national capital. The substitute reported by Mr. Patterson, with the unanimous approval of the District Committee, provided in the seventeenth and eighteenth sections, and in the proviso to the nineteenth section, for separate schools for colored children of the District. "To accomplish this," said Mr. Patterson, "we have provided that such a proportion of the entire school fund shall be set apart for this purpose as the number of colored children between the ages of six and seventeen bear to the whole number of children in the District. ... We may have differences of opinion in regard to the proper policy to be pursued in respect to slavery; but we all concur in this, that we have been brought to a juncture in our national affairs in which four millions of a degraded race, lying far below the average civilization of the age, and depressed by an almost universal prejudice, are to be set free in our midst. The question now is, What is our first duty in regard to them? I think there can be no difference of opinion on this, that it is our duty to give to this people the means of education, that they may be prepared for all the privileges which we may desire to give them hereafter." Mr. Patterson's substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the House as amended. The Senate readily concurred in the House amendment; and the bill received the approval of the President on the 25th of June, 1864.

By this beneficent act of legislation, it is made the duty of the school commissioners to establish public schools for colored children, to provide school-houses, to employ school-teachers, and "to appropriate a proportion of the school fund, to be determined by the numbers of white and colored children between the ages of

six and seventeen years." Nearly four thousand colo children in the national capital have by the enactm of this law, in the public schools, the same rights a privileges as white children.

CHAPTER IX.

THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE.

THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.-MR. SUMNER'S BILL. REMARKS OF MR. SAULSBURY.-PASSAGE OF THE BILL.MR. FOSTER'S BILL.PASSAGE OF THE BILL.

THE

HE American flag has been made to cover for many years the horrid and loathsome traffic in human flesh. The African-slave traders have pursued their foul and infamous work of sorrow and death under the protection of the flag of this Christian nation. This prostitution of the flag brought reproach and dishonor upon the Government and people of the United States. To suppress this traffic in men, to prevent this abuse of the flag of the country, a treaty was made with England for the more effectual suppression of the African slave-trade.

On the 12th of June, 1862, Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred a message from the President of the United States in relation to the treaty between the United States and Great Britain for the suppression of the slave-trade, reported a bill to carry the treaty into effect. On motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate, on the 26th, proceeded to the consideration of the bill. To carry into effect the provisions of the treaty between the United States and her Britannic

Majesty for the suppression of the African slave-trade, it was provided that the President should appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a judge and also an arbitrator on the part of the United States to reside at New York; a judge and also an arbitrator to reside at Sierra Leone; and a judge and also an arbitrator to reside at the Cape of Good Hope. Mr. Saulsbury (Dem.) of Delaware wished to record his vote against the passage of the bill. "I do not," he said, "object to the suppression of the African slavetrade; but I do not believe that this Government has the constitutional right to establish any such court. I think the treaty ought not to have been adopted. There is no power under the Constitution for the establishment of such a court outside of the United States." Mr. Howard (Rep.) of Michigan demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill, -- yeas 34, nays 4. In the House, on the 7th of July, Mr. Gooch (Rep.) of Massachusetts reported back, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate bill to carry into effect the treaty between the United States and England for the suppression of the African slave-trade. "I desire only to state," remarked Mr. Gooch, "that the provisions of the treaty are necessary to carry the treaty recently made into effect." The bill was passed, and received the approval of the President on the 11th of July, 1862.

In the Senate, on the 8th of July, Mr. Foster (Rep.) of Connecticut introduced a bill to amend an act entitled "An act to amend the act entitled 'An act in addition to the acts prohibiting the slave-trade: '" it was read twice, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.

On the 9th, Mr. Foster reported back the bill, without amendment. It was taken up for consideration on the 12th; and Mr. Fessenden (Rep.) of Maine stated that he understood a division was to be called upon it, and moved that it be laid on the table. On the 15th, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Foster, proceeded to the consideration of the bill. It provided that the President might enter into arrangement, by contract or otherwise, with one or more foreign governments having possessions in the West Indies or other tropical regions, or with their duly constituted agent or agents, to receive from the United States, for a term not exceeding five years, at such place or places as shall be agreed upon, all negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color, delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of the slave-trade by commanders of United-States armed vessels, and to provide them with suitable instruction, and with comfortable clothing and shelter, and to employ them, at wages under such regulations as shall be agreed upon, for a period not exceeding five years from the date of their being landed at the place or places agreed upon. Mr. King (Rep.) of New York regarded this as a sort of apprenticeship system to which he was opposed, and demanded the previous question on the passage of the bill, yeas 30, nays 7. In the House, on the 16th, the bill was passed, and received the approval of the President on the 17th of July, 1862.

17*