Getting the Message: A History of

Communications, Second Edition

Laszlo Solymar
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/getting-the-message-a-history-of-communications-se
cond-edition-laszlo-solymar/
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Getting the Message

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

A nineteenth-­century prediction of the state of the art in the year 2000.

 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Getting the Message

A History of Communications
Second Edition

Laszlo Solymar

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Laszlo Solymar 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First edition published in 1999
Second edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021932103
ISBN 978–0–19–886300–7
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863007.001.0001
Printed and bound in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

To my grandchildren Juliet, Oscar,

Georgina, and Tanya
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Preface to the Second Edition

The history of communications is a branch of the history of technology.

However, most of technology delivers something tangible: a piece of
machinery, a piece of furniture, a road, a bridge, or a plastic bag, to
name a few. The goods produced by communications are quite different.
They are messages: nearly always useless but occasionally very useful.
They were already used at the dawn of civilisation for early warning, for
receiving information about approaching armies.
The first edition, published in 1999, was mainly about point-­to-­point
communications as realized by the telegraph (mechanical or electrical),
the telephone, the fax machine, the telex, microwave links, satellite and
optical communications. I excluded broadcasting whether radio or
­television. I made though a concession, by describing a kind of broad-
casting by telephone that was founded in 1893 in Budapest, and even
survived the First World War. I did include the fledgling Internet and
made some predictions about the future.
In the new edition, as in the old one, I start with some correspond-
ence some 4,000 years ago between the King of Mari (a city on the banks
of the Tigris) and whoever was in charge of communications at the
time. The historical context is always emphasized, e.g. the Kruger tele-
gram that caused the cooling of relations between Germany and the UK
prior to the First World War, or the Ems telegram that led to the 1870 war
between France and Germany. Social history related to communica-
tions like scandals, murder, and bankruptcy has also been included as
much as genius, inventiveness, and steady progress.
Twenty-­one years is a long time and particularly in communications
that is probably the fastest advancing discipline. There has been enor-
mous expansion in satellite communications, and similarly in optical
communications, which jointly cover by now every corner of the Earth.
And there is the Internet, in its infancy at the time, that has turned
into an aggressive and robust adult. I am going to discuss both the
advantages (Internet is so all-­embracing that it is difficult to imagine life
without it) and the abuses which are numerous. The same applies to
smartphones, and particularly to the younger generation. I have a few
photographs in Chapter 20 showing their obsession.
A notable inclusion into the new edition is the story of the Soviet
InterNyet. It shows the difficulty of a dictatorship to cope with a tech-
nique that cannot be easily controlled. They never managed to set up an
all-­embracing computer network.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

viii P reface to the Second Edition

A discipline that is still in its infancy is artificial intelligence. It is

included in a separate chapter in order to discuss its potential. Are the
claims advanced by those doing research in the subject sustainable?
Finally, I add a chapter on the future. Technical advances are quite pre-
dictable but otherwise (peace, politics, society) predictions are risky and
it is not easy to be optimistic.

Dictionary: NOSD
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Acknowledgements First Edition

First of all I wish to acknowledge my debt to the Oxford College system

which permits, nay, encourages the contacts between the practitioners
of the arts and of the sciences. I had the good luck to be able to discuss
Mesopotamia with Stephanie Dailey, the Holy Scriptures with John
Barton, Classics with Stephanie West, Byzantine times with Philip
Pattenden (actually, from Cambridge), science in the seventeenth cen-
tury with Scott Mandelbrot, Napoleonic times with Geoffrey Ellis, the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with Bob Evans, citations
from Goethe with Kevin Hilliard, a translation from Confucius with
Z. Cui, post-­Second World War politics with Nigel Gould-­Davies, the
standard of living indices with Charles Feinstein, and matters in eco-
nomics with Roger van Noorden and Tony Courakis.
Concerning the history of communications I wish to acknowledge
the help I received from Patrice Carré and Christine Duchesne-­Reboul
of France Telecom; John Bray, Peter Cochrane, David Hay, Neil
Johannesen, and H. Lyons of British Telecom; Alan Roblou of the BBC;
Karoly Geher of the Technical University of Budapest; Tony Karbowiak
of the University of New South Wales; Peter Kirstein of University
College, London; David Payne of the University of Southampton; Victor
Kalinin of Oxford Brookes University; and Dominic O’Brien, David Dew-
Hughes, Terry Jones, Lionel Tarassenko, Don Walsh, and David Witt of
the Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford.
For help with the literature search I wish to thank Stephen Barlay,
Leon Freris, Margaret Gowing, George Lawrence, Gabriella Netting,
Sandor Polgar, Klaus Ringhofer, and Jeno Takacs. I am indebted to
Michael Allaby, Eric Ash, Frank Ball, Mike Brady, Godfrey Hodgson,
Gillian Lacey-­Solymar, Avril Lethbridge, Lucy Solymar, and David Witt
for reading various parts of the manuscript and for helpful comments.
The whole of the manuscript was read and a large number of stimulat-
ing comments were made by Jonathan Coopersmith, Richard Lawrence,
Julia Tompson, and Peter Walker.
I am greatly indebted to David Clark, the Head of the Department of
Engineering Science, and Chris Scotcher, who is in charge of adminis-
tration, for providing generous facilities while this book was written.
Special thanks are due to Jeff Hecht who let me read the manuscript
of his book The City of Light, to Geoffrey Wilson who let me use any
material from his book The Old Telegraph, and to Mark Neill for providing
the pixellated pictures of Napoleon in Chapter 15. I have to mention sep-
arately Pierre-­Louis Dougniaux, the picture archivist of France Telecom,
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

x Acknowledgements First Edition

who went well beyond the line of duty in providing me with photo-
graphs from the history of communications in France.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the great debt I owe to my wife,
Marianne, who not only read the manuscript but was willing to put up
with the long hours I spent in libraries and archives.

OxfordL.S.
October 1998

Dictionary: NOSD
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Acknowledgements Second Edition

I wish to thank John Holt for help on optical communications, Eric Ash
and Richard Syms for discussions on the subject of communications in
general, Ekaterina Shamonina for help with both text and drawings,
and Alexander Shamonin for inside information on social media.
Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Marianne, who encouraged me to write
this second edition.

