History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth United States Congresses, 1861-65, by Henry Wilson, 1865.

CHAPTER XIV.

REPEAL OF FUGITIVE-SLAVE LAWS.

MR. HOWES’S BILL — MR. WILMOT’S BILL. — MR. WILSON’S BILL, — MR. STEVEN’S BILL. — MR. ASHLEY'S BILL. — MR. JOLIAN'S BILL, — SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON SLAVERY, — MR. SUMMER'S BILL AND REPORT. — MR. FOSTER'S SPEECH, — MR. SHERMAN'S AMENDMENT. — MR. JOHNSON'S SPEECH, — MR. SUMNER'S SPEECH. MR. SAULSBURY'S AMENDMENT. MR. BROWN’S SPEECH. HOWARD'S AMENDMENT. — REMARKS OF MR. CONNESS. — MR. MOBRIS'S BILL, — REMARKS OF MR. MALLORY. — MR. MORRIS, — MR. WILSON, — MR. PENDLETON, — MR. KINO. — MR. COX. — MR. HUBBARD, — MR. FARNSWORTH. — PASSAGE OF MR. MORRIS'S BILL IN THE HOUSE. — MR. MORRIS'S BILL REPORTED BY MR. SUMNER. — MR. SAULSBURY’S AMENDMENT. — MR. JOHNSON'S AMENDMENT. — PASSAGE OF THE BILL.

IN the Senate, on the 26th of December, 1861, Mr. Howe (Rep.) of Wisconsin introduced a bill to repeal the Fugitive-slave Act of 1850. In presenting the bill, Mr. Howe declared that " the act has had its day. As a party act, it has done its work. It has probably done as much mischief as any other one act that was ever passed by the National Legislature. I am not sure but it has done as much mischief as all the acts ever passed by the National Legislature since the adoption of the Federal Constitution." The bill was read twice, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and reported back adversely by Mr. Ten Eyck (Rep.) of New Jersey, on the llth of February, 1863;

On the 23d of May, 1862, Mr. Wilmot (Rep.) of Pennsylvania introduced a bill requiring an oath of allegiance in certain cases and for other purposes. The Page 274 bill provided, that before any person owing service shall be delivered up, and before any process shall be here after issued for the arrest of any fugitive from service, the person as claiming such service shall solemnly swear that he will support and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States against all enemies, domestic or foreign ; and that he has not, by word or deed, given aid, comfort, or encouragement to the Rebellion ; that, in all cases of arrest of persons claimed as fugitives from service, it shall be the duty of the officer before whom such fugitive shall be taken to sum mon before him such witnesses as the fugitive shall, on oath, declare to be material to disprove any of the allegations of the claimant, or to establish his freedom ; and, in the examination and trial of such cases, no witness shall be excluded on account of color. Mr. Wilmot’s bill was read twice, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and reported back on the 27th of May by Mr. Wade (Rep.) of Ohio without 'amendment.

On the 24th of May, 1862, Mr. Wilson (Rep.) of Massachusetts introduced a bill to amend the Fugitive-slave Act of 1850. The bill accused to persons claimed as fugitives from service or labor in one State a right to a trial by jury in the District Court of the United States for the district in which they may be ; the proceedings to be the same as on an indictment, subject to a writ of error from the Circuit Court and from the Supreme Court, as provided in the Judiciary Act of 1789. It gave to such persons held for trial the right to bail before and pending the trial. It required that the per son claiming the service of any fugitive should prove Page 275 that he was loyal to the Government, and had not in any manner aided the Rebellion ; and it repealed sections six, seven, eight, nine, and ten, and part of section five, of the act of Sept. 18, 1850. Mr. Wil son, on the 10th of June, moved to take up the bill for consideration. Mr. Powell (Dem.) of Kentucky de manded the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered, — yeas 25, nays 10. So the motion was agreed to ; and the Senate proceeded to its consideration. Mr. Trumbull (Rep.) of Illinois, remarking that the bill was a long one, and the hour was late, moved an adjournment ; which was carried.

