the amendment which is now a part of the national Constitution, differs in the text, as we understand it does, from the proposition as you originally made it. We know that the law for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, as it finally passed, was radically different from your original bill. I have the honor to be,

Very respectfully yours, for God and the race,

Buganin Arnett

Chairman.

TOLEDO, OHIO, DECEMBER 22, 1892.

MY DEAR SIR: The text of the original bill introduced by me in Congress, for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, was as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: "That from and after the passage of this act, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the District of Columbia; and thereafter it shall not be lawful for any person in said District to own or to hold a human being as a slave."

On my motion this short but comprehensive bill was referred to the District of Columbia Committee, of which I was a member, and of which Roscoe Conkling, of New York, was chairman.

The exitement' and unpleasantness which the introduction of this simple bill caused in the District of Columbia Committee, amuses me now, but at that time the opposition was offensive enough, and the conduct of some of the proslavery members, fanatical almost to madness.

Evidently, my purpose could not be misunderstood. I did not propose to recognize the right of man to property in man.

It did not take long to discover that no such bill as I had proposed could be gotten through the District of Columbia Committee, as it was then organized.

I had quietly determined that Congress should not adjourn, if I could prevent it, until after we had-as Mr. Lincoln expressed it - "initiated emancipation at the national capital."

On the threshold, I was confronted with the certainty of defeat, unless I consented to a radical modification of my bill, which I reluctantly did, at the urgent request of Mr. Lincoln, Secretary Chase, Senator Wade and others.

Finally a bill for the "ransom" of all slaves held in the District was prepared by Senator Morrell, of Maine, and myself, with the co-operation of President Lincoln, Governor Chase and others, and passed substantially as reported. An appropriation of one million dollars was agreed upon to pay loyal slave-owners, provided the amount paid should not exceed three hundred dollars for each slave so emancipated.

In my address before the "Ohio Society of New York," you will learn why I consented to "ransom" the slaves by compensating the slave-owners, as provided in the bill agreed upon by the Senate and House Committees, which became a law. I spoke in favor of and voted both in the Committee and in the House, for the bill as reported, and as it passed. My speech in the House may be found in the "Appendix to Congressional Globe for the Second Session of the Thirtyseventh Congress," pages 101-2.

The text of the Thirteenth Amendment, as it finally passed Congress and became part of our national Constitution, reads as follows:

ARTICLE 13.

"SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this ARTICLE by appropriate legislation."

The language of the original, as prepared and introduced by me on the 14th day of December, 1863, was the same as the above, except five words. On my motion, the amendment which I proposed was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I was not a member.

The phraseology of section one, at the end, was changed in one word, and the words "their jurisdiction" used, instead of "ITS jurisdiction," as I had it.

The granting clause in my original proposition read: "SECTION 2. THE Congress shall have power to enforce this ARTICLE, by LAW DULY ENACTED."

As it finally passed, it reads as follows:

"SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this ARTICLE by APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION.”

It will be observed, that the first section had one word substituted for another, and that section two was materially improved by striking out the four words in small capitals in my proposition, and substituting two better words in their place, at the end of the section.

The five words designated were the only changes made in my original draft of the Thirteenth Amendment, as it now appears in the constitution. In preparing my amendment, I simply followed the suggestions contained in the Ordinance of 1787. I did so, because that Ordinance was familiar to the public, and the language had received a judicial interpretation.

I used substantially the same language a year before, in my original bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

There were some thirty such constitutional amendments, proposing the abolition of slavery in the United States, offered in the Senate and the House, by as many different members, and so far as I remember, all of them, except Mr. Sumner's, were substantially copies (as mine was) of the language of the Ordinance of 1787. Each and all of said proposed amendments, so introduced, either in the Senate or House, were appropriately referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Neither by speech, nor in writing, have I ever said a word for publication, touching the inside history of the passage by Congress either of the bill to "ransom" the slaves in the District of Columbia, or the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery throughout the republic, except what I said in an address before the "Ohio Society of New York," a copy of which I sent your committee. And I must be excused from saying more now. So many noble men were associated with me in the passage of both these important measures, and each did so much to secure their enactment into law, that I have scrupulously refrained from claiming any credit for myself, or designating any member as especially entitled to more credit than another, for their passage by that Congress, fearing I might fail to accord the full credit to which each were entitled.

Every friend of the right, will, I am sure, agree with me, that each man who did his duty in that eventful hour, and voted for these great national measures, is entitled in history to generous recognition and equal commendation, without questioning whether he came to their support first or last.

If any of the Representatives in that Congress, who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment to the national Constitution abolishing slavery, are entitled to more credit than another, it seems to me that the thirteen men in the House, from the then border slave States of Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, are entitled to that honor. As I now look back at their manly acts and votes in favor of the constitutional abolition and prohibition of slavery everywhere beneath our flag, their self-sacrificing heroism rises into the sublime.

Truly yours,

REV. BENJAMIN W. ARNETT, D. D.,

Chairman Publication Committee.

J. M. ASHLEY.

SPEECH

OF HON. J. M. ASHLEY, OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 6, 1865.

ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

AMEND THE CONSTITUTION - IT IS THE WAY TO UNITY AND

PEACE.

MR. ASHLEY said: I desire to call up this morning, pursuant to notice previously given, the motion to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution proposing an amendment of the Constitution in reference to slavery was rejected.

MR. HOLMAN: Does the gentleman call it up for action to-day?

MR. ASHLEY: No, sir; but for discussion, intending to let that discussion run on until the House sees fit to order the main question to be put.

THE SPEAKER: This being private bill day, it requires a majority vote to set aside the consideration of private bills. The consideration of private bills was set aside by a majority vote, and the motion to reconsider was taken up.

MR. ASHLEY: Mr. Speaker, "IF SLAVERY IS NOT WRONG, NOTHING IS WRONG." Thus simply and truthfully hath spoken our worthy Chief Magistrate.

The proposition before us is, whether this universally acknowledged wrong shall be continued or abolished. Shall it receive the sanction of the American Congress by the rejection of this proposition, or shall it be condemned as an intolerable wrong by its adoption?