May 27-Mr. HARLAN moved to amend the May 20-The above report was made by Mr. amendment by making the word "person" read WEBSTER in the House, and agreed to-yeas 102,"persons," and adding the words— Days 26, as follows:

And shall have paid all school taxes and all taxes on personal property properly assessed against him, shall be entitled to vote for mayor, collector, register, members of the board of aldermen and board of common council, and Essessor, and for every officer authorized to be elected at any clection under any act or acts to which this is amend-son-18. atory or supplementary.

Henderson, Hicks, Howe, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana, Latham, McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Turpie, Willey, Wilson of Missouri-18.

March 2-The House concurred in the amendment without debate, under the previous question.

First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

IN SENATE.

NAYS-Messrs. Alley, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cole, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Julian, Kelley, Orlando Kellogg, Knox, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O'Neill, Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John II. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan,

1864, February 10-Mr. SUMNER offered the Smithers, Stevens, Thayer, Upson, Ellihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, following: Woodbridge-76.

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

Which was agreed to-yeas 30, nays 10, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Cowan, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson

-30.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Davis, Harding, Hendricks, Nesmith, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle-10.

And the bill passed the House and was approved by the President.

IN SENATE.

June 21-On a supplement to the charter of the Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company, in Committee of the Whole, Mr. SUMNER moved to insert:

Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any person from any car on account of color.

Which was rejected--yeas 14, nays 16, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Colla-
Conness, Dixon, Foot, Howard, Morgan, Pomeroy,
Sumner, Wade, Wilson-14.
NAYS-Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Foster, Grimes,
Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Riddle, Sauls
bury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Willey-16.

February 24-Mr. WILLEY, from the Commit-mer, tee on the District of Columbia, made this report, and the committee were discharged:

The Committee on the District of Columbia, who were required by resolution of the Senate, passed February 8, 1861, "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," have had the matter thus referred to them under consideration, and beg leave to report:

The act entitled "An act to incorporate the Washington and Georgetown Railroad Company," approved May 17, 1862, makes no distinction as to passengers over said road on account of the color of the passenger, and that in the opinion of the committee colored persons are entitled to all the privileges of said road which other persons have, and to all the remedies for any denial or breach of such privileges which belong to any person.

The committee therefore ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the premises.

March 17-The Senate considered the bill to incorporate the Metropolitan Railroad Company, in the District of Columbia, the pending question being an amendment, offered by Mr. SUMNER, to add to the fourteenth section the words:

Provided, That there shall be no regulation excluding any person from any car on account of color.

Which was agreed to-yeas 19, nays 17, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson-19.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Davis, Doolittle, Harding, Harris, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey-17.

The bill then passed the Senate.

Same day, in the Senate, Mr. SUMNER renewed the amendment, which was agreed to—yeas 17, nays 16:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Clark, Conness, Dixon, Foot, Hale, Harlan, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Wade, Wilson-17.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Doolittle, Foster, Grimes, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey-16.

The bill then passed the Senate-yeas 23, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury.) nays 8, (Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Hale,

tabled the report of the Committee of ConferJune 29-The bill fell, the House having ence on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on it.

COLORED PERSONS AS WITNESSES. (See App.) Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress. IN SENATE.

Pending the confiscation bill, June 28, 1862, Mr. SUMNER moved these words as an addition to the 14th section:

And in all proceedings under this act there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color.

Which was rejected-yeas 14, nays 25, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Chandler, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, NAY-Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Carlile, Clark, Colla

June 19-The House refused to strike out the Wilkinson, Wilmot-14.

proviso last adopted in the Senate-yeas 62, nays 76, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, Blair, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, William G. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Falen, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Griswold, Harding, Charles M. Harris, Holman, Hutchins, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Kernan, Knapp, Law, Lasear, Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marcy, McDowell, McKinney, Middleton, Wm. H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Nelson, Noble, Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, J. S. Rollins, Ross, Scott, John B. Steele, Stiles, Stuart, Thomas, Wadsworth, Ward, Whaley, Wheeler, Joseph W. White Winfield-62.

mer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Sherman, Simmons, Stark, Ten Eyck, Willey, Wil son of Missouri, Wright-25.

Pending the consideration of the supplement to the emancipation bill for the District of Columbia,

1862, July 7-Mr. SUMNER moved a new section:

That in all the judicial proceedings in the District of Columbia there shall be no exclusion of any witness on aðcount of color.

