Financial Analysis with Microsoft Excel 2016 8th Edition Mayes Solutions Manual

Financial Analysis with Microsoft Excel

2016 8th Edition Mayes Solutions
Manual
Visit to get the accurate and complete content:

https://testbankfan.com/download/financial-analysis-with-microsoft-excel-2016-8th-edi
tion-mayes-solutions-manual/

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

Financial Analysis with Microsoft Excel 2016 8th Edition Mayes Solutions Manual

CHAPTER 2: THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Instructor’s Manual Problem Set

Solutions can be found in the accompanying Excel files. Note that if you wish to see all of the formulas at
once, you may use the CTRL+` (Control plus grave accent) shortcut key to toggle them on or off.

1. Using the data presented below for Blue Sky Inc.:

2017 2016
Sales $7,550,000 $6,150,000
Cost of Goods 5,750,000 4,550,000
Depreciation 120,000 100,000
Selling and G&A Expenses 820,000 730,000
Fixed Expenses 200,000 200,000
Lease Expense 150,000 150,000
Interest Expense 350,000 300,000
Tax Rate 40.00% 40.00%
Shares Outstanding 100,000 80,000
Cash 108,000 50,000
Marketable Securities 150,000 100,000
Accounts Receivable 450,000 350,000
Inventory 1,250,000 850,000
Prepaid Expenses 120,000 40,000
Plant & Equipment 5,350,000 4,800,000
Accumulated Depreciation 410,000 290,000
Long Term Investments 450,000 360,000
Accounts Payable 420,000 380,000
Notes Payable 150,000 100,000
Accrued Expenses 150,000 100,000
Other Current Liabilities 200,000 180,000
Long-term Debt 2,900,000 2,500,000
Common Stock 2,500,000 2,000,000
Additional Paid-in-Capital 600,000 500,000
Retained Earnings 548,000 500,000
a) Create Blue Sky’s income statement and balance sheet using formulas wherever possible. Each
statement should be on a separate worksheet. Improve the readability of the data by using the format
explained on page 49, so that Excel will display the numbers as if they had been divided by 1,000.
Make the appropriate note on the heading of each financial statement.
b) On another worksheet, create a statement of cash flows for 2017. All formulas should be linked
directly to the source on previous worksheets.
c) Using Excel’s outlining feature, create an outline on the balance sheet that, when collapsed, shows
only the subtotals for each section.

2. Using the data from the previous problem:

a) Create a common-size income statement and balance sheet for 2017 and 2016. These statements
should be created on a separate worksheet with all formulas linked directly to the income statement
and balance sheet.
b) Using the common-size income statement for 2017, create a forecasted income statement for 2018
assuming that each item is expected to remain in the same proportion as in 2017. The forecasted sales
for 2018 are $8,500,000.

Visit TestBankFan.com to get complete for all chapters

Chapter 2: The Basic Financial Statements 9
Instructor’s Manual Problem Set

3. Using the data presented below:

Square Corp. Square Corp.
Income Statement Balance Sheet
For the Year Ended Dec. 31, 2017 ($ in 000's) As of Dec. 31, 2017 ($ in 000's)
2017 2016 Assets 2017 2016
Sales 7,250,000 6,750,000 Cash 149,970 100,000
Cost of Goods Sold 5,400,000 5,330,000 Accounts Receivable 370,000 347,000
Gross Profit ? ? Inventory 870,000 515,000
Selling and G&A Expenses 965,000 632,000 Total Current Assets ? ?
Depreciation ? 550,000 Plant & Equipment 6,570,000 5,010,000
EBIT 335,000 ? Accumulated Depreciation 1,930,000 1,380,000
Interest Expense ? 110,000 Net Fixed Assets ? ?
Earnings Before Taxes 205,000 ? Total Assets ? ?
Taxes ? ? Liabilities and Owners' Equity
Net Income 133,250 79,100 Accounts Payable 420,000 321,440
Notes Payable 166,625 22,960
Notes: Total Current Liabilities ? ?
Tax Rate ? ? Long-term Debt 1,350,000 918,400
Shares Outstanding 75,000 65,000 Total Liabilities ? ?
Earnings per Share ? ? Common Stock 2,520,000 2,043,440
Dividends per Share ? ? Additional Paid-in-Capital 772,000 551,040
Addition to RE per Share ? ? Retained Earnings 734,720 734,720
Dividend Payout Ratio 60% Total Shareholder's Equity ? ?
Total Liab. and Owners' Equity ? ?
a) Recreate the income statement and balance sheet by filling in the question marks with formulas. Each
statement should be on a separate worksheet. Try to duplicate the formatting exactly. Note that in
2016, 60% of earnings were paid to shareholders as dividends.
b) On another worksheet, create a statement of cash flows for 2017. Use formulas linked directly to the
source on previous worksheets instead of numbers.
c) Create a common-size income statement and balance sheet for 2017 and 2016. These statements
should be created on a separate worksheet with all formulas linked directly to the income statement
and balance sheet.
10 Chapter 2: The Basic Financial Statements
Instructor’s Manual Problem Set

4. Dragon Telecommunications Inc. wants to create forecasted financial statements for 2018 based
on its accounting data in 2017.

In 2017 total revenue was $1,550,000; cost of goods sold was $1,250,000; selling and G&A
expenses were $110,000; depreciation expense was $15,000; interest expense was $25,000; the
average tax rate was 35%, and the number of shares outstanding was 80,000.

Also, in 2017 Dragon had cash of $20,000; accounts receivable of $120,000; inventory of
$220,000; plant & equipment of $1,150,000 with an accumulated depreciation of $250,000.
Accounts payable, notes payable, long-term debt, common stock, additional paid-in-capital, and
retained earnings represented 7%, 0.5%, 20%, 44.5%, 12%, and 16% of total assets,
respectively.

