Volume 11 — FINAL REPEAL OF ALL FUGITIVE SLAVE ACTS.

Speech in the Senate, on a Bill for this Purpose, April 19, 1864.

December 10, 1863, Mr. Sumner gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to repeal all acts for the rendition of fugitive slaves.

February 8, 1864, in pursuance of previous notice, Mr. Sumner asked and obtained leave to introduce the bill above mentioned, which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen.

February 29th, Mr. Sumner reported from the Committee a bill with an accompanying report, of which ten thousand extra copies were ordered to be printed.[327] There was a minority report by Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, which was also printed in equal number.

The bill was in the following terms:—

“A Bill to repeal all acts for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, That all Acts of Congress, or parts of Acts, providing for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor, be and the same are hereby repealed.”

March 7th, Mr. Sumner asked the Senate to take up the bill, with a view to make it the special order for a future day. This motion was agreed to, and then, on his further motion, it was made the special order for March 9th. The disposition to delay showed itself the next day, when Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, proposed to make another question a special order for the same time. Mr. Sumner reminded him that the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act was a special order at that time. Mr. Davis replied, “I suppose that can wait a little.” Mr. Sumner: “I do not wish to have that wait at all. It is a disgrace to the country and the statute-book which we want to get rid of.” When it was called up at the appointed time, Mr. Davis expressed a desire for postponement, and then, on motion of Mr. Sumner, at the suggestion of Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, it was made the special order for March 16th, at one o’clock. Owing to the pendency of an Appropriation Bill, as unfinished business, on this day, it lost its place.

March 18th, Mr. Sumner, finding that Mr. Davis was not ready to proceed with his remarks, moved to make the bill the special order for March 22d, at one o’clock. This motion was lost,—Yeas 19, Nays 20. Mr. Sumner then said: “I now deem it my duty to give notice that I shall take every proper occasion to call the bill up, and press its consideration upon the Senate.”

Meanwhile the attention of the Senate was occupied by other things, especially by the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery.

April 18th, Mr. Sumner appealed to Mr. Fessenden, who had charge of the Legislative Appropriation Bill, then under consideration, to yield, so that the other bill could be considered. At this time he said: “The Senator says it will make a great deal of debate. I doubt if it will. I think the topic has already been amply discussed in connection with other matters. I have several times yielded to amiable pressure, reluctantly, always against my own sense of duty, but from desire to oblige associates in this body. One Appropriation Bill has been interposed, on the motion of the Senator from Maine, which has taken several days. Now, I submit, the time has come when this bill ought to be considered. Let us give one day to it, at least. I say this with reluctance, because I see that the Senator has come prepared to go on with his bill, and I respect so much the order of business and the preparations of Senators to do their part, that I do not interfere, except most reluctantly. I am for the Appropriation Bill. The Senator knows that I am ever in my seat to sustain all his motions on Appropriation Bills; but this bill is committed to my care, and I therefore ask him to allow it to be proceeded with to-day. There is in the Appropriation Bill an innate vitality; it cannot lose by delay; the public interests cannot suffer; but I do not doubt that all these, and the good name of the country, suffer by every day’s delay in the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act.” Mr. Fessenden said that Mr. Sumner was “at liberty, if he chose, to move that that bill be taken up and this be laid aside,” and that he should ask the judgment of the Senate.

