desires it. At any rate, I should rather, for my own satisfaction, have a vote upon it."

In the debate that ensued, Mr. Reverdy Johnson said: "If the Governor of Massachusetts has made a promise which the law did not authorize, if he has created, as between the Massachusetts soldiers and the Governor of Massachusetts, an obligation which ought to be redeemed, let Massachusetts redeem it." They have passed a law to redeem it," said Mr. Fessenden, "but these regiments refuse to receive it from Massachusetts."

66

Mr. Wilson moved to insert words making the resolution applicable only "from and after the first day of January, 1864," which was agreed to. After debate, Mr. Sumner again moved his proviso, which was lost, Yeas 16, Nays 21. Other amendments were moved, and the debate continued for days.

February 23d, Mr. Davis moved as a substitute three resolutions, that all negroes and mulattoes, by whatever term designated, in the military service of the United States, be discharged and disarmed, and also providing for payment to loyal owners on account of slaves taken into the service. Lost, Yeas 7, Nays 30.

Mr. Collamer, of Vermont, having moved an amendment providing for a certain class of cases, Mr. Sumner, February 25th, brought forward his amendment in the following terms:

"Provided, also, That all persons whose papers of enlistment shall show that they were enlisted under the Act of Congress of July, 1861, shall receive from the time of their enlistment the pay promised by that statute."

In proposing this again, he said: "I believe, if any persons have enlisted in the national service, and, through any ambiguity or misinterpretation of legislation, their rights have been drawn in question, it belongs to Congress, as guardian and conservator of the rights of every citizen, to see that they have the proper remedy." The amendment was adopted, Yeas 19, Nays 18.

February 29th, Mr. Fessenden addressed the Senate in explanation of his position. He had been from the beginning in favor of placing colored soldiers on the same footing as white; but he objected to the attempt to provide for exceptional cases on this general bill, and he asked, "whether we should have had such an uproar throughout the country, if this amendment had been in regard to three or four or more white regiments, to go back and pay them an additional sum from the time of their enlistment, and the principle had been objected to."

Mr. Sumner, in reply, reviewed the case, and in conclusion said:

FROM the question of law I pass to that other question which occupied the attention of the Senator from Maine, as to when and where we should meet this obligation. He says, Bring in a separate bill. That was said the other day. I say, Meet it whenever it appears. It is in itself a case of such absolute and overwhelming justice that the Senate ought not to postpone it for a single day, especially ought not to postpone it, when it has under consideration a bill so entirely germane as the present. If it were a bill concerning the Pacific Railroad or the sale of gold, it might be questionable whether the proposition should be ingrafted upon it; but, as it is a bill to put colored troops on an equality with other troops in the national service, I say that the pending proposition is perfectly germane, and, being in itself of commanding justice, ought not to be postponed. It is a common device of enemies to object to a measure on a particular bill. For myself, I wish it understood that I am for the proposition on any bill and at any time.

Then, on motion of Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, the joint resolution was recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs.

March 2d, Mr. Wilson reported a new bill, in lieu of the original joint resolution so much discussed, which, besides the provision in the joint resolution, contained an additional section in substantial conformity with Mr. Sumner's proviso, giving to all persons of color enlisted and mustered into the service of the United States the pay allowed by law to other volunteers in the service, from the date of their muster, if it had been pledged or promised to them by any officer or person, who, in making such pledge or promise, acted by authority of the War Department; and the Secretary of War was to determine any question of fact arising under this provision.

March 8th, the bill being under consideration, Mr. Davis moved an additional section, giving to loyal owners of slaves taken into service compensation to be determined by commissioners appointed by the Circuit Court of the United States.

March 9th, Mr. Davis made an elaborate speech vindicating property in slaves.

March 10th, after further debate, the additional section of Mr. Davis was rejected, Yeas 6, Nays 31,- and also another amendment moved by him. The bill then passed the Senate, - Yeas 31, Nays 6. In the House of Representatives other matters were substituted for the provisions which had occupied the attention of the Senate, as the object was already accomplished in another way.

