Volume 8 — TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Remarks in the Senate, on the Emancipation Bill, April 3, 1862.

MR. PRESIDENT,—In addressing the Senate on this bill, urging the duty of ransom, I exposed an early, inhuman, and wicked statute of Maryland, belonging to that offensive mass originally adopted at the time of the cession as the law of the District, and ever since recognized, although never voted on, and having only a surreptitious authority. I refer to that unjust statute making colored persons incompetent to testify, where a white is a party. I quoted the precise words, still the law of the District.[276] No language of mine is strong enough to express the detestation such a contrivance is calculated to arouse in every bosom not entirely given over to injustice.

The time has come for a change. At least, while providing for the release of those now detained in Slavery,—unconstitutionally, as I hold,—we must see that the proceedings are without embarrassment from that outrageous statute. I propose an amendment, and here I have the consent of my friend, the chairman of the Committee [Mr. Morrill], in the hope of removing this grievance in the inquiries under the bill.

The bill provides for something like a tribunal, as follows:—

“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]