Volume 20 — SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL: THE LAST APPEAL.

Remarks in the Senate, January 27, 1874.

The Supplementary Civil-Rights Bill, introduced by Mr. Sumner on the first day of the Session, having now come up for consideration, and the question being on a motion by Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, to refer it to the Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Sumner said:—

MR. PRESIDENT,—There is a very good reason, a very strong reason, why this bill should not be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and it is found in the history of the bill. I have in my hand a memorandum, which has been kindly prepared for me at the desk, disclosing details which Senators ought to bear in mind before they vote. By the Journals of the Senate it appears that as long ago as May 13, 1870,—

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill supplementary to an Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866; which was read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.”

The next appearance of the bill is July 7th, of that year, when, according to the Journal, “Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary,” with a large number of other bills reported this to the Senate, with a recommendation “that they ought not to pass.” The record says that—

“The Senate proceeded to consider the said bills as in Committee of the Whole; and no amendment being made, they were severally reported to the Senate.

“On motion by Mr. Trumbull,

“Ordered, That the said bills be postponed indefinitely.”

You will observe, Sir, the bill was treated in the lump with others, at the close of the session; and you have here the report of the very committee to which it is now proposed to refer it.

The next appearance of the bill is January 20, 1871, and the entry is as follows:—

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill supplementary to an Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866; which was read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.”

February 15, 1871, “Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred the following bills [the present with others], reported them severally without amendment, and that they ought not to pass.”

There was no action of the Senate at the time; for you will bear in mind the lateness of the day in the session; and Senators cannot have forgotten the pressure of business at that time. That was sufficient reason against the consideration of the bill. Indeed, with all the assiduity that I could command, I was not able to obtain a hearing for it.

Then came the first session of the Forty-Second Congress, beginning March 4, 1871. Upon the Journal it appears, March 9, 1871,—

“Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in [this same bill, with one other], which were read the first and second times, by unanimous consent, and ordered to lie on the table and be printed.”

In introducing the bill this third time I stated that it had already been to the Judiciary Committee twice before; that it was to be presumed that they had carefully considered it; that they had reported it adversely; that they had not reported any amendment; that I did not think it advisable now to refer the bill to a committee which had twice recorded an adverse judgment; that the bill was well known to Senators; that it had been before the Senate a long time; and that under the circumstances I thought I should be justified in asking that it take its place on the Calendar and be printed. The order was made, and it held its place on the Calendar.

Shortly afterward a measure of general amnesty, it will be remembered, passed the House of Representatives and came to this Chamber. Then it was that I deemed it my duty to move this bill as an amendment, and you will remember the extended discussion that ensued,—how justice to the African race was contrasted with generosity to those who had struck at the life of the Republic, and it was insisted that our first duty was justice. The debate was protracted. Senators cannot have forgotten it; and more than once votes were had upon the pending amendment. I think it was twice carried by the casting vote of the Vice-President. Certainly it was attached to the bill for general amnesty, and the debate reached over weeks, during which time the Supplementary Civil-Rights Bill, as it came to be called, underwent amendment. It was modified in various particulars,—in none of great importance, in none of principle, but verbally; also in the penalties, and in the machinery: but the bill now stands, in principle and in substance, as it was when originally introduced. So far as it is changed, it is a change reached by debate in this Chamber. The Senate itself has been a Committee of the Whole sitting on this bill, superseding thereby the labors of any special committee.

Why, then, after two references to the Judiciary Committee should we have a third? Is it for delay? Is it in the hope of any light on this important subject which Senators have not already? Why, then, the reference? I can see no considerable or sufficient object, except one that we are compelled to recognize in this Chamber: can it be a mode of opposition by interposing time, delay?

Now, Sir, the bill is on the Calendar No. 1. It should have been the first acted upon this session; and if it was not acted upon first, there is no blame on me, for I tried to have you act upon it on one of the earliest days of this session, but I was resisted here by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Ferry], and the Senator from Maine [Mr. Morrill]; the Senator from Connecticut insisting, then as now, that the bill should go to a committee. Now, Sir, I appeal to the Senate to take this important measure into its own hands at once and directly.

What is the use of a Committee? It is as eyes and ears to the Senate. How often do we repeat that saying! But who wants eyes and ears for the appreciation of this measure? Its character is manifest; its justice is confessed; it is in harmony with all that has been done to carry out the great results of the war; it is in harmony with the Declaration of Independence, and with the grand history of the Republic; it is in harmony with the Constitutional Amendments, and it is indeed necessary in order to their full enjoyment. The necessity is manifest every day in the outrages to which the colored race are exposed, not only in travel and at hotels, but still more in the children of their homes, who are shut out from those schools where they ought to receive practically, as well as by lesson, the great duty of Equality. The bill is an urgent necessity. There ought to be no delay. There should not be the postponement of a Committee, for the Committee is unnecessary. The Committee has already sat upon it once, twice: why a third time?