April 22d, the Army Appropriation Bill being under consideration, Mr. Wilson moved, as an amendment, the bill to equalize the pay of soldiers which had passed the Senate. Mr. Fessenden thought that "the measure ought to be passed, and passed at once." If the Senate would waive the objection to putting it on the Appropriation Bill, he would not object. The amendment was agreed to, - Yeas 31, Nays 5. Then followed another series of struggles. The House of Representatives made amendments which were disagreed to by the Senate. Then came no less than three different Committees of Conference. The report of the last Committee, which was made June 10th, contained the following substitute for the Senate amendment :

"That all persons of color who were free on the nineteenth day of April, 1861, and who have been enlisted and mustered into the military service of the United States, shall, from the time of their enlistment, be entitled to receive the pay, bounty, and clothing allowed to such persons by the laws existing at the time of their enlistment. And the Attorney-General of the United States is hereby authorized to determine any question of law arising under this provision. And if the Attorney-General aforesaid shall determine that any of such enlisted persons are entitled to receive any pay, bounty, or clothing in addition to what they have already received, the Secretary of War shall make all necessary regulations to enable the pay department to make payment in accordance with such determination."

Mr. Sumner observed that the report did not seem to settle the question in issue; that, if he were merely looking after the interests of his own constituents and the regiments organized in Massachusetts, he might rest satisfied; but that he was unwilling to sanction a settlement which did not embrace all the colored troops. The debate extended into the next day, when Mr. Sumner remarked:

I STATED last night that in my opinion this report undertook to conclude something, but did not conclude it. On further consideration, I am satisfied that I was not much mistaken. It is a conclusion in which noth

ing is concluded. I may say, too, that it is not entirely creditable to Congress, and, so far as I now accept the result, it will be with much reluctance. It would have better become Congress to recognize a solemn obligation toward those now baring their breasts for us in battle, and falling on the ramparts of the enemy, rather than question their title to pay as soldiers, which I believe as strong for them as for any white soldiers. I regret sincerely that their title has not been positively recognized in the text of a statute; but, after effort in both branches, and the appointment of several committees of conference, such recognition has failed. I despair of obtaining it, at least on the present bill. On that account I am induced to look critically at the proposition before us, to see whether this affords any measure of justice. In one sense it affords nothing; and I believe the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL], who was on the last committee, will not differ from me on that point; but it does distinctly and unequivocally refer the question to the judgment of the Attorney-General of the United States. Substantially Congress agrees to take his opinion. He has already given it. I have it in my hand, in a communication dated April 23, 1864, on a case submitted by the President.

6

"I do not know that any rule of law, constitutional or statutory, ever prohibited the acceptance, organization, and muster of persons of African descent' into the military service of the United States as enlisted men or volunteers. But whatever doubt might have existed on the subject had been fully resolved before this order was issued, by the 11th section of the Act of July 17, 1862, chap. 195, which authorized the President to employ as many persons of African descent as he might deem necessary and proper for the sup

pression of the Rebellion, and for that purpose to organize and use them in such manner as he might judge best for the public welfare."

And then again he says:

"I have already said that I knew of no provision of law, constitutional or statutory, which prohibited the acceptance of persons of African descent into the military service of the United States; and if they could be lawfully accepted as private soldiers, so also might they be lawfully accepted as commissioned officers, if otherwise qualified therefor. But the express power conferred on the President by the 11th section of the Act of July 17, 1862, chap. 195, before cited, to employ this class of persons for the suppression of the Rebellion as he may judge best for the public welfare, furnishes all needed sanction of law to the employment of a colored chaplain for a volunteer regiment of his own race.

By the report before the Senate, it is declared as follows: "And the Attorney-General is hereby authorized to determine any question of law arising under this provision." In the full confidence that we shall at last, through the Attorney-General, obtain that justice which Congress has denied, I consent to give my vote for the report.

The report was concurred in.2 The Attorney-General, Mr. Bates, as Mr. Sumner anticipated, affirmed the equal rights of the colored soldiers.3

1 Opinions of the Attorneys-General, Vol. XI. pp. 38-40.

2 See Acts of 38th Cong. 1st Sess., Ch. 124, Sec. 4: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 129.

3 Opinions of the Attorneys-General, Vol. XI. p. 53, July 14, 1864.