Feited to the United States. But this bill was not taken up for consideration.

The Senate, on the 24th of June, proceeded, as in Committee of the Whole, to the consideration of the Civil Appropriation Bill. Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts moved as an amendment, 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 first day of January, in the year of our Lord 1808," which said sections undertake to regulate the coastwise slave-trade, are hereby repealed. Mr. Sherman (Rep.) of Ohio would not oppose the amendment on an ordinary bill. He had read the two sections referred to in the amendment, and felt disposed to repeal them; but he trusted the Senate would keep the bill free from disputed political questions. Mr. Sumner regretted the opposition of Mr. Sherman, -though it was one of form only. "In moving it now," he said, "on an appropriation bill, I follow approved precedents: it is in conformity with order and with usage.

I propose,' ," he said, "to remove from the statutebook odious provisions in support of slavery. Whoever is in favor of those provisions, whoever is disposed to keep alive the coastwise slave-trade, or whoever wishes to recognize it in our statutes, will naturally vote against my motion. And yet let me say that I am at a loss to understand how at this moment, at this stage of our history, any senator can hesitate to unite with me in this work of expurgation and purification." Mr. Johnson of Maryland contended that the repeal of these sections of the act of 1807 would leave the slave-trade

open to unrestrained abuses. Mr. Sumner differed radically from the senator from Maryland. He is always willing to interpret the Constitution for slavery: I interpret it for freedom. He proceeds as if those old days still continued, when slavery was installed supreme over the Supreme Court, giving immunity to slavery everywhere. The times have changed, and the Supreme Court will yet testify to the change. To me it seems clear, that, under the Constitution of the United States, no person can be held as a slave on shipboard within the national jurisdiction, and that the national flag cannot cover a slave. The senator thinks differently, and relies upon the Supreme Court; but I cannot doubt that this regenerated tribunal will yet speak for freedom, as in times past it has spoken for slavery. And I trust, should my life be spared, to see the senator from Maryland, who bows always to the decisions of that tribunal, recognize gladly the law of freedom thus authoritatively pronounced.”

Mr. Hendrick (Dem.) of Indiana expressed surprise that any senator should oppose the proposition, as it would eventually be adopted. He regretted to see all the laws made by the fathers to carry out the Constitution fall, one after another. Mr. Sumner proposed to amend his amendment by adding at the end, "and the coastwise slave-trade is prohibited for ever." Mr. Collamer (Rep.) of Vermont asserted, that, "if it be true that Congress can prohibit the carrying of slaves as articles of commerce from one State to another, they can allow it from one State to another; and the State cannot prevent it. I say, if they can prohibit it or regulate it, they can allow it and license it; and no

repealed, and the coastwise slave-trade prohibited for ever. "It seems to me," he said, "this Congress will do wrong to itself, wrong to the country, wrong to history, wrong to our national cause, if it separates without clearing the statute-book of every support of slavery. Now, this is the last support that there is in the statute-book; and I entreat the Senate to remove it." Mr. Saulsbury (Dem.) of Delaware moved the indefinite postponement of the bill; and the motion was rejected. Mr. Doolittle (Rep.) of Wisconsin voted against the proposition; but as other amendments had been put on the bill, and he was in favor of the abolition of the coastwise slave-trade, he should vote for it. The vote was then taken, and resulted—yeas 23, nays 14. So the amendment was agreed to, and the bill approved by the President on the 2d of July, 1864.

CHAPTER XXII.

COLOR NO DISQUALIFICATION FOR CARRYING THE

MAILS.

MR. SUMNER'S BILL.PASSAGE IN THE SENATE. REPORTED BY MR. COLFAX IN THE HOUSE. REMARKS OF MR. COLFAX.- MR. DAWES.MR. WICKLIFFE. BILL LAID ON THE TABLE. MR. SUMNER'S BILL.— MR. COLLAMER'S AMENDMENT. - REMARKS OF MR. COLLAMER. - MR. LANE OF INDIANA.-MR. LANE OF KANSAS. MR. SAULSBURY. -MR. SUMNER. MR. POWELL. MR. HENDRICKS. MR. POWELL'S AMENDMENT. REMARKS OF MR. CONNESS. MR. JOHNSON.

IN

N the Senate, on the 18th of March, 1862, Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts introduced a bill to abolish all disqualification of color in carrying the mails; which was referred to the Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads; and, on the 27th, Mr. Collamer reported it back without amendment. The Senate, on the 11th of April, proceeded to consider the bill to remove all disqualification of color in carrying the mails. It provided, that, from and after its passage, no person, by reason of color, should be disqualified from employment in carrying the mails; and all acts, and parts of acts, establishing such disqualification, including especially the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1825, are repealed. Mr. Powell (Dem.) of Kentucky demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill; and they were taken, passed the Senate.

yeas 24, nays 11.

yeas 24, nays 11. So the bill

Mr. Colfax (Rep.) of Indiana, on the 20th of May,