In the House of Representatives, after the announcement of the standing committees of the Thirty-eighth Congress, on the 14th of December, 1863, the Speaker stated that the first business in order was the call of the States for bills and joint resolutions. Mr. Stevens (Rep.) of Pennsylvania introduced a bill to repeal the Fugitive-slave Act, approved Feb. 12, 1793, and the act amendatory thereto, approved Sept. 18, 1850 ; Mr. Ashley (Rep.) of Ohio introduced a bill to repeal the Fugitive-slave Act of 1850, and all acts and parte of acts for the rendition of fugitive slaves; Mr. Julian (Rep.) of Indiana introduced a bill to repeal the third and fourth sections of the act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters, approved Feb. 12, 1793, and the act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved Sept. 18, 1850 ; and these bills were referred to the Judiciary Committee. On the same day, Mr. Julian submitted a resolution, instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a bill to repeal the third and fourth aectlone of an Page 276 act respecting fugitives from justice and persona escaping from the service of their masters, approved Feb. 12, 1793 ; and the act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved Sept. 18, 1850. Mr. Holman (Dem.) of Indiana moved to lay the resolution on the table, and demanded the yeas and nays, — yeas 82, nays 73.

In the Senate, on the 13th of January, 1864, Mr. Sumner moved that a select committee of seven be appointed to take into consideration all propositions concerning slavery and the treatment of freedmen. The resolution was agreed to ; and the Vice-President ap pointed Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts, Mr. Howard (Rep.) of Michigan, Mr. Carlile (Dem.) of Virginia, Mr. Pomeroy (Rep.) of Kansas, Mr. Buckalew (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, Mr. Brown (Rep.) of Missouri, and Mr. Conness (Union) of California. Mr. Sumner, Mr. Howard, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr. Brown, are recognized as thorough, earnest, radical antislavery men ; Mr. Carlile is a proslavery man from conviction ; Mr. Buckalew is a fair representative of the sentiments, opinions, and policy of the leaders of the Northern Democracy ; Mr. Conness, though trained in the faith of the Democratic party, is an earnest and uncompromising opponent of slavery and its champions in every form.

On the 8th of February, Mr. Sumner asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to repeal all laws for the rendition of fugitive slaves ; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedmen. Mr. Sumner, on the 29th of February, from the Select Committee on Page 277 Slavery, reported a bill, accompanied by a report, for the repeal of all acta, and parts of acts, requiring the rendition of fugitive slaves. The bill was read twice, and the report ordered to be printed. Mr. Sumner stated that the minority of the committee, desired to present their views in the form of a minority report. Mr. Conness moved to print ten thousand extra copies of the report. Mr. Buckalew, on the 1st of March, asked leave of the Senate to present a report from the minority of the Committee on the Repeal of the Fugitive-slave Acts ; and the report was received ; and, on motion of Mr. Powell, it was ordered to be printed. He also moved to print ten thousand extra copies of the report ; and the motion was referred to the Committee on Printing. Mr. Sumner's report in support of the bill was lengthy, elaborate, and exhaustive. The legal, political, and moral aspects of the question were fully presented. Mr. Buckelew’s report discussed the questions involved in the light of the legislation and judicial decisions of the Government, and the avowals of the public men of the past.