Oxford 2020
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Contents

Figure Acknowledgements First Edition xv

Acknowledgements for Figures Added in the Second Edition xvii

PART I The First Thirty-­Six Centuries

1 Introduction 3
2 The Beginnings of Communications 7
3 The Mechanical Telegraph 21

PART II The Beginning of Electrical Communications

4 The Electrical Telegraph 47
5 The Telephone 95
6 Wireless Telegraphy 125
7 The Telephone Revisited 151

PART III The Modern Age Beckons

8 Great Advances 167
9 Microwaves 171
10 Devices Go Solid State 187
11 Digitalization 199
12 Optical Communications: The Beginning 211
13 Deregulation and Privatization 225
14 Mobile Communications: The Beginning 233
15 The Fax Machine 245
16 The Communications–Computing Symbiosis: The Beginning 259

PART IV Communications Galore

17 Satellites Again 289
18 Optical Fibres Revisited 295
19 The Mature Internet 301

Dictionary: NOSD
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

xiv C ontents

20 Mobile Phones, Smartphones 315

21 Artificial Intelligence 325
22 The Future 335
Appendix 1 347
Appendix 2 349
Bibliography 351
Index 353

Dictionary: NOSD
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Figure Acknowledgements
First Edition

AT&T Fig. 9.4

Bodleian Library, University of Oxford Figs 3.6 (M90.D00642,
p. 297), 4.12 (N2706.d10, 14/9/1850, p. 117), 4.13 (N2706.d10, 21/8/1858,
p. 77), 5.3 (N2706.d10, 2/4/1892, p. 163), 5.4(b) (N2706.d10, 12/1/1910,
p. 27), 6.9(a) (N2706.d10, 22/10/1913, p. 341), 7.1 (N2706.d10, 28/3/1891,
p. 151), 7.2 (N2706.d10, 12/3/1913, p. 203), 22.1 (ALM2706d99, 1879)
British Telecom Archives Figs 4.7 (P4027, c. 1856), 4.11(a) (YB42,
1882), 5.4(a) (E73245, 1910), 5.9 (E6325, 1929), 7.6 (ARC14, c. 1907), 7.7
(Post84/8 Selection of publicity material, c. 1905)
Cable & Wireless Figs 6.1, 14.1
Corvina Kiado, Budapest Fig. 5.21
France Telecom, Archives et Documentation Historique
Figs 2.3, 3.1, 4.4, 4.20, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 6.9(b), 7.5, 7.8, 9.11, 15.7, 16.6, 20.2
GloCall Satellite Services Fig. 9.13
Mark Harden Fig. 15.1(a)
Piers Helm Figs 3.12, 5.2, 16.1
Hertford College, Oxford Fig. 5.11
Illustrated London News 4.11(b), 15.6
Institution of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, New York
Fig. 15.8
Intel Corporation/Physics Today Fig. 10.1
Marconi Electronic Systems Ltd Fig. 6.7
Mike Mosedale Fig. 14.6
Musée des Arts et Métiers, Paris Fig. 15.5(b)
Museum für Post und Kommunikation, Frankfurt am Main
Fig. 5.8
National Gallery, London Fig. 1.1
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

xvi F igure Acknowledgements First Edition

Northern Electric plc, London Fig. 9.2

David Payne Figs 12.1, 12.8
Murray Ramsey Fig. 12.4
Geoffrey Wilson Figs 3.2(a), 3.5, 3.8

Dictionary: NOSD
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi

Acknowledgements for Figures

Added in the Second Edition

G. P. Agrawal 18.1, 18.2, 18.4

Bankmycell 20.3
Carcharoth 9.10
Cartoon Collections 21.2, 21.3
Computer Museum Moscow 16.8(a)
FTTH Council of Europe 18.3
Getty Images 16.7, 21.1
History of Computing in Ukraine 16.8(b)
Peter Kirstein 16.5
Pew Research Centre 20.5, Table 20.1
The Planetary Society 9.7
NASA Earth Observatory 9.8
Statista 17.1
Union of Concerned Scientists 17.2
Shutterstock 20.7(a,b,c)
We are Social 20.6
Wikipedia 19.2
Wikimedia Commons 16.4
World Bank 20.1, 20.2
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 03/04/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

Part I
The First Thirty-­Six Centuries
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

1
Introduction

CHAPTER The history of communications is a branch of the history of technology

O NE but, strictly speaking, it is in a category of its own. The goods produced
by technology, whether a piece of machinery, a piece of clothing, or a
piece of furniture, are tangible; they perform some useful function. The
goods produced by communications are messages. They are mostly
­useless but when they are useful they can be very, very useful. For that
reason communication has always been regarded as a good thing by all
peoples at all times. Even in prehistoric times a tribal chief would have
easily appreciated both the military and economic implications. He
would have dearly loved to receive reports like ‘Scores of heavily armed
Mugurus sighted at edge of Dark Dense Forest’ or ‘Buffalo herd fording
Little Creek at Mossy Green Meadow’.
The idea was there but the means of sending messages were rather
limited until very recent times. The same limitation did not apply to
human imagination. A god in Greek mythology could contact any of
his fellow gods without much bother and could cover the distance from
Mount Olympus to, say, the battlefields of Troy in no time at all.
Communication between gods was, of course, not possible in monothe-
istic religions. On the other hand the single god could easily send
­messages to any chosen individual. A possible method was first to call
attention to impending communications (e.g. by a burning bush) and
then deliver messages in a clear, loud voice. Oral communication was
nearly always the preferred method but there is also an example of
coded written communications in the Book of Daniel. The occasion is a
feast given by Belshazzar, King of Babylon. Belshazzar draws upon him-
self the wrath of Jehovah by drinking with his wives and concubines
from the holy vessels plundered earlier from the Temple in Jerusalem.
Thereupon a message appears on the wall, ΜΕΝΕ, ΜΕΝΕ, TEKEL,
UPHARSIN. This message is decoded by Daniel, as saying: ‘God has
numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Thou art weighed in the
­balances, and art found wanting’. By next morning Belshazzar was
dead. This unique example of instantaneous written communications
may be seen in Fig. 1.1 in Rembrandt’s interpretation.
Besides appealing to human imagination, communications have a
This claim may be rightfully chal- number of other distinguishing features. Its rate of progress over the
1

lenged by computer enthusiasts but

it will be discussed in Chapter 16. past century and a half has been conspicuously faster1 than that of any
Communications and computers are
no longer separate subjects. other human activity, and shows no sign of letting up. Let me make a
2
To be exact, to reach Trieste, because few comparisons. In 1858 it took 40 days for the news of the Indian
by that time there was a telegraph con-
nection between Trieste and London. Mutiny to reach London.2 By 1870 there were several telegraph lines