Which was adopted-yeas 25, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts-25.

NAYS-Messrs. Browning, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, HenderSOD, Kennedy, McDougall, Powell, Rice, Willey, Wright-11. The bill then passed-yeas 29, nays 6, (Messrs. Carlile, Davis, Kennedy, Powell, Wilson, of Missouri, Wright.)

July 9-The bill passed the House-yeas 69, nays 36. There was no separate vote on the above proposition. The NAYS were:

NAYS-Messrs. William Allen, Ancona, Baily, Biddle, Jacob B. Blair, Clements, Cobb, Corning, Cox, Crisfield, Dunlap, English, Fouke, Grider, Harding, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Mallory, Maynard, Menzies, Morris, Nugen, Pendle Perry, Richardson, James S. Rollins, Shiel, John B. Stele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Francis Thomas, Voorhees, Ward, Webster, Wood-36.

Pending the consideration in the Senate of the House bill in relation to the competency of witnesses in trials of equity and admiralty, 1862, July 15-Mr SUMNER offered this proviso to the first section:

Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any witBees on account of color.

Which was rejected-yeas 14, nays 23, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Chandler, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, Pomeroy, Rice, Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson of Massachusetts--14.

Nars-Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Browning, Clark, Cowan, Davis, Doolittle, Foster, Hale, Harris, Henderson, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Saulsbury, Sherman, Simmons, Stark, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Willey, Wilson of Missouri, Wright-23.

First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress. 1864, June 25-Pending the civil appropriation bill, in Committee of the Whole, Mr. SUMNER offered this proviso:

Provided, That in the courts of the United States there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color. Mr BUCKALEW moved to add:

Nor in civil actions because he is a party to or interested in the issue tried.

Which was agreed to; and the amendment as amended was agreed to-yeas 22, nays 16, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Colla-
mer, Conness, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Howard,
Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sprague,
Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson-22.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Harris,
Hendricks, Hicks, Johnson, Nesmith, Powell, Richardson,
Saulsbury, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey-16.
The Senate subsequently concurred in this
amendment-yeas 29, nays 10, as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale,
Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of
Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sherman,
Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson

-29.

NATS-Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Hendricks, Hicks, Nes

IN HOUSE.

June 29-The question being on agreeing to the amendment,

Mr. MALLORY moved to add this proviso to the section amended in the Senate:

Provided, That negro testimony shall only be taken in the United States courts in those States the laws of which authorize such testimony.

Which was rejected-yeas 47, nays 66. The amendment of the Senate was then agreed to-yeas 68, nays 48, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Beaman, Boutwell, Boyd, Broomall, Cobb, Cole, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, F. W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Knox, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear, McBride, McClurg, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O'Neill, Patterson, Perham, Alexander II. Rice, John II. Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, Stevens, Thayer, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Ellihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Win

dom-68.

NAYS-Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Augustus C. Ballwin, Blair, Bliss, Brooks, William G. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Harding, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, William Johnson, Knapp, Le Blond, Mallory, Mar cy, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O'Neill, Pen dleton, Perry, Samuel J. Randall, Robinson, Ross, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Thomas, Tracy, Wadsworth, Ward, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Chil ton A. White, Joseph W. White-48. REPEAL OF LAWS REGULATING THE COASTWISE

SLAVE TRADE.

First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress. 1864, June 25-Mr. SUMNER offered this additional section, the Senate sitting as in Committee of the Whole, pending the consideration of the civil bill:

And be it further enacted, That sections eight and nine of the act entitled "An act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States from and after the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1808," which sections undertake to regu late the coastwise slave trade, are hereby repealed, and the coastwise slave trade prohibited forever.

Which was rejected-yeas 13, nays 20, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Conness, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Wade, Wilson-13.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Harris, Hendricks, Hicks, Howe, Johnson, Mc Dou gall, Nesmith, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle-20.

Same day, in open Senate,

Mr. SUMNER renewed the amendment, which was agreed to-yeas 23, nays 14, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Conness, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson-23.

NAYS-Messrs. Buckalew Carlile, Clark, Hendricks, Hicks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Powell, Rich ardson, Saulsbury, Sherman, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey-14.