On the 7th of March, Mr. Sumner asked the Senate to take up the bill, with a view to make it the special order for a future day. His motion was agreed to ; and he moved to make it the special order for the 9th of March, and it was carried. On Wednesday, the 9th, Mr. Sumner called for the special order. Mr. Davis of Kentucky expressed a desire to debate the bill ; and on motion of Mr. Sumner, at the suggestion of Mr. Hendricks, it was postponed to Wednesday, the 16th, and made the special order for one o'clock. On the 19th, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed to the Page 278 consideration of the bill. Mr. Turnbull demanded the yeas and nays, — yeas 26, nays 10; Mr. Cowan, Mr. Willey, and Mr. Van Winkle, voting with the Democratic senators in the negative. The bill was reported to the Senate, ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time. Mr. Foster of Connecticut was " net prepared to see the bill pass just new." Mr. Sumner had "not the least desire to address the Senate. It seems to be perfectly plain. It Is like a diagram ; it is like the multiplication-table ; it is like the ten commandments." Mr. Foster did not apprehend that the bill was to be put on its passage at the present time : he confessed he expected to say something upon it. Mr. Pomeroy thought " we might as well pass the bill now." Mr. Buckalew called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. Hendricks said, " 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." Mr. Sherman had " some doubt about the expediency of now repealing the law of 1793." Mr. Sumner said the committee felt " that we had better make a clean thing of it, purify the country, lift the country up before foreign nations, and let us now wash our hands of all support of slavery." Mr. Sherman said that " the law of 1793 was framed by the men who framed the Constitution. It 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 by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Prigg case ; and the Page 279 senator knows very well that it is among the records in the life of Judge Story, who gave the opinion in the Prigg case, that the fatal objection to the act of 1793, that it did not 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 said, " Under these circumstances, I prefer not to repeal the law of 1793, about the constitutionality of which I have little doubt." Mr. Sherman then moved to reconsider the vote ordering the bill to be engrossed, for the purpose of offering an amendment ; and the vote was reconsidered. He then moved to add at the end of the bill the words, "except the act approved Feb. 12, 1793, entitled 'An act respecting fugitives from jus tice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters.' " Mr. Henderson moved to amend the amendment of the senator from Ohio by repealing the act of 1850 ; and then the act of 1793 will certainly remain in force, because the act of 1850 is merely amendatory of the act of 1793. Mr. Sherman thought "we had better repeal all the laws on the subject, except the act of 1793." Mr. Johnson said that "the Constitution as It is now, according to ray interpretation of it, not only authorizes the passage of the act of 1793, and the passage of the act of 1850, but made it the duty of Congress to pass some law of that description. The honorable member from Massachusetts is mistaken, I think, in supposing that Mr. Justice Story ever even doubted the constitutionality of the act of 1793." Mr. Sumner would " simply refer the senator to the Life of Judge Story, by his son, and the elaborate chapter on the Prigg decision." Mr. Johnson had seen it. "There Page 280 is," he said, " one question which is perfectly plain under the adjudications of the Supreme Court, and particularly in the judgment pronounced by Mr. Justice Story, that the Constitution itself is a fugitive-slave act." — "To my mind," said Mr. Sumner, "nothing is clearer than that, according to unquestionable rules of interpretation, the clause of the Constitution, whatever may have been the intent of its authors, cannot be considered applicable to slaves. Such is slavery, that, from the nature of the case, it cannot be sanctioned or legalized except by ' positive ' words. It cannot stand on inference." The question, being taken by yeas and nays on Mr. Sherman’s amendment, resulted — yeas 24, nays 17 — as follows : —

Yeas. — Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, M'Dougall, Nesmith, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, and Willey, — 24,

Nays, — Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden, Grimes, Hale, Howard, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Wilkinson, and Wilson, — 17.

Mr. Saulsbury moved an amendment of two sections concerning arrests without due process of law : 9 senators voted yea, and 27 senators voted nay. " I do not wish," said Mr. Conness, "to cast a vote for this measure in its present shape. I had intended, before the debate closed, if it was debated, to say something on the subject. I do. not design that now; and, as the Senate have seen fit to amend the bill, I cannot vote for it. At present, therefore, I move that it lie on the table." Mr. Sumner hoped the senator " would with draw that mptlpn." — " For what reason ? " asked Mr. Conness. "For the reason," replied Mr. Sumner, Page 281 " that we get something by this bill." Mr. Wilson asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to lay the bill on the table, and they were ordered. The vote, being taken, resulted — yeas 9, nays 31. Mr. Powell moved the reference of the bill to the Judiciary Committee. The motion was rejected. Mr. Johnson said, " I understand, as the bill now is, it repeals all the fugitive-slave acts, except that of 1793." — "Yes," answered senators. "Then I shall vote for it; because, ae I never would have voted for the Fugitive-slave Act of 1850, I shall certainly vote for its repeal." Mr. Foster expressed a wish to make a few remarks upon the bill, and the Senate adjourned. On the 20th, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill ; and Mr. Foster made an elaborate speech in favor of the bill as amended on motion of Mr. Sherman. " I shall give," he said, " my vote on its passage with very great pleasure. Its effect will be to repeal the law of 1850, popularly known as the Fugitive-slave Law ; in my opinion a most iniquitous measure, and certainly most obnoxious to the people of the free States from the day of its passage to the present hour. That bill was passed in a period of great excitement in the country. A malicious and malignant spirit had been excited. Sectional and partisan feeling raged over the land. An arrogant and defiant party, in their pride of power, passed that bill through both Houses of Congress. It has the forms of law, and has stood unrepealed to this day. From the first day I had the honor of a seat in this body until now, I should have voted cheerfully for its repeal at any time."