For 2018, Dragon expects a 25% increase in total revenue, while cost of goods sold and selling
and G&A expenses are expected to remain at the same proportion of total revenue as in 2017.
Both total plant and equipment and depreciation expense will increase by 12%. Similarly, long-
term debt is forecasted and interest expense will increase by 20%, but the tax rate and the
number of shares outstanding will remain constant.

Additionally accounts receivable, inventory, accounts payable, and notes payable are expected
to increase 15%, while common stock and paid-in-capital will increase by 25%. The dividend
policy in 2018 will be based on a dividend payout ratio of 50%. In other words, 50% of
forecasted earnings will be paid to shareholders as dividends.
a) Using these projections, create the forecasted 2018 income statement, balance sheet, and statement of
cash flows for Dragon Telecommunications Inc. Each statement should be on a separate worksheet.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

Excluding Colored Persons from Cars.

In Senate—1863, February 27—Pending a supplement to the
charter of the Washington and Alexandria Railroad Company, Mr.
Sumner offered this proviso to the first section:
That no person shall be excluded from the cars on account of color.
Which was agreed to—yeas 19, nays 18, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Arnold, Chandler, Clark, Fessenden, Foot, Grimes,
Harris, Howard, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner,
Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson, of
Massachusetts—19.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Bayard, Carlile, Cowan, Davis,
Henderson, Hicks, Howe, Kennedy, Lane of Indiana, Latham,
McDougall, Powell, Richardson, Saulsbury, Turpie, Willey, Wilson
of Missouri—18.
March 2.—The House concurred in the amendment without
debate, under the previous question.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

In Senate—1864, February 10—Mr. Sumner offered the following:

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be
directed to consider the expediency of further providing by law
against the exclusion of colored persons from the equal enjoyment of
all railroad privileges in the District of Columbia.
Which was agreed to—yeas 30, nays 10.
February 24—Mr. Willey, from the Committee on the District of
Columbia, made this report, and the committee were discharged.
The Committee on the District of Columbia, who were required by
resolution of the Senate, passed February 8, 1864, “to consider the
expediency of further providing by law against the exclusion of
colored persons from the equal enjoyment of all railroad privileges in
the District of Columbia,” have had the matter thus referred to them
under consideration, and beg leave to report:
The act entitled “An act to incorporate the Washington and
Georgetown Railroad Company,” approved May 17, 1862, makes no
distinction as to passengers over said road on account of the color of
the passengers, and that in the opinion of the committee colored
persons are entitled to all the privileges of said road which other
persons have, and to all remedies for any denial or breach of such
privileges which belongs to any person.
The committee therefore ask to be discharged from the further
consideration of the premises.
March 17—The Senate considered the bill to incorporate the
Metropolitan Railroad Company, in the District of Columbia, the
pending question being an amendment, offered by Mr. Sumner, to
add to the fourteenth section the words:
Provided, That there shall be no regulation excluding any person
from any car on account of color.
 Which was agreed to—yeas 19, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden, Foot,
Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Howe, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill,
Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sumner, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson—19.
Nays—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Davis, Doolittle, Harding,
Harris, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Indiana, Powell, Riddle,
Saulsbury, Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—17.
The bill then passed the Senate.
June 19—The House refused to strike out the proviso last adopted
in the Senate—yeas 60, nays 76.
And the bill passed the House and was approved by the President.
 Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

Colored Persons as Witnesses.

In Senate—Pending the confiscation bill, June 28, 1862.
Mr. Sumner moved these words as an addition to the 14th section:
And in all the proceedings under this act there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Which was rejected—yeas 14, nays 25, as follows:
Yeas--Messrs. Chandler, Grimes, Harlan, Howard, King, Lane of
Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson,
Wilmot—14.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Carlile, Clark, Collamer,
Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Harris,
Henderson, Lane of Indiana, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Sherman,
Simmons, Stark, Ten Eyck, Willey, Wilson of Missouri, Wright—25.
Pending the consideration of the supplement to the emancipation
bill for the District of Columbia,
1862, July 7—Mr. Sumner moved a new section:
That in all the judicial proceedings in the District of Columbia
there shall be no exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Which was adopted—yeas 25, nays 11.
The bill then passed—yeas 29, nays 6; (Messrs. Carlile, Davis,
Kennedy, Powell, Wilson, of Missouri, Wright.)
July 9—The bill passed the House—yeas 69, nays 36. There was no
separate vote on the above proposition.
Pending the consideration in the Senate of the House bill in
relation to the competency of witnesses in trials of equity and
admiralty,
1862, July 15—Mr. Sumner offered this proviso to the first section:
 Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any witness on
account of color. Which was rejected—yeas 14, nays 23.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

1864, June 25—Pending the civil appropriation bill, in Committee

of the Whole, Mr. Sumner offered this proviso:
Provided, That in the courts of the United States there shall be no
exclusion of any witness on account of color.
Mr. Buckalew moved to add:
Nor in civil actions because he is a party to or interested in the
issue tried.
Which was agreed to; and the amendment as amended was agreed
to—yeas 22, nays 16.
The Senate subsequently concurred in this amendment—yeas 29,
nays 10.

IN HOUSE.

June 29—The question being on agreeing to the amendment,

Mr. Mallory moved to add this proviso to the section amended in
the Senate:
Provided, That negro testimony shall only be taken in the United
States courts in those States the laws of which authorize such
testimony.
Which was rejected—yeas 47, nays 66.
The amendment of the Senate was then agreed to—yeas 67, nays
48.

COLORED SCHOOLS.
 June 8.—The House passed a bill to provide for the public
instruction of youth in Washington city, with an amendment
providing for separate schools for the colored children, by setting
apart such a proportion of the entire school fund as the number of
colored children between the ages of six and seventeen bear to the
whole number of children in the District. The bill, with amendments,
passed both Houses without a division.
On all of these questions of color, the Democrats invariably, on test
votes, were found against any concession of rights to the negro.
These were frequently aided by some Republicans, more
conservative than their colleagues, or representing closer districts
where political prejudices would affect their return to their seats. It
will be observed that on nearly all these questions Senator Charles
Sumner took the lead. He was at that time pre-eminently the Moses
of the colored man, and led him from one right to another through
Senatorial difficulties, which by the way, were never as strong as that
in the House, where Thaddeus Stevens was the boldest champion of
“the rights of the black man.” In the field, rather in the direction of
what should be done with the “contrabands” and escaped slaves, the
Secretary of War, General Cameron, was their most radical friend,
and his instructions were so outspoken that Lincoln had to modify
them. As early as December 1, 1861, General Cameron wrote:
“While it is plain that the slave property of the South is justly
subjected to all the consequences of this rebellious war, and that the
Government would be untrue to its trust in not employing all the
rights and powers of war to bring it to a speedy close, the details of
the plan for doing so, like all other military measures, must, in a
great degree, be left to be determined by particular exigencies. The
disposition of other property belonging to the rebels that becomes
subject to our arms is governed by the circumstances of the case. The
Government has no power to hold slaves, none to restrain a slave of
his liberty, or to exact his service. It has a right, however, to use the
voluntary service of slaves liberated by war from their rebel masters,
like any other property of the rebels, in whatever mode may be most
efficient for the defence of the Government, the prosecution of the
war, and the suppression of rebellion. It is clearly a right of the
government to arm slaves when it may become necessary as it is to
take gunpowder from the enemy. Whether it is expedient to do so is
purely a military question. The right is unquestionable by the laws of
war. The expediency must be determined by circumstances, keeping
in view the great object of overcoming the rebels, re-establishing the
laws, and restoring peace to the nation.
“It is vain and idle for the Government to carry on this war, or
hope to maintain its existence against rebellious force, without
enjoying all the rights and powers of war. As has been said, the right
to deprive the rebels of their property in slaves and slave labor is as
clear and absolute as the right to take forage from the field, or cotton
from the warehouse, or powder and arms from the magazine. To
leave the enemy in the possession of such property as forage and
cotton and military stores, and the means of constantly reproducing
them, would be madness. It is, therefore, equal madness to leave
them in peaceful and secure possession of slave property, more
valuable and efficient to them for war than forage, cotton and
military stores. Such policy would be national suicide. What to do
with that species of property is a question that time and
circumstances will solve, and need not be anticipated further than to
repeat that they cannot be held by the Government as slaves. It
would be useless to keep them as prisoners of war; and self-
preservation, the highest duty of a Government, or of individuals,
demands that they should be disposed of or employed in the most
effective manner that will tend most speedily to suppress the
insurrection and restore the authority of the Government. If it shall
be found that the men who have been held by the rebels as slaves are
capable of bearing arms and performing efficient military service, it
is the right, and may become the duty, of this Government to arm
and equip them, and employ their services against the rebels, under
proper military regulations, discipline and command.
“But in whatever manner they may be used by the Government, it
is plain that, once liberated by the rebellious act of their masters,
they should never again be restored to bondage. By the master’s
treason and rebellion he forfeits all right to the labor and service of
his slave; and the slave of the rebellious master, by his service to the
Government, becomes justly entitled to freedom and protection.
“The disposition to be made of the slaves of rebels, after the close
of the war, can be safely left to the wisdom and patriotism of
Congress. The representatives of the people will unquestionably
secure to the loyal slaveholders every right to which they are entitled
under the Constitution of the country.”
[Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this policy, and it was
eventually adopted by an Administration which proclaimed its policy
“to move not ahead but with the people.”]
President Lincoln and his Cabinet modified the above language so
as to make it read:
“It is already a grave question what shall be done with those slaves
who were abandoned by their owners on the advance of our troops
into southern territory, as at Beaufort district, in South Carolina. The
number left within our control at that point is very considerable, and
similar cases will probably occur. What shall be done with them? Can
we afford to send them forward to their masters, to be by them
armed against us, or used in producing supplies to sustain the
rebellion? Their labor may be useful to us; withheld from the enemy
it lessens his military resources, and withholding them has no
tendency to induce the horrors of insurrection, even in the rebel
communities. They constitute a military resource, and, being such,
that they should not be turned over to the enemy is too plain to
discuss. Why deprive him of supplies by a blockade, and voluntarily
give him men to produce them?
“The disposition to be made of the slaves of rebels, after the close
of the war, can be safely left to the wisdom and patriotism of
Congress. The Representatives of the people will unquestionably
secure to the loyal slaveholders every right to which they are entitled
under the Constitution of the country.”
Secretary Cameron was at all times in favor of “carrying the war
into Africa” and it was this stern view of the situation which
eventually led him to sanction measures which brought him into
plainer differences with the Administration. Lincoln took offense at
the printing of his report before submitting it to him. As a result he
resigned and went to Russia as Minister, on his return being again
elected to the United States Senate—a place which he filled until the
winter of 1877, when he resigned, and his son, J. Donald Cameron,
was elected to the vacancy, and re-elected for the term ending in
1885. General B. F. Butler was the author of the “contraband” idea. A
year later the views of the Administration became more radical on
questions of color, and July 22, 1862, Secretary Stanton ordered all
Generals in command “to seize and use any property, real or
personal, which may be necessary or convenient for their several
commands, for supplies, or for other military purposes; and that
while property may be destroyed for proper military objects, none
shall be destroyed in wantonness or malice.
“Second. That military and naval commanders shall employ as
laborers, within and from said States, so many persons of African
descent as can be advantageously used for military or naval
