Mr. Sumner. The effect of the violation of the law in that respect need not be considered. It is sufficient that this section provides a penalty against those who violate the law; such is its simple object.
Mr. Edmunds. Ah! but let me ask my friend, does it not also provide what shall constitute a lawful jury?
Mr. Sumner. Very well,—and should it not so provide?
Mr. Edmunds. Very well,—but my question is, What would be the effect upon the trial of an indictment found by a grand jury not composed in conformity to this motion?
Mr. Sumner. I will not presume to pronounce an opinion on that question. It is sufficient for me that the section is clear and explicit in imposing a penalty upon the party making the exclusion, and that is all the bill proposes. The other consequences may be, will be, for the determination of the courts. The question belongs to them; I doubt if it belongs to us. But the bill is open to amendment. Let the Senator move such as he thinks the case requires: I shall welcome it.
When the Senator interrupted me I was about to address myself to him; for I should not have risen this time but for the remarks which he made. I know not, Sir, why my position on this question should justify the personalities which the Senator from Vermont considers so essential to debate. I certainly made no allusion to him, nor do I claim anything for myself. I am an humble worker in this Chamber, and in this cause I have been laborious for years; but not on that account do I claim anything, nor do I make any pretence. I know not why the Senator should, with personality of manner and allusion, undertake to taunt me for the position that I occupy. Do I deserve it? I represent humbly the sentiments of the people of Massachusetts, who have sent me here now for many years. Always loyal to these sentiments I hope to be, even though it brings upon me the displeasure of the Senator. Sir, I am anxious to harmonize with that Senator. I know, too, his loyalty to this cause,—I do not doubt it; but I now appeal to that Senator to unite with me in speeding this great measure. Let him join sincerely, with his large intelligence, to hasten this bill before the Senate and make it the law of the land; so would he become a benefactor to a much-oppressed people.
Possibly he has his doubts in regard to the Jury provision. I know other lawyers have expressed doubts before; and from the inquiry that he made a moment ago it is perhaps fair to infer that those doubts haunt his mind. To that I simply answer, Happily they do not haunt mine. I know the Constitution of my country, and I know that under that Constitution, unless my judgment fails entirely, the provision with reference to juries is absolutely valid and constitutional. I challenge the discussion. Let the Senator make his objections. The original Civil-Rights Bill, which passed over the veto of the President, solemnly declares that no evidence shall be excluded from any court of justice, National or State, on account of color. The nation has undertaken to regulate the testimony, not only in its own Courts but in State Courts; and will any one pretend that it may not regulate the jury in State Courts, when it may regulate the testimony in State Courts? Why, Sir, there is nothing in the Constitution touching testimony, but there are no less than three distinct provisions relating to trial by jury; and among other terms employed is “an impartial jury,” which is among the privileges and immunities of the citizen. And is it wrong for Congress, in the plenitude of its powers, anxious to do justice to all, to declare that there shall be an impartial jury in all tribunals, whether National or State, without regard to color? Having begun by regulating the testimony, where is the argument which is to prevent us from regulating the jury? I need not remind my excellent friend that originally the witnesses and the jury were almost one and the same.
Mr. Edmunds. They were precisely the same.
Mr. Sumner. Very well,—so much the better; and the Senator knows that there is a phrase handed down to us from English courts by which we are reminded constantly of the “witness-box” and the “jury-box.” So closely were they together that they come under a common nomenclature. Now I insist that they shall come under a common safeguard. We have already provided that there shall be no exclusion in testimony on account of color: we must also provide that there shall be no exclusion from the jury on account of color; and until that provision is made by supreme national law, not to be set aside, justice is not fully done.
But, Sir, I had no intention to discuss the character of this bill; and I have only been led into it by the allusion of the Senator, who, holding the bill in his hand, signalizes that section as open to criticism. Let him proceed with his criticism. But then I hope for better things. I hope my friend, instead of criticism, will give us that generous support which so well becomes him. He sees full well, that, until this great question is completely settled, the results of the war are not all secured, nor is this delicate and sensitive subject banished from these Halls. Sir, my desire, the darling desire, if I may say so, of my soul, at this moment, is to close forever this great question, so that it shall never again intrude into these Chambers,—so that hereafter in all our legislation there shall be no such words as “black” or “white,” but that we shall speak only of citizens and of men. Is not that an aspiration worthy of a Senator? Is such an aspiration any ground for taunt from the Senator of Vermont? Will he not, too, join in the aspiration and the endeavor to bring about that beneficent triumph? Let this be omitted now, let any part of this bill be dropped out now, and you leave the question for another Congress, to be pursued by other petitions, to be pressed by other Senators and Representatives; for, so long as injustice remains without redress, so long will there be men to petition, and so long, I trust, will there be Senators and Representatives to demand a remedy. I ask for all now.