made before the approval of the act?

Mr. SUMNER. Yes.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Whether the Senator from Massachusetts acted under a mistake of fact or not, I am not, of course, advised, except as he informs us. I presume he acted under a mistake of fact, as he seems to labor under one or two mistakes to-day in supposing that nobody tried to reply to this statement when he made it before. I think the same facts were drawn out then; and the Senator, I suppose, has not forgotten his vote in regard to the other Territories where the suffrage was confined to whites. I suppose he has not forgotten his vote for Nevada. Perhaps he acted under a mistake then in voting to admit Nevada, or for the enabling act for Nevada.

But, sir, these matters have very little to do with the consideration of the question before us; and I do not mean to be betrayed into any personal altercation with either of the gentlemen in regard to this question. I want to put it upon its own merits. I thought I saw manifested here a disposition to prevent this sub

Mr. POMEROY. If it can be done by unanimous consent, I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. YATES. I rise simply to remark that I prefer the consideration of this question to-day for a reason directly the reverse of that which seems to animate the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER.] I prefer that on the day that so many happy people in the streets of Washington are celebrating the anniversary of their independence we should set another star in the constellation of freedom. But, sir, I yield my objections and consent to the postponement.

Mr. WILSON. It seems to me everybody is agreed in this matter, and there is no need of prolonging this controversy.

Mr. POMEROY. With the understanding that the question is to be taken up on Tuesday, I withdraw my objection,

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill before the Senate is House bill No. 238.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I want to know if the Colorado bill is made the special order for Tuesday next at one o'clock.

The Chair

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. is unable to answer the question. Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that we postpone other orders for the purpose of doing that, and then it will be formally done.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is renewed by the Senator from Illinois that the present and all prior orders be postponed in order to proceed with the consideration of the subject named by the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. CLARK. I simply desire to suggest to the Senator from Illinois not to move to postpone the bill now before the Senate, because then it will be away from the Senate, but to let it be laid aside informally without a postponement, and let the other question come up by unanimous consent and be made a special order, and then this bill will come up.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope that course will be adopted. I will not move to postpone, but I ask that the Senate by unanimous consent allow the bill in reference to the admission of Colorado to be made the special order for Tuesday next.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asks that the bill now before the Senate be laid aside by unanimous consent and that the motion to reconsider the bill in regard to the admission of Colorado be taken up. The Chair hears no objection. That subject is before the Senate, and the motion is that the vote rejecting the admission of Colorado be reconsidered. That question is before the Senate. Will the Senate reconsider the vote?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I now move, in pursuance of the understanding, that that subject be postponed to and made the special order for Tuesday next at one o'clock. The motion was agreed to.


The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill (H. R. No. 238) to amend an act entitled "An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating March 3, 1863, is now before the Senate, as in judicial proceedings in certain cases," approved Committee of the Whole, the pending question being on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS] to the first section of the bill.

Mr. HENDRICKS. I thought there was a special order for this hour.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is a special order, but the unfinished business of yesterday takes precedence of the special order.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the Senator from Vermont.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. CONNESS. Many Senators have left the Chamber, and this is an important vote. I hope it will not be taken at the present time. Senators have gone out for a few minutes, and I suggest that the Senate take a recess for a citizens, in celebration of their enfranchiseshort time. [The procession of the colored ment, had attracted Senators to the balconies.] Mr. TRUMBULL. They will be in, I sup

[blocks in formation]
« PoprzedniaDalej »