PRIZE-MONEY AND ITS POLICY.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JUNE 30, 1862.

THE pending bill, providing that property taken by the Rebels and then retaken under national authority should be restored to the former loyal owner without salvage, was opposed by Mr. Grimes. Mr. Sumner said:

I

TAKE it that the policy of prize-money is always open to question. It has been handed down from other generations, but I cannot doubt, that, in proportion as nations advance in civilization and refinement, it is more and more drawn into doubt.

MR. GRIMES. I will ask the Senator, whether, under the law as it now exists, our officers and sailors have not certain vested rights? This bill is retrospective, as well as prospective.

Sev

MR. SUMNER. But these vested rights, according to existing law, are acquired in war with foreign enemies. And here is the precise point of principle. Certain property of fellow-citizens is taken, not by foreign enemies, but by rebels, and afterwards it is retaken. eral vessels are in this predicament. Even if the recapture were from a foreign enemy, English and American statutes treat it as a case of salvage, and not of prize. But the claim now made involves nothing less than the extension of the ancient rule of war to a new class. I

am against such extension. I would have no amplification of such a rule.

I am disposed to go still further, and to reconsider the whole policy of prize-money in any case. Even if not ready for this larger question, the Senate will not hesitate to apply the limitation now proposed. Besides the hardship of prize-money at the expense of our own fellow-citizens, there is the uncivilized character of the whole system, which should make us pause.

THE RANK OF ADMIRAL.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO ESTABLISH THE GRADES OF NAVY OFFICERS, JULY 2, 1862.

THE bill under consideration was "to establish and equalize the grades of line officers of the United States Navy." By this bill the rank of Admiral was established in the national navy. Mr. Hale moved to reduce the pay of admirals from five thousand seven hundred and eighteen to five thousand dollars.

Mr. Sumner said:

I

HOPE the amendment will prevail. For years we have been asked to make admirals. Congress has refused, partly, perhaps, from motives of economy, and partly, also, from hesitation to create officers with that rank and title.

Now, Sir, I am willing, considering the increase of our navy and the exigency of the public service at this time, to create officers with that rank and title. So doing, we confer honor and consideration, we bestow what officers, military and naval, naturally covet. Wherever they go, they will be addressed as Admiral; and, with naval men, that is much. Sir, I believe it more than money. But, while bestowing rank, I hesitate to increase emolument largely, particularly at this moment of our history. It costs nothing to confer rank; but it will be most expensive to the Treasury, if we enter upon a new scale of pay. Therefore I follow the Senator from New

Hampshire in his proposition to reduce the salary. Create the admirals, - bestow this new title, this consideration, this introduction wherever the admiral goes, this equality, if you please, with the admirals of other nations and other fleets; but do not undertake to vie with those nations in salaries. To me it seems unwise.

The amendment was agreed to.

TESTIMONY OF COLORED PERSONS IN THE COURTS

OF THE UNITED STATES.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO TWO DIFFERENT BILLS, ONE RELATING TO THE JUDICIARY, AND THE OTHER TO THE COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES, JULY 3 AND 15, 1862.

THE Senate having under consideration a bill "relating to the Judiciary," in which provision was made for proceedings "in the courts of the United States," Mr. Sumner made another attempt to overthrow the rule excluding colored witnesses by the following amendment : — "And there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color." This was rejected, Yeas 14, Nays 21.

At the next stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner said: :-

MR.

R. PRESIDENT,- This bill relates to the national judiciary. The Senate is making rules for the courts of the United States, and now by its vote sanctions the rule that a witness who happens to have a color different from ours is incompetent to testify, he cannot be heard in court. The practical effect of such exclusion is, that any outrage by a white man on a colored person, if no other white person is present, must go unpunished; and the Senate of the United States refuses to interfere against this cruelty. I must say, Sir, that I lose my interest in the bill, when it is associated with such wickedness, for such I must call it. If there is any outrage at this moment in the form of law, and actually within our reach, it is what I now hold.