April 19th, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the bill, and this motion was agreed to,—Yeas 26, Nays 10. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, considered the bill, and it was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time, without a division, and without a word of debate. It only remained to put the question on its final passage, when Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, remarked that he was “not prepared to see this bill passed just now”; he had “supposed the Senator from Massachusetts was to address the Senate upon it.” Mr. Sumner had “not the least desire to address the Senate”; he did “not wish to say a word upon it.” Mr. Foster “did not apprehend that the bill was to be put on its passage at the present time, and expected to say something upon it.” Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, remarked, “We may as well pass the bill now.” The Chair put the question, and the yeas and nays were ordered, when Mr. Hendricks spoke against the bill. He said: “It may be that our fathers erred in the agreement among themselves that a fugitive slave should be returned; it may be that it was a mistake on their part; but while their agreement stands, and while my oath is upon my conscience to respect that agreement, I cannot vote for a bill like this.” The debate was opened.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, had “some doubt about the expediency of now repealing the law of 1793.” Mr. Sumner said that the Committee “felt that we had better make a clean thing, purify the country, and lift it before foreign nations, which could be only by washing our hands of Slavery.” Mr. Sherman was “not guided exactly by the motives of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts”; he would “give to the people of the Southern States, the few that are left who have the right to enforce the Constitution against us, their constitutional rights fully and fairly.” According to him, “the law of 1793 was framed by the men who framed the Constitution,” and “has been declared to be valid and constitutional by every tribunal that has acted upon it.” Mr. Sumner replied, that “it was declared to be unconstitutional in certain particulars by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Prigg case, and it is among the records in the life of Judge Story, who gave the opinion in that case, that the fatal objection of a failure to give a trial by jury in a case of human freedom was never argued before the Court, and that he personally considered it an open question.” Mr. Sherman preferred “not to repeal the law of 1793, about the constitutionality of which he had little doubt.” Mr. Sumner replied, “Then the Senator has little doubt that under the Constitution a human being may be given over to Slavery without a trial by jury.” Mr. Sherman “would not go into the discussion of that question.” Finding that the bill had passed the stage when it could be amended, he moved to reconsider the vote ordering it to be engrossed and read a third time, which was done, when he moved to add these words:—

“Except the Act approved February 12, 1793, entitled ‘An Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters.’”

Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, proposed to repeal the Act of 1850, leaving the Act of 1793 in force. Mr. Sherman thought “we had better repeal all the laws on the subject except the Act of 1793.” Mr. Reverdy Johnson said: “The Constitution as it is now, according to my interpretation of it, not only authorized the passage of the Act of 1793 and the passage of the Act of 1850, but made it the duty of Congress to pass some law of that description.” Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,—I shall not be carried into extended debate, but shall content myself with replying directly to what has been said on the other side.

There is, first, the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Sherman], who intervened to arrest the generous purpose of the Senate, as it was about to vote, by a motion to preserve the old Act of 1793. Strange that now, while we are in deadly conflict with Slavery, it should be proposed to keep alive an ancient support of Slavery. For the Senator gravely insists, and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Reverdy Johnson] insists with him. But the Senator from Ohio does not seem aware of the character of the statute he would preserve. Let me remind him that by this enactment, towards which he is so tender, a fellow-man may be hurried before a magistrate and doomed to Slavery without trial by jury. Can this be constitutional? Will the Senator sanction such a thing?

Then the other Senator, who is so familiar with our jurisprudence, takes exception to the statement that Mr. Justice Story admitted that the constitutionality of the Act of 1793 had never been affirmed by the Supreme Court. He thinks that this learned judge never made any such statement. But he is mistaken. Here is a volume containing the Life and Letters of Joseph Story, carefully prepared and published by his son. I turn to the passage.

“One prevailing opinion, which has created great prejudice against this judgment, is, that it denies the right of a person claimed as a fugitive from service or labor to a trial by jury. This mistake arises from supposing the case to involve the general question as to the constitutionality of the Act of 1793. But in fact no such question was in the case, and the argument that the Act of 1793 was unconstitutional, because it did not provide for a trial by jury according to the requisitions of the sixth [seventh] article in the Amendments to the Constitution, having been suggested to my father, on his return from Washington, he replied, that this question was not argued by counsel nor considered by the Court, and that he should still consider it an open one.”[328]

Evidently, according to this authentic record by his son, the necessity of a trial by jury was not argued by counsel nor considered by the Court, while the judge for himself declared that he should consider it an “open” question; so that the constitutionality of the Act in this important respect has not been affirmed. But the Senate is now asked to affirm it. We are asked to vote that a fellow-man be handed over to Slavery without trial by jury. To me this proposition is hateful beyond the power of words to express.

But the Senator, not content with affirming the constitutionality of the Act of 1793, has plunged into a general discussion on the fugitive clause of the Constitution. He insists laboriously that it was intended to cover fugitive slaves. When I reminded him that its authors might have intended it to cover fugitive slaves, without succeeding in their attempt, he still insists that it does cover fugitive slaves. Well, Sir, there I meet him point-blank. I insist, that, whatever the original intention of the framers of that clause, they did not leave it so as to cover fugitive slaves. It remains a question of construction, and the language employed is not applicable to fugitive slaves. It does not describe them, and cannot by any just tribunal be extended to embrace them. If the prepossessions of the Senator were more evenly balanced, I should not doubt his judgment on this point, which in the light of jurisprudence is so clear.

