MR. EDMUNDS. That is not a very dangerous state of things; but there are others who can. * * * * * The Senate decided the motion out of order,--Yeas 12, Nays 22. * * * * * July 13th, and again on the 15th, Mr. Sumner made another effort, by a resolution suspending the rule limiting business, so as to allow the consideration of this bill; but he could not get a vote on the resolution. The Senate rose without touching it. OPENING OF OFFICES TO COLORED PERSONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL FOR THE FURTHER SECURITY OF EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, JULY 16, 1867. July 16th, Mr. Sumner offered a petition from citizens of Washington, setting forth, that, under the existing charter of Washington, colored persons are excluded from office, and praying relief. He supported the petition with the following bill “for the further security of Equal Rights in the District of Columbia”:-- “_Be it enacted, &c._, That in the District of Columbia no person shall be excluded from any office by reason of race or color, and all parts of laws making any such discrimination are hereby repealed.” The bill was read, when Mr. Sumner asked unanimous consent to proceed with its consideration. I think there can be no objection to this bill. It is simply to carry out what is understood to be the effect of existing legislation, but which practically does not seem to be its effect. At the late election in the District it appeared that by the terms of the charter colored persons could not be qualified as aldermen, as common-councilmen, or as assessors; and on examining the charter, which I have now on my desk, I find that by its terms, strictly construed, these offices are confined to free white persons. By our legislation, all persons, without distinction of color, can be voters, but nothing is said about being office-holders. I cannot doubt, that, under the Constitution, and particularly since the recent legislation, the discrimination adverse to colored persons is void; but practically it is not so regarded. I submit, therefore, that it is proper in Congress to remove this grievance. Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, objected to its consideration, when Mr. Sumner gave notice that he should endeavor to call it up the next day. He gave further notice, that, if any objection were made, he should move to suspend the rule limiting business so far as to allow this bill to be considered. * * * * * July 17th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, then said:--