doubt, that, under the Constitution, and particularly since the recent legislation, the discrimination adverse to colored persons is void; but practically it is not so regarded. I submit, therefore, that it is proper in Congress to remove this grievance.

Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, objected to its consideration, when Mr. Sumner gave notice that he should endeavor to call it up the next day. He gave further notice, that, if any objection were made, he should move to suspend the rule limiting business so far as to allow this bill to be considered.

July 17th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, then said:

"The Senator from Massachusetts was the author of the proposition that the colored people should vote. He made the commencement of that policy with the District of Columbia. He now claims- and I believe his party friends have come up to his position-that that is to be made universal throughout the States. I suppose he will be frank enough to inform us whether it is intended as the commencement of the policy that negroes shall be allowed to become office-holders, to hold both Federal and State offices throughout the country, - whether he regards this as the inauguration of that policy. I suppose he does, from the fact that he expressed with a great deal of warmth, the other day, the desire that he might see colored Senators here in a very short time. If we are to regard it as the inauguration of the policy, it is well enough to know it."

Without any reply, Mr. Sumner asked for a vote, when the bill was passed, Yeas 25, Nays 5.

July 18th, in the other House, the bill was reported by Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, from the Judiciary Committee, with the following substitute, intended to avoid in legislation the repetition of the phrase 66 race or color."

"The word 'white,' wherever it occurs in the laws relating to the District of Columbia or in the charter or ordinances of the city of Washington or Georgetown, and operates as a limitation on the right of any elector of said District or either of said cities to hold any office or to be selected and to serve as a juror, be and the same is hereby repealed; and it shall be unlawful for any person or officer to enforce or attempt to enforce said limitation after the passage of this Act."

The substitute was adopted, and the bill thus amended passed, Yeas 90, Nays 20.

July 19th, the Senate concurred in the amendment, and, on motion of Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, further amended the bill by an additional section authorizing "the necessary grand and petit jurors for the June term of the Criminal Court for the year 1867." This amendment, though not relating to Equal Rights, was concurred in by the House.

July 20th, the bill was duly enrolled and transmitted to the President for his signature, but was not returned by him before the adjournment, the same day, so that it failed to become a law. Mr. Sumner complained that Senators "proposed to go home and leave Equal Rights in the District without the protection we owe them."

November 21st, on the first day of the meeting of Congress after the adjournment, Mr. Sumner introduced the same bill as it had passed both Houses, and asked the Senate to proceed with it at once; but this was prevented by the objection of Mr. Davis, of Kentucky. Mr. Sumner forbore calling it up for eleven consecutive days of the session, to see if within that time it would be returned to Congress, with or without objections. It was not returned, and on application at the Department of State it was ascertained that it had not been received there.

December 5th, the bill was taken up, on motion of Mr. Sumner, discussed, and again passed, - Yeas 32, Nays 8.

December 9th, it passed the House, Yeas 104, Nays 39.

December 11th it was presented to the President.

December 20th, Congress adjourned for the holidays.

The President, by a message, January 24, 1868, in reply to an inquiry of the Senate, stated that it was presented for his approval December 11, 1867, but that "Congress by their adjournment [ December 20th] prevented the return of the bill within the time prescribed by the Constitution."

January 7th, Mr. Sumner a third time introduced the same bill. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, thought "we ought to consider whether it is not already a law." Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said that " this bill has become a law, if it has not been returned with a veto." Under these circumstances, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee to consider its true condition and the question of further legisla tion.

February 11, 1869, the bill being once more before the Senate, Mr. Sumner moved it again, as appears by the following passage.

MR. SUMNER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 228.

MR. DRAKE [of Missouri]. What is it?

MR. SUMNER. A bill for the further security of Equal Rights in the District of Columbia. I will make one minute's explanation, and then the Senate will see that it ought to be passed. This bill has already twice passed both Houses of Congress, but immediately before recesses, and it has fallen from the President failing to return it with his veto, and from the unsettled condition of the practice or law in such cases.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. MORGAN, of New York, in the chair]. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate to consider the bill at this time.

MR. DRAKE. I appeal to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts on behalf of a poor and most worthy woman

MR. SUMNER. Why should the Senator make that appeal to me? I appeal on behalf of all the colored people in this District, who ask the passage of this bill.

MR. CONKLING [of New York]. Whether the objection should be made or not depends perhaps upon this, which I should like to inquire: Has not this bill not only passed twice, I think three times, but has it not become a law certainly once?

MR. SUMNER. It has not become a law; at least, it has not found place in the statute-book, and the courts have declined to recognize it as law. Under the circumstances, it has seemed the best and the shortest way for Congress to pass it again, so as to remove all doubt.

The bill passed the Senate without a division, and, March 2d, it again passed the other House without a division. Again it failed to receive the signature of the President, nor was it returned with his objections.

March 6th, at the opening of a new Congress, with a new President, Mr. Sumner introduced it again, and asked unanimous consent to proceed with its consideration; but Mr. Vickers, of Maryland, objected.

March 8th, it passed the Senate without a division; March 15th, passed the other House, Yeas 111, Nays 46; March 18th, was approved by the President, and so at last became a law.1

NATURALIZATION WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF

RACE OR COLOR.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO STRIKE OUT THE WORD "WHITE" IN THE NATURALIZATION LAWS, JULY 19, 1867.

JULY 19th, Mr. Sumner introduced a bill to amend the several Acts of Congress relating to Naturalization, by striking out the word 'white," and he asked unanimous consent of the Senate to consider the bill at once. Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, objected. Mr. Sum

66

ner then said:
:-

I

HOPE the Senator will not object. I have re

ceived a letter from Norfolk, calling attention to the case of a colored person there, an inhabitant for more than twenty-five years, but unable to obtain naturalization because of the words of color in our naturalization laws. It is only reasonable that we should put an end to that grievance. In short, I would punch the word "white" out of the statute-book, wherever it appears. If the Senator from Vermont is disposed to keep it in, then I can understand that he would object to the bill.

MR. EDMUNDS. I am not disposed to keep it in

MR. SUMNER. I did not suppose the Senator was.

MR. EDMUNDS. My punch is not quite so case-hardened as that of my friend.

And he insisted upon its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, "so that there may be that examination which will make the bill perfect, if it is not now perfect, to answer the end that my friend from Massachusetts and myself both want to reach." The bill was referred accordingly.

February 17, 1869, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, reported the bill from the Committee adversely. In the few remaining days of the session Mr. Sumner was unable to call it up.