The bill passed the Senate-yeas 32, nays 4, mith, Powell, Saulsbury, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey (Messrs. Carlile, Hendricks, Powell, Saulsbury.)

-10.

Before this vote was taken, Mr. SHERMAN Said: "It is due to myself to say in explanation that I voted against and opposed this amendment for the sole ground, as I stated, that it ought not to be put upon this bill. That is my deliberate conviction yet; but as the Senate have by a majority vote decided to put the amendment on the bill in spite of my remonstrances and resistance, I feel bound now to vote according to my conviction on the merits of the proposition."

June 29-The House agreed to the amend ment without a division, after a brief debate.

*Before the vote was taken, Mr. DOOLITTLE said: "I voted against this amendment before on the ground that I did not like to vote for such measures on appropriation Hills; but two or three others have been put on, and if this is to be legislated upon, as I am in favor of the abolition of the coast wise slave trade, I shall vote in the affirmative."

1864, March 14-Mr. DAVIS offered this res-only to armed rebels, who are preying upon you; your olution:

Resolved, That the president of the Senate appoint a committee of three members of the Senate to investigate whether MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT PATTERSON'S PROCLAMAthe said T. W. Higginson had any connection, and if any, what, with the said attempt to rescue the said Burns, and with the killing and murdering of any person having his custody, and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers.

Under these circumstances it seems quite clear that the substantial rights of loyal masters will be best protected by receiving such fugitives, as well as fugitives from disloyal masters, into the service of the United States, and employing them under such organizations and in such occupations as circumstances may suggest or require. Of course a record should be kept showing the name and description of the fugitives, the name and the character, as loyal or disloyal, of the master, and such facts as may be necessary to a correct understanding of the circumstances of each case after tranquillity shall have been restored. Upon the retur of peace, Congress will, doubtless, properly provide for all the persons thus received into the service of the Union, an for just compensation to loyal masters. In this way ony, it would seem, can the duty and safety of the Govern m-ut and the just rights of all be fully reconciled and harnized.

negroes in the batteries, and are preparing to send the wo-
men and children south. The escapes from them are very
numerous, and a quad has come in this morning to my
pickets bringing their women and children. Of course
these cannot be dealt with upon the theory on which I de-
gigned to treat the services of able-bodied men and women
who might come within my lines, and of which I gave you
a detailed account in my last despatch. I am in the ut-
mest doubt what to do with this species of property. Up
to this time I have had come within my lines men and wo
men with their children, entire families, each family be-
longing to the same owner. I have, therefore, determined
to empoy, as I can do very profitably, the able-bodied per-
sons in the party, issuing proper food for the support of
all, and charging against their services the expense of care
and sustenance of the non-laborers, keeping a strict and ac-
curate account as well of the services as of the expendi-n
ture, having the worth of the services and the cost of the
expenditure determined by a board of survey, to be here-
after detailed. I know of no other manner in which to
dispose of this subject and the questions connected there-
with. As a matter of property to the insurgents, it will
be of very great moment, the number that I now have
amounting, as I am informed, to what, in good times,
would be of the value of sixty thousand dollars. Twelve
of these negroes, I am informed, have escaped from the
batteries on Sewall's Point, which, this morning, fired
upon my expedition as it passed by out of range. As a
means of offence therefore in the enemy's hands, these
Degroes, when able-bodied, are of the last importance
Without them the batteries could not have been erected,
at least for many weeks. As a military question, it would
seem to be a measure of necessity to deprive their masters
of their services. How can this be done? As a political
question and a question of humanity, can I receive the
services of a father and mother, and not take the children?
Of the humanitarian aspect I have no doubt. Of the po-
litical one I have no right to judge. I therefore submit
all this to your better judgment, and as the questions have
a political aspect, I have ventured, and I trust I am not
wrong in so doing, to duplicate the parts of my despatch
relating to this subject, and forward them to the Secretary
of War.

*

*

*

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
B. F. BUTLER.

Lieutenant General SCOTT.

SECRETARY CAMERON'S REPLY TO Gen. Butler.
WASHINGTON, August 8, 1861.