Getting the Message: A History of Communications. Laszlo Solymar, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863007.003.0001
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

4 I ntroduction

Fig. 1.1 Belshazzar’s Feast by
Rembrandt.
connecting India to Europe. Transmission time depended mainly on the
speed of re-­transmission from station to station, four hours being a
good estimate. The progress in 12 years from 1000 hours down to 4 hours
represents an improvement by a factor of 250. For the Atlantic route the
advent of the submarine cable in 1866 reduced the time for sending a
message from a couple of weeks to practically instantaneous transmis-
sion. The figures are no less daunting if we talk about the capacity of a
single line of communications then and now. In the 1840s when electrical
telegraphy started to become widespread, information could be sent at
a rate of about 4 or 5 words per minute. Today, the full content of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica could be transmitted on a single strand of optical
fibre in a fraction of a second. A similar increase in, say, shipping capacity
would mean that a single ship would now be capable of transporting
trillion tons of goods, i.e. more than a thousand tons for every man,
woman, and child on Earth.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

I ntroduction 5
A third possible measure is the cost of information, not when we send
information in bulk—that is less tangible—but when we want a leisurely
chat with a friend in America. In 1927, when the trans-­Atlantic ­telephone
service was opened (relying on radio waves), a three-­minute telephone
call cost £15. Today, it might cost 10p. In nominal prices the reduction is
by a factor of 30 which, in comparison to the figures quoted previously,
is perhaps less striking, but since we are talking about money in our
pocket, its effect on everyday life is much more significant. It needs to be
added of course that prices have risen considerably since 1927. A loaf of
bread, for example, cost about 3d. (1.25p in decimal currency) at the
time, whereas today it costs something like £1. So while the price of
bread has gone up by a factor of 80, the price of a trans-­Atlantic
­telephone call has gone down by a factor of 150. In real terms, to make
that call is now cheaper by an amazing factor of 12,000. And this is not
an anomaly. We would arrive at similar figures whichever aspect of
communications is chosen for comparison. The benefits are obvious. In
1927 only the richest people could afford a social telephone call across
the Atlantic; today it is within the reach of practically all people in
Europe or America.
What else is so extraordinary about communications? Its significance
for conducting affairs of state. Governments which were quite happy
leaving the manufacture of guns and battleships in private hands were
determined to keep communications under their control. Perhaps the
most forward-­looking one was the French Government. As early as 1837,
before the appearance of the electric telegraph, the Parliament approved
the proposal that
Anyone who transmits any signals without authorization from one point to
another one whether with the aid of mechanical telegraphs or by any other
means will be subject to imprisonment for a duration of between one month
and one year

This law was repealed only in the 1980s when France, following
c­ autiously the example set by the United Kingdom, started on its
­privatization programme.
Having made a case for communications being a subject worthy of
study, I would like to add that there is no chance whatsoever of doing it
justice in a single book. Of necessity the subject must be restricted. The
kind of communications I shall be concerned with is, first of all, fast—
faster than the means of locomotion at the time, i.e. faster than a horse
or a boat in ancient times, faster than a train in the nineteenth century,
and faster than an aeroplane in the twentieth and twenty-­first centuries.
Secondly, it is long-­distance communications, meaning that messages
are to be delivered at a distance well out of earshot. Thirdly, it is
­communications from point A to point B. This last distinction has only
become significant in recent times. If, say, a Roman Emperor wanted to
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

6 I ntroduction

send a message to a provincial governor he sent a messenger. If the

Emperor wanted to send the same message to a dozen governors he sent
a dozen messengers. The techniques for sending to one and sending to
many were the same. However, modern methods of reaching the many
differ considerably from those set up for establishing communications
between two persons. In technical jargon the first one is known as
broadcasting and the second one as point-­to-­point communications.
I shall keep away from broadcasting (it has too many different facets)
and concentrate on the latter, asking the question: how, starting from
the earliest evidence, did man manage to send information from point
A to point B, far away, without physically delivering the message?
Having limited the subject to be discussed I shall now broaden it. The
availability of fast communications has made such an impact upon all
aspects of human life that it is impossible to ignore the political and
social consequences. I shall discuss them in detail whenever I have a
chance. The last and possibly the most important thing I wish to do is
not only to describe what happened in the past 4000 years but also to
explain the underlying principles as new inventions and new discover-
ies came along. One might think that the subject of modern communi-
cations is far too complicated for the layman to understand. This is true
indeed for the past two decades but does not apply to the previous 3880
years. For that period I shall try to describe the operational principles of
many of the devices as they entered service.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

2
The Beginnings of
Communications
CHAPTER The principal aim of this chapter is to present some evidence of the
TWO existence of early communications systems. At the same time, faithful
to the dual purpose of the book, the concept of communications will
also be discussed starting at the very beginning. Terms like ‘binary
arithmetic’ and ‘bit’ will be liberally used, and the two digits 0 and 1 will
be introduced in the sense used by communications engineers.
In order to emphasize the simplicity of the basic principles it might be
worth starting in the world of nursery rhymes. It may be assumed that
Jack needs a pail of water but owing to an accident on the previous day
he is confined to bed and his head is still wrapped up with vinegar and
brown paper. Jill, who lives next door, would be willing to go up the hill
on her own and fetch the aforesaid pail of water but she has no idea
whether the water is needed.
Jack can call attention to his need in several ways. He can, for
ex­ample, shout or he can send a brief note. However, Jill’s house, par-
ticularly when the windows are shut, may be too far away for oral com-
munications, and there may be nobody about to fulfil the role of the
messenger. So Jack may decide to send a signal. How to send a signal?
Anything that has been previously agreed would do. Using artifices eas-
ily available for someone lying in a bed he could, for example, put one of
his s­ lippers in the window. According to his agreement with Jill, no slip-
per could mean ‘water is not needed’, whereas the presence of a slipper
would indicate desire for a pail of water. It is a case of YES or NO; yes,
water is needed or no, water is not needed. In the communications
­engineer’s jargon one bit of information needs to be transmitted. YES
may be coded by 1, and NO by 0. In the particular communications sys-
tem set up by Jack and Jill, the presence of a slipper in the window is
coded by 1, and the absence of the slipper by 0.
In times less demanding than ours, being able to obtain one bit of
information was regarded as quite substantial, particularly in mat-
ters of defence. The question most often asked was ‘Are hostile forces
approaching? Yes or no?’ The practical realization of such an early
warning system was quite simple. Watchmen were posted at suitable
vantage points in the neighbourhood of the city: the watchmen then
sent signals whenever they could observe enemy movements. The usual
way of sending a signal was by lighting a fire. Lack of fire meant, ‘No, no
enemy forces are approaching’. The presence of fire meant, ‘Yes, enemy
forces are approaching’.

