If

rights can pass, so also can the present measure. it be practical to assert these rights on one bill, it is equally practical to assert them on another, where such assertion is germane. It only remains that Senators should stand firm.

For myself, I will not sanction injustice; nor will I miss any opportunity of asserting the rights of an oppressed race. I may be alone; but, to the extent of my powers, I mean to be right.

Mr. Morrill appealed to Mr. Sumner to withdraw his opposition, saying: "Now, as a question of practical statesmanship, I submit to my honorable friend whether it is not the part of wisdom to say we will do this now and we will consider the other question when it comes up." Mr. Harlan moved to amend by adding, "who have borne arms in the military service of the United States, and have been honorably discharged therefrom." This amendment, limiting Mr. Sumner's proposition, was agreed to, - Yeas 26, Nays 12.

May 28th, Mr. Sumner spoke again, and adduced the details of the recent outrage in Tennessee, saying, in conclusion:

WE all feel, Sir, the brutality of this act. It was done by a white man on the person of a colored woman. Would he have been the author of such a brutality, had the woman been white? No; because she was black, he thus insulted human nature, and performed an act never to be read without a blush that he is a member of the human family. And how are we to discountenance such acts? Is it by keeping alive this odious discrimination of color, by imparting to it the sanction of law, by investing it with the authority of this Chamber? I appeal to you, Senators, as men of humanity, do not continue a discrimination, which, proceeding from this Chamber, must exercise a far-reaching influence. It is not simply the question of a few voters more or less in the District, but it is a question of human rights

everywhere throughout this land, involving the national character and its good name forevermore.

Again, in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Mr. Sumner said:

BUT the Senator thinks that I am not logical, because I quote an outrage in Tennessee having its origin in the prejudice of color, and insist that here in this Chamber we shall not found legislation on a prejudice of color. Sir, I submit the question to the judgment of the Senate: Am I illogical, or is the Senator so? I insist, Sir, that you cannot sanction injustice here, especially you cannot sanction a prejudice founded on color, without quickening that prejudice, and sustaining it, wherever it now unhappily exists throughout our whole country.

At the next stage of the joint resolution, the question recurred on concurring with the amendment in Committee of the Whole:

"Prorided, That there shall be no exclusion of any persons from the register, on account of color, who have borne arms in the military service of the United States, and have been honorably discharged therefrom."

And it was rejected,

was then passed.

Yeas 18, Nays 20. The joint resolution

And so this second battle for colored suffrage was lost.

VOTE OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS NECESSARY TO

READMISSION OF REBEL STATES.

RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, MAY 27, 1864.

THE Senate having under consideration the credentials of certain claimants as Senators from Arkansas, Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution:

RESOL

ESOLVED, That a State pretending to secede from the Union, and battling against the National Government to maintain this pretension, must be regarded as a Rebel State, subject to military occupation, and without title to representation on this floor, until it has been readmitted by a vote of both Houses of Congress; and the Senate will decline to entertain any application from any such Rebel State, until after such vote of both Houses of Congress.

June 13th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, at the same time with a joint resolution by Mr. Lane, of Kansas, recognizing the existing government of Arkansas, and also the credentials of the claimants as Senators.

June 27th, Mr. Trumbull from the Committee reported adversely on all these references.

The requirement of this resolution was affirmed by the Senate, when it adopted the amendment of Mr. Gratz Brown to the Reconstruction Bill of the House, July 1st,1 and it became a corner-stone of Reconstruction.

1 Post, Vol. IX. pp. 47, 48.

NO TAX ON BOOKS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENT OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE BILL, JUNE 2 AND 6, 1864.

HE Senator from New York [Mr. MORGAN] has pro

TH

posed the exemption of a class of hospitals. I am in favor of his proposition. It is not now, however, under discussion. In similar spirit I move to strike out, on the one hundred and thirty-fifth page, lines two hundred and twelve, two hundred and thirteen, and two hundred and fourteen, as follows:

"On all printed books, magazines, pamphlets, reviews, and all other similar printed publications, except newspapers, a duty of five per cent ad valorem."

I make one remark on this tax. We do not tax wheat or corn, because they are the staff of life. In my judgment, a tax on books is less defensible than a tax on wheat or on corn. I believe books are the staff of life; and I believe that our country would do itself honor, if at this moment, when imposing a heavy tax upon all things, it deliberately exempted books. The tax proposed is applicable to all books,-books for family. reading, for the library, and also for the school. All that we can get from the tax will be very small indeed. It will not add sensibly to the Treasury, but it will impose a burden upon knowledge. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will strike the words out.

The motion was rejected.

At the next stage of the bill Mr. Sumner renewed his motion to strike out the tax on books, and then said :

MR. PRESIDENT, — I am sorry to occupy the attention of the Senate, even for a moment, especially at this late stage of a protracted debate. But I feel that the question which I have presented is not adequately appreciated. I venture to say, that, in point of principle, few questions of equal importance have arisen on this bill.

The tax on books is peculiar, and, so far as I know, without precedent in other countries. In England paper has been taxed, but books not; here paper is to be taxed, and books too. For instance, there is to be a tax of three per cent on paper, and then five per cent additional on books, making a sum-total of eight per cent on books.

The tax of three per cent on paper seems contrary to sound policy. But the additional tax of five per cent on books is more indefensible still. I have already likened it to a tax on wheat or flour or bread, which you do not think of imposing. More than either of these is a book "the staff of life." It may be likened also to a tax on the light of day, like the English window-tax, which you do not think of imposing. Better shut out the light of day than the light of books.

The book in some cases may be a luxury, but in most cases it is a necessary, while always the handmaid of civilization. It is for all ages and all conditions, — for young and old, for rich and poor, for the family circle as well as the library,-but it is especially for the school. In all these places you will enter and demand eight per cent on every book. Every book, if it had a voice, would repel the demand.

Why not be instructed by the example of England,