Mr. Brown of Missouri declared that " the amendment Page 282 of the senator from Ohio (Mr. Sherman), which has been adopted by the Senate, makes this bill, as it now stands, tantamount to a revival of the Fugitive-slave Act of 1793. It is a virtual re-instating and re-authorization, so far as the vote of the Senate can go, of that act."

Mr. Van Winkle of West Virginia, on the 21st, addressed the Senate in opposition to "the series of projected measures now pending in one or both Houses of Congress," and in vindication of the policy of organizing the State of West Virginia, and abolishing slavery therein. Mr. Howard expressed a desire to offer an amendment. Mr. Wilson moved a reconsideration of the vote ordering the bill to be engrossed, to allow that motion to be made ; and the vote was reconsidered. Mr. Howard moved to insert at the end of the bill the following amendment : " But no person found in any Territory of the United States or In the District of Columbia shall be deemed to have been held to labor or service or to be a slave, nor shall he or she be removed under said act of 1793 ; and the fourth section of said act is hereby repealed." Mr. Doolittle moved an ' executive session. Mr. Sumner suggested that it should be an hour later. Mr. Brown thought we could not finish the bill this evening. Mr. Fessenden did not like to interfere with this bill, but he must "give notice to gentlemen, that, once they choose to dispose of it this afternoon or by tomorrow at one o'clock, I must then move to go on with the Army-appropriation Bill." Mr. Sumner hoped we should go on with the bill at least for another hour. Mr. Conness hoped we should not go on with the consideration of this bill. " I do not Page 283 understand the anxiety of my honorable friend from Massachusetts in pressing this bill in its present condition." Mr. Pomeroy hoped the senator from Massachusetts would let the question go over : there were half a dozen amendments to be proposed. Mr. Sumner said, if the friends of the measure request that it shall not be pressed to-day, he would not throw himself in their way. Mr. Conness moved that it be postponed to, and made the order of the day for, Wednesday, the 27th of April, at one o'clock ; and the motion was agreed to ; and Mr. Sumner's bill was postponed, and not again called up for consideration.

The several bills to repeal the Fugitive-slave Act, introduced on the 14th "of December, 1863, by Mr. Stevens, Mr. Ashley, and Mr. Julian, and the bill afterwards introduced by Mr. Spaulding, were referred to the Judiciary Committee. On the 6th of June, Mr. Morris (Rep.) of New York reported, for the several bills referred to the Judiciary Committee on that subject, a substitute, entitled "A bill to repeal the Fugitive- slave Act of 1850, and all acts, and parts of acts, for the rendition of fugitive slaves." The bill was read twice, ordered to be printed, and recommitted. Mr. Holman (Dem.) of Indiana moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary, and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. The House divided, — ayes 26, noes 57 ; no quorum voting. Mr. Wilson of Iowa called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. The question was taken, and it was decided in the negative, — yeas 44, nays 66. The vote by which the bill was recommitted was then reconsidered. Mr. Morris withdrew Page 284 the motion to recommit ; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time. Mr. Morris moved the previous question on the passage of the bill, and the main question was ordered. Mr. Holman called for the yeas and nays on its passage, and they were ordered. Mr. Mallory (Dem.) of Kentucky desired to ask Mr. Morris a question, if he would withdraw the previous question. Mr. Morris declined to withdraw it. Mr. Mallory wished to state to the House the reason why he asked Mr. Morris to withdraw the previous question. Mr. Morris said, if the gentleman does not want over two minutes, I will yield to him. "Think of it I " exclaimed Mr. Cox (Dem.) of Ohio : "they condescend to give us two minutes to discuss the repeal of the Constitution"." — "Kentucky is the only State," said Mr. Mallory, " still adhering to the Union, which has not abolished or taken the initiatory steps to abolish slavery. ... I demand, as an act of justice to my State, that the Fugitive-slave Act be permitted to remain on the statute-book. ... If the Fugitive-slave Law is repealed, and your provost marshal and recruiting officers draft and recruit the slaves of Kentucky, if this policy is continued, what need, think you, will there be to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment ? Sir, I warn you against the course this Congress is pursuing. Already you have crushed out every feeling of love of the Union in the people of the revolted States ; and you are be sotted if you think that acts of oppression and wrong can be perpetrated in the Border slave States, without producing estrangement and even enmity there. Kentucky has remained true to her faith pledged to the Government, and I warn you not to persevere in inflicting Page 285 on her insult and outrage." Mr. Morris said he must decline to withdraw the call for the previous question. Mr. Mallory did not expect that he would yield : " Justice is a thing that I have long ceased to hope for from that side of the House."

A series of motions designed to stave off or delay the passage of the bill were then made, in which Holman (Dem.) of Indiana, Pendleton (Dem.) of Ohio, Ancona (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, Strouse (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, Dawson (Dem.) of Pennsylvania, and Eldridge (Dem.) of Wisconsin, took part;- but these motions were voted down by large majorities. Mr. Davis of Maryland suggested the postponement of the bill. Mr. Cox, by unanimous consent, appealed to Mr. Morris to postpone it for the present. " To what time," asked Mr. Morris, " does that side of the House propose to postpone the question, and have a vote taken upon It?" Mr. Cox would refer it back to the Judiciary Committee. "If the other aide of the House," replied Mr. Morris, "will consent to the designation of a particular day when action shall be had, I shall be inclined to postpone the consideration of the question." Mr. Wilson of Iowa said "it was the intention of the Judiciary Committee to allow every member of the House full time to examine it. I presume it will be satisfactory to the committee if a particular time is agreed upon for taking this vote." Mr. Morris renewed the inquiry, " How long a time do gentlemen ask for discussing this question?" Mr. Holman- wanted each time as may be deemed reason able. Mr. Mallory did not think it would be proper to fix any time within which this dissuasion must take place. Mr. Pendleton would not agree to any understanding Page 286 with reference to a vote on this bill. Mr. Morris was willing to postpone the bill to Monday, the 13th of June, and, after reasonable discussion, take the vote that day. Mr. Pendleton declared that there can be no unanimous consent in regard to taking the vote, (but he did not object to making it a special order ; and the further consideration of the bill was postponed to Monday, the 13th of June. On that day, the bill came up by special order ; and Mr. Morris, who reported it, withdrew the previous question, and gave notice that he should renew the motion after the bill should have been debated. Mr. King (Dem.) of Missouri made an elaborate speech in opposition to the passage of the bill. " The law," he said, " now sought to be repealed, was passed in the discharge of a solemn duty to the slaveholding States, — a duty enjoined by the Constitution, and which cannot, in my opinion, be repealed by Congress without a total disregard of an imperative obligation." Mr. Hubbard (Rep.) of Connecticut advocated the bill in a brief, earnest, and emphatic speech. " I make," he said, " no distinction whatever between the act of 1793 and the act of 1850. Today they are equally obnoxious ; and, in my opinion, equally infamous. I revere the memory of the founders of the Republic ; but I am not so infatuated as to believe that the fathers would ever have passed the act of 1793 had slavery then been in rebellion against them. It is fit that American statesmen in this age of the world ; at this period of the great American war ; at a time when the Republic is smarting and bleeding, if not reeling, under the blows that slavery has given it ; and at a time when a hundred thousand black men are fighting for the flag, Page 287 and not one against it, — it is fit that American statesmen, here assembled to deliberate and act upon this momentous question, should have an opportunity to record their votes for posterity to read." Mr. Cox next addressed the House in opposition to the passage of the bill in a sharp, pungent, partisan speech, during which he had a running debate with Baldwin of Massachusetts, Blaine of Maine, Cole of California, and Sloan of Wisconsin. He closed his speech by an arraignment of the sup porters of the Administration. " Your Executive," he said, " is a usurper of the powers wisely distributed to the other departments of the Government. Here you sit to-day, stirring to strike down the only mode where by one peculiar clause of the Constitution can be carried out, and propose no roads as a substitute either by State or Federal action. Your ideas are not those of the higher, but of the lower law. They do not come from the sources of law and light and love above. They sunder all the tie of allegiance, and all the sanctions of faith. You are destructionists : you would tear down all that is valuable and sacred in the past, and build up nothing in their place. You are revolutionists." Mr. Sloan (Rep.) of Wisconsin defended his State for its action in regard to the Fugitive-slave Act of 1850. Mr. Morris made a brief speech in advocacy of his bill. " These statutes," he said, " are repugnant to the sense of every good man who has not been educated to believe that the slave code is more imperative than the Constitution itself. I say, sweep out a law which no man respects who is not a votary of human slavery. It is an abomination." Mr. Farnsworth (Rep.) of Illinois closed the debate in a very brief Page 288 speech. In reply to the attack made by Mr. Cox upon the Administration for the surrender, to the authorities of Cuba, of Argues, Mr. Farnsworth said, " Oh ! Mr. Speaker, I understand where the trouble is with that side of the House. The effect of the action of sending back this rascal to Cuba was the emancipation of eighty human beings: that is where the shoe pinches. All the trouble is, that, upon Arguelleo landing in Cuba, the chains fell from the liraba of eighty men : that is what troubles my friends upon the other side of the House. If he had stolen money or horses, some petty crime, it would have been all well enough, and you would have heard no dissent ; but he is so infamous, his crime so high-handed and God-defying, that he Is worthy of a plank in the Democratic platform, and a wail from the Democratic party." Mr. Morris demanded the previous question upon the passage of the bill ; and the main question was ordered to be put. Mr. Hubbard of Connecticut demanded the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered. The question was taken ; and it was decided in the affiliative, — yeas 82, nays 57. Mr. Morris moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed, and to lay that motion on the table; and it was agreed to. So the bill prepared by Mr. Morris, and reported by him from the Judiciary Committee, passed the House en the 13th of June.

In the Senate, on the 21st of June, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House bill for the repeal of all laws for the rendition of fugitive slaves. Mr. Hendricks of Indiana opposed the motion. Mr. Howard of Michigan said, " I think it is high time that the Senate of the Page 289 United States should take this subject under their con sideration, and should pass upon the great questions which have so long agitated the people of the United States connected with the rendition of fugitive slaves." Mr. Saulsbury opposed taking up the bill, as " no practical good can result from it." Mr. Doolittle moved "to go into executive session." Mr. Sumner hoped not. " I know," he said, " of nobody who proposes to discuss it, unless it is the senator from Wisconsin, if he proposes to make a plea for slave-hunting." Mr. Davis of Kentucky said, " I tell the senator from Massachusetts, that I have, as I said some days ago, the sequel of the story of slavery in his State to tell ; and I expects to tell it upon this bill. I have no doubt it will be very edifying to the honorable senator." Mr. Doolittle said in reply, that " when the senator from Delaware expressly declares to the Senate that this question must be discussed, and shall be discussed ; that it cannot pass in an hour nor in a day ; and when the senator from Kentucky, with whom he ought certainly to be some what acquainted, and to have some practical sense of his powers of endurance, — when he comes to discuss this question of repealing the Fugitive-slave Law, I think the honorable senator from Massachusetts does great injustice in turning upon mc, and asking if I want to make a ' plea for slave-hunting ; ' and that there will be no speaking, unless it is by the honorable senator from Wisconsin." — "The speech of the senator from Wisconsin," replied Mr. Sumner, "belongs to the class of what may be called dilatory motions, or a speech to sustain a dilatory motion. He announces to us that there is to be an opposition to this bill, and Page 290 mentions several senators who menace speeches." Mr. Hale was against both motions, — "against taking up the Fugitive-slave Bill, and against going into executive session. There are several very important bills, relating to the navy, on the calendar ; and I have received urgent and pressing letters from the Secretary of the Navy to call the attention of the Senate to them." Mr. Powell was opposed to all the motions, and for taking up his bill to secure freedom of elections. He did "not see what good armies or navies are going to do us. If we have no freedom of elections." Mr. Hale was not willing to go into executive session, as he was not ready to proceed to the consideration of the unfinished business under consideration in executive session when we adjourned. Mr. Wilson said, "We have but very little business in executive session to attend to, and I hope we shall take up the measure indicated by my colleague." The motion to go into executive session was lost. Mr. Conness called for the yeas and nays on Mr. Sumner's motion to take up the House bill to repeal the fugitive-slave acts ; and they were ordered, — yeas 25, nays 17. The bill was taken up for consideration, and the Senate took a recess until evening.

On the 22d, Mr. Sumner moved to proceed to the consideration of the bill of the House to repeal the fugitive-slave acts. Mr. Hale opposed the motion, as he deaired to take up some naval bills ; and demanded the yeas and nays : and Mr. Sumner’s motion was lost, — yeas 14, nays 22. At the evening session, Mr. Sumner moved to take up the House bill to repeal the fugitive-slave acts. Mr. Chandler said, " I will spend the night with great pleasure with the senator from Page 291 Massachusetts on his bill ; but to-morrow I shall demand the day for the Committee on Commerce." Mr. Saulsbury would adjourn : he wanted a day without the " nigger." The motion to adjourn was lost, — yeas 8, nays 28. On Mr. Sumner’s motion to take up the bill, the yeas were 26, and the nays 12. Mr. Lane of Indiana moved that the Senate proceed to the con sideration of executive business, — yeas 16, nays 19. Mr. Saulsbury moved to postpone the bill indefinitely and the question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 11, nays 25. Mr. Sherman was willing to give to Mr. Davis from Kentucky, who was absent, a right to be heard, as he desired to speak on the bill ; but if senators " propose to report to parliamentary tactics for delay, merely to defeat a vote Upon the bill, which the majority have a right to pass, I am perfectly willing to go into a contest of physical endurance. "I am governed entirely," said Mr. Johnson, " by the wishes of the senator from Kentucky, who desires an opportunity to be heard." Mr. Willey was one of those who had voted against taking up this bill. " I did so," he said, " simply because I was told by the friends of the senator from Kentucky that he deaired to be heard. If a majority of the Senate say that this matter is to be pressed to-night, I will yield at once." Mr. Sumner would meet senators half-way. "I propose that we shall go on to-night, and perfect the bill, but suspend taking the vote on its final passage, in order to give the senator from Kentucky an opportunity of being heard." Mr. Powell accepted Mr. Sumner's proposition, and withdrew his motion to postpone the further consideration of the bill till the first Monday Page 292 of December next ; and it was reported to the Senate without amendment.

On the 23d of June, the bill was again taken up ; and Mr. Davis of Kentucky addressed the Senate in opposition to its passage. Mr. Saulsbury moved to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert the words of the Constitution concerning fugitive, "and that Congress shall pass all necessary laws for the rendition of all persons who shall escape." He demanded the yeas and nays; and they were ordered, — yeas 9, nays 29. Mr. Johnson moved to strike out after the word "that," in the third line, the following words: "Sections three and four of an act entitled 'An act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters, passed Feb. 12, 1793.'" Mr. Wilson asked for the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered. Mr. M'Dougall said, " I am governed by the Constitution of the United States, and the laws passed under the Constitution ; and I shall govern myself accordingly in my plea." The question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 17, nays 22. Mr. Saulsbury demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill ; and they were ordered, — yeas 27, nays 12, as follows :

— Yeas. — Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Hicks, Howard, Howe, Lane of Indiana, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson, — 27.

Nays. — Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Johnson, M'Dougall, Powell, Richardson, Riddle, Saulsbury, Van Winkle, and Willey, — 12.

So Mr. Morris’s bill repealing the fugitive-slave acts passed the Senate on the 23d, and received the approval of the President on the 28th, of June, 1864.

Source: Wilson, Henry. History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Eighth United States Congresses, 1861-1865, Boston: Walker, Fuller, & Co., 1865.