Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-05-21
CONGRESSIONAL.
The Civil Rights Bill Before the
Senate.
Speeches Pro and Con. by Pratt
and Thurman.
Both Houses Resolve to Adjourn
June 22,

southern Claims.

i 60utntf Ol8ltHh.
Mr.. Scott, frem tie Committee on
| Claims sreporfed adversely on the bill to pro-
vide for the settlement of claims of loyal
persons against the United States accruing
during the rebellion and for other purposes.
Indefinitely postponed. This bill proposes
to confer jurisdiction on the Court OF
Claims to determine the claims of all
citizens who remained loyal or took the
oath prescribed by the Presidents procla-
nation of Dec. 8, 1868, and further pro
roses TO abolish a Board of Southern
Claims Commissioners.
Mr.. Scott also reported unfayorably on
joint resolutions directing the Commission
ers Of Claims to send to Congress without
delay, claims decided prior to April l, 1874,
and it was indefinitely postponed.
Civil Rights.
The morning hour having expired, Mr..
Frelinghuysen moved that the Senate take
up the civil rights bill.
MessIs. Stockton, Salisbury and McCreery
objected, and asked that consideration OF
the bill be postponed until the return of
Stevenson, Bay.rd and Others, necessarily
absent, and who desired to speak upon it.
Upon division q majority voted to take
up the bill.
Mr.. Salisbury called for the yeas and nays
and said he desired to put on record those
Senators who demanded the consideration
Of a measure when Senators who desired
to speak upon it were absent. He thought
the dominant party in the Senate, which
fixed up the order of business, should have
some respect for minority, and not refuse
to extend the courtesy to absent Senators
e g. los-
Mr. Hunter said he was very glad to
have the opportunity to record his vote in
favor Of taking up the bill, which had
been discussed to the greatest extent year
in and year out.
Tie motion to take up the bill was agreed
to; yeas 81, nays 13.
Mr.. Flanagan addressed the Senate in
favor of the civil rights bill.
Mr.. Pratt also spoke in favor of the bill.
He argued that it was the dnty OF Congress
to so legislste that every right Of citizen
ship should be secured to the black man.
He thought the bill was justified in provid-
ing such severe penalties that If would be
obeyed The bill did not necessarily lead
to
Mixed schools.
Where the colored people are numerous en-
ough they will prefer to have schools of
their own. and are not prohibited from do
ing so by the bill; but in villages it would
be impracticable to have separate schools.
The cOlored race constituted one-eighth
part of the population of this country, and
the two must live together IN harmony.
The whole argument against the bill began
and ended in prejudice. Why should it ex-
ist in this country and not in Europe? In
conclusion he argued that the passage of
the bill would do much to annihilate this
prejudice, as the people would then accus-
tom themselves to obeyiDg law and freeing
themselves from prejudice.
Mr.. Thurman said he knew the bill was
to pass, though not because of its merits.
He did not believe that one-third of the
Senate, if left untrammeled by outside
pressure, would vote for the bill. There
were
100000 CoIored Voters
in the United States, and their demands
had more power in this chamber than the
Constitution of the United States itself.
If the fate OF this measure depended upon
its own merits, it would require very little
ability TO show it should not pass. He ar
gued at some length as to the constitutional
power of Congress, and said the bill did
not pre- pose 10 deal with States, but dealt
with individuals. So the States could pro
vide punishment to secure civil rights and
the Federal Government by this bill could
seize citizen and try him a second time.
In the State of Louisiana for instance,
every ofiense mentioned in this bill was
punishable by the State law. Yet it was
proposed to have second punishment BY
the strong arm of Federal power. The eff
feet would be to break up the common
school system, and both white and colored
children 60 without education.
The resolution of the House providing
for adjournment sine die on the 22d OF
June was received and agreed to.
Pending discussion of the civil rights bill
the Senate went into executive session and
soon after adjourned.