Then I encounter the objection that this is not in order. Why not? Is it not to carry out your Reconstruction Bill, to smooth difficulties, to remove wrong, to establish justice? It may not have been specially foreshadowed in the original bill or the supplemental bill; but I submit that it is entirely germane to both those bills. Besides, it is commended by an intrinsic justice, which should make it acceptable at any time.
The amendment was decided to be out of order.
Mr. Sumner then offered this amendment:--
“_And be it further enacted_, That all the provisions of this Act, and of the Acts to which this is supplementary, shall be construed liberally, to the end that all the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried out.”
There was no objection of order to this amendment, and it was agreed to without a division.
After further amendment the bill was ingrafted upon a House bill on the same subject and passed,--Yeas 32, Nays 6. Being referred to a Conference Committee, the report of the Committee was adopted: in the Senate, Yeas 31, Nays 6,--and in the House, Yeas 111, Nays 23.
July 13th, on the report of the Conference Committee in the Senate, Mr. Sumner said:--
And now, as we are about to dismiss this subject for the present session, I cannot forbear again expressing regret that the measure has not been made more complete,--in one word, more radical. This is the third bill of Reconstruction on which we have acted. We ought never to have acted on more than one; and had the Senate been sufficiently radical, had it founded its bill on clear, definite principle, there would have been no occasion for more than one. Just so far as we have failed to found ourselves on clear, definite principle, our bills have failed; and should there be failure under the present bill, it will be precisely on that account.
I shall never cease to lament that Congress did not at once assume jurisdiction of the whole region, and in the exercise of its plenary authority establish civil governments, supplying ample military support. Such a Reconstruction would have been founded on principles to defy the criticism of history. I trust that what we have done will be judged leniently hereafter. I know, however, that it is not above criticism. Of course, such Reconstruction would have removed out of sight all existing State governments and municipal governments set up by Rebel authority, or by the President in the exercise of usurped power. In my opinion, it is not too late to do this last work. Even if you decline to establish civil governments, I think, that, under the Military Bill, you should go forward and brush away all the existing governments there. From information, private and public, out of every one of the Rebel States, I am led to this conclusion. Those governments, whether State or municipal, are just so many engines of Rebel influence. They stand in the way of Reconstruction. They prevent the beneficent operation of your work. But the Senate has declined that path. I regret it, and now at this last moment record my regret.