198

CHAPTER X.

ADDITIONAL ACT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

MR. WILSON'S BILL. — REPORTED BACK WITH AMENDMENTS BY MR. GRIMES. MR. GRIMES'S SPEECH. - MR. WILSON'S SPEECH. - COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT. — PASSAGE OF THE BILL. BILL IN THE HOUSE. REMARKS OF MR. WICKLIFFE. - MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE BY MR. COX. — REMARKS BY MR. CRISFIELD. — PASSAGE OF THE BILL.

N the Senate, on the 12th of June, 1862, Mr. Wil

son (Rep.) of Massachusetts introduced a bill supplementary to the act for the release of certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, approved April 16, 1862; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. Grimes (Rep.) of Iowa, Chairman of the District Committee, reported, on the 24th, the bill back with amendments. On the 7th of July, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Grimes, proceeded to its consideration. Mr. Grimes briefly explained its purpose and scope. "It will be remembered," he said, "that when the President of the United States notified the Senate of his approval of the act of the 16th of April last, emancipating slaves in this District, he stated that he had some objections to it, on the ground that the rights of femes covert, absent persons, minors, &c., were not saved. The first section of this bill is designed to cover cases of that kind;

ADDITIONAL ACT TO ABOLISH SLAVERY. 199

and it provides that where persons were out of the country, officers of the army or navy, or idiots or minors, or persons who are laboring under any disability of that kind, they shall have an opportunity to come in and prove their claims to property of this description within a time limited. The second section of the bill, as the committee propose, is intended to cover cases of this kind. It has been discovered that there are some persons who have been held as slaves, whose owners are in arms against the country. There is nobody here to represent those owners; and it is impossible, therefore, for those colored persons to get any evidence of their manumission or their emancipation: and it is provided, that if any person, having claim to the service or labor of any person or persons in the District of Columbia by reason of African descent, shall neglect or refuse to file with the clerk of the Circuit Court the statement or schedule required by the ninth section of the act of April 16, 1862, it shall be lawful for the person or persons whose services are claimed to file such statement in writing or schedule, setting forth the particular facts mentioned in the ninth section of that act, and the clerk is to record the same; and the clerk is then to prepare, prescribe, and deliver the certificates, as described in the tenth section of that act, to such persons as shall file their statements. I understand that there are several I am so informed by one of the commissioners - where this description of persons are claimed by persons now in rebellion and beyond our reach. The next section declares that all persons who are held to service under the laws of any State, and who, at any time since the 16th of April, have, by the consent of the persons

cases

who have held them, been forced to labor in this District, shall be free."

The President stating the question to be on the amendment of the committee to strike out the second section of the original bill, Mr. Wilson said, "The committee have inserted two very excellent sections; but they propose to strike out the second and fourth sections of the original bill. The second section was intended to cover the cases of persons who were held to service or labor in this District, who resided here with their masters, but who have been recently hired out in the neighboring States, especially the State of Maryland. There are cases of such persons whose names have not been returned by their masters, and who have no remedy unless we give it to them. I presented a petition, a short time ago, in relation to one case of this kind, the petition of a person born in the District, held here to service, who had always lived here until recently, and was hired out over the line a few months ago. I think the commissioners ought to construe the law to cover those cases; for, in my judgment, the law should be construed in favor of personal rights: but there is some doubt about it, and hence the necessity for legislation on the subject. I have talked to some of the commissioners in regard to it, and find that there is doubt on the question. I think that section of the bill ought to stand, notwithstanding the dissent of the report of the committee."

"I will state," replied Mr. Grimes," the reason why the committee recommended the striking-out of that section. As I understand it, the purport of that section was this that if a person had been held to slavery

in the District of Columbia prior to the emancipation act, and had been sent, by the man who claimed to be his master, out of the District prior to the passage of that act, then, under the law, he should become free. We did not believe we had that power. He was held

as a slave under the law of the State of Maryland, to which he had been sent; and we did not suppose we could legislate for the State of Maryland." The second section of the bill was stricken out by the Senate.

The President stated the question to be on concurring in the new section proposed by the committee, giving to persons whose services are claimed the right to file the papers required by the act for the release of persons held to service in the District of Columbia, when persons claiming their services neglect or refuse to file such papers. The amendment was amended on the suggestion of Mr. Collamer (Rep.) of Vermont, and the amendment as amended was agreed to. The amendment proposed by the committee, to strike out the fourth section of the original bill providing for the appointment of a solicitor of the commission, was agreed to.

Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts offered as an additional section, that, in all the judicial proceedings in the District of Columbia, there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color. Mr. Powell (Dem.) of Kentucky demanded the yeas and nays on that amendment, yeas 25, nays 11. Mr. Powell demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, — yeas 29, nays 6.

In the House, the bill was taken from the Speaker's table on the 9th of July; and Mr. Ashley (Rep.) of Ohio stated that the bill was supplementary to the act

abolishing slavery in the District, approved the 16th of April. Mr. Calvert (Opp.) of Maryland desired "to strike out the fourth section. It was simply interfering with the rights of the slaveholders in the States." Mr. Wickliffe (Opp.) of Kentucky said, "As I understand the reading of the section, if a man in Montgomery County, or anywhere else in Maryland, sends his negro to market or into the city to do any business for him, he is set free." Mr. Cox (Dem.) of Ohio moved to lay the bill on the table, and Mr. Calvert demanded the yeas and nays: lost, -yeas 35, nays 67. Mr. Ashley moved the previous question. Mr. Crisfield (Dem.) of Maryland desired to offer an amendment to the fourth section. Mr. Ashley could not withdraw the demand for the previous question. Then I hope," replied Mr. Crisfield, "there is patriotism enough in the House to vote down the demand." The House, by a large majority, seconded the previous question. Mr. Richardson (Dem.) of Illinois moved an adjournment,-yeas 28, nays 69. Mr. Pendleton (Dem.) of Ohio demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, — yeas 69, nays 36. So the bill passed the House, and was approved by the President on the 12th of July, 1862.

ee