Getting the Message: A History of Communications. Laszlo Solymar, Oxford University Press (2021). © Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198863007.003.0002
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

8 T he B eg innings of Communications

Watch tower

Relay station

A
Fig. 2.1 A relay station is B
needed when those on watch Greek city
cannot directly communicate
with the city.

Next suppose that the fire lit by the men on watch is not directly
­ isible from the city where the information is required. There might be
v
a mountain in between as shown in Fig. 2.1. So what is the solution?
Post watchmen on both mountain A and mountain B. Those on moun-
tain A will first see the enemy and light a fire. Those on mountain B will
light another fire in turn, and that will be seen in the city. The idea is to
have a relay, and there is of course no reason why the relay could not
have many more elements—5 or 10 or perhaps 100. In principle, it makes
no difference how many elements there are. In practice, there is a higher
chance of failure if there are too many of them. At one particular post
there might be a flood which makes lighting any fire impossible; at
another post the watchmen might be playing dice instead of paying due
attention. The various reasons for failures in communications will be
discussed at several places in this book.
It would be of interest to know when fire signals were first used.
Presumably, as soon as men could confidently ignite a fire, and had
acquired some elementary command structure. Documentation is
another question. Only a minority of our ancestors were fond of
­documentaries—and most of those ever written must have perished in
the frequently occurring disasters. How far one can go back seems to
depend on the diligence of archaeologists and on the ingenuity of those
who can decipher odd-­looking symbols. It is quite possible that a lot of
evidence is still hidden in some unexcavated palaces. As it is, the earliest
evidence comes from the middle of the nineteenth century bc.
The city where the evidence comes from is called Mari. Once upon a
time it lay on the banks of the Tigris, somewhere halfway down its jour-
ney to the Arabian Gulf. It disappeared from history before the close of
the century when Hammurabi’s forces razed it to the ground. It
re­appeared in the 1930s thanks to the efforts of a group of French
archaeologists. They found an amazing amount of information about
the city and about all those with whom the kings of Mari kept up a
­regular c­ orrespondence. The various chambers of the excavated palace
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

T he B eg inning s of Communications 9
yielded over 20,000 clay tablets written in Akkadian. They are particu-
larly informative because in that period the letters were written (using
cuneiform writing which had a symbol for each syllable) in the living lan-
guage. They give accounts of all kinds of activities; for example: register
of people obtained from the last census, records of incoming and outgoing
goods (including such disparate items as garlic and gold), legal documents
on various disputes, commercial transactions, correspondence with
­foreign rulers, and reports on administrative and political problems, on
the state of the roads, on weather conditions, and (luckily for this book)
on fire signals.
One might expect that there would be no need to write reports when
the signalling system worked smoothly. Letters written to the king
would more likely be concerned with difficulties encountered. The
­following two letters (see Stephanie Dalley, Mari and Karana, Two Old
Babylonian Cities. Longman, London, 1984) are indeed of that genre:
Yesterday I went out from Mari and spent the night in Zurubban; and the
Yamanites all raised torches: from Samanum to Ilum-­muluk, from Ilum-­muluk
as far as Mishlan. All the towns of the Yamanites in the district of Terqa raised
their torches in reply. Now, so far I have not managed to find out the reason for
those torches, but I shall try to find out the reason and I shall write to my lord
the result. But let the guards of Mari be strengthened, and may my lord not go
out of the gate.

The second letter has a similar message:

Speak to Yasmah-­Addu, thus Habil-­kenum. My lord wrote to say that two torch
signals were raised; but we never saw two torch signals. In the upper country
they neglected the torch signal, and they didn’t raise a torch signal. My lord
should look into the matter of torch signals, and if there is any cause for worry,
an official should be put in charge.

Unfortunately, we do not know whether an official was ever appointed

and if so whether his intervention improved the communications net-
work. There is no doubt, however, that fire signals were used, erratically
perhaps, in that part of Mesopotamia some 4000 years ago.
The letters found in Mari clearly show how our civilization, which we
like to refer to as Western civilization, had one of its roots in those fertile
grounds between the Tigris and the Euphrates. Hammurabi’s forces
soon put an end to Mari’s prosperity. The city disappeared from the stage
of history by the end of the eighteenth century bc. The fall of Mari did
not of course mean that torch signals fell into disuse. Various forms of
fire signals were no doubt used for the next twelve centuries, although
no detailed descriptions have survived.
Moving westwards towards Asia Minor and Greece, our next stop is
at the beginning of the seventh century bc when, quite likely, the works
of the great Homer were first written down. It would be reasonable to
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/04/21, SPi

10 T he B eg innings of Communications

expect in those epics a story about a beleaguered city which managed

to summon help by fire signals at some time or another. My classicist
friends tell me that no such story exists in the epic poems per se but they
can instead offer a simile from the Iliad on much the same lines.1 The
subject is Achilles’ head adorned by a gleaming, burning flame. The
whole spectacle is arranged by the goddess Athene with the specific aim
of frightening the Trojans. What does that flame look like? According to
Homer:
As when the smoke rises up from a city to reach the sky, from an island in the
distance, where enemies are attacking and the inhabitants run the trial of
hateful Ares all day long, fighting from their city: and then with the setting of
the sun the light from the line of beacons blazes out, and the glare shoots up
high for the neighbouring islanders to see, in the hope that they will come
across in their ships to protect them from disaster—such was the light that
blazed from Achilles’ head up into the sky.

Greece is of course the country where all the exciting action takes
place and I fully intend to return to it but it is worth making a little
detour to another source of our civilization, the Old Testament. The
time is early in the sixth century bc, The source is the Book of Jeremiah,
which gives a contemporary account of one of the periodically occur-
ring Middle Eastern crises. Jeremiah is known as a prophet of rather
gloomy disposition, and it must be admitted that his pessimism was fully
justified. Ten of the twelve tribes of the Israelites had already been taken
into captivity never to reappear. The remaining two tribes, Benjamin
and Judah, were threatened by the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar.
Jeremiah gave a sound warning (6:1):
O ye children of Benjamin, gather yourselves, to flee out of the midst of
Jerusalem, and blow the trumpet in Tekoa, and set up a sign of fire in
Bethhaccerem: for evil appeareth out of the north,2 and great destruction.

Returning to Greece a century and a half later the next thing to look
at is another product of the Greek entertainment industry, the theatre.
A reference to a chain of fires can be found in one of the popular plays
that drew the crowds in Athens at the time. The date of its performance
is well known: 458 bc. The title of the play is Agamemnon, the first one in
the Oresteian trilogy, written by the celebrated Aeschylus. As any play-
wright, he wrote what the audience wanted to hear and to see: a horror
story. The events take place just after the conclusion of the great war at
Troy. Clytemnestra (sister of the fair Helena who caused all the trouble)
seemingly welcomes back her husband Agamemnon but, in fact, she is
1
Book 18 from line 208 onwards. busy plotting his demise. She has a double motive: first she still resents
Babylon was to the east of Jerusalem.
her husband’s act ten years earlier of sacrificing their daughter
2

The reference is to the north because

that was the customary invasion route Iphigenia in order to ensure fair wind for the Greek fleet. In addition, she
to Jerusalem. No army liked to march
across the desert. is reluctant to tell him of her affair with Aegisthus. There is usually
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862.

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America,

and Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy thereof, do hereby
proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be
prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional
relation between the United States and each of the States and the
people thereof, in which States that relation is or may be suspended
or disturbed.
That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to again
recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary
aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, the
people thereof may not then be in rebellion against the United
States, and which States may then have voluntarily adopted, or
thereafter may voluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment
of slavery within their respected limits; and that the effort to colonize
persons of African descent with their consent upon this continent or
elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments
existing there, will be continued.
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof
shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then,
thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of
the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof,
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do
no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
they may make for their actual freedom.
That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by
proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in
which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion
against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people
thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the
Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at
elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall
have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing
testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the
people thereof, are not in rebellion against the United States.
That attention is hereby called to an act of Congress entitled “An
act to make an additional article of war,” approved March 13, 1862,
and which act is in the words and figures following:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the
following shall be promulgated as an additional article of war, for the
government of the army of the United States, and shall be obeyed
and observed as such.
“Article —. All officers or persons in the military or naval service
of the United States are prohibited from employing any of the forces
under their respective commands for the purpose of returning
fugitives from service or labor who may have escaped from any
persons to whom such service or labor is claimed to be due, and any
officer who shall be found guilty by a court-martial of violating this
article shall be dismissed from the service.
“Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect
from and after its passage.”
Also to the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled “An act to
suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and
confiscate property of rebels, and for other purposes,” approved July
17, 1862, and which sections are in the words and figures following:
“Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who
shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the Government of the
United States or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto,
escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the
army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by
them, and coming under the control of the Government of the United
States; and all slaves of such persons found on [or] being within any
place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces
of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be
forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.
 “Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any
State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State,
shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his
liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the
person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to
whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his
lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in
the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto;
and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United
States shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on the
validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other
person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of
being dismissed from the service.”
And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the
military and naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and
enforce, within their respective spheres of service, the act and
sections above recited.
And the Executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of
the United States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout
the rebellion shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relation
between the United States and their respective States and people, if
that relation shall have been suspended or disturbed) be
compensated for all losses by acts of the United States, including the
loss of slaves.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the
seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this twenty-second day of
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-
seventh.
 ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

 Proclamation of January 1, 1863.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of

our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation
was issued by the President of the United States, containing among
other things, the following, to wit:
“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves
within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof
shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then,
thenceforward, and forever, free; and the Executive Government of
the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof,
will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do
no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts
they may make for their actual freedom.
“That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by
proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in
which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion
against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people
thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the
Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto at
elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States
shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing
testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the
people thereof, are then in rebellion against the United States.”
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief
of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed
rebellion against the authority and Government of the United States,
and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said
rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my
purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one
hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and
designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people
thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United
States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the parishes of St. Bernard,
Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension,
Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and
Orleans, including the city of New Orleans,) Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia,
(except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City,
York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and
Portsmouth,) and which excepted parts are for the present left
precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do
order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said
designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be,
free; and that the Executive Government of the United States,
including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize
and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to
abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I
recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor
faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known that such persons, of
suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the
United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places,
and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice,
warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the
considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty
God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this first day of January, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the
independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

Abraham Lincoln.

By the President:
William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.

These proclamations were followed by many attempts on the part

of the Democrats to declare them null and void, but all such were
tabled. The House on the 15th of December, 1862, endorsed the first
by a vote of 78 to 51, almost a strict party vote. Two classed as
Democrats, voted for emancipation—Haight and Noell; seven classed
as Republicans, voted against it—Granger, Harrison, Leary,
Maynard, Benj. F. Thomas, Francis Thomas, and Whaley.
Just previous to the issuance of the first proclamation a meeting of
the Governors of the Northern States had been called to consider
how best their States could aid the general conduct of the war. Some
of them had conferred with the President, and while that meeting
and the date of the emancipation proclamation are the same, it was
publicly denied on the floor of Congress by Mr. Boutwell (June 25,
1864,) that the proclamation was the result of that meeting of the
Governors. That they fully endorsed and knew of it, however, is
shown by the following
 Address of loyal Governors to the President.

