This bill was introduced December 16th, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia December 20th, reported with amendments by Mr. Morrill of Maine February 13th, taken up for consideration March 12th, and proceeded with to its final passage April 3d: Yeas 29, Nays 14. April 11th, it passed the House: Yeas 94, Nays 44. April 16th, it was approved by the President, who sent a Message expressing gratification that “the two principles of compensation and colonization are both recognized and practically applied in the Act.”[213] In the interval between the passage of the bill and its approval by the President there was concern with many lest it should fail in his hands. During this painful suspense, Mr. Sumner visited the President, and said: “Do you know who at this moment is the largest slave-_holder_ in this country? It is Abraham Lincoln; for he holds all the three thousand slaves of the District, which is more than any other person in the country holds.” He then expressed astonishment that the President could postpone the approval a single night. * * * * * Mr. Sumner spoke, March 31st, treating the case as of ransom rather than compensation. He was willing to vote money for Emancipation, but would not recognize the title of the master implied in compensation. The distinction facilitated a bolder dealing with the question, which was needed in the Rebel States. This method was noticed especially by the _New York Tribune_. “The speech of Mr. Sumner in the Senate on the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia is a statesmanlike view of the subject, which should commend it to the impartial consideration of the country. He addressed himself, not to a discussion of the character of Slavery itself, but simply to its recognition in the national capital, and advocates its removal because it is not in accordance with the Constitution. On this point his reasoning is conclusive, and is an appeal to the national self-respect which ought not to be disregarded. Not less forcible is the ground he takes on the question of compensation. Viewing it rather in the light of ransom for the slave than compensation to the master for a right surrendered, he upholds it as a duty springing from the complicity of the whole country in the existence heretofore of the system in the domain exclusively under national jurisdiction. Common sense and a sense of justice to all parties alike commend such a treatment of the subject.” Lewis Tappan, the early and most watchful Abolitionist, wrote from New York:--