July 19th, the Senate concurred in the amendment, and, on motion of Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, further amended the bill by an additional section authorizing "the necessary grand and petit jurors for the June term of the Criminal Court for the year 1867." This amendment, though not relating to Equal Rights, was concurred in by the House.

July 20th, the bill was duly enrolled and transmitted to the President for his signature, but was not returned by him before the adjournment, the same day, so that it failed to become a law. Mr. Sumner complained that Senators "proposed to go home and leave Equal Rights in the District without the protection we owe them."

November 21st, on the first day of the meeting of Congress after the adjournment, Mr. Sumner introduced the same bill as it had passed both Houses, and asked the Senate to proceed with it at once; but this was prevented by the objection of Mr. Davis, of Kentucky. Mr. Sumner forbore calling it up for eleven consecutive days of the session, to see if within that time it would be returned to Congress, with or without objections. It was not returned, and on application at the Department of State it was ascertained that it had not been received there.

December 5th, the bill was taken up, on motion of Mr. Sumner, discussed, and again passed, Yeas 32, Nays 8.

December 9th, it passed the House, Yeas 104, Nays 39.
December 11th it was presented to the President.

December 20th, Congress adjourned for the holidays.

The President, by a message, January 24, 1868, in reply to an inquiry of the Senate, stated that it was presented for his approval December 11, 1867, but that "Congress by their adjournment [ December 20th] prevented the return of the bill within the time prescribed by the Constitution."

January 7th, Mr. Sumner a third time introduced the same bill. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, thought "we ought to consider whether it is not already a law." Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, said that "this bill has become a law, if it has not been returned with a veto." Under these circumstances, the bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee to consider its true condition and the question of further legislation.

February 11, 1869, the bill being once more before the Senate, Mr. Sumner moved it again, as appears by the following passage.

MR. SUMNER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 228.

MR. DRAKE [of Missouri]. What is it?

MR. SUMNER. A bill for the further security of Equal Rights in the District of Columbia. I will make one minute's explanation, and then the Senate will see that it ought to be passed. This bill has already twice passed both Houses of Congress, but immediately before recesses, and it has fallen from the President failing to return it with his veto, and from the unsettled condition of the practice or law in such cases.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. MORGAN, of New York, in the chair]. It requires the unanimous consent of the Senate to consider the bill at this time.

MR. DRAKE. I appeal to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts on behalf of a poor and most worthy woman

MR. SUMNER. Why should the Senator make that appeal to me? I appeal on behalf of all the colored people in this District, who ask the passage of this bill.

MR. CONKLING [of New York]. Whether the objection should be made or not depends perhaps upon this, which I should like to inquire: Has not this bill not only passed twice, I think three times, but has it not become a law certainly once?

MR. SUMNER. It has not become a law; at least, it has not found place in the statute-book, and the courts have declined to recognize it as law. Under the circumstances, it has seemed the best and the shortest way for Congress to pass it again, so as to remove all doubt.

The bill passed the Senate without a division, and, March 2d, it again passed the other House without a division. Again it failed to receive the signature of the President, nor was it returned with his objections.

March 6th, at the opening of a new Congress, with a new President, Mr. Sumner introduced it again, and asked unanimous consent to proceed with its consideration; but Mr. Vickers, of Maryland, objected.

March 8th, it passed the Senate without a division; March 15th, passed the other House, Yeas 111, Nays 46; March 18th, was approved by the President, and so at last became a law.1

1 Statutes at Large, Vol. XVI. p. 3.

NATURALIZATION WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF

RACE OR COLOR.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO STRIKE OUT THE WORD "WHITE" in the Naturalization Laws, JULY 19, 1867.

JULY 19th, Mr. Sumner introduced a bill to amend the several Acts of Congress relating to Naturalization, by striking out the word "white," and he asked unanimous consent of the Senate to consider the bill at once. Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, objected. Mr. Sum

ner then said :

I

HOPE the Senator will not object. I have received a letter from Norfolk, calling attention to the case of a colored person there, an inhabitant for more than twenty-five years, but unable to obtain naturalization because of the words of color in our naturalization laws. It is only reasonable that we should put an end to that grievance. In short, I would punch the word "white" out of the statute-book, wherever it appears. If the Senator from Vermont is disposed to keep it in, then I can understand that he would object to the bill.

MR. EDMUNDS. I am not disposed to keep it in

MR. SUMNER. I did not suppose the Senator was.

MR. EDMUNDS. My punch is not quite so case-hardened as that of my friend.

And he insisted upon its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary, "so that there may be that examination which will make the bill perfect, if it is not now perfect, to answer the end that my friend from Massachusetts and myself both want to reach." The bill was referred accordingly.

February 17, 1869, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, reported the bill from the Committee adversely. In the few remaining days of the session Mr. Sumner was unable to call it up.

THE PRESIDENT MUST BE WATCHED BY CONGRESS, OR REMOVED.

SPEECH IN THE Senate, on the RESOLUTION OF ADJOURNMENT, JULY 19, 1867.

JULY 19th, the Senate considered a resolution from the other House to reassemble November 13th. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, moved to amend by making the day of meeting "the first Monday of December next." Mr. Sumner moved to amend the amendment by substituting "the second Wednesday of October next." He then said: :

ON

N that question I have a word to say, and I must speak frankly. I cannot help it. How Congress, after listening to the message of to-day,1 which is only the logical consequence of other messages, can quietly vote to go home and leave this post of duty until next winter, passes my understanding. To me it is incomprehensible. The message, from beginning to end, is a menace. Needless to quote its precise language. Its defiant tone fills this Chamber, and will soon fill the whole country. Listening to this appeal, so well calculated to revive the dying Rebellion, I felt that one of two things was needed, the removal of its author from the Executive chair, or Congress in permanent session to watch and counteract him. Such is the alternative. One failing, the other must be.

1 The Veto of the Third Reconstruction Act.