Adopted at a meeting of Governors of loyal States, held to take

measures for the more active support of the Government, at
Altoona, Pennsylvania, on the 22d day of September, 1862.
After nearly one year and a half spent in contest with an armed
and gigantic rebellion against the national Government of the United
States, the duty and purpose of the loyal States and people continue,
and must always remain as they were at its origin—namely, to restore
and perpetuate the authority of this Government and the life of the
nation. No matter what consequences are involved in our fidelity,
this work of restoring the Republic, preserving the institutions of
democratic liberty, and justifying the hopes and toils of our fathers
shall not fail to be performed.
And we pledge without hesitation, to the President of the United
States, the most loyal and cordial support, hereafter as heretofore, in
the exercise of the functions of his great office. We recognize in him
the Chief Executive Magistrate of the nation, the Commander-in-
chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, their responsible
and constitutional head, whose rightful authority and power, as well
as the constitutional powers of Congress, must be rigorously and
religiously guarded and preserved, as the condition on which alone
our form of Government and the constitutional rights and liberties of
the people themselves can be saved from the wreck of anarchy or
from the gulf of despotism.
In submission to the laws which may have been or which may be
duly enacted, and to the lawful orders of the President, co-operating
always in our own spheres with the national Government, we mean
to continue in the most vigorous exercise of all our lawful and proper
powers, contending against treason, rebellion, and the public
enemies, and, whether in public life or in private station, supporting
the arms of the Union, until its cause shall conquer, until final
victory shall perch upon its standard, or the rebel foe shall yield a
dutiful, rightful, and unconditional submission.
And, impressed with the conviction that an army of reserve ought,
until the war shall end, to be constantly kept on foot, to be raised,
armed, equipped, and trained at home, and ready for emergencies,
we respectfully ask the President to call for such a force of volunteers
for one year’s service, of not less than one hundred thousand in the
aggregate, the quota of each State to be raised after it shall have filled
its quota of the requisitions already made, both for volunteers and
militia. We believe that this would be a measure of military
prudence, while it would greatly promote the military education of
the people.
We hail with heartfelt gratitude and encouraged hope the
proclamation of the President, issued on the 22d instant, declaring
emancipated from their bondage all persons held to service or labor
as slaves in the rebel States, whose rebellion shall last until the first
day of January now next ensuing. The right of any person to retain
authority to compel any portion of the subjects of the national
Government to rebel against it, or to maintain its enemies, implies in
those who are allowed possession of such authority the right to rebel
themselves; and therefore the right to establish martial law or
military government in a State or territory in rebellion implies the
right and the duty of the Government to liberate the minds of all men
living therein by appropriate proclamations and assurances of
protection, in order that all who are capable, intellectually and
morally, of loyalty and obedience, may not be forced into treason as
the unwilling tools of rebellious traitors. To have continued
indefinitely the most efficient cause, support, and stay of the
rebellion, would have been, in our judgment, unjust to the loyal
people whose treasure and lives are made a willing sacrifice on the
altar of patriotism—would have discriminated against the wife who is
compelled to surrender her husband, against the parent who is to
surrender his child to the hardships of the camp and the perils of
battle, in favor of rebel masters permitted to retain their slaves. It
would have been a final decision alike against humanity, justice, the
rights and dignity of the Government, and against sound and wise
national policy. The decision of the President to strike at the root of
the rebellion will lend new vigor to the efforts and new life and hope
to the hearts of the people. Cordially tendering to the President our
respectful assurance of personal and official confidence, we trust and
believe that the policy now inaugurated will be crowned with success,
will give speedy and triumphant victories over our enemies, and
secure to this nation and this people the blessing and favor of
Almighty God. We believe that the blood of the heroes who have
already fallen, and those who may yet give their lives to their
country, will not have been shed in vain.
The splendid valor of our soldiers, their patient endurance, their
manly patriotism, and their devotion to duty, demand from us and
from all their countrymen the homage of the sincerest gratitude and
the pledge of our constant reinforcement and support. A just regard
for these brave men, whom we have contributed to place in the field,
and for the importance of the duties which may lawfully pertain to us
hereafter, has called us into friendly conference. And now,
presenting to our national Chief Magistrate this conclusion of our
deliberations, we devote ourselves to our country’s service, and we
will surround the President with our constant support, trusting that
the fidelity and zeal of the loyal States and people will always assure
him that he will be constantly maintained in pursuing with the
utmost vigor this war for the preservation of the national life and the
hope of humanity.

A. G. Curtin,
John A. Andrew,
Richard Yates,
Israel Washburne, Jr.,
Edward Solomon,
Samuel J. Kirkwood,
O. P. Morton,
By D. G. Rose, his representative,
Wm. Sprague,
F. H. Peirpoint,
David Tod,
N. S. Berry,
Austin Blair.
 Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law.

The first fugitive slave law passed was that of February 12th, 1793,
the second and last that of September 18th, 1850. Various efforts had
been made to repeal the latter before the war of the rebellion,
without a prospect of success. The situation was now different. The
war spirit was high, and both Houses of Congress were in the hands
of the Republicans as early as December, 1861, but all of them were
not then ready to vote for repeal, while the Democrats were at first
solidly against it. The bill had passed the Senate in 1850 by 27 yeas to
12 nays; the House by 109 yeas to 76 nays, and yet as late as 1861
such was still the desire of many not to offend the political prejudices
of the Border States and of Democrats whose aid was counted upon
in the war, that sufficient votes could not be had until June, 1864, to
pass the repealing bill. Republican sentiment advanced very slowly in
the early years of the war, when the struggle looked doubtful and
when there was a strong desire to hold for the Union every man and
county not irrevocably against it; when success could be foreseen the
advances were more rapid, but never as rapid as the more radical
leaders desired. The record of Congress in the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law will illustrate this political fact, in itself worthy of grave
study by the politician and statesman, and therefore we give it as
compiled by McPherson:—
 [22]
Second Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