In the debate which ensued, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont (Chairman of the Judiciary Committee), among others, participated, both urging the proposed reference, and the latter in remarks replete with personality. Mr. Sumner responded as follows:—

The Senator from Nevada has made a speech which is founded on oblivion of the past. The bill has been examined by the Judiciary Committee, and twice reported by them adversely without amendment.

Mr. Edmunds. When was the last report?

Mr. Sumner. February 15, 1871.

Mr. Edmunds. That was in the time of Trumbull.

Mr. Sumner. The Senator says, “That was in the time of Trumbull.” But it was reported adversely by the Judiciary Committee, of which my learned friend was a distinguished member, I think. I cannot mistake; he must have been on the Committee, a party to its report; and there was from him no minority voice, no opposition on this floor to the report of the Chairman. He allowed the Chairman to speak for the Committee, including himself.

But the Senator from Nevada, oblivious of this history, insists upon another reference. He wishes to put this bill through another dance. For what purpose? He has read the existing statute to which this is supplementary, and he thinks that the Committee ought to consider the aptitude of this bill to carry out the declared purpose. Why, Sir, I agree with him that such aptitude ought to exist, but do not forget that the bill has been before the Senate now nearly four years. Nearly four years has this bill, substantially as at this moment, been before the Senate, and twice before the Judiciary Committee.

Now, Sir, let us ascend from words to things. Why make another reference? Is it that it may find verbal place on your record that this bill was duly referred and duly reported? That is the only reason I can imagine; for the bill in its substance is well known to every Senator, and, I may add, is well known to every lawyer in the country. It has been discussed here again and again, day after day, and has been modified after discussion; and you now have the result of all the discussion and the modification. It is well known. It is familiar to the country. It has received the approbation of those who are most interested in it. It has been prayed for by petitioners without number. It has been commended at public meetings with an earnestness and an enthusiasm almost without parallel.

Mr. Edmunds. May I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. Sumner. Certainly.

Mr. Edmunds. I should like to ask my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, (as he is now speaking of the character of the bill, which I did not care to refer to particularly,) where the jury is summoned, and a man should happen to be convicted of murder or any other crime under the State law, would it, or not, set aside the verdict?

Mr. Sumner. The Senator will pardon me. I had not intended to touch this branch of the debate.

Mr. Edmunds. I merely wish to ask him what he understands to be the character of the fourth section, supposing we pass it just as it stands, and supposing a jury happens to be summoned contrary to the provisions of the fourth section, but in accordance with the law of the State.

Mr. Sumner. The effect of the violation of the law in that respect need not be considered. It is sufficient that this section provides a penalty against those who violate the law; such is its simple object.

Mr. Edmunds. Ah! but let me ask my friend, does it not also provide what shall constitute a lawful jury?

Mr. Sumner. Very well,—and should it not so provide?

Mr. Edmunds. Very well,—but my question is, What would be the effect upon the trial of an indictment found by a grand jury not composed in conformity to this motion?

Mr. Sumner. I will not presume to pronounce an opinion on that question. It is sufficient for me that the section is clear and explicit in imposing a penalty upon the party making the exclusion, and that is all the bill proposes. The other consequences may be, will be, for the determination of the courts. The question belongs to them; I doubt if it belongs to us. But the bill is open to amendment. Let the Senator move such as he thinks the case requires: I shall welcome it.

When the Senator interrupted me I was about to address myself to him; for I should not have risen this time but for the remarks which he made. I know not, Sir, why my position on this question should justify the personalities which the Senator from Vermont considers so essential to debate. I certainly made no allusion to him, nor do I claim anything for myself. I am an humble worker in this Chamber, and in this cause I have been laborious for years; but not on that account do I claim anything, nor do I make any pretence. I know not why the Senator should, with personality of manner and allusion, undertake to taunt me for the position that I occupy. Do I deserve it? I represent humbly the sentiments of the people of Massachusetts, who have sent me here now for many years. Always loyal to these sentiments I hope to be, even though it brings upon me the displeasure of the Senator. Sir, I am anxious to harmonize with that Senator. I know, too, his loyalty to this cause,—I do not doubt it; but I now appeal to that Senator to unite with me in speeding this great measure. Let him join sincerely, with his large intelligence, to hasten this bill before the Senate and make it the law of the land; so would he become a benefactor to a much-oppressed people.

