But while desirous of seeing the great rule of Freedom we are about to ordain embodied in a text which shall be like the precious casket to the more precious treasure, yet I confess that I feel humbled by my own endeavors. And whatever the judgment of the Senate, I am consoled by the thought that the most homely text containing such a rule will be more beautiful far than any word of poet or orator, and will endure to be read with gratitude, when the lofty dome of this Capitol, with the statue of Liberty which crowns it, has crumbled to earth.

CASTE AND PREJUDICE OF COLOR.

LETTER TO THE YOUNG MEN'S ASSOCIATION OF ALBANY,
APRIL 16, 1864.

THE managers of the Young Men's Association of Albany, after excluding from their lecture-room all persons not of an approved color, invited Mr. Sumner to speak on Lafayette. He returned the following

answer.

SENATE CHAMBER, April 16, 1864.

IR,-You invite me to deliver an address on Lafay

Set for inne Young Men's
STR

ette before the Young Men's Association of Albany. In view of a recent incident in the history of your Association, I am astonished at the request.

I cannot consent to speak of Lafayette, who was not ashamed to fight beside a black soldier, to an audience too delicate to sit beside a black citizen. I cannot speak of Lafayette, who was a friend of universal liberty, under the auspices of a society which makes itself the champion of caste and vulgar prejudice.

I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, CHARLES SUMNER.

C. W. DAVIS, Esq.,

Cor. Sec., &c., Albany.

FINAL REPEAL OF ALL FUGITIVE SLAVE ACTS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL FOR THIS PURPOSE,
APRIL 19, 1864.

DECEMBER 10, 1863, Mr. Sumner gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to repeal all acts for the rendition of fugitive slaves.

February 8, 1864, in pursuance of previous notice, Mr. Sumner asked and obtained leave to introduce the bill above mentioned, which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen.

February 29th, Mr. Sumner reported from the Committee a bill with an accompanying report, of which ten thousand extra copies were ordered to be printed.1 There was a minority report by Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, which was also printed in equal number.

The bill was in the following terms:

"A Bill to repeal all acts for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, That all Acts of Congress, or parts of Acts, providing for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor, be and the same are hereby repealed."

March 7th, Mr. Sumner asked the Senate to take up the bill, with a view to make it the special order for a future day. This motion was agreed to, and then, on his further motion, it was made the special order for March 9th. The disposition to delay showed itself the next day, when Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, proposed to make another question a special order for the same time. Mr. Sumner reminded him that the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act was a special order at that time. Mr. Davis replied, "I suppose that can wait a little." Mr. Sumner: "I do not wish to have that wait at all. It is a disgrace to the country and the statute-book which we want to get rid of." When it was

1 Ante, Vol. X. p. 338.

called up at the appointed time, Mr. Davis expressed a desire for postponement, and then, on motion of Mr. Sumner, at the suggestion of Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, it was made the special order for March 16th, at one o'clock. Owing to the pendency of an Appropriation Bill, as unfinished business, on this day, it lost its place.

March 18th, Mr. Sumner, finding that Mr. Davis was not ready to proceed with his remarks, moved to make the bill the special order for March 22d, at one o'clock. This motion was lost, - Yeas 19, Nays 20. Mr. Sumner then said: "I now deem it my duty to give notice that I shall take every proper occasion to call the bill up, and press its consideration upon the Senate."

Meanwhile the attention of the Senate was occupied by other things, especially by the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery.

April 18th, Mr. Sumner appealed to Mr. Fessenden, who had charge of the Legislative Appropriation Bill, then under consideration, to yield, so that the other bill could be considered. At this time he said: "The Senator says it will make a great deal of debate. I doubt if it will. I think the topic has already been amply discussed in connection with other matters. I have several times yielded to amiable pressure, reluctantly, always against my own sense of duty, but from desire to oblige associates in this body. One Appropriation Bill has been interposed, on the motion of the Senator from Maine, which has taken several days. Now, I submit, the time has come when this bill ought to be considered. Let us give one day to it, at least. I say this with reluctance, because I see that the Senator has come prepared to go on with his bill, and I respect so much the order of business and the preparations of Senators to do their part, that I do not interfere, except most reluctantly. I am for the Appropriation Bill. The Senator knows that I am ever in my seat to sustain all his motions on Appropriation Bills; but this bill is committed to my care, and I therefore ask him to allow it to be proceeded with to-day. There is in the Appropriation Bill an innate vitality; it cannot lose by delay; the public interests cannot suffer; but I do not doubt that all these, and the good name of the country, suffer by every day's delay in the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act." Mr. Fessenden said that Mr. Sumner was "at liberty, if he chose, to move that that bill be taken up and this be laid aside," and that he should ask the judgment of the Senate.

April 19th, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the bill, and this motion was agreed to, - Yeas 26, Nays 10. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, considered the bill, and it was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a third read

ing, and was read the third time, without a division, and without a word of debate. It only remained to put the question on its final passage, when Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, remarked that he was "not prepared to see this bill passed just now"; he had “supposed the Senator from Massachusetts was to address the Senate upon it." Mr. Sumner had "not the least desire to address the Senate"; he did "not wish to say a word upon it." Mr. Foster "did not apprehend that the bill was to be put on its passage at the present time, and expected to say something upon it." Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, remarked, "We may as well pass the bill now." The Chair put the question, and the yeas and nays were ordered, when Mr. Hendricks spoke against the bill. He said: 66 It may be that our fathers erred in the agreement among themselves that a fugitive slave should be returned; it may be that it was a mistake on their part; but while their agreement stands, and while my oath is upon my conscience to respect that agreement, I cannot vote for a bill like this." The debate was opened.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, had "some doubt about the expediency of now repealing the law of 1793." Mr. Sumner said that the Committee "felt that we had better make a clean thing, purify the country, and lift it before foreign nations, which could be only by washing our hands of Slavery." Mr. Sherman was "not guided exactly by the motives of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts"; he would "give to the people of the Southern States, the few that are left who have the right to enforce the Constitution against us, their constitutional rights fully and fairly." According to him, "the law of 1793 was framed by the men who framed the Constitution," and "has been declared to be valid and constitutional by every tribunal that has acted upon it." Mr. Sumner replied, that "it was declared to be unconstitutional in certain particulars by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Prigg case, and it is among the records in the life of Judge Story, who gave the opinion in that case, that the fatal objection of a failure to give a trial by jury in a case of human freedom was never argued before the Court, and that he personally considered it an open question." Mr. Sherman preferred "not to repeal the law of 1793, about the constitutionality of which he had little doubt." Mr. Sumner replied, "Then the Senator has little doubt that under the Constitution a human being may be given over to Slavery without a trial by jury." Mr. Sherman "would not go into the discussion of that question." Finding that the bill had passed the stage when it could be amended, he moved to reconsider the vote ordering it to be engrossed and read a third time, which was done, when he moved to add these words: