Had Mr. Bingham or Mr. Blaine, who made a kindred effort in the House, been of our committee, and then of our caucus, I do not doubt they would have done the same thing. My colleague did not use too strong language, when he said that then and there, in that small room, in that caucus, was decided the greatest pending question on the North American Continent. I remember his delight, his ecstasy, at the result. I remember other language that he employed on that occasion, which I do not quote. I know he was elevated by the triumph; and yet it was carried only by two votes. There are Senators who were present at that caucus according to whose recollection it was carried only by one vote. The Postmaster-General, in conversing with me on this subject lately, told me that he had often, in addressing his constituents, alluded to this result as illustrating the importance of one vote in deciding a great question. The Postmaster-General was in error. It was not by one vote, but by two votes, that it was carried. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, following with personal recollections concerning the provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, said it was his “impression” that the motion for its adoption “in caucus” was made by “the Senator’s colleague [Mr. WILSON],” “but undoubtedly the other Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] made it in committee, and advocated it,”--adding, however, “Neither the Senator from Massachusetts nor any other Senator can claim any great merit in voting for universal suffrage in February or March, 1867. His record was made long before that.” In reference to the latter Mr. Sherman remarked:-- “The Senator from Massachusetts needs no defender of his course on the question of universal suffrage. No man can deny that from the first, and I think the very first, he has advocated and maintained the necessity of giving to the colored people of the Southern States the right to vote.… Early and late he has repeated to us the necessity of conferring suffrage upon the colored people of the South as the basis of Reconstruction. I think, therefore, that he is justified in stating that he was the first to propose it in this body; and why should the Senator deem it necessary to spend one hour of our valuable time now to prove this fact? In my judgment it would be just as well for George Washington to defend himself against the charge of disloyalty to the American Colonies, for whom he was fighting, as for the honorable Senator to defend his record on this question.” After further remarks by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Trumbull, of the same character as the first, Mr. Wilson rose and addressed the Chair; but a previous motion for adjournment being insisted upon and prevailing, he was cut off, and the matter subsided. FOOTNOTES