purposes, giving them reasonable wages for their labor.
“Third. That, as to both property, and persons of African descent,
accounts shall be kept sufficiently accurate and in detail to show
quantities and amounts, and from whom both property and such
persons shall have come, as a basis upon which compensation can be
made in proper cases; and the several departments of this
Government shall attend to and perform their appropriate parts
towards the execution of these orders.”
The manner and language employed by General McClellan in
promulgating this order to the Army of the Potomac, led to his
political differences with the Administration, and in the end caused
him to be the Democratic candidate for President in 1864, against
Lincoln. His language is peculiar and some of it worthy of
presentation as of political importance. He said:
“Inhabitants, especially women and children, remaining peaceably
at their homes, must not be molested; and wherever commanding
officers find families peculiarly exposed in their persons or property
to marauding from this army, they will, as heretofore, so far as they
can do with safety and without detriment to the service, post guards
for their protection.
“In protecting private property, no reference is intended to
persons held to service or labor by reason of African descent. Such
persons will be regarded by this army, as they heretofore have been,
as occupying simply a peculiar legal status under State laws, which
condition the military authorities of the United States are not
required to regard at all in districts where military operations are
made necessary by the rebellious action of the State governments.
“Persons subject to suspicion of hostile purposes, residing or being
near our forces, will be, as heretofore, subject to arrest and
detention, until the cause or necessity is removed. All such arrested
parties will be sent, as usual, to the Provost Marshal General, with a
statement of the facts in each case.
“The general commanding takes this occasion to remind the
officers and soldiers of this army that we are engaged in supporting
the Constitution and the laws of the United States and suppressing
rebellion against their authority; that we are not engaged in a war of
rapine, revenge, or subjugation; that this is not a contest against
populations, but against armed forces and political organizations;
that it is a struggle carried on with the United States, and should be
conducted by us upon the highest principles known to Christian
civilization.”
At this time such were the prejudices of Union soldiers against
negroes, because of growing political agitation in the North, that
many would loudly jeer them when seen within the lines. The feeling
was even greater in the ranks of civilians, and yet Congress moved
along, step by step. The 37th abolished slavery in the District of
Columbia; prohibited it in all the territories; confirmed the freedom
of the slaves owned by those in arms against the government;
authorized the employment of colored men in fortifications, their
enlistment, etc.; and enacted an additional article of war, which
prohibited any officer from returning or aiding the return of any
fugitive slave. These were rapid strides, but not as rapid as were
demanded by the more radical wing of the Republican party. We
have shown that most of them were opposed by the Democrats, not
solidly sure where they were plainly political, but this party became
less solid as the war advanced.
Senator Wilson was the author of the bill to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia. It excited much debate, and the range of the
speeches covered the entire question of slavery. Those from the
Border States opposed it (a few Republicans and all Democrats) but
some of the Democrats of the North supported it. The vote in the
Senate was 29 for to 6 against. In the House Frank P. Blair, Jr.,
advocated colonization in connection with the bill, but his idea met
with little favor. Crittenden, Wickliffe and Vallandigham were
prominent in opposition. Its most prominent advocates were Stevens
of Pennsylvania, and Bingham of Ohio. The vote was 92 for to 38
against.
 The bill of Arnold, of Illinois, “to render freedom national and
slavery sectional,” the leading idea in the platform of the convention
which nominated Lincoln, prohibited slavery in “all the Territories of
the United States then existing, or thereafter to be formed or
acquired in any way.” It was vehemently opposed, but passed with
some modifications by 58 ayes to 50 noes, and it also passed the
Senate.
In the Spring of 1862 General David Hunter brought the question
of the enlistment of colored troops to a direct issue by raising a
regiment of them. On the 9th of June following, Mr. Wickliffe of
Kentucky, succeeded in getting the House to adopt a resolution of
inquiry. Correspondence followed with General Hunter. He
confessed the fact, stated that “he found his authority in the
instructions of Secretary Cameron, and said that he hoped by fall to
enroll about fifty thousand of these hardy and devoted soldiers.”
When this reply was read in the House it was greeted with shouts of
laughter from the Republicans, and signs of anger from the others. A
great debate followed on the amendment to the bill providing for the
calling out of the militia, clothing the President with full power to
enlist colored troops, and to proclaim “he, his mother, and wife and
children forever free,” after such enlistment. Preston King, of New
York, was the author of this amendment. Davis, of Kentucky, and
Carlisle of West Virginia, were prominent Senators in opposition;
while Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, Sherman of Ohio, and Browning of
Illinois sought to modify it. Garrett Davis said in opposition:
“Do you expect us to give our sanction and approval to these
things? No, no! We would regard their authors as our worst enemies;
and there is no foreign despotism that could come to our rescue, that
we would not fondly embrace, before we would submit to any such
condition of things.”
Senator Fessenden of Maine, in advocacy of the amendment, said:
“I tell the President from my place here as a Senator, and I tell the
generals of our army, they must reverse their practices and course of
proceeding on this subject. * * * Treat your enemies as enemies, as
the worst of enemies, and avail yourselves like men of every power
which God has placed in your hands, to accomplish your purpose,
within the rules of civilized warfare.”
 The bill passed, so modified, as to give freedom to all who should
perform military service, but restricting liberty to the families of such
only as belonged to rebel masters. It passed the House July 16th,
1862, and received the sanction of the President, who said:—“And
the promise made must be kept!” General Hunter for his part in
beginning colored enlistments, was outlawed by the Confederate
Congress. Hunter followed with an order freeing the slaves in South
Carolina.
In January, 1863, pursuant to a suggestion in the annual report of
Secretary Stanton, who was by this time as radical as his predecessor
in office, the House passed a bill authorizing the President to enroll
into the land and naval service such number of volunteers of African
descent as he might deem useful to suppress the rebellion, and for
such term as he might prescribe, not exceeding five years. The slaves
of loyal citizens in the Border States were excluded from the
provisions of this bill. In the Senate an adverse report was made on
the ground that the resident already possessed these powers.
In January, 1863, Senator Wilson, who was by this time chairman
of the Military Committee of the Senate, secured the passage of a bill
which authorized a draft for the National forces from the ranks of all
male citizens, and those of foreign birth who had declared their
intentions, etc. The bill contained the usual exemptions.

