Charles Sumner

Like the others, it must open to all, or its designation is a misnomer and a mockery.

The law can lend itself to no such intolerable absurdity; and this, I insist, shall be declared by Congress.

How utterly irrational the pretension to outrage a large portion of the community!

Here are institutions whose peculiar object is “the pursuit of happiness,” which has been placed among the Equal Rights of All.

As the inn cannot close its doors, or the public conveyance refuse a seat, to any paying traveller, decent in condition, so must it be with the theatre and other places of public amusement.

The company is under a public duty, as a common carrier of passengers, to receive all who offer themselves as such and are ready to pay the usual fare, and is liable in damages to a party whom it refuses to carry without a reasonable…

The first and most general obligation on their part is to carry passengers, whenever they offer themselves and are ready to pay for their transportation.

With this peremptory rule opening the doors of inns to all travellers, without distinction, to the extent of authorizing not only an action, but an indictment, for the refusal to receive a traveller, it is plain that the pending bill is…

Thus is the innkeeper under constraint of law, which he must obey; “bound to take in all travellers and wayfaring persons”; “nor can he impose unreasonable terms upon them”; and liable to an action, and even to an indictment, for refusal.

Thus will the law be an instrument of improvement, necessary in precise proportion to existing prejudice.

Prompted by the law, leaning on the law, they will recognize the equal rights of all; nor do I despair of a public opinion which shall stamp the denial of these rights as an outrage not unlike Slavery itself.

The country will rally in aid of the law, more especially since it is a measure of justice and humanity.

Once a sterile letter, this is now a fruitful safeguard, to be interpreted, like all else, so that human rights shall most prevail.

Once Slavery was the animating principle in determining the meaning of the National Constitution: happily, it is so no longer.

In considering these Constitutional provisions, I insist upon that interpretation which shall give them the most generous expansion, so that they shall be truly efficacious for human rights.

If the Supplementary Civil Rights Bill, moved by me, is not within these accumulated powers, I am at a loss to know what is within those powers.

Here, then, are two Constitutional Amendments, each a fountain of power: the first, to enforce the Abolition of Slavery; and the second, to assure the privileges and immunities of citizens, and also the equal protection of the laws.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any…

All persons,” and not “all white persons,” born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are “citizens.” Such is the definition supplied by this Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the States wherever they reside.

So long as it exists, Slavery is still present among us.

But the denial or abridgment of Equality on account of color is also part of Slavery.

So closely was this outrage connected with Slavery, that it was, indeed, part of this great wrong.

By the Civil Rights Law colored persons were assured in the right to testify, which in most of the States was denied or abridged.

That measure was justly accepted as “appropriate legislation.” Without it Slavery would still exist in at least one of its most odious pretensions.