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

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 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-office and Post-roads ; and, on the 2Jth, Mr. Collamer reported it back without amendment. The Senate, on the llth 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of acta, establishing each disqualification, including especially the seventh section of the act of March 3, 1825, are repealed.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, — yeas 24, nays 11. So the bill passed the Senate.

Mr. Colfax (Rep.) of Indiana, on the 20th of May, Page 368 reported it from the House Post-office Committee, with the recommendation that it do not pass. He explained the reasons for the action of the committee. " It does not," he said, " affect exclusively the blacks of the country. It will throw open the business of mail contracting, and of thus becoming officers of the Post-office Department, net only to blacks, but also to the Indian tribes, civilized and uncivilized ; and to the Chinese, who have come in such large numbers to the Pacific coast. . . . It would allow all over the South the employment by the slaveholder of his slaves to carry the mail, and to receive compensation for the labor such slaves put of the Federal treasury. By the present law, not a dollar is ever paid out of the Post-office treasury to any slave holder for the labor of his slave." It was necessary to have testimony to convict mail depredators ; " and colored men were not allowed to testify in the courts of many of the States." Mr. Dawes (Rep.) of Massachusetts inquired of Mr. Colfax " whether he supposes depredators upon the mails are tried in the State courts, or whether they are tried in the United-States courts ; and, if the latter, whether he and I do not make the laws of the United States and the courts of the United States, prescribing who shall testify, and who shall not." Mr. Wickliffe (Dem.) of Kentucky stated that "the law which this bill proposed to repeal was originally enacted to exclude some men in the South who were in the habit of obtaining mail contracts, and employing their negroes to drive their stages and carry the mails." Mr. Colfax moved to lay the bill on the table, Mr. Fessenden (Rep.) of Maine demanded the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered. On the 21st, the vote to Page 369 lay the bill on the table was taken, and resulted — yeas 82, nays 45.

On the 18th of January, 1864, Mr. Sumner introduced a bill to remove all disqualification of color in carrying the mails ; which was referred to the Post-office Committee. Mr. Collamer, on the llth of February, reported it back with an amendment. The Senate, on the 26th, proceeded to its consideration ; the question being on the amendment reported by the committee, to add, " that, in the courts of the United States, there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color." Mr. Collamer said, " The bill is sufficiently explicit in itself; but the committee were of the opinion, that if persons of color were to be employed, and rendered eligible to be employed, as carriers of the mail, by those who have contracted to carry it, and who wish to employ them, it would be unsafe to commit to their hands the mail, when they could not themselves be witnesses against those who should violate that mail, steal It, rob It, and commit depredations upon it." Mr. Lane (Rep.) of Indiana had voted, and would vote, against the measure. " I am proud," said Mr. Lane (Rep.) of Kansas, "that I represent a State, the people of which have intelligence sufficient to sift all testimony presented, and justice enough to receive the truth from the lips of individuals, without reference to color." Mr. Saulsbury (Dem.) of Delaware declared, " We are legislating against reason, against our own race, by such enactments as this." Mr. Sumner read a letter from Postmaster-General Gideon Granger to Senator Jackson of Georgia, to show that the " origin of the offensive legislation sought Page 370 to be removed grew out of a proposition to sustain slavery." Mr. Powell denounced the bill as " fanatical and radical legislation : " he demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered. Mr. Hendricks (Dem.) of Indiana was not "content to see a law passed by the Congress of the United States, placing the negro upon the platform of equality with the white race in the courts of the country, the sanctuary of our rights. Standing alone, the white race has progressed for a thousand years, without a step backward. Standing alone, the negro race has gone downward and down ward for a thousand years." Mr. Harlan (Rep.) of Iowa inquired of Mr. Hendricks, "if, in his opinion, riding in a public conveyance with another cither creates or becomes evidence of social equality between the parties." — "I did not refer," replied Mr. Hendricks, "to any particular action of this body ; but I referred to the general tendency of our proceedings, giving nearly all the time of the Senate to the consideration of the interests of the negro, but very little of it to the white man." Mr. Powell proposed to amend the amendment, so that it would only apply to "cases for robbing or violating the mails." This limitation was opposed by Mr. Conness (Union) of California, whose purpose was " to receive testimony and proof from any source that is human." Mr. Johnson of Maryland regretted the introduction of the measure ; but, if adopted, he trusted it would be confined to free persons of color. The bill was not further considered, and is pending in the Senate.

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.