There is a rule of interpretation which the Senator will not call in question. Where any language is open to two constructions, one beneficent and the other odious, that which is odious must be rejected. I do not stop to adduce authorities. The rule is unquestionable, and the authorities are ample. But keep in mind the conclusion: that which is odious must be rejected. Now the Senator has already admitted that the language of the clause is applicable to apprentices. Very well. That is enough. In its application to apprentices, redemptioners, and the like, it is exhausted, so that it cannot be made to cover a slave without offending against the rule requiring us to adopt the construction least odious. And, Sir, if we go further and closely scan the clause, we find that the words employed are all applicable to a relation of contract or debt, and not to a relation founded on force. The clause is applicable to a “person,” and not to a thing, and this “person” is to be surrendered on claim of the person to whom his service or labor may be due. But, clearly, no labor or service can be due from slave to master. The whole pretension is an absurdity. And if you give to this word its legitimate application, you must restrict it to a case of contract or debt. In this reply I omit the argument founded on history, and the well-known opinions of leading minds in the Convention, confining myself to the text of the Constitution.

But the Senator dwells especially on the words “held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof,” and triumphantly declares that slaves were included under this language. Here again he is mistaken. Apprentices and redemptioners were held under “laws”; but I need not remind the Senator of the admission repeatedly made on this floor by Mr. Mason, author of the last Fugitive Slave Act, that there were no “laws” for Slavery in any Slave State,—at least, that none could be produced. Besides, as a jurist, the Senator surely will recollect the ancient truth, that injustice cannot be “law,” but is always to be regarded as an “abuse” or a “violence,” even though expressed in the form of “law.” In presence of this principle, which has the sanction of as great a lawyer as St. Augustine, and in the face of the positive assertion of Mr. Mason, that no “law” for Slavery can be found in the Slave States, what becomes of the argument of the Senator? Sir, the case is clear. No ingenuity of honest effort can ever make the words cited by the Senator, or any other words in that much debated clause, sanction Slavery and the hunting of slaves. To proceed with his argument, the Senator must begin by setting aside those commanding rules of interpretation which are binding on him as on myself. If, where words are susceptible of two significations, one beneficent and the other odious, the former only can be taken, then must the Senator restrict this clause to that signification which is not odious. And again, if every word is always to be construed so as most to favor Liberty, then must the Senator follow implicitly this rule. But these two rules make it impossible to torture the clause into any odious or tyrannical signification. They keep it clean and pure from Slavery.

Sir, one feels humbled by the necessity of this discussion,—that at this late day he should be called to vindicate the Constitution of his country against glosses and interpretations in the interest of Slavery. Pardon me, if, for a moment, leaving the two Senators who seek to foist Slavery into the Constitution, I turn to the question itself, not so much for argument as for statement. If I seem to repeat, it is because there are certain points which I desire to impress upon the Senate. To my mind nothing is clearer than that, according to unquestionable rules of interpretation, the clause of the Constitution, whatever the alleged intent of its authors, cannot be considered applicable to slaves. Such is Slavery, that, from the nature of the case, it cannot be sanctioned or legalized except by “positive” words. It cannot stand on inference. This rule, which no reasoning can shake, drove Lord Mansfield to his great judgment in Somerset’s case. African Slavery had for two generations prevailed in England. Eminent lawyers and judges had pronounced it legal. Some of the brightest names in Westminster Hall had given to it the support of professional opinion and the seal of judicial decision. At last a person at that time unknown, Granville Sharp, struck by the injustice of Slavery, devoted himself to consider the grounds on which its legality was recognized. He studied the laws of England, and all the various evidences of its Constitution. In the course of these studies he was gratified to find that there was no positive establishment of African Slavery in England, and, indeed, that the words “Slave” and “Slavery” were nowhere to be found in the British Constitution. He next applied himself to the powerful array of well-known rules of interpretation, requiring, in case of doubt or question, that the interpretation should be on the side of Liberty, and especially that any man was “impious” and “cruel” who did not favor Liberty. Impiety and cruelty are not light burdens for an honest conscience. The conclusion was irresistible, that Slavery could not exist in England.

