-

Nor do I find that I did him injustice; and he will therefore pardon me, if I repeat what I said before, — that, representing the Judiciary Committee, the Senator comes forward, in defiance of the Declaration of In dependence, to ingraft into the legislation of the United States the practical principle that all men are not equal. The Senator rises and denies that he is doing any such thing. He simply recognizes local laws in the States. That is all, nothing else. But pray, Sir, is not this enough? Local laws which defy the Declaration of Independence cannot be recognized without defying the Declaration; nor can the Senator escape responsibility merely by saying that he follows the local laws. Does he not sanction injustice? The case is plain. He asks us to legislate on the competency of witnesses. He proposes to regulate this competency by Act of Congress, where, among other things, we are to provide that in the courts of the United States witnesses shall be incompetent on account of color. The proposition is not made openly, but in the covert words, that the local laws of States shall in all cases prevail in the national The Senator cannot forget these local laws, how instinct with barbarism they are, nor the shame and scandal they bring upon our country and upon civilization itself; and yet he would give them new sanction and effect, not in the courts of the States, within the local jurisdiction, but in the courts of the United States, under the Constitution of the United States, within the national jurisdiction, where you and I, Sir, are responsible for the barbarisın. No matter in what form it is put, no matter how subtly the attempt is concealed, it is the adoption by Congress of an outrageous rule.

courts.

Offer any objection you please to the credibility of a witness, show that he is not intelligent, that he is not worthy of belief, that his character is bad, and make all proper deductions from his testimony on this account, but do not say that he is absolutely incompetent, that he cannot be heard in court, that, no matter how intelligent, truthful, or respectable, he cannot be admitted to testify, if he happens to be of another color than ourselves. Such exclusion is cruel to the witness, degrading to courts administering it, and destructive of justice, which seeks evidence from every quarter.

I listened closely to the ingenious argument of the Senator, going along with him in what he claimed for the States and for their courts. He said, each State is entitled, within its own jurisdiction, to have its rules of evidence. Granted. He thought it better to leave every State its own rule on this question. Granted again, Sir, so far as the courts of the States are concerned.

MR. FOSTER. Why allow them barbarism?

MR. SUMNER.

them.

Because I have no right to interfere with

MR. FOSTER. That answers the two questions.

MR. SUMNER. There is the mistake of the Senator. He confounds our duties in the two different cases of national courts, where we are responsible, and of State courts, where we have no responsibility and no right to interfere. In his remarks he said: "It is competent for each State to make these rules for itself." Granted again, within its own jurisdiction. But he would allow each State its sovereign will on this question. Sir, where I cannot constitutionally interfere to check a barbarism, of course I do not interfere; sorrowfully I

allow the sovereign will to prevail. But when a barbarism seeks shelter under the jurisdiction of Congress, when it falls under the direct responsibility of my vote, I cannot be silent.

The Senator will pardon me, if I add, that he erred, when he undertook to transfer the rules of the State courts, without amendment or modification, to the National courts. The State courts have their rules of evidence, they are beyond our control; but the United States courts are within our control, and the time has come to bring them at last within the pale of civilization. Why, Sir, has the good cause advanced thus far? to what end is it triumphant on this foor, if, in determining rules of evidence in the national courts, we take up and sanction this relic of barbarism?

If the rule is not justly within our reach, pray, Sir, why are we asked to vote on a bill concerning the competency of witnesses, and with a section expressly regulating the whole subject? Sir, I should feel untrue to myself, untrue to the principles I have at heart, and to the people I have the honor to represent, if I allowed a bill like this, with such a title, with such an object, to pass without earnest endeavor to exclude from it all support of the vileness which seeks shelter under its words. Within a few days the Senator has voted for a bill to punish the fraudulent counterfeiting of postage stamps; but suppose the counterfeiter does his work in the presence of colored persons and nobody else, where, under the proposed rule, will the Senator find the evidence required to carry the law into effect? As long as Congress undertakes to legislate criminally, as long as it has courts with a national jurisdiction in the Slave States, it is due to itself,

and it is due to justice, that it should furnish the evidence by which such legislation may be made effective, and justice be administered, without a constant act of shame calculated to bring a blush upon the cheeks. I speak plainly, as is my habit, and perhaps with feeling, but I trust that I have said nothing that I ought not to say.

The amendment was rejected, Yeas 14, Nays 23. The next volume will show how this effort of Mr. Sumner at last prevailed.

K

PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTION.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON a Bill to ESTABLISH PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENTS IN CERTAIN CASES, JULY 7, 1862.

THIS was reported from the Judiciary Committee, by Mr. Harris, of New York, with certain amendments, one of which recognized “the laws and institutions" in a State before the Rebellion. On the latter amendment Mr. Sumner remarked :

MR.

PRESIDENT,- - I cannot consent to the amendment. Plainly it is going too far. A government organized by Congress and appointed by the President is to enforce laws and institutions, some of which are abhorrent to civilization. Take, for instance, the Revised Code of North Carolina, which I have before me. Here is a provision which the Governor, under this Act, must enforce. I say must enforce. The amendment is, that there shall be "no interference with the laws. and institutions existing in such State at the time its authorities assumed to array the same against the Government of the United States." Therefore they must be enforced. And now, if you please, listen to one of them.

"Any free person, who shall teach, or attempt to teach, any slave to read or write, the use of figures excepted, or shall give or sell to such slave any book or pamphlet, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, if a white man or woman, shall be fined not less