CONFEDERATE USE OF COLORED MEN.

In June, 1861, the rebel Legislature of Tennessee passed this

enlistment bill, which became a law:
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
Tennessee, That from and after the passage of this act the Governor
shall be, and he is hereby, authorized, at his discretion, to receive
into the military service of the State all male free persons of color
between the ages of fifteen and fifty, or such numbers as may be
necessary, who may be sound in mind and body, and capable of
actual service.
2. That such free persons of color shall receive, each, eight dollars
per month, as pay, and such persons shall be entitled to draw, each,
one ration per day, and shall be entitled to a yearly allowance each
for clothing.
3. That, in order to carry out the provisions of this act, it shall be
the duty of the sheriffs of the several counties in this State to collect
accurate information as to the number and condition, with the
names of free persons of color, subject to the provisions of this act,
and shall, as it is practicable, report the same in writing to the
Governor.
4. That a failure or refusal of the sheriffs, or any one or more of
them, to perform the duties required, shall be deemed an offence,
and on conviction thereof shall be punished as a misdemeanor.
5. That in the event a sufficient number of free persons of color to
meet the wants of the State shall not tender their services, the
Governor is empowered, through the sheriffs of the different
counties, to press such persons until the requisite number is
obtained.
6. That when any mess of volunteers shall keep a servant to wait
on the members of the mess, each servant shall be allowed one
ration.
This act to take effect from and after its passage.
 W. C. Whitthorne,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

B. L. Stovall,
Speaker of the Senate.

Passed June 28, 1861.

1862, November 2—Governor Joseph E. Brown, of Georgia, issued
a call announcing that if a sufficient supply of negroes be not
tendered within ten days, General Mercer will, in pursuance of
authority given him, proceed to impress, and asking of every planter
of Georgia a tender of one fifth of his negroes to complete the
fortifications around Savannah. This one-fifth is estimated at 15,000.
1863. The Governor of South Carolina in July, issued a
proclamation for 3,000 negroes to work on the fortifications, “the
need for them being pressing.”

THE CHANGING SENTIMENT OF CONGRESS.

In the Rebel House of Representatives, December 29th, Mr.

Dargan, of Alabama, introduced a bill to receive into the military
service all that portion of population in Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Florida, known as “Creoles.”
Mr. Dargan supported the bill in some remarks. He said the
Creoles were a mixed-blooded race. Under the treaty of Paris in
1803, and the treaty of Spain in 1810, they were recognized as
freemen. Many of them owned large estates, and were intelligent
men. They were as much devoted to our cause as any class of men in
the South, and were even anxious to go into service. They had
applied to him to be received into service, and he had applied to Mr.
Randolph, then Secretary of War. Mr. Randolph decided against the
application, on the ground that it might furnish to the enemy a
pretext of arming our slaves against us. Some time after this he was
again applied to by them, and he went to the present Secretary of
War, Mr. Seddon, and laid the matter before him. Mr. Seddon
refused to entertain the proposition, on the ground that it did not
come up before him through the military authorities. To obviate this
objection, Gen. Maury, at Mobile, soon afterwards represented their
wishes to the War Department. Mr. Seddon refused the offer of their
services, on the ground that it would be incompatible with the
position we occupied before the world; that it could not be done.
Mr. Dargan said he differed with the Secretary of War. He cared
not for “the world.” He cared no more for their opinions than they
did for ours. He was anxious to bring into service every free man, be
he who he may, willing to strike for our cause. He saw no objection to
employing Creoles; they would form a potent element in our army. In
his district alone a brigade of them could be raised. The crisis had
been brought upon us by the enemy, and he believed the time would
yet come when the question would not be the Union or no Union, but
whether Southern men should be permitted to live at all. In resisting
subjugation by such a barbarous foe he was for employing all our
available force. He would go further and say that he was for arming
and putting the slaves into military service. He was in favor even of
employing them as a military arm in the defence of the country.
1864. The Mayor of Charleston, Charles Macbeth, summons all
slaveholders within the city to furnish to the military authorities
forthwith, one-fourth of all their male slaves between the ages of
fifteen and fifty, to labor upon the fortifications. The penalty
announced, in case of failure to comply with this requisition is a fine
of $200 for every slave not forthcoming. Compensation is allowed at
the rate of $400 a year.
All free male persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty
are required to give themselves up for the same purpose. Those not
complying will be imprisoned, and set to work upon the fortifications
along the coast. To free negroes no other compensation than rations
is allowed.

NEGROES IN THE ARMY.

The Richmond press publish the official copy of “An act to increase
the efficiency of the army by the employment of free negroes and
slaves in certain capacities,” lately passed by the Rebel Congress. The
negroes are to perform “such duties as the Secretary of War or
Commanding General may prescribe.” The first section is as follows:
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That
all male free negroes, and other free persons of color, not including
those who are free under the treaty of Paris, of 1803, or under the
treaty of Spain, of 1819, resident in the Confederate States, between
the ages of eighteen and fifty years, shall be held liable to perform
such duties with the army, or in connection with the military
defences of the country, in the way of work upon the fortifications, or
in government works for the production or preparation of materials
of war, or in military hospitals, as the Secretary of War or the
Commanding General of the Trans-Mississippi Department may,
from time to time, prescribe; and while engaged in the performances
of such duties shall receive rations and clothing and compensation at
the rate of eleven dollars a month, under such rules and regulations
as the said Secretary may establish: Provided, That the Secretary of
War or the Commanding General of the Trans-Mississippi
Department, with the approval of the President, may exempt from
the operations of this act such free negroes as the interests of the
country may require should be exempted, or such as he may think
proper to exempt on the ground of justice, equity or necessity.
The third section provides that when the Secretary of War shall be
unable to procure the services of slaves in any military department,
then he is authorized to impress the services of as many male slaves,
not to exceed twenty thousand, as may be required, from time to
time, to discharge the duties indicated in the first section of the act.
The owner of the slave is to be paid for his services; or, if he be
killed or “escape to the enemy,” the owner shall receive his full value.
Governor Smith, of Virginia, has made a call for five thousand
male slaves to work on the batteries, to be drawn from fifty counties.
The call for this force has been made by the President under a
resolution of Congress.

