The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1872-02-06
CONGRESSIONAL.
WASHINGTON, February j.
SENATE.

The Vice President laid before the
Senate the credentials OF Gen. Ransom,
United States Senator from North
Carolina which were sent TO the COM
mittee on Elections.
Mr.. Chandler presented several
memorials from the Michigan lumber
men against the Chicago relief bill.
Mr.. kellogg presented the petition
of the leading representatives Of the
rice interest in Louisiana against the
abolition of the duty on rice. He an.
nounced that he had just received it by
telegraph and moved its reference to the
committee on Finance.
Mr.. Pomeroy objected, on the ground
that petition cannot he sent by tele.
graph, and it was not referred.
Mr.. Morton offered a resolution in
relation TO the manufacture OF Bessmer
steel, and said he would call it up at an
early day, and made some remarks on
the superiority OF Indiana for walling
steel, and on the importance Of improv-
ing the harbor OF Michigan City, Ind,
so as to bring the iron mines of Lake
Superior into more direct communica-
ton with the coal fields OF Indiana.
At the expiration of the morning
hour the amnesty bill came up as un'
finished business.
Mr.. Robertson moved to lay the pend.
ing bill on the table, and take up the
last amnesty bill passed by the House.
Lost by vote OF 20 yeas to 80 nays.
Mr.. Carpenter moved a substitute for
Mr.. Summers pending amendment to
the supplementary civil rights bill, pro-
viding that whoever, being corpora
ton or natural person, owner or in
charge OF any public inn or Of any
place Of public amusement or entertain
ment from which a license from any
legal authorities is required, or Of any
line of stages, coaches, railroad, or
other means for the public carriage OF
passengers or freight, or Of any cemetery
or other benevolent institution, or any
public school supported at public ex-
pense, or by an endowment for public
use, shall make any distinction as to
the admission or accommodation OF any
citizen of the United States because Of
race, color, nationality or previons con-
dition OF servitude, shall, upon convic-
ton thereof, be fined not less than 500
nor more than 5000 for each ofiense,
to be recovered, one-half for the use OF
the United States and one-half for the
use of the complainant.
The second section provides that the
complainant may be prosecuted in any
circuit court or district court in the
United States having jurisdiction in the
place where the offense is alleged to have
been committed.
Mr.. Carpenter said the difference be-
tween this and Mr.. Summers bill was
in two points: First, the substitute
omitted all reference to churches; and,
second, it boasted the right of federal
interference upon the fact that the
institutions We're supported at public
expense, and not as Mr. Sumner s bill
did upon the mere fact OF incorporation.
Mr.. Norwood, Of Georgia, argued
against Sumner 8 amendment, as uncer-
tain, and calculated to nullify the laws
OF several Of the States. prohibiting the
intermarriage of blacks and whites He
thought Mr.. Carpenters substitute was
also unconstitutional, aud said he would
base his vote against both amendments
on that ground.
Mr.. Wilson said he would vote for
Mr.. Summers amendment just because
it went so far, and in the clearest and
most positive manner made all dis
tinction on account OF color in the
United States an offense. The question
OF iutermarriage raised by Mr.. Norwood
had been settled in Massachusetts,
thirty years ago; that State had repealed
her law on the subject at that time, and
the predictions of dreadful results that
were to follow had all sigually
failed. A great deal had been heard
for years about the superiority of the
white race and the marked distinction
between whites and blacks, but every
where evidence was to be seen that these
distinctions had often been disregarded.
He wished to see all the laws based on
the difference OF the race abolished as
unchristian, inhuman and undemo-
cratic.
Mr.. Norwood said if the people were
all as exemplary as Pomeroy, perhaps
there would be no necessity for legal
enactments. Laughter.
Mr.. Sumner argued at great length
that his amendment was constitutional,
and elaborated bis former argument
that the Constitution must be inter