Possibly he has his doubts in regard to the Jury provision. I know other lawyers have expressed doubts before; and from the inquiry that he made a moment ago it is perhaps fair to infer that those doubts haunt his mind. To that I simply answer, Happily they do not haunt mine. I know the Constitution of my country, and I know that under that Constitution, unless my judgment fails entirely, the provision with reference to juries is absolutely valid and constitutional. I challenge the discussion. Let the Senator make his objections. The original Civil-Rights Bill, which passed over the veto of the President, solemnly declares that no evidence shall be excluded from any court of justice, National or State, on account of color. The nation has undertaken to regulate the testimony, not only in its own Courts but in State Courts; and will any one pretend that it may not regulate the jury in State Courts, when it may regulate the testimony in State Courts? Why, Sir, there is nothing in the Constitution touching testimony, but there are no less than three distinct provisions relating to trial by jury; and among other terms employed is “an impartial jury,” which is among the privileges and immunities of the citizen. And is it wrong for Congress, in the plenitude of its powers, anxious to do justice to all, to declare that there shall be an impartial jury in all tribunals, whether National or State, without regard to color? Having begun by regulating the testimony, where is the argument which is to prevent us from regulating the jury? I need not remind my excellent friend that originally the witnesses and the jury were almost one and the same.

Mr. Edmunds. They were precisely the same.

Mr. Sumner. Very well,—so much the better; and the Senator knows that there is a phrase handed down to us from English courts by which we are reminded constantly of the “witness-box” and the “jury-box.” So closely were they together that they come under a common nomenclature. Now I insist that they shall come under a common safeguard. We have already provided that there shall be no exclusion in testimony on account of color: we must also provide that there shall be no exclusion from the jury on account of color; and until that provision is made by supreme national law, not to be set aside, justice is not fully done.

But, Sir, I had no intention to discuss the character of this bill; and I have only been led into it by the allusion of the Senator, who, holding the bill in his hand, signalizes that section as open to criticism. Let him proceed with his criticism. But then I hope for better things. I hope my friend, instead of criticism, will give us that generous support which so well becomes him. He sees full well, that, until this great question is completely settled, the results of the war are not all secured, nor is this delicate and sensitive subject banished from these Halls. Sir, my desire, the darling desire, if I may say so, of my soul, at this moment, is to close forever this great question, so that it shall never again intrude into these Chambers,—so that hereafter in all our legislation there shall be no such words as “black” or “white,” but that we shall speak only of citizens and of men. Is not that an aspiration worthy of a Senator? Is such an aspiration any ground for taunt from the Senator of Vermont? Will he not, too, join in the aspiration and the endeavor to bring about that beneficent triumph? Let this be omitted now, let any part of this bill be dropped out now, and you leave the question for another Congress, to be pursued by other petitions, to be pressed by other Senators and Representatives; for, so long as injustice remains without redress, so long will there be men to petition, and so long, I trust, will there be Senators and Representatives to demand a remedy. I ask for all now.

At length, on the representation of Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, that, “by acquiescing with the other friends of the measure in its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Senator from Massachusetts has it in his power to take from every opponent of the bill any apology, reason, or excuse for opposing it,” followed by the declaration, “I think we can give the Senator the assurance that a fortnight will not pass without the bill being reported,”—

Mr. Sumner inquiring,—“The Senator is a member of the Judiciary Committee, I believe?”

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sumner. I accept his assurance and consent to the reference.

Mr. Edmunds, Chairman of the Committee, demurring to the proposed agreement to report the bill within two weeks, suggested as a substitute, “its consideration with the promptness that the business of the Committee will allow,” which Mr. Frelinghuysen pronouncing “equally satisfactory,” it was tacitly so settled,—Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin, thereupon observing, “I think the assurances we have from the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Vermont are a sufficient guaranty that the bill will get back here in good season.”

Mr. Sumner. And in good condition. (Laughter.)

Mr. Edmunds. Much better than it is now. (Laughter.)