“CONFEDERATE” LEGISLATION UPON NEGRO

PRISONERS AND THEIR WHITE OFFICERS WHEN
CAPTURED.[27]
 1863, May 1—An act was approved declaring that the
commissioned officers of the enemy ought not to be delivered to the
authorities of the respective States, (as suggested in Davis’s
message;) but all captives taken by the Confederate forces ought to
be dealt with and disposed of by the Confederate Government.
President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamations of September 22,
1862, and January 1, 1863, were resolved to be inconsistent with the
usages of war among civilized nations, and should be repressed by
retaliation; and the President is authorized to cause full and
complete retaliation for every such violation, in such manner and to
such extent as he may think proper.
Every white commissioned officer commanding negroes or
mulattoes in arms against the Confederate States shall be deemed as
inciting servile insurrection, and shall, if captured, be put to death,
or be otherwise punished, at the discretion of the court.
Every person charged with an offence made punishable under the
act shall be tried by the military court of the army or corps of troops
capturing him; and, after conviction, the President may commute
the punishment in such manner and on such terms as he may deem
proper.
All negroes and mulattoes who shall be engaged in war or taken in
arms against the Confederate States, or shall give aid or comfort to
the enemies of the Confederate States, shall, when captured in the
Confederate States, be delivered to the authorities of the State or
States in which they shall be captured, to be dealt with according to
the present or future laws of such State or States.
 Passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.

The first amendment to the Constitution growing out of the war,

and one of its direct results, was that of abolishing slavery. It was
first introduced to the House December 14th, 1863, by James M.
Ashley of Ohio. Similar measures were introduced by James M.
Wilson, Senators Henderson, Sumner and others. On the 10th of
February, Senator Trumbull reported Henderson’s joint resolution
amended as follows:
“That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the
several States, as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the said
Constitution, namely:
“Art. 13, Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude except as
a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.
“Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.”
The Senate began the consideration of the question March 28th,
Senator Trumbull opening the debate in favor of the amendment. He
predicted that within a year the necessary number of States would
ratify it. Wilson of Massachusetts made a long and able speech in
favor. Davis of Kentucky and Saulsbury of Delaware led the
opposition, but Reverdy Johnson, an independent Democratic
Senator from Maryland, surprised all by his bold support of the
measure. Among other things he said:
“I think history will bear me out in the statement, that if the men
by whom that Constitution was framed, and the people by whom it
was adopted, had anticipated the times in which we live, they would
have provided by constitutional enactment, that that evil and that sin
should in some comparatively unremote day be removed. Without
recurring to authority, the writings public or private of the men of
that day, it is sufficient for my purpose to state what the facts will
justify me in saying, that every man of them who largely participated
in the deliberations of the Convention by which the Constitution was
adopted, earnestly desired, not only upon grounds of political
economy, not only upon reasons material in their character, but
upon grounds of morality and religion, that sooner or later the
institution should terminate.”
Senator McDougall of California, opposed the amendment. Harlan
of Iowa, Hale of New Hampshire, and Sumner, made characteristic
speeches in favor. Saulsbury advocated the divine right of slavery. It
passed April 8th, by 38 ayes to 6 noes, the latter comprising Davis
and Powell of Kentucky; McDougall of California; Hendricks of
Indiana; Saulsbury and Riddle of Delaware.
Arnold of Illinois, was the first to secure the adoption in the House
(Feb. 15, 1864,) of a resolution to abolish slavery; but the
Constitutional amendment required a two-thirds vote, and this it was
difficult to obtain, though all the power of the Administration was
bent to that purpose. The discussion began May 31st; the vote was
reached June 15th, but it then failed of the required two-thirds—93
for to 65 against, 23 not voting. Its more pronounced advocates were
Arnold, Ashley, Broomall, Stevens, and Kelly of Pennsylvania;
Farnsworth and Ingersoll of Illinois, and many others. Its ablest
opponents were Holman, Wood, Mallory, Cox and Pendleton—the
latter rallying nearly all of the Democrats against it. Its Democratic
friends were McAllister and Bailey of Pennsylvania; Cobb of
Wisconsin; Griswold and Odell of New York. Before the vote was
announced Ashley changed his vote so as to move a reconsideration
and keep control of the question. At the next session it was passed,
receiving every Republican and 16 Democratic votes, 8 Democrats
purposely refraining, so that it would surely pass.
 Admission of Representatives from
Louisiana.

The capture of New Orleans by Admiral Farragut, led to the

enrollment of 60,000 citizens of Louisiana as citizens of the United
States. The President thereupon appointed a Military Governor for
the entire State, and this Governor ordered an election for members
of Congress under the old State constitution. This was held Dec. 3,
1862, when Messrs. Flanders and Hahn were returned, neither
receiving 3,000 votes. They received certificates, presented them,
and thus opened up a new and grave political question. The
Democrats opposed their admission on grounds so well stated by
Voorhees of Indiana, that we quote them:
“Understand this principle. If the Southern Confederacy is a
foreign power, an independent nationality to-day, and you have
conquered back the territory of Louisiana, you may then substitute a
new system of laws in the place of the laws of that State. You may
then supplant her civil institutions by institutions made anew for her
by the proper authority of this Government—not by the executive—
but by the legislative branch of the Government, assisted by the
Executive simply to the extent of signing his name to the bills of
legislation. If the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means,
(Mr. Stevens) is correct; if the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Conway)
is correct, and this assumed power in the South is a power of the
earth, and stands to-day upon equal terms of nationality with
ourselves, and reconquer back State by State its territory by the
power of arms, then we may govern them independently of their
local laws. But if the theory we have been proceeding upon here, that
this Union is unbroken; that no States have sundered the bonds that
bind us together; that no successful disunion has yet taken place,—if
that theory is still to prevail in these halls, then this cannot be done.
You are as much bound to uphold the laws of Louisiana in all their
extent and in all their parts, as you are to uphold the laws of
Pennsylvania or New York, or any other State whose civil policy has
not been disturbed.”
Michael Hahn, one of the Representatives elect, closed a very
effective speech, which secured the personal good will of the House
in favor of his admission, in these words:
“And even, sir, within the limits of the dreary and desolated region
of the rebellion itself, despair, which has already taken hold of the
people, will gain additional power and strength, at the reception of
the news that Louisiana sends a message of peace, good will, and
hearty fellowship to the Union. This intelligence will sound more
joyful to patriot ears than all the oft repeated tidings of ‘Union
victories.’ And of all victories, this will be the most glorious, useful
and solid, for it speaks of reorganization, soon to become the great
and difficult problem with which our statesmen will have to
familiarize themselves, and when this shall have commenced, we will
be able to realize that God, in his infinite mercy has looked down
upon our misfortunes, and in a spirit of paternal love and pity, has
addressed us in the language ascribed to him by our own gifted
Longfellow:
“I am weary of your quarrels,
Weary of your ware and bloodshed,
Weary of your prayers for vengeance,
Of your wranglings and dissensions;
All your strength is in your Union,
All your danger is in discord,
Therefore, be at peace, henceforward,
And as brothers live together.”

