History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States

by William Horatio Barnes

Meanwhile the Senate Committee had under consideration a bill of their own, which they reported on the 10th of January. This bill provided for restricted suffrage, requiring the qualification to read and write. Mr. Yates, an original and uncompromising advocate of universal suffrage was opposed to this restriction. He was a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia, but had been prevented from being present in its deliberations when it was resolved to report the bill as then before the Senate. Fearing that the bill might pass the Senate with the objectionable restrictions, Mr. Yates moved that it be recommitted, which was done.

At a meeting of the committee called to reconsider the bill, Mr. Yates argued at length and with earnestness against disfranchisement on the ground of inability to read and write. The committee reversed their former decision, and reported the bill substantially in the form in which it subsequently became a law. The bill being before the Senate on the 16th of January, 1866, Mr. Garrett Davis opposed it in a speech of great length. He made use of every argument and referred to every authority within his reach to prove the inferiority of the negro race. After giving Cuvier's definition of the "negro," the Senator remarked: "The great naturalist might have added as other distinctive characteristics of the negro; first, that his skin exhales perpetually a peculiar pungent and disagreeable odor; second, that 'the hollow of his foot makes a hole in the ground.'" The Senator drew a fearful picture of the schemes of Massachusetts to use the negro voters, whom it was her policy to create in the South.

This subject did not again come up in the Senate until after the lapse of several months. On the 27th of June it was "disentombed" from what many supposed was its final resting place. Mr. Morrill proposed as an amendment that the elective franchise should be restricted to persons who could read and write. This was rejected; fifteen voting in the affirmative, and nineteen in the negative.

Mr. Willey opposed the bill before the Senate in a speech of considerable length. He advocated the bestowal of a qualified and restricted suffrage upon the colored people of the District. His chief objection to the measure before the Senate was that it was untimely. "Any thing not essential in itself," said he, "or very material to the welfare of the nation, or a considerable part of the nation, if it is calculated to complicate our difficulties, or inflame party passions or sectional animosities, had better be left, it appears to me, to a more propitious hour."

The "propitious hour" hoped for by the Senator, did not come around until after the opening of the second session. The subject did not again seriously occupy the attention of the Senate, with the exception of Mr. Sumner's effort to have it taken up on the first day of the session, until the 10th day of December, 1866.

On that day, Mr. Morrill, who, as Chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, had the bill in charge, introduced the subject with a speech of considerable length. "This measure," said he, "not only regulates the elective franchise in this District, but it extends and enlarges it. The principal feature of the bill is that it embraces the colored citizens of the District of Columbia. In this particular it is novel, and in this particular it is important. In this particular it may be said to be inaugurating a policy not only strictly for the District of Columbia, but in some sense for the country at large. In this respect it is, I suppose, that this bill has received so large a share of the public attention during the last session and the recess of the Congress of the United States."

Mr. Morrill called attention to the remonstrance of the Mayor of Washington, who had informed the Senate that in an election held for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the voters of the city upon the subject, some six thousand five hundred were opposed to the extension of the elective franchise, while only thirty or forty were in favor of it.

"These six or seven thousand voters," said Mr. Morrill, "are only one in thirty at most of the people of this District, and it is very difficult to understand how there could be more significance or probative force attached to these six or seven thousand votes than to an equal number of voices independent of the ballot, under the circumstances. This is a matter affecting the capital of the nation, one in which the American people have an interest, as indirectly, at least, touching the country at large. What the National Congress pronounce here as a matter of right or expediency, or both, touching a question of popular rights, may have an influence elsewhere for good or for evil. We can not well justify the denial of the right of suffrage to colored citizens on the protest of the voters of the corporation of Washington. We may not think fit to grant it simply on the prayer of the petitioners. Our action should rest on some recognized general principle, which, applied to the capital of the nation, would be equally just applied to any of the political communities of which the nation is composed."

In closing his speech, Mr. Morrill remarked: "In a nation of professed freemen, whose political axioms are those of universal liberty and human rights, no public tranquillity is possible while these rights are denied to portions of the American people. We have taken into the bosom of the Republic the diverse elements of the nationalities of Europe, and are attempting to mold them into national harmony and unity, and are still inviting other millions to come to us. Let us not despair that the same mighty energies and regenerating forces will be able to assign a docile and not untractable race its appropriate place in our system."

Mr. Willey's amendment, proposed when the subject was last considered in the previous session, six months before, being now the pending question, its author addressed the Senate in favor of some restrictions upon the exercise of the elective franchise. "There ought to be some obligation," said he, "either in our fundamental laws in the States, or somewhere, by some means requiring the people to educate themselves; and if this can be accomplished by disqualifying those who are not educated for the exercise of the right of suffrage, thus stimulating them to acquire a reasonable degree of education, that of itself, it seems to me, would be a public blessing."