In Senate, 1861, December 26—Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin,

introduced a bill to repeal the fugitive slave law; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
1862, May 24—Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, introduced a bill to
amend the fugitive slave law; which was ordered to be printed and lie
on the table.
June 10—Mr. Wilson moved to take up the bill; which was agreed
to—Yeas 25, nays 10, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Cowan,
Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris,
Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Kansas, Morrill, Pomeroy, Simmons,
Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson, of Massachusetts.—25.
Nays—Messrs. Carlile, Davis, Latham, McDougall, Nesmith,
Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, Willey, Wright—10.[23]
The bill was to secure to claimed fugitives a right to a jury trial in
the district court for the United States for the district in which they
may be, and to require the claimant to prove his loyalty. The bill
repeals sections 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the act of 1850, and that part of
section 5, which authorizes the summoning of the posse comitatus.
When a warrant of return is made either on jury trial or confession of
the party in the presence of counsel, having been warned of his
rights, the fugitive is to be surrendered to the claimant, or the
marshal where necessary, who shall remove him to the boundary line
of the district, and there deliver him to the claimant. The bill was not
further considered.
In House, 1861, December 20—Mr. Julian offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report a
bill, so amending the fugitive slave law enacted in 1850 as to forbid
the recapture or return of any fugitive from labor without
satisfactory proof first made that the claimant of such fugitive is loyal
to the Government.
Mr. Holman moved to table the resolution, which was disagreed to
—yeas 39, nays 78, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Ancona, Joseph Baily, Biddle, George H. Browne,
Cobb, Cooper, Cox, Cravens, Crittenden, Dunlap, English, Fouke,
Grider, Harding, Holman, Johnson, Law, Lazear, Leary, Lehman,
Mallory, Morris, Noble, Noell, Norton, Nugen, Odell, Pendleton,
Robinson, Shiel, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Vallandigham,
Wadsworth, Webster, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Woodruff, Wright
—39.
Nays—Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter,
Beaman, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake,
Buffinton, Burnham, Chamberlain, Clark, Colfax, Frederick A.
Conkling, Roscoe Conkling, Cutler, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Duell,
Edwards, Eliot, Fessenden, Franchot, Frank, Gooch, Goodwin,
Gurley, Hale, Hanchett, Harrison, Hooper, Hutchins, Julian, William
Kellogg, Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, McKnight, McPherson, Marston,
Mitchell, Moorhead, Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Olin, Patton,
Pike, Pomeroy, Porter, John H. Rice, Riddle, Edward H. Rollins,
Sargent, Sedgwick, Shanks. Shellabarger, Sherman, Sloan,
Spaulding, Stevens, Benjamin F. Thomas, Train, Vandever, Wall,
Wallace, Walton, Washburne, Wheeler, Whaley, Albert S. White,
Wilson, Windom, Worcester—78.
The resolution was then adopted—yeas 78, nays 39.
1862, June 9—Mr. Julian, of Indiana, introduced into the House a
resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to report a bill for the
purpose of repealing the fugitive slave law; which was tabled—yeas
66, nays 51, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Baily, Biddle, Francis P.
Blair, Jacob B. Blair, George H. Browne, William G. Brown,
Burnham, Calvert, Casey, Clements, Cobb, Corning, Crittenden,
Delano, Diven, Granger, Grider, Haight, Hale, Harding, Holman,
Johnson, William Kellogg, Kerrigan, Knapp, Lazear, Low, Maynard,
Menzies, Moorhead, Morris, Noble, Noell, Norton, Odell, Pendleton,
John S. Phelps, Timothy G. Phelps, Porter, Richardson, Robinson,
James S. Rollins, Sargent, Segar, Sheffield, Shiel, Smith, John B.
Steele, William G. Steele, Benjamin F. Thomas, Francis Thomas,
Trimble, Vallandigham, Verree, Vibbard, Voorhees, Wadsworth,
Webster, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Wood, Woodruff, Worcester,
Wright—66.
Nays—Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Bingham,
Blake, Buffinton, Chamberlain, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Davis,
Dawes, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Franchot, Gooch, Goodwin,
Hanchett, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Lansing,
Lovejoy, McKnight, McPherson, Mitchell, Anson P. Morrill, Pike,
Pomeroy, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Riddle, Edward
H. Rollins, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spaulding, Stevens, Train,
Trowbridge, Van Horn, Van Valkenburgh, Wall, Wallace,
Washburne, Albert S. White, Windom—51.
Same day—Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to
report a bill modifying the fugitive slave law so as to require a jury
trial in all cases where the person claimed denies under oath that he
is a slave, and also requiring any claimant under such act to prove
that he has been loyal to the Government during the present
rebellion.
Which was agreed to—yeas 77, nays 43, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Babbitt, Baker,
Baxter, Beaman, Bingham, Francis P. Blair, Blake, Buffinton,
Burnham, Chamberlain, Colfax, Frederick A. Conkling, Davis,
Dawes, Delano, Diven, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Franchot,
Gooch, Goodwin, Granger, Gurley, Haight, Hale, Hanchett,
Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg,
Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, Lowe, McKnight, McPherson, Mitchell,
Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Nixon, Timothy G. Phelps, Pike,
Pomeroy, Porter, Potter, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Riddle,
Edward H. Rollins, Sargent, Shanks, Sheffield, Shellabarger, Sloan,
Spaulding, Stevens, Stratton, Benjamin F. Thomas, Train, Trimble,
Trowbridge, Van Valkenburgh, Verree, Wall, Wallace, Washburne,
Albert, S. White, Wilson, Windom, Worcester—77.
Nays—Messrs. William J. Allen, Ancona, Baily, Biddle, Jacob B.
Blair, William G. Brown, Calvert, Casey, Clements, Cobb, Corning,
Crittenden, Fouke, Grider, Harding, Holman, Johnson, Knapp,
Maynard, Menzies, Noble, Noell, Norton, Pendleton, John S. Phelps,
Richardson, Robinson, James S. Rollins, Segar, Shiel, Smith, John B.
Steele, William G. Steele, Francis Thomas, Vallandigham, Vibbard,
Voorhees, Wadsworth, Webster, Chilton A. White, Wickliffe, Wood,
Wright—43.
 Third Session, Thirty-Seventh Congress.

In Senate, 1863, February 11—Mr. Ten Eyck, from the Committee

on the Judiciary, to whom was referred a bill, introduced by Senator
Howe, in second session, December 26, 1861, to repeal the fugitive
slave act of 1850, reported it back without amendment, and with a
recommendation that it do not pass.
 First Session, Thirty-Eighth Congress.

In House, 1863, Dec. 14.—Mr. Julian, of Indiana, offered this

resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to
report a bill for a repeal of the third and fourth sections of the “act
respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the
service of their masters,” approved February 12, 1793, and the act to
amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved September
18, 1850.
Mr. Holman moved that the resolution lie upon the table, which
was agreed to—yeas 81, nays 73, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona,
Anderson, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, Jacob B. Blair, Bliss, Brooks,
James S. Brown, William G. Browne, Clay, Cobb, Coffroth, Cox,
Cravens, Creswell, Dawson, Demming, Denison, Eden, Edgerton,
Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Griswold, Hall, Harding,
Harrington, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Higby,
Holman, Hutchins, William Johnson, Kernan, King, Knapp, Law,
Lazear, Le Blond, Long, Mallory, Marcy, Marvin, McBride,
McDowell, McKinney, William H. Miller, James R. Morris,
Morrison, Nelson, Noble, Odell, John O’Neil, Pendleton, William H.
Randall, Robinson, Rogers, James S. Rollins, Ross, Scott, Smith,
Smithers, Stebbins, John B. Steele, Stuart, Sweat, Thomas,
Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Wheeler, Chilton A. White, Joseph W.
White, Williams, Winfield, Fernando Wood, Yeaman—81.
Nays—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, John D.
Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee,
Broomall, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clark, Cole, Henry Winter
Davis, Dawes, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eliot,
Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Hooper,
Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Hulburd, Jenckes,
Julian, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Loan, Longyear,
Lovejoy, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill,
Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O’Neill, Orth,
Patterson, Pike, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice,
Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Spalding, Thayer,
Van Valkenburgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn,
Whaley, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbidge—73.
1864, June 6, Mr. Hubbard, of Connecticut, offered this resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to
report to this House a bill for the repeal of all acts and parts of acts
which provide for the rendition of fugitive slaves, and that they have
leave to make such report at any time.
Which went over under the rule. May 30, he had made an
ineffectual effort to offer it, Mr. Holman objecting.

REPEALING BILLS.

1864, April 19, the Senate considered the bill to repeal all acts for
the rendition of fugitives from service or labor. The bill was taken up
—yeas 26, nays 10.
Mr. Sherman moved to amend by inserting these words at the end
of the bill:
Except the act approved February 12, 1793, entitled “An act
respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the
service of their masters.”
Which was agreed to—yeas 24, nays 17, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Collamer, Cowan, Davis, Dixon,
Doolittle, Foster, Harris, Henderson, Hendricks, Howe, Johnson,
Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Nesmith, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,
Sherman, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey—24.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Clark, Conness, Fessenden,
Grimes, Hale, Howard, Lane of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy,
Ramsey, Sprague, Sumner, Wilkinson, Wilson—17.
Mr. Saulsbury moved to add these sections:
 And be it further enacted, That no white inhabitant of the United
States shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger, without due process of law.
And be it further enacted, That no person engaged in the
executive, legislative, or judicial departments of the Government of
the United States, or holding any office or trust recognized in the
Constitution of the United States, and no person in military or naval
service of the United States, shall, without due process of law, arrest
or imprison any white inhabitant of the United States who is not, or
has not been, or shall not at the time of such arrest or imprisonment
be, engaged in levying war against the United States, or in adhering
to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort, nor
aid, abet, procure or advise the same, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service in time of
war or public danger. And any person as aforesaid so arresting, or
imprisoning, or holding, as aforesaid, as in this and the second
section of this act mentioned, or aiding, abetting, or procuring, or
advising the same, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and, upon
conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction, shall be
imprisoned for a term of not less than one nor more than five years,
shall pay a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $5000, and
shall be forever incapable of holding any office or public trust under
the Government of the United States.
Mr. Hale moved to strike out the word “white” wherever it occurs;
which was agreed to.
The amendment of Mr. Saulsbury, as amended, was then
disagreed to—yeas 9, nays 27, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Cowan, Davis, Hendricks,
McDougall, Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury—9.
Nays—Messrs. Anthony, Clark, Collamer, Conness, Doolittle,
Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harris, Howard, Howe, Lane of
Indiana, Lane, of Kansas, Morgan, Morrill, Pomeroy, Ramsey,
Sherman, Sprague, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Van Winkle,
Wilkinson, Willey, Wilson—27.
 Mr. Conness moved to table the bill; which was disagreed to—yeas
9, (Messrs. Buckalew, Carlile, Conness, Davis, Hendricks, Nesmith,
Powell, Riddle, Saulsbury,) nays 31.
It was not again acted upon.
1864, June 13—The House passed this bill, introduced by Mr.
Spalding, of Ohio, and reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary by Mr. Morris, of New York, as follows:
Be it enacted, etc., that sections three and four of an act entitled
“An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from
the service of their masters,” passed February 12, 1793, and an Act
entitled “An act to amend, and supplementary to, the act entitled ‘An
act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from their
masters,’ passed February 12, 1793,” passed September 18, 1850, be,
and the same are hereby, repealed.
Yeas 86, nays 60, as follows:
Yeas—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Arnold, Ashley, John D.
Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd,
Brandegee, Broomall, Ambrose W. Clarke, Freeman Clark, Cobb,
Cole, Creswell, Henry Winter Davis, Thomas T. Daavis, Dawes,
Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Fenton, Frank,
Garfield, Gooch, Griswold, Higby, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W.
Hubbard, John K. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian,
Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, O. Kellogg, Littlejohn, Loan, Longyear,
Marvin, McClurg, McIndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill,
Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Norton, Charles O’Neill,
Orth, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H.
Rice, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens,
Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Webster, Whaley,
Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Woodbridge—86.
Nays—Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona,
Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler,
Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton,
Eldridge, English, Finck, Ganson, Grider, Harding, Harrington,
Charles M. Harris, Herrick, Holman, Hutchins, Kalbfleisch, Kernan,
King, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, Mallory, Marcy, McDowell,
McKinney, Wm. H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Odell,
Pendleton, Pruyn, Radford, Robinson, Jas. S. Rollins, Ross,