The argument need not be long. In the first place, the statute of 1861 contains no words which can be interpreted in any way to exclude the enrolment of persons of color under it. I challenge any Senator to mention a single word in that statute authorizing any such exclusion. You have, then, the statute in the case. That is the first point. Then you have the order from the Secretary of War to Governor Andrew, authorizing an enrolment for three years, making no discrimination between persons of African descent and white soldiers. That is the second point. You have, in the third place, the open promises and pledges of Governor Andrew, under that order, and for the time being the agent of the United States, solemnly promising the full pay of thirteen dollars a month to these colored persons as soldiers of the United States. And, in the last place, you have the very terms of enlistment subscribed by these soldiers at the time of enlistment, which I read the other day, where it is expressly stated that they entered into service under the statute of 1861. These four points,--the statute of 1861, the order of the Secretary, the promise of Governor Andrew in behalf of the United States, and the terms of enlistment,--all these make a case by which, as it seems to me, the Government is bound. In face of these, how can it be said that these colored troops were “employed” under the statute of 1862? There is no ingenuity of interpretation which can place them there. That I am not mistaken in the facts on which I found this argument is apparent from a letter which I hold in my hand, written by one of these soldiers, now on Morris Island. I content myself with a brief extract. “In the month of February, 1863, Governor John A. Andrew announced that he had permission from the War Department to raise a regiment of infantry to be composed of men of color. Enlisting began immediately, and the fifty-fourth regiment was filled to overflowing in three months. The only inducement he offered to these men was an acknowledgment of their manhood; for he promised that the United States Government would treat them, in _every_ particular, the same as other volunteer regiments from the State of Massachusetts.” MR. LANE. Will the Senator pardon me a moment just there? MR. SUMNER. Certainly. MR. LANE. They were to be treated in every respect as the volunteer troops from Massachusetts. Will the Senator contend that the commissioned officers of colored regiments might be drawn from the colored troops themselves, after the passage of the law of 1862? Was not that a disparity? Was that treating them like other troops? MR. SUMNER. Of course the order is applicable simply to the enlisted men. It is not applicable to the officers. The letter goes on to say,-- “The enlistment rolls signed by these men bound them to obey the President,” &c. How?