ing is concluded. I may say, too, that it is not entirely creditable to Congress, and, so far as I now accept the result, it will be with much reluctance. It would have better become Congress to recognize a solemn obligation toward those now baring their breasts for us in battle, and falling on the ramparts of the enemy, rather than question their title to pay as soldiers, which I believe as strong for them as for any white soldiers. I regret sincerely that their title has not been positively recognized in the text of a statute; but, after effort in both branches, and the appointment of several committees of conference, such recognition has failed. I despair of obtaining it, at least on the present bill. On that account. I am induced to look critically at the proposition before us, to see whether this affords any measure of justice. In one sense it affords nothing; and I believe the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL], who was on the last committee, will not differ from me on that point; but it does distinctly and unequivocally refer the question to the judgment of the Attorney-General of the United States. Substantially Congress agrees to take his opinion. He has already given it. I have it in my hand, in a communication dated April 23, 1864, on a case submitted by the President.

6

"I do not know that any rule of law, constitutional or statutory, ever prohibited the acceptance, organization, and muster of persons of African descent' into the military service of the United States as enlisted men or volunteers. But whatever doubt might have existed on the subject had been fully resolved before this order was issued, by the 11th section of the Act of July 17, 1862, chap. 195, which authorized the President to employ as many persons of African descent as he might deem necessary and proper for the sup

pression of the Rebellion, and for that purpose to organize and use them in such manner as he might judge best for the public welfare."

And then again he says:

"I have already said that I knew of no provision of law, constitutional or statutory, which prohibited the acceptance of persons of African descent into the military service of the United States; and if they could be lawfully accepted as private soldiers, so also might they be lawfully accepted as commissioned officers, if otherwise qualified therefor. But the express power conferred on the President by the 11th section of the Act of July 17, 1862, chap. 195, before cited, to employ this class of persons for the suppression of the Rebellion as he may judge best for the public welfare, furnishes all needed sanction of law to the employment of a colored chaplain for a volunteer regiment of his own race."1

By the report before the Senate, it is declared as follows: "And the Attorney-General is hereby authorized to determine any question of law arising under this provision." In the full confidence that we shall at last, through the Attorney-General, obtain that justice which Congress has denied, I consent to give my vote for the report.

The report was concurred in.2 The Attorney-General, Mr. Bates, as Mr. Sumner anticipated, affirmed the equal rights of the colored soldiers.3

1 Opinions of the Attorneys-General, Vol. XI. pp. 38-40.

2 See Acts of 38th Cong. 1st Sess., Ch. 124, Sec. 4: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIII. p. 129.

3 Opinions of the Attorneys-General, Vol. XI. p. 53, July 14, 1864.

OPENING OF THE STREET-CARS TO COLORED

PERSONS.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON VARIOUS PROPOSITIONS, FEBRUARY 10, MARCH 17, June 21, 1864.

THE opening of the street-cars in Washington constitutes a special chapter of effort, which, beyond its local influence, was important as an example to the country.

February 27, 1863, the Senate having under consideration the bill to authorize the Alexandria and Washington Railroad Company to extend their road across the Potomac River and through the city of Washington to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad station, Mr. Sumner moved an amendment in the following words:

"And provided, also, That no person shall be excluded from the cars on account of color."

In making this motion, he called attention to what seemed to him a new illustration of the barbarism of Slavery. An aged colored person had been excluded from the cars and dropped in the mud. He thought the incident discreditable, and that it was the duty of Congress to interfere. The following dialogue then ensued.

MR. HOWE (of Wisconsin). I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts, as a question of law, whether, if this railroad company, being common carriers, should drop any person or refuse to carry any person who offered them their fare, they would not be liable as the law now stands, without any express enactment?

MR. SUMNER. If you ask me the question as a lawyer, I should say they would be liable; but the experience here, as I believe, is, that this liability is not recognized. The Senator knows well, that, under the influence of Slavery, human rights are disregarded, and those principles of law which he recognizes are set aside. Therefore it becomes the duty of Congress to interfere and specially declare them.

MR. HOWE. Would the effect of the amendment be any more than a reenactment of the existing law?

MR. SUMNER. That was said of the Wilmot Proviso, as the Senator will remember.

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted, Yeas 19, Nays 18; so the amendment was agreed to. It was concurred in by the House, and approved by the President, March 3, 1863.

This provision, though applicable to a single road, seemed to decide the principle. But it was not so regarded by the other railroads in Washington, which continued to exclude colored persons, often under painful circumstances.

February 10, 1864, Mr. Sumner called attention to this subject by the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be directed to consider the expediency of further providing by law against the exclusion of colored persons from the equal enjoyment of all railroad privileges in the District of Columbia."

Mr. Sumner explained the resolution.

R. PRESIDENT,- It is necessary that I should

MR. call attention to a recent outrage which has oc

curred in this District. I do it with great hesitation. At one moment I was inclined to keep silence, believing that the good name of our country required silence; but since it has already found its way into the journals, I cannot doubt that it ought to find its way into this Chamber.

An officer of the United States, with the commission of Major, with the national uniform, has been pushed from a car on Pennsylvania Avenue for no other offence than that he was black. Now, Sir, I desire to say openly that we had better give up railroads in the national capital, if we cannot have them without such an outrage upon humanity, and upon the national character. An incident like that, Sir, is worse at this moment than defeat in battle. It makes enemies for our cause abroad, and sows distrust. I hope, therefore, that the Com

mittee on the District of Columbia, I know the disposition of my honorable friend, the Chairman of that Committee, in the bills we are to consider relative to the railroads in this District, will take care that such safeguards are established as will prevent the repetition of any such wrong.

In reply to Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Sumner spoke again.

MR. PRESIDENT, I am sure that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HENDRICKS] is mistaken in regard to the provision for colored people. There may be here and there, now and then, once in a long interval of time, a car which colored people may enter; but any person traversing the avenue will see that those cars appear very rarely; and if any person takes the trouble to acquaint himself with the actual condition of things, he will learn that there are great abuses and hardships, particularly among women, growing out of this outrage. I use plain language, Sir, for it is an outrage. It is a disgrace to this city, and a disgrace also to the National Government, which permits it under its eyes. It is a mere offshoot of the Slavery which, happily, we have banished from Washington.

Now go back to the facts on which I predicated my motion. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GRIMES] has referred to the colored officer. I have in my hand his letter, addressed to his military superior, making a report of the case, and, as it is very brief, I will read it.

66
"SIR,

"WASHINGTON, D. C., February 1, 1864.

I have the honor to report that I have been obstructed in getting to the Court this morning by the con