The petitioners know well that Congress is the depository of those supreme powers by which rebellion, alike in its root and distant offshoots, may be surely crushed, while unity and peace are permanently assured. They know well that the action of Congress may be with the coöperation of the Slave-Masters, or even without their coöperation, under the overruling law of military necessity, or the commanding precept of the Constitution to guaranty a republican form of government. Above all, they know well that to save the country from peril, especially to save the national life, there is no power in the ample arsenal of selfdefence which Congress may not grasp; for to Congress, under the Constitution, belongs the prerogative of the Roman Dictator, to see that the Republic receives no detriment. Therefore to Congress these petitioners appeal.

I ask the reference of the petition to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen.

An earnest debate ensued, which ended in the reference of the petition.

EQUAL PAY OF COLORED SOLDIERS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS, FEBRUARY 10, 29, AND JUNE 11, 1864.

FEBRUARY 3d, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, reported a joint resolution to equalize the pay of soldiers in the United States army, which provided that all persons of color, who have been or may be mustered into the military service of the United States, shall receive the same uniform, clothing, arms, equipments, camp equipage, rations, medical and hospital attendance, pay and emoluments, other than bounty, as other soldiers of the regular or volunteer forces of the United States of like arm of service, during the whole term in which they shall be or shall have been in such service, and every person of color who shall hereafter be mustered into the service shall receive such sums in bounty as the President shall order in the different States and parts of the United States, not exceeding one hundred dollars.

February 4th, the Senate considered the joint resolution. Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, "wished to inquire what propriety there is in our going back and paying them this increase for services already rendered." Mr. Wilson thought, "as an act of justice, the bill should be retrospective," that "the gross injustice done by the country toward these men ought to be corrected." Mr. Fessenden was in favor, and had ever been in favor, of putting colored soldiers on a level with white, but he was opposed to paying men for services already rendered, unless the men were promised full pay by orders emanating from the War Department. Mr. Sumner, after stating that there were two classes of enlistments, first, under the statute of 1861, and, secondly, under the statute of 1862, insisted that under the former statute any person of African descent might be enlisted and entitled to the same pay as a white soldier. "There was no limitation in the statute. There was no color there. There was nothing against the enlistment of colored men under that statute, except a blind prejudice which we ought to forget." He concluded: "I wish to see our colored troops treated like white troops in every respect. But I would not press this first

principle by any retroactive proposition, unless where the faith of the Government is committed, and there I would not hesitate. The Treasury can bear any additional burden better than the country can bear to do an injustice."

February 10th, the subject being still under consideration, Mr. Sumner said: -

MR.

R. PRESIDENT,- I am grateful to the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. FOSTER] for his admirable argument on this question; and yet it seems to me, if he will pardon me, that even in point of law he has not stated the case as strongly in favor of this obligation as it might be stated. It may be remembered, that, when this discussion was closing, the other day, I ventured to throw out the remark, that there were evidently two classes of cases: the first, where enlistments in good faith were made under the statute of 1861; and the second, where they were made under the statute of 1862.

In point of law, it seems obvious, if enlistments were made in good faith under the statute of 1861, and there was no legal objection to those enlistments, then the United States are bound. If, on the contrary, they were made under the subsequent statute, then it is simply a question of policy and expediency whether we shall make this payment. The whole subject is open to discussion, first, in the light of sentiment, which may involve expediency and policy, and, secondly, in the light of law. I shall not say anything upon it in the first aspect, except to make one remark, that our country at this moment can ill afford to take the responsibility of refusing justice to colored soldiers whom it has allowed to shed their blood in its cause. The soul repudiates any such sacrifice,- for sacrifice it will be, at once of

honor and of interest. I do not follow out this idea, but pass at once to the second aspect, which I called the question of law; and there I differ from my learned friend from Connecticut, when I say that there are certain colored regiments in the field who in point of law are entitled to the full wages of thirteen dollars a month.

MR. FOSTER. If the Senator will pardon me, I insisted on that fact, and said they were enlisted, not under the law, but under instructions from the Department, authorizing the officers to enlist them on the same terms that white troops were enlisted, which would be thirteen dollars per month.

MR. SUMNER. Very well. I still understood the Senator to imply that perhaps in point of law there might be some doubt whether the Government was liable for the thirteen dollars a month. I propose to carry the argument a little further, and show, by calling attention for one moment to the statutes,—not at any great length, that, under the statutes themselves, the Government is obliged to pay certain regiments thirteen dollars a month.

I begin with the Massachusetts fifty-fourth and fiftyfifth regiments; and these may be taken as examples. I have before me the actual order under which those two regiments were raised.

"WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, January 26, 1863.

"Ordered, That Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, is authorized, until further orders, to raise such number of volunteer companies of artillery for duty in the forts of Massachusetts and elsewhere, and such corps of infantry for the volunteer military service, as he may find convenient; such volunteers to be enlisted for three years,"

Mark, Sir, if you please, the period of service," for three years,"

or until sooner discharged, and may include persons of African descent, organized into separate corps. He will make the usual needful requisitions on the appropriate staff bureaus and officers for the proper transportation, organization, supplies, subsistence, arms, and equipments, of such volunteers.

"EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War."

Now, on the face of this order, the Governor of Massachusetts is empowered to raise certain regiments in the volunteer service of the United States for three years. Under what statute? Under no other, surely, than the statute of 1861, for it was under that statute that the organization for three years was authorized. If you come to the later statute and to that I ask particular attention-of July 17, 1862, which contains a special provision with reference to African troops, you will find that it is to raise troops for nine months.

"SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President be, and he is hereby, authorized, in addition to the volunteer forces which he is now authorized by law to raise, to accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding one hundred thousand, as infantry, for a period of nine months, unless sooner discharged."

And then, Sir, in section twelve of this same statute, the President is further empowered to employ persons of African descent. In section fifteen we come to the question of pay.

"And be it further enacted, That all persons who have been or shall be hereafter enrolled in the service of the United States under this Act".