“Mr. Speaker, Louisiana—ever loyal, honorable Louisiana—seeks

no greater blessing in the future, than to remain a part of this great
and glorious Union. She has stood by you in the darkest hours of the
rebellion; and she intends to stand by you. Sir, raise your eyes to the
gorgeous ceilings which ornament this Hall, and look upon her fair
and lovely escutcheon. Carefully read the patriotic words which
surround her affectionate pelican family, and you will find there
inscribed, ‘Justice, Union, Confidence.’ Those words have with us no
idle meaning; and would to God that other members of this Union,
could properly appreciate our motto, our motives and our position!”
 The debate attracted much attention, because of the novelty of a
question upon which, it has since been contended, would have
turned a different plan of reconstructing the rebellious States if the
President’s plans had not been destroyed by his assassination.
Dawes, of Massachusetts, was the Chairman of the Committee on
Elections, and he closed the debate in favor of admission. The vote
stood 92 for to 44 against, almost a strict party test, the Democrats
voting no.

RECONSTRUCTION.

In the House as early as Dec. 15, 1863, Henry Winter Davis moved
that so much of the President’s message as relates to the duty of the
United States to guaranty a Republican form of government to the
States in which the governments recognized by the United States
have been abrogated or overthrown, be referred to a select
committee of nine to report the bills necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing guarantee, was passed, and on
May 4th, 1864, the House adopted the first reconstruction bill by 74
yeas to 66 nays—a strict party vote.[28] The Senate passed it by yeas
18, nays 14—Doolittle, Henderson, Lane of Indiana, Ten Eyck,
Trumbull, and Van Winkle voting with the Democrats against it.
The bill authorizes the President to appoint in each of the States
declared in rebellion, a Provisional Governor, with the pay and
emoluments of a brigadier; to be charged with the civil
administration until a State government therein shall be recognized.
As soon as the military resistance to the United States shall have
been suppressed, and the people sufficiently returned to their
obedience to the Constitution and laws, the Governor shall direct the
marshal of the United States to enroll all the white male citizens of
the United States, resident in the State in their respective counties,
and whenever a majority of them take the oath of allegiance, the
loyal people of the State shall be entitled to elect delegates to a
convention to act upon the re-establishment of a State government—
the proclamation to contain details prescribed. Qualified voters in
the army may vote in their camps. No person who has held or
exercised any civil, military, State, or Confederate office, under the
rebel occupation, and who has voluntarily borne arms against the
United States, shall vote or be eligible as a delegate. The convention
is required to insert in the constitution provisions—
1st. No person who has held or exercised any civil or military
office, (except offices merely ministerial and military offices below a
colonel,) State or Confederate, under the usurping power, shall vote
for, or be a member of the legislature or governor.
2d. Involuntary servitude is forever prohibited, and the freedom of
all persons is guarantied in said State.
3d. No debt, State or Confederate, created by or under the sanction
of the usurping power, shall be recognized or paid by the State.
Upon the adoption of the constitution by the convention, and its
ratification by the electors of the State, the Provisional Governor
shall so certify to the President, who, after obtaining the assent of
Congress, shall, by proclamation, recognize the government as
established, and none other, as the constitutional government of the
State; and from the date of such recognition, and not before,
Senators and Representatives and electors for President and Vice-
President may be elected in such State. Until reorganization the
Provisional Governor shall enforce the laws of the Union and of the
State before the rebellion.
The remaining sections are as follows:
Sec. 12. That all persons held to involuntary servitude or labor in
the States aforesaid are hereby emancipated and discharged
therefrom, and they and their posterity shall be forever free. And if
any such persons or their posterity shall be restrained of liberty,
under pretence of any claim to such service or labor, the courts of the
United States shall, on habeas corpus, discharge them.
Sec. 13. That if any person declared free by this act, or any law of
the United States, or any proclamation of the President, be
restrained of liberty, with intent to be held in or reduced to
involuntary servitude or labor, the person convicted before a court of
competent jurisdiction of such act shall be punished by fine of not
less than $1,500, and be imprisoned not less than five, nor more
than twenty years.
Sec. 14. That every person who shall hereafter hold or exercise any
office, civil or military, except offices merely ministerial and military
offices below the grade of colonel, in the rebel service, State or
Confederate, is hereby declared not to be a citizen of the United
States.
 Lincoln’s Proclamation on Reconstruction

President Lincoln failed to sign the above bill because it reached

him less than one hour before final adjournment, and thereupon
issued a proclamation which closed as follows:
“Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States, do proclaim, declare, and make known, that, while I am (as I
was in December last, when by proclamation I propounded a plan for
restoration) unprepared, by a formal approval of this bill, to be
inflexibly committed to any single plan of restoration; and, while I
am also unprepared to declare that the free State constitutions and
governments already adopted and installed in Arkansas and
Louisiana shall be set aside and held for nought, thereby repelling
and discouraging the loyal citizens who have set up the same as to
further effort, or to declare a constitutional competency in Congress
to abolish slavery in States, but am at the same time sincerely hoping
and expecting that a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery
throughout the nation may be adopted, nevertheless I am fully
satisfied with the system for restoration contained in the bill as one
very proper plan for the loyal people of any State choosing to adopt
it, and that I am, and at all times shall be, prepared to give the
Executive aid and assistance to any such people, so soon as the
military resistance to the United States shall have been suppressed in
any such State, and the people thereof shall have sufficiently
returned to their obedience to the Constitution and laws of the
United States, in which cases Military Governors will be appointed,
with directions to proceed according to the bill.”
 Admission of Arkansas.