Mr. Morton of Indiana subsequently remarking,—

I do not myself feel that there is any great importance in referring this bill to a committee, for the reason that the question has been so long before the Senate and has been so amply discussed. But still that is the usage of the Senate; we do that with regard to all bills unless under some very strong emergency; and if the Senator had consented in the first place to the reference of the bill, we should have had it back long ago. So, I think, he has nobody to blame but himself that this bill is not now before the Senate to be acted upon. But I may be allowed to express the hope, and I have no reason to doubt that it will be gratified, that the Judiciary Committee will promptly examine this bill, and report back a Civil-Rights Bill upon which the Senate can take action before long. I think that ought to be done for very many considerations,—

Mr. Sumner replied:—

Mr. President,—I should not say another word, except for the ardor with which my friend from Indiana comes forward to throw a little blame on me. He thinks, that, if I had consented to an earlier reference of this bill, it would now be in order before the Senate; but he says that in a case of strong emergency bills are not referred to committees. Now I ask the Senator from Indiana if this is not a case of strong emergency? The bill has been pending nearly four solid years, during all which time a portion of our fellow-citizens, counted by the million, have been exposed to indignity; and because I tried to speed the result, hoping to bring the Senate to a generous conclusion of the whole measure without a reference to the Committee, the Senator from Indiana thus tardily seeks to rebuke me. If I erred at all, it was because I trusted the Senate. I felt, that, with this bill on the Calendar and within reach, it could not hesitate. I was unwilling to see the bill in a committee-room, where the Senate, in a generous moment, could not take it up any day, and, so far as the Senate was concerned, make it the law of the land. I put too much faith in this body, which I ought to know well. I did, Sir, have generous trust. I did believe that at some early day the bill would be considered and adopted. I have been disappointed. More than once I have tried to reach it, I have tried to bring it before the Senate; but you know well the impediments; you know that other important matters have occupied attention, so that I could not, with any reasonable chance of success, seek to press this important measure. That, Sir, is the occasion for delay; and I do not think—I hardly like to make any question with my friend—but I do not think he was generous in the imputation that he sought to throw upon me. Had that Senator, on the first day of the session, or when I made an effort at a later day to bring it up, come forward then to aid me in pressing it on the attention of the Senate,—had he reminded the Senate and the country how many fellow-citizens were shut out from their rights, and that a denial of rights does not allow delay,—had these words come from the Senator at that time, ah! we should have been having no such debate as has occurred to-day. The bill would have been hastened on its way, and a people long enslaved and degraded would be at last lifted to equality.

The question being now put, the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary without objection.

March 11, 1874, Mr. Sumner died.

April 14th his bill was reported back by Mr. Frelinghuysen from the Committee with an amendment in the form of a substitute,—being substantially the original bill taken into a new draught, with a few differences of machinery. In this form, after long and exhaustive debate, it was passed in the Senate, May 22d, by Yeas 29, Nays 16.

In the House, all efforts to take it up were frustrated by the minority, under the rule requiring a two-thirds vote for this purpose, until the closing hours of the succeeding session, March 3, 1875, when a vote was obtained referring it to the Committee on the Judiciary, but too late for action, and the bill fell with the expiration of the Congress.

Meanwhile, however, February 3d, Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, had reported a bill from this Committee, covering the provisions of the Senate bill, with the exception only of that relating to cemeteries, but with the addition to that on Common Schools of the proviso,—

“That if any State or the proper authorities in any State, having the control of Common Schools or other public institutions of learning aforesaid, shall establish and maintain separate schools and institutions giving equal educational advantages in all respects for different classes of persons entitled to attend such schools and institutions, such schools and institutions shall be a sufficient compliance with the provisions of this section so far as they relate to schools and institutions of learning.”

On proceeding to a vote, the next day, February 14th, the entire clause, embracing Common Schools, public institutions of learning or benevolence, and national agricultural colleges, together with this proviso, was, on motion of Mr. Kellogg, of Connecticut, struck out by Ayes 123, Noes 48,—a call for the Yeas and Nays, which would have brought out the names, being refused. A previous motion by Mr. Cessna, of Pennsylvania, to substitute the full text of the Senate bill for that of the House Committee, now recurring, was defeated by Yeas 114, Nays 148,—and the latter, amended as above stated, was then passed by Yeas 162, Nays 100,—and subsequently, February 27th, in the Senate also, by Yeas 38, Nays 26,—and March 1st received the approval of the Executive.

This bill, entitled “An Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights,”[239] has since stood on the statute book as a finality,—these rights, in the terms of the statute, consisting of “the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of [1st] inns, [2d] public conveyances on land or water, [3d] theatres, and other places of public amusement”; to which another section, rising to a higher plane, adds the declaration [4th] “That no citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,”—with such security to the colored citizens of this inestimable right as may be found in the provision that “any officer or other person, charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who shall exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not more than five thousand dollars.”