But the unanswerable argument of Granville Sharp was rejected at first by the bar, who regarded it as an attempted innovation. The direct precedents and the weight of authority were the other way, and this with most lawyers is enough. Harvey said that no person above “forty” accepted his discovery of the circulation of the blood. And Granville Sharp found himself in the same predicament. But this good man was not disheartened. He knew well that there was no statute of limitations against principles, and, better still, that principles must finally prevail over precedents. Principles are immortal, and bloom with perpetual youth: precedents are mortal, and die from age, decrepitude, and decay. Against principles precedents may for a while prevail; but the time comes when that which is mortal must yield to that which is immortal. In this conviction he persevered, until at last lawyers were convinced, and then the court pronounced in his favor.

The judgment of Lord Mansfield constitutes a landmark of law, to be remembered proudly, when all his contributions to commercial law and general jurisprudence are forgotten. It was a contribution to the British Constitution and to human rights. Like every principle of Natural Law, it approves itself at once to the reason and conscience. And this authority I now invoke in the interpretation of the Fugitive Clause.

I have already said too much. The argument on both sides is presented in the two reports of the Committee, or rather in the report of the Committee and the “views of the minority.” Senators, I doubt not, have already made up their minds, which no discussion can change. Of course, some may vote against the acts on one ground and some on another. The arguments are numerous. It is enough, if on any ground they vote to remove this shame from our statute-book.

I do not enter into details of the constitutional argument, whether Congress has power under the Constitution to legislate on this subject, or whether it may confide this great trust to a single magistrate without trial by jury. These are grave questions, worthy of debate, into which I am ready to enter, if the occasion requires. But I forbear. Often, in other times, I have discussed these questions in the Senate and before the people; but the time for discussion is passed. And permit me to confess my gladness in this day. I was chosen to the Senate for the first time immediately after the passage of the infamous Act of 1850. If at that election I received from the people of Massachusetts any special charge, it was to use my best endeavors to secure the repeal of this atrocity. I began the work in the first session that I was here. God grant that I may end it to-day!

Mr. President, one word more. The suggestion is too often made that this measure is not practical. Not practical! It is the favorite phrase. But this depends upon what Senators consider practical.

If it be practical to relieve the people from an unconstitutional and oppressive statute,—if it be practical to take away a badge of subjugation imposed by slave-masters during a brutal supremacy,—if it be practical to secure the good name of the Republic, still suffering immeasurably from this outrage,—if it be practical, at this moment of our own severe trial, to substitute justice for oppression, and thus secure the favor of Providence,—and, finally, if it be practical to strike at Slavery wherever we can hit it, and to relieve ourselves of all responsibility for this terrible wrong,—then is this measure eminently practical. It is as practical as justice, as practical as humanity, as practical as duty, which cannot be postponed.

But, independently of its intrinsic justice, this measure is recommended by an expediency of the highest character. I blush to plead in this way, but the occasion must be my apology. Senators are not aware how much our country suffers in the judgment of civilized nations from that accursed statute, which now for more than ten years has been a byword and hissing among men. Genius in some of its rarest creations has made it known, literature and art in every form have lent themselves to expose it, while the unutterable atrocities it has sanctioned have been carefully gathered together and circulated abroad as testimony against republican institutions. Since the outbreak of the Rebellion this statute has been constantly adduced by our enemies abroad, as showing that we are no better than Jefferson Davis and his slavemonger crew; for Slavery never shows itself worse than in the slave-hunter. Only within a few days there has appeared at New York, published for the fair, a photograph copy of a letter of the late Alexander von Humboldt, containing the following words: “I have the warmest attachment to your beautiful and liberal city, New York, but have earnestly and deeply regretted that Webster, whom I long respected, more than favored that shameful law which still persecuted colored men after they had regained by flight their natural, inborn liberty, of which they had been robbed by Christians.” Humboldt was our friend, but he could not forbear characterizing this statute as “shameful.” Be assured, Sir, it is a burden for the national cause abroad which it ought not to bear. For the sake of our cause, and that it may have new strength in the swelling sympathies of the civilized world, it should be repealed at once, without hesitation.

I confess, Sir, another motive. At this moment of severe trial, I wish my country to put itself right with that Supreme Power which holds in its hands the destinies of nations. It is as true in the life of nations as in the life of individuals, that, if you would have equity, you must do equity; but the great equity which we must do is found in justice to an oppressed race. It is vain that you complain of disaster to your arms, of colored soldiers and their brave officers cruelly treated at Fort Wagner, of colored soldiers and their brave officers massacred at Fort Pillow, if yourselves continue to set the example of injustice. The story of the Israelites is revived, and plague after plague is sent, sounding forever the old commandment, “Let my people go.” If the plagues sent already are not enough, another and yet another will visit us. There is one assurance of obedience which you can give. It is to expunge from your statute-book all support of Slavery. Be in earnest here, and you will be practical. Then, having done equity, you may fearlessly ask for equity.

I have already said more than I intended. It was my purpose to leave the Senate without a word of argument or persuasion. The case to my mind is too clear, and I thought the time had come for votes. And now, as I conclude, I forbear to press all constitutional objections, and present the whole question on a single ground. Slavery has struck at the national life. Let us strike back wherever we can smite the great offender, and above all let us purify the statute-book, so that there shall be nothing there out of which this terrible wrong can derive support. In the discharge of this duty, all Fugitive Acts should be repealed. The argument against one is the same against all.

The amendment of Mr. Sherman was adopted,—Yeas 24, Nays 17.

Mr. Saulsbury moved an amendment of two sections concerning arrests without due process of law,—Yeas 9, Nays 27. Mr. Conness, of California, then said: “I do not wish to cast a vote for this measure in its present shape. I had intended, before the debate closed, if it was debated, to say something on the subject. I do not design that now; and as the Senate have seen fit to amend the bill, I cannot vote for it. At present, therefore, I move that it lie on the table.” Mr. Sumner hoped the Senator would “withdraw that motion.” Mr. Conness: “For what reason?” Mr. Sumner: “For the reason that we get something by this bill.” The motion to lay on the table was lost,—Yeas 9, Nays 31. The Democrats, and Mr. Conness, voted in the affirmative.

April 20th, the Senate proceeded with the bill, when Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, made an elaborate speech, especially vindicating the Act of 1793, in the course of which he was frequently interrupted by Mr. Sumner in answer to points of the argument. He was followed by Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, who concluded by saying: “I cannot support this bill as it has been amended. I cannot support any bill that recognizes as right and proper any Fugitive Slave Act; and I shall therefore refuse to give it my sanction, if it comes to a vote upon the final passage in its present shape.”

April 21st, Mr. Van Winkle, of West Virginia, seized the opportunity to speak at length on the question of the war. Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved an amendment at the end of the bill:—

“But no person found in any Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, shall be deemed to have been held to labor or service, or to be a slave; nor shall he or she be removed under said Act of 1793; and the fourth section of said Act is hereby repealed.”

Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved an executive session. Mr. Sumner suggested that it should be an hour later. Mr. Brown thought the bill could not be finished that evening. Mr. Fessenden did not like to interfere with this bill, but he must give notice, that, if the bill were not disposed of that afternoon, or by one o’clock the next day, he must then move to go on with the Army Appropriation Bill. Mr. Sumner hoped “we might go on for at least another hour.” Mr. Conness “did not understand the anxiety of his honorable friend from Massachusetts in pressing this bill in its present condition.” Mr. Pomeroy hoped Mr. Sumner would let the bill go over; there were half a dozen amendments to be proposed. Mr. Sumner replied: “Very well; if the friends of the measure request that it shall not be pressed to-day, I will not throw myself in their way.” Accordingly, on the motion of Mr. Conness, it was postponed to April 27th, and made the special order at one o’clock; but it was then superseded by the unfinished business of the day preceding, being the National Currency. With the amendment fastened upon his bill, keeping alive the Act of 1793, Mr. Sumner was not encouraged to press it, and he waited the action of the House of Representatives.

June 6th, in the House of Representatives, Mr. Morris, of New York, reported from the Committee on the Judiciary a bill in the following terms.

“An Act to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act of eighteen hundred and fifty, and all Acts and Parts of Acts for the Rendition of Fugitive Slaves.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, That sections three and four of an Act entitled ‘An Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters,’ passed February twelve, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and an Act entitled ‘An Act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled “An Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” passed February twelve, seventeen hundred and ninety-three,’ passed September, eighteen hundred and fifty, be, and the same are, hereby repealed.”

After some skirmishing, the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time. It was then vehemently denounced, and a series of motions was made to delay or stave off its passage. At last Mr. Morris allowed its postponement to June 13th, on which day, after further denunciation, it passed the House,—Yeas 90, Nays 62.

June 15th, the House bill was laid before the Senate, when Mr. Sumner said: “I am instructed by the Committee on Slavery and Freedmen to move the immediate passage of that bill. The Senate understands it; the House of Representatives has acted on it; there is no need of debate; and I ask to have it voted on at once.” Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, objected, as he wanted the morning hour for morning business. Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Sumner wished it referred to the Committee on Slavery and Freedmen. The Senate refused to order the reference to the Committee on the Judiciary,—Yeas 14, Nays 21. Then, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was referred to the other Committee. Mr. Sumner, anticipating such a reference, had already obtained from the Committee authority to report it promptly, without amendment, which he did at once, and asked for immediate action. Objection being made, the bill was not considered at that time.

June 21st, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the House bill, which, after earnest debate, was ordered,—Yeas 25, Nays 17. The Senate then took a recess till evening, when other business was considered, including the question of opening the street cars.

June 22d, Mr. Sumner moved to proceed with the House bill. Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, opposed the motion, as he desired the Senate to take up some naval bills. The motion was lost,—Yeas 14, Nays 22. In the evening session, Mr. Sumner moved again to proceed with the House bill. Mr. Chandler said: “I will spend to-night with great pleasure with the Senator from Massachusetts on his bill; but to-morrow I shall demand the day for the Committee on Commerce.” Mr. Saulsbury moved to adjourn, saying, “Let us have one day without the nigger.” The motion was lost,—Yeas 8, Nays 28. Mr. Reverdy Johnson wished to secure an opportunity for Mr. Davis to speak, and he was now absent. Mr. Sumner replied: “The Senator from Kentucky has had ample notice. He knew that this bill would be moved as soon as I could get the floor.” Mr. Johnson insisted, when Mr. Sumner said: “The public business cannot wait. Again and again has this measure been postponed in deference to the Senator from Kentucky.” The motion to proceed with the bill was adopted,—Yeas 26, Nays 12. Mr. Lane, of Indiana, then moved to proceed with executive business. Mr. Powell said: “You cannot get a vote to-night.” Mr. Sumner: “Let us try.” Mr. McDougall: “It is not possible to take a vote to-night.” Mr. Howard and Mr. Wade: “We can get it by morning.” Mr. McDougall: “It cannot be done.” The motion for an executive session was lost,—Yeas 15, Nays 22. Mr. Saulsbury then moved that the bill be indefinitely postponed, and the question resulted, Yeas 11, Nays 25. Mr. Lane again moved an executive session, which motion was lost,—Yeas 16, Nays 22. Mr. Powell then moved that the bill be postponed until the first Monday of December next. Pending this motion, Mr. Riddle, of Delaware, moved an adjournment, which was lost,—Yeas 12, Nays 22. In the course of these dilatory motions, Mr. Sherman remarked that he was willing to give Mr. Davis an opportunity to be heard, and then said: “If Senators propose to resort to these parliamentary tactics, these interminable propositions for delay, merely to defeat a vote upon a bill which the majority have a right to pass, I am perfectly willing now to go into a contest of physical endurance.” At last the bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, with the understanding that Mr. Davis should be heard upon it the next day, when Mr. Powell withdrew his motion, and, after the consideration of executive business, the Senate adjourned.

June 23d, Mr. Davis addressed the Senate at length. Mr. Saulsbury moved to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the words of the Constitution concerning fugitives from service, with the addition: “And Congress shall pass all necessary and proper laws for the rendition of all such persons who shall so as aforesaid escape.” The motion was lost,—Yeas 9, Nays 29. Mr. Johnson moved to amend the bill so as to keep alive the Act of 1793, saying: “The amendment, as the Senate will see, makes this bill like the one that we passed after debate.” This motion was also lost,—Yeas 17, Nays 22. So the Senate reversed its former decision on that question. The bill was then passed by the vote, Yeas 27, Nays 12, and was approved by the President June 28th.

Here was the end of all Fugitive Slave Acts, and another blow at Slavery.