On the 10th of June, 1864, introduced a joint resolution for the

recognition of the free State government of Arkansas. A new State
government had then been organized, with Isaac Murphy, Governor,
who was reported to have received nearly 16,000 votes at a called
election. The other State officers are:
Lieutenant-Governor, C. C. Bliss; Secretary of State, R. J. T. White;
Auditor, J. B. Berry; Treasurer, E. D. Ayers; Attorney General, C. T.
Jordan; Judges of the Supreme Court, T. D. W. Yowley, C. A. Harper,
E. Baker.
The Legislature also elected Senators, but neither Senators nor
Representatives obtained their seats. Trumbull, from the Senate
Judiciary Committee, made a long report touching the admission of
the Senators, which closed as follows:
“When the rebellion in Arkansas shall have been so far suppressed
that the loyal inhabitants thereof shall be free to re-establish their
State government upon a republican foundation, or to recognize the
one already set up, and by the aid and not in subordination to the
military to maintain the same, they will then, and not before, in the
opinion of your committee, be entitled to a representation in
Congress, and to participate in the administration of the Federal
Government. Believing that such a state of things did not at the time
the claimants were elected, and does not now, exist in the State of
Arkansas, the committee recommend for adoption the following
resolution:
“Resolved, That William M. Fishback and Elisha Baxter are not
entitled to seats as Senators from the State of Arkansas.”
1864, June 29—The resolution of the Committee on the Judiciary
was adopted—yeas 27, nays 6.
 President Lincoln was known to favor the immediate admission of
Arkansas and Louisiana, but the refusal of the Senate to admit the
Arkansas Senators raised an issue which partially divided the
Republicans in both Houses, some of whom favored forcible
reconstruction through the aid of Military Governors and the
machinery of new State governments, while others opposed. The
views of those opposed to the President’s policy are well stated in a
paper signed by Benjamin F. Wade and Henry Winter Davis,
published in the New York Tribune, August 5th, 1864. From this we
take the more pithy extracts:
The President, by preventing this bill from becoming a law, holds
the electoral votes of the rebel States at the dictation of his personal
ambition.
If those votes turn the balance in his favor, is it to be supposed that
his competitor, defeated by such means, will acquiesce?
If the rebel majority assert their supremacy in those States, and
send votes which elect an enemy of the Government, will we not
repel his claims?
And is not civil war for the Presidency inaugurated by the votes of
rebel States?
Seriously impressed with these dangers, Congress, “the proper
constitutional authority,” formally declared that there are no State
governments in the rebel States, and provided for their erection at a
proper time; and both the Senate and the House of Representatives
rejected the Senators and Representatives chosen under the
authority of what the President calls the free constitution and
government of Arkansas.
The President’s proclamation “holds for naught” this judgment,
and discards the authority of the Supreme Court, and strides
headlong toward the anarchy his proclamation of the 8th of
December inaugurated.
If electors for President be allowed to be chosen in either of those
States, a sinister light will be cast on the motives which induced the
President to “hold for naught” the will of Congress rather than his
government in Louisiana and Arkansas.
That judgment of Congress which the President defies was the
exercise of an authority exclusively vested in Congress by the
Constitution to determine what is the established government in a
State, and in its own nature and by the highest judicial authority
binding on all other departments of the Government. * * *
A more studied outrage on the legislative authority of the people
has never been perpetrated.
Congress passed a bill; the President refused to approve it, and
then by proclamation puts as much of it in force as he sees fit, and
proposes to execute those parts by officers unknown to the laws of
the United States and not subject to the confirmation of the Senate!
The bill directed the appointment of Provisional Governors by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The President, after defeating the law, proposes to appoint without
law, and without the advice and consent of the Senate, Military
Governors for the rebel States!
He has already exercised this dictatorial usurpation in Louisiana,
and he defeated the bill to prevent its limitation. * * *
The President has greatly presumed on the forbearance which the
supporters of his Administration have so long practiced, in view of
the arduous conflict in which we are engaged, and the reckless
ferocity of our political opponents.
But he must understand that our support is of a cause and not of a
man; that the authority of Congress is paramount and must be
respected; that the whole body of the Union men of Congress will not
submit to be impeached by him of rash and unconstitutional
legislation; and if he wishes our support, he must confine himself to
his executive duties—to obey and execute, not make the laws—to
suppress by arms armed rebellion, and leave political reorganization
to Congress.
If the supporters of the Government fail to insist on this, they
become responsible for the usurpations which they fail to rebuke,
and are justly liable to the indignation of the people whose rights and
security, committed to their keeping, they sacrifice.
Let them consider the remedy for these usurpations, and, having
found it, fearlessly execute it.
The question, as presented in 1864, now passed temporarily from
public consideration because of greater interest in the closing events
of the war and the Presidential succession. The passage of the 14th or
anti-slavery amendment by the States also intervened. This was
officially announced on the 18th of December 1865, by Mr. Seward,
27 of the then 36 States having ratified, as follows: Illinois, Rhode
Island, Michigan, Maryland, New York, West Virginia, Maine,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri,
Nevada, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, South Carolina,
Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia.