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

CHAPTER XX.

NEGRO TESTIMONY.

THE BILL TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT. — SUPPLEMENTARY BILL TO ABOLISH SLAVEEY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT. — MR. SUMNER'S BILL. — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL APPROPRIATION BILL, — REMARKS OF MR. SUMNER, MR. SHERMAN. — MR. BUCKALEW'S AMENDMENT. — REMARKS OF MR. SAULSBURY, MR. HOWARD. — MR. SUMNER'S AMENDMENT ADOPTED.

THE original bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, introduced by Mr. Wilson (Rep.) of Massachusetts on the 16th of December, 1861, provided that the claimant may be summoned before the commissioners, and examined on oath ; and that the party for whose service compensation is claimed may also be examined before the commissioners, and may testify. This provision simply secured to the person claimed to owe service or labor the right to testify before the commissioners.

Mr. Sumner (Rep.) of Massachusetts, on the 3d of April, moved to amend the bill by empowering the commissioners to take testimony, " without the exclusion of witnesses on account of color." Mr. Saulsbury (Dem.) of Delaware demanded the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered, — yeas 26, nays 10. This amendment empowered the commissioners appointed to assess the sum to be paid for each slave claimed to own advice Page 359 or labor ; to examine and take the testimony in the pending cases of colored witnesses, free or slave.

On the 7th of July, the Senate having under con sideration Mr. Wilson's supplementary bill for the re lease of certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, Mr. Sumner moved to add as a new section, " That, in all the judicial proceedings in the District of Columbia, there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color." Mr. Powell (Dem.) of Kentucky demanded the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered, — yeas 25, nays 11.

In the Senate, on the 25th of June, 1864, Mr. Sumner moved to amend the third section of the Civil Appropriation Bill by adding, " that, in the courts of the United States, there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color." In support of his amendment, Mr. Sumner read a note from a member of the Virginia Constitutional Convention, stating that, unless the freedmen were allowed to give testimony, " their persons and property will be at the mercy of every vagabond who may happen to have a black heart instead of a black skin. It is hard," he said, " to be obliged to argue this question. I do not argue it. I will not argue it. I simply ask for your votes. Surely Congress will not adjourn without redressing this grievance. The king, in Magna Charta, promised that he would deny justice to no one. Congress has succeeded to this promise and obligation." Mr. Sherman said he had always voted, and always should vote, to make no distinction in the color, condition, form, or nation, of a man as a witness ; " but I beseech the senator from Massachusetts not to load down this, the last of the appropriation Page 360 bills, with amendments that are likely to create controversy between the two Houses." Mr. Carlile would " appeal to the senator from Massachusetts to withdraw this amendment." He demanded the yeas and nays upon it; and they were ordered. Mr. Buckalew (Dem.) of Pennsylvania moved to add to Mr. Sumner’s amendment, " or because he is a party to or interested in the issue tried." Mr. Sumner was in favor of the proposition taken by itself, but did not wish it put upon his amendment. Mr. Brown reminded Mr. Sumner, that that is just what other people said about his amendment, Mr. Sumner understood that, but wished " to secure this justice." Mr. Buckalew wished " to secure the additional justice provided for by his amendment." Mr. Saulsbury did not wish " to say any thing about the ' nigger ' aspect of the case. It is here every day ; and I suppose it will be here every day for years to come, till the Democratic party comes into power, and wipes out all legislation on the statute-book of this character, which I trust in God they will soon do." — "la it to be presumed at the outset," said Mr. Howard (Rep.) of Michigan, " that, because a man has a black skin, he either cannot or will not tell the truth in court? It seems to me that those persons, who object to the examination of black persons as witnesses on the ground that they are black, put it upon this most unphilosophical, and, I may add, most inhuman and cruel presumption, that a negro either cannot or will not tell the truth in any case. I shall be guilty of presuming no such thing." Mr. Wilkinson (Rep.) of Minnesota suggested to Mr. Buckalew the modification of his amendment, so as to apply only to civil actions ; and he so Page 361 modified it. Mr. Sumner hoped the amendment would not be adopted. The vote was taken, and Mr. Buckalew’s amendment to Mr. Sumner’s amendment was agreed to, — ayes 21, noes not counted. The question being then taken on the amendment as amended, it was adopted, — yeas 22, nays 16. The Civil Appropriation Bill was approved by the President on the 2d of July, 1864 : so that no witness la now excluded in the courts of the United States on account of color.

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.