thing from repudiating a proposition against human liberty.

MR. FESSENDEN. When the question is put to the Senator, what he would have thought, if the thirteen had repudiated it, he says that is a very different thing, being in favor of liberty.

MR. SUMNER. Very well, does not the Senator say the same?

MR. FESSENDEN. I say there is no difference, where a man promises to do a thing with a full understanding; he has no right to violate it, whether it is one way or the other.

MR. SUMNER. The question is, whether the man does promise. There is the point.

MR. FESSENDEN. Very well, then, my reply is, that, if there was no promise in the case of the thirteen to support the decision, there is no promise here; if there was a promise in the case of the thirteen to be bound by it and support it, as they did, then there was a promise here. The Senator may make the distinction, if he can.

MR. SUMNER. I will make the distinction clear. I . have never said there was a promise in the case of the thirteen, as I insist there was no promise in the recent caucus. Had the Senator felt it his duty to come into the Senate and oppose the report, I should have been pained to find him on the side of wrong; but I am not ready to say that he would have been constrained by the caucus. But, plainly, the repudiation of a caucus vote for Human Rights is to be judged differently from the repudiation of a caucus vote adverse to Human Rights, assuming, as I do, that there is no promise in either case.

Sir, I am tired of this talk of honor, in connection with the public business. This is too solemn; we are under too great responsibilities. Every Senator acts` with honor. The Senator from Maine acts with honor, when he seeks to impose a rule which I think offensive to the spirit of the Constitution. The Senator from Illinois acts with honor, when he says that he will not be bound by the vote of this caucus in a particular case. Other Senators act with honor, when they refuse to be bound by the resolution in any of its terms. Every Senator acts with honor. He only acts otherwise who makes injurious imputations upon his associates.

Yes, Sir, let us have this caucus code. If it is to be administered with such severity, let us know it in advance, its terms and its conditions, what extent of dishonor is to be visited upon those who do not adopt the caucus conclusions, and what extent of honor upon those who so steadfastly and violently carry them forward. Let us have the code. I believe, Sir, that the true code for the Senate is found in the National Constitution, in the rules of this body, and in the sentiments of right and wrong which animate every honest soul; and I believe that no advantage can be taken of any Senator by reminding him that he forbore at a particular moment to register his objection, just as if we were all there on trial, to be saved by speaking promptly. It was no such debate; we were there with friends and brothers, each respecting the sensibilities and convictions of his associates, and, by interchange of opinions, seeking harmony, but not submitting to a yoke.

After further remarks from Mr. Fessenden and Mr. Tipton, the substitute of Mr. Ross was rejected, - Yeas 15, Nays 19. The resolution was then adopted, Yeas 23, Nays 9.

July 10th, Mr. Sumner called up the following, introduced by him July 8th:

"Resolved, That the resolution of the Senate, adopted the 5th of July last, limiting the business of the Senate, be, and hereby is, rescinded."

In remarks that followed, he showed the character of the proceedings in the Twenty-Seventh Congress, which had been adduced as a precedent for the limitation of business. In reply to Mr. Fessenden,

he said :

I HAVE simply done my duty, in calling attention to the past precedent which had been introduced into the discussion. When it was introduced by the Senator from Maine, I had no means of replying to it. I had not the Journal or the Globe with me, and I supposed, from the statement of the Senator, that it was a resolution practically adopted in this Chamber. I was not aware of what followed. I was not aware of the extent to which the whole spirit of the proposition was denounced. Nor was I aware that its original mover, Mr. Clay, was obliged to abandon his proposition, — that he magnanimously, justly, and considerately abandoned it. That is the true precedent in this body; and that is the precedent which, I submit, it would be better for the Senate to follow. Nothing, surely, could be lost by following it.

The resolution adopted by the Senate on Friday, while it remains, will only be of evil example. If hereafter quoted as a precedent, it may be at last for some purpose of oppression, when Senators will not all be as just as those I now have the honor of addressing. It may be seized then as an engine of tyranny. For one, Sir, I would leave no such weapon in this Chamber to be grasped hereafter by any hand.

The Senate refused to take up the resolution.

July 13th, Mr. Sumner made another attempt by the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the rule of the Senate limiting business be suspended, so far as to allow the consideration of the bill (S. No. 124) to enforce the several provisions of the Constitution abolishing Slavery, declaring the immunities of citizens, and guarantying a republican form of government by securing the elective franchise to colored citizens."

But he was not able to obtain a vote upon it, and the important bill was left on the table.

RECONSTRUCTION ONCE MORE.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS; OFFICERS AND SENATORS WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE THIRD RECONSTRUCTION BILL, JULY 11 AND 13, 1867.

JULY 8th, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported a "Bill to give effect to an Act entitled 'An Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States,' passed March 2, 1867." This was the third Reconstruction measure of the present year. It was debated for several days. July 11th, Mr. Sumner said:

:

R. PRESIDENT,- Before offering amendments which I have on my table, I desire to call attention briefly to the character of this bill.

The subject of Reconstruction has been before Congress for many years. It first appeared in the Senate. as a proposition of my own, as long ago as February, 1862. From that time it has been constantly present. If at any moment Congress has erred, it has been from inaction, and not from action. And now the same danger is imminent.

Mark, if you please, the stages. At every step there has been battle. Nothing could be proposed which was not opposed, often with feeling, sometimes even with