You will therefore consider yourself as instructed to gover your future action, in respect to fugitives from service, 1, the principles herein stated, and will report from time t time, and at least twice in each month, your action in e premises to this Department. You will, however, neither authorize nor permit any interference, by the troops under your command, with the servants of peaceful citizens in house or field; nor will you, in any way, encourage such servants to leave the lawful service of their masters; nor will you, except in cases where the public safety may seem to require, prevent the voluntary return of any fugitive, to the service from which he may have escaped. I am, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant, SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War. Maj. Gen. B. F. BUTLER, Commanding Department of Vir ginia, Fortress Monroe.

CONCERNING FUGITIVE SLAVES.

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF WASHINGTON,
WASHINGTON, July 17, 1861.

[General Orders No 33.]

Fugitive slaves will, under no pretext whatever, be permitted to reside or be in any way harbored in the quarters and camps of the troops serving in this Department. Neither will such slaves be allowed to accompany troops on the march.

Commanders of troops will be held responsible for a strict observance of this order.

By command of Brigadier General Mansfield:

THEO. TALBOT, Assistant Adjutant General. GENERAL: The important question of the proper disposiComplaint having been made that slaves were tion to be made of fugitives from service in States in insur-abducted by soldiers going North on the cars, rection against the Federal Government, to which you have the following order was issued: in directed my attention in your letter of July 30, has received my most attentive consideration.

It is the desire of the President that all existing rights, in all the States, be fully respected and maintained. The war now prosecuted on the part of the Federal Governmint is a war for the Union, and for the preservation of all Constitutional rights of States, and the citizens of the States, in the Union. Hence no question can arise as to fugitives from service within the States and Territories in which the authority of the Union is fully acknowledged. The ordinary forms of judicial proceeding, which must be respected by military and civil authorities alike, will suffice for the enforcement of all legal claims. But in States wholly or partially under insurrectionary control, where the laws of the United States are so far opposed and resisted that they cannot be effectually enforced, it is obvious that rights dependent on the execution of those laws must, temporarily, fail; and it is equally obvious that rights dependent on the laws of the States within which military operations are conducted must be necessarily subordinated to the litary exigencies created by the insurrection, if not wholly forfeited by the treasonable conduct of parties claiming them. To this general rule rights to services can form no exception.

The act of Congress approved August 6, 1861, declares that if persons held to service shall be employed in hostility to the United States, the right to their services shall be forfited, and such persons shall be discharged therefrom. It follows of necessity that no claim can be recognized by the military authorities of the Union to the services of such persons when fugitives.

A more difficult question is presented in respect to persons escaping from the service of loyal masters. It is quite apparent that the laws of the State, under which only the Bervices of such fugitiues can be claimed, must needs be wholly, or almost wholly, suspended, as to remedies, by the insurrection and the military measures necessitated by it. And it is equally apparent that the substitution of military for judicial measures for the enforcement of such claims must be attended by great inconveni uces, embarrassments, and injuries.

HEADQUARTERS CITY GUARD,
WASHINGTON, August 10, 1861.

To Captain H. DAVIDSON,

cars.

Commanding Guard at Railroad Depot: SIR: It is directed by the Provost Marshal that you permit no soldiers to leave this city by the railroad who are unable to show that they have been properly discharged from the service of the United States; also, that no negroes, without sufficient evidence of their being free or of their right to travel, are permitted to leave the city upon the I am, Captain, very respectfully, your obedient servant, W. W. AVERELL, A. A. A. G. EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION OF GEN. FREMONT.* HEADQUARTERS OF THE WESTERN Department, ST. LOUIS, August 31, 1861. Circumstances in my judgment, of sufficient urgency, render it necessary that the commanding general of this This Retaliatory Proclamation was issued by a rebel HEADQUARTERS FIRST MILITARY DISTRICT M. S. G. CAMP HUNTER, September 2, 1861.

officer:

To all whom it may concern:
Whereas Major General John C. Fremont, commanding
the minions of Abraham Lincoln in the State of Missouri,
has seen fit to declare martial law throughout the whole
State, and has threatened to shoot any citizen soldier found
in arms within certain limits; also, to confiscate the prop-
erty and free the negroes belonging to the members of the
Missouri State Guard:

Therefore, know ye that I, M. Jeff. Thompson, Brigadier General of the first military district of Missouri, having not only the military authority of Brigadier General, but certain police powers granted by Acting Governor Thomas C. Reynolds, and confirmed afterwards by Governor Jackson, do most solemnly promise that for every member of the Missouri State Guard or soldier of our allies, the armies of the Confederate States, who shall be put to death in pursu