Mr. SUMNER. Before the vote is taken on the resolution, I desire to call the attention of the Senate to certain facts that have already become more or less familiar to the public. For instance, I hold in my hand an original notice sent to me from Maryland, which is as follows: PUBLIC SALE. The undersigned will sell at the courthouse door, in the city of Annapolis, at 12 o'clock m., on Saturday, 8th December, 1866, a negro man named Richard Harris, for 6 months, convicted at the October term, 1866, of the Anne Arundel county circuit court for larceny, and sentenced by the court to be sold as a slave. Terms of sale, cash. WM. IBRYAN. Sheriff Anne Arundel county. December3, 1866. But this case does not stand alone. Here is another case on a still larger scale to which my attention has been.;by a correspondent, who states that the persons mentioned in the advertisement which I am about to read were sold in his presence, before his very eyes. This is as follows: PUBLIC SALE. The undersigned will offer for sale at the courthouse door in the city of Annapolis, at 11 o'clock a.m., on Saturday, 22d December, 1866, a ye negro man named John Johnson, aged about term, 1866, The said negro was convicted at October larceny, of the circuit court for Anne Arundel for jo and sentencedby the court to be sold in the or the term of one year from 12thof December, Gassoway nPergicreo, magaend, convicted as aforesaid, named about 30 years, to be sold for a term of 2 years in the State. Also a negro woman, convicted as aforesaid, named Harriet Purdy, aged about 25 years, to be sold lsfooraanteegrrmowoof money, convicted as aforesaid, named Dilby Harris, aged about 30 years, to be sold for a term of 2 years in the State. Terms of sale, cash. WM. BRYAN, Sheriff. I}ecember15, 1866. It seems to me, sir, that these cases throw upon Congress the duty at least of inquiry; and I wish that the ComJudiciary, that reported to this body the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, would give us their opinion on the validity of these proceedings, and the necessity or expediency of any further action of Congress in order to prevent their repetition. I do not know that the civil rights bill, which was afterward passed, may not be adequate to meet these cases; but I am not clear on that point. At the time the constitutional amendment was under oonsideration I objected positively to the phraseology there introduced. I hoif. it was an unhappy deference, if I may so express myself, to an original legislative precedent at an earlier period of our history. I regretted infinitely at the moment that Congress was willing, even indirectly, to sanction any form of slavery. But I presume that the Senate, at the time they upon that amendment, supposed that the phrase “involuntary servitude, except for crime whereof the party has been legally convicted, ” was simply applicable to ordinary imprisonment. At the time I feared that it was not exclusively applicable to what we commonly understand by imprisonment, and that it might be extended so as to cover some form of slavery. It seems now that it has been so extended, and I wish the ComJudiciary to consider whether the remedy can be applied by an act of Congress or whether we must not go farther and expurgate that poology from the text of the Constitution itself.