FEMALE SUFFRAGE, AND AN EDUCATIONAL TEST OF MALE SUFFRAGE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL CONFERRING SUFFRAGE WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DECEMBER 13, 1866.

DECEMBER 10th, the Suffrage Bill for the District of Columbia, considered in the former session of Congress,1 was again taken up for consideration, when Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend it by striking out the word "male," so that there should be no limitation of sex. December 12th, after debate, this motion was rejected, -Yeas 9, Nays 37. The Senators voting in the affirmative were Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, Mr. Nesmith, of Oregon, Mr. Patterson, of Tennessee, Mr. Riddle, of Delaware, and Mr. Wade, of Ohio.

The following amendment was then moved by Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut:

"Provided, That no person who has not heretofore voted in this District shall be permitted to vote, unless he shall be able, at the time of offering to vote, to read, and also to write his own name."

December 13th, at this stage of the debate, Mr. Sumner said:

MR.

R. PRESIDENT, - I have already voted against the motion to strike out the word "male," and I shall vote against the pending proposition to fix an educational test. In each case I am governed by the same consideration.

1 Ante, Vol. X. pp. 5-7.

In voting against striking out the word "male,” I did not intend to express any opinion on the question, which has at last found its way into the Senate Chamber, whether women shall be invested with the elective franchise. That question I leave untouched, contenting myself with the remark, that it is obviously the great question of the future, at least one of the great questions, which will be easily settled, whenever the women in any considerable proportion insist that it shall be settled. And so, in voting against an educational test, I do not mean to say that under other circumstances such test may not be proper. But I am against it now.

The present bill is for the benefit of the colored race in the District of Columbia. It completes Emancipation by Enfranchisement. It entitles all to vote without distinction of color. The courts and the rail-cars of the District, even the galleries of Congress, have been opened. The ballot-box must be opened also. Such is my sense not only of the importance, but of the necessity of this measure, so essential does it appear to me for the establishment of peace, security, and reconciliation, which I so earnestly covet, that I am unwilling to see it clogged, burdened, or embarrassed by anything else. I wish to vote on it alone. Therefore, whatever the merits of other questions, I have no difficulty in putting them aside until this is settled.

The bill for Impartial Suffrage in the District of Columbia concerns directly some twenty thousand colored persons, whom it will lift to the adamantine platform of Equal Rights. If regarded simply in its influence on the District, it would be difficult to exaggerate its value; but when regarded as an example to the whole

VOL. XI.

3

D

country, under the sanction of Congress, its value is infinite. In the latter character it becomes a pillar of fire to illumine the footsteps of millions. What we do here will be done in the disorganized States. Therefore we must be careful that what we do here is best for the disorganized States.

If the bill could be confined in influence to the District, I should have little objection to an educational test as an experiment. But it cannot be limited to any narrow sphere. Practically, it takes the whole country into its horizon. We must, therefore, act for the whole country. This is the exigency of the pres

ent moment.

Now to my mind nothing is clearer than the present necessity of suffrage for all colored persons in the disorganized States. It will not be enough, if you give it to those who read and write; you will not in this way acquire the voting force needed there for the protection of Unionists, whether white or black. You will not secure the new allies essential to the national cause. As you once needed the muskets of blacks, so now you need their votes, and to such extent that you can act with little reference to theory. You are bound by the necessity of the case. Therefore, when asked to open suffrage to women, or when asked to establish an educational standard for our colored fellow-citizens, I cannot, on the present bill, simply because the controlling necessity under which we act will not allow it. By a singular Providence, we are constrained to this measure of Enfranchisement for the sake of peace, security, and reconciliation, so that loyal persons, white or black, may be protected, and that the Republic may live. Here, in the national capital, we begin the real work of Recon

struction, by which the Union will be consolidated for

ever.

The amendment of Mr. Dixon was rejected, Yeas 11, Nays 34. The Senators voting in the affirmative were Mr. Anthony, Mr. Buckalew, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Fogg, Mr. Foster, Mr. Hendricks, Mr. Nesmith, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Riddle, and Mr. Willey.

The bill then passed the Senate, Yeas 32, Nays 13. On the next day it passed the other House, and, being vetoed by President Johnson, it passed both Houses by a two-thirds vote, so that it became a law.1

1 Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 375.

PROHIBITION OF PEONAGE.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 3, 1867.

JANUARY 3d, in the Senate, Mr. Sumner introduced the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to consider if any further legislation is needed to prevent the enslavement of Indians in New Mexico or any system of peonage there, and especially to prohibit the employment of the army of the United States in the surrender of persons claimed as peons."

Mr. Sumner then called attention to facts showing the necessity of action. He said :

:

I

THINK you will be astonished, when you learn that the evidence is complete, showing in a Territory of the United States the existence of slavery which a proclamation of the President has down to this day been powerless to root out. During the life of President Lincoln, I more than once appealed to him, as head of the Executive, to expel this evil from New Mexico. The result was a proclamation, and also definite orders from the War Department; but, in the face of proclamation and definite orders, the abuse has continued, and, according to official evidence, it seems to have increased.

Mr. Sumner here read from the Report of the Commissioner on Indian Affairs, also from the Report of a Special Agent, containing the correspondence of army officers, including an order from the As