SIXTEENTH DAY
WASHINGTON, SATURDAY, February 23d, 1861.
The Conference was called to order at ten o'clock A.M., by President TYLER, and its proceedings commenced with prayer from Rev. Dr. BUTLER.
The Journal of yesterday, in part, was read. The Secretary stated that he had not found time to complete it.
Mr. ALEXANDER:--I move to rescind the resolution adopted yesterday allowing ten minutes to a member proposing an amendment, and ten minutes for the reply. I do not propose to discuss the motion. I think all will agree upon the necessity of rescinding the resolution. This will leave the five minutes' rule in full force.
A vote by States was asked by several members.
Mr. SEDDON:--I wish to call the attention of the Conference to this subject for a moment. I hope the present rule will not be changed. The debate up to yesterday was upon general questions. We have not yet gone into detail. We tried the operation of the ten minutes' rule yesterday. I am sure that it will not be claimed that any gentleman abused it.
Mr. JAMES:--We have scarcely discussed a question of detail connected with an article in the committee's report.
Mr. ALEXANDER:--I will withdraw my motion.
Mr. VANDEVER:--I tried to offer a resolution yesterday which I deemed important. It was then ruled out of order. I am sure it is in order now. It reads as follows:
Resolved, That whatever may be the ultimate determination upon the amendment of the Federal Constitution, or other propositions for adjustment approved by this Convention, we, the members, do recommend our respective States and constituencies to faithfully abide in the Union.
Mr. BRONSON:--I rise to a question of order. The report of the committee and the amendments thereto, are the special order of business. We ought not to permit collateral questions to be brought in. We adjourned yesterday with the amendment proposed by Mr. FRANKLIN as a substitute for the first article of the committee's report before us. To that Mr. CURTIS, of Iowa, had offered an amendment, which was under discussion. Let us keep to our rules.
The PRESIDENT:--I think the resolution of the gentleman from Iowa is in order now.
Mr. VANDEVER:--I hope the question will be taken upon my resolution at the present time. All the questions we have been discussing are, in my judgment, secondary to another which ought to be first decided. Is this Conference true to the Union--true under all circumstances? If so, I regard it as highly important that the Conference should give some expression to that effect. Even if we should settle this great contention about slavery to-day, other questions might afterward arise. I am quite prepared to see a claim set up, to what is called the right of peaceful secession. I would guard against all such claims. The passage of this resolution would have a beneficial effect upon the public mind. I think we still have a Government which can protect itself and the nation. My constituents believe this preliminary question quite as important as that of protecting slavery in the Territories.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move to lay the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Iowa, on the table.
Mr. BUTLER:--I want the resolution read again.
Mr. VANDEVER:--Let us all go on to the record. I ask a vote by States.
The resolution was read, and the vote being taken by States, resulted as follows:
AYES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--11.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--9.
So the motion to lay the resolution on the table prevailed.
The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the order of the day. The question is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, to the substitute for the first section of the report of the committee, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I came into this Conference with the honest and single purpose of healing the unfortunate differences which now distract the country, having no sinister ends to answer. That purpose has hitherto remained unchanged. To accomplish it, there is nothing I will not sacrifice except principle and honor. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa is, in substance, just the same as Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute. In the one, a fact is implied; in the other, the same fact is expressed. I understand that neither proposition can command the support of those gentlemen in the Conference who favor a National Convention. Neither can the amendment command the approval of the border slave States. Certainly not all, if it can any of them. The adoption, then, of this amendment, will operate as a defeat of the first section of the proposed amendment of the Constitution. Neither party in this Conference will accept it. While, therefore, I believe it ought to be accepted--while I believe it amounts to nearly the same as the original proposition, I will not peril the Union upon a mere question of form.
I did not come here to inquire into causes. Our differences exist, and I do not think they were occasioned by the success of the Republican party in the last Presidential election. The plotters against the Union have seized upon the occasion to accomplish their designs.
By no fault of their own, several of the Border States are placed in a very unfortunate position. They wish to remain in the Union, but their people insist that certain of their rights shall be previously secured; in other words, guaranteed.
It is my firm belief that if the inauguration of President LINCOLN was over, if his administration had been for a few months in operation, we should all be at peace. Now, we must act upon the facts as they are presented to us.
I must vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa in order to give the original proposition a fair chance. I wish to have it distinctly understood that this is the reason why I cast my vote against his amendment.
Mr. JAMES:--I do not rise to debate the question at length, now before the Conference. I think that this amendment brings us at once to the true issue which the case presents. We have hitherto been talking about abstractions. Now we come directly to the point. As this is a Conference to settle disputed questions, the sooner we come to the true points in issue, the better.
What is the cause of our present differences? It is not found in any action of the North. No Northern State proposes to disrupt the Union or to threaten its stability. But certain of the Southern slave States come here and say to us that certain alleged rights of theirs must be secured, or they cannot induce their people to consent to remain in the Union.
I have heard a great deal said in this Conference about civil war. Now, civil war is not a pleasant subject to consider; but, gentlemen, I pray you to remember that the North proposes no civil war. She declines to consider the subject at all, now. If civil war is brought upon the country, it will be your work, not ours. The North will do all she can to stay your hands--to prevent you from plunging the country into civil war. She will not enter upon it until you force her to do so. When you begin it, and force her into war in order to defend the Government and the Union, I have no doubt she will enter the field and carry on civil war until the Union is restored and its enemies put down. Let me ask you, gentlemen, who have so much to say about war, whether you had not better leave that question where it is?
It has been assumed, and very often stated here, that the present Constitution gives the right to the Southern slave owner to take his negroes into any of the Territories of the United States, and hold them there as slaves. I think it would be well for you not to act so entirely upon that assumption. A different view prevails quite extensively at the North. It will be a long time before that view is changed.
Now, you gentlemen of the South propose to restore the Missouri Compromise line. To induce us to adopt it, you say that the territory south of it is a barren, worthless desert--that slavery can never obtain a substantial foothold there. Why, then, do you make the subject one of so much importance? Why do you risk all the calamities of civil war and a disruption of the Union for such a poor reward? We should distrust all your statements, we should disbelieve all your professions of patriotism, if we could for a moment credit the assertion that you would break up the Union on such a worthless pretext.
You ring the changes in our ears upon the decision of the Supreme Court in your favor. Let me tell you plainly that there is no section of the Union in which the decisions of that court have been so fully and fairly respected and observed as in the free States of the North. With that you should be satisfied.
You are in trouble; that is evident. Your troubles have been caused by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. That, again, was your work, not ours. We opposed the repeal to the end. You had the power and you carried it. Now the North is indifferent about the restoration of that compromise; but if that will satisfy you, restore the status quo, and the North will stand by you. But you must not expect now, that the North will do any thing better for you than to extend the provisions of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean.
Mr. CARRUTHERS:--The gentleman from New York who has last addressed the Conference, appeals to us to accept the amendment now proposed, upon the grounds of justice and equity. What is the present state of the case? We claim the right to go into all the Territories with our southern property. The Supreme Court has confirmed this right to us. With this advantage in our favor, we have met here to compromise. What is the proposition now? It is to give the North all the territory north of 36° 30´, and to leave all questions concerning the territory south of that line without any adjustment at all! That gentleman favors no compromise at all. He proposes that we should go home without any adjustment. Shall we go back to our excited people and say this: "The North will make no adjustment with you"? Is this the way to settle the important questions that now distract the country?
We have not come here for war; we have come here for peace. We have come to settle all the questions between us upon a fair and equitable basis. How are we met? Gentlemen from the North say they will give us nothing. All we ask is right and justice--that right which the Constitution and the Court has given us in all the territory, secured in one-third of it. With that we will be content.
Some gentlemen object to the phraseology of the article. Let them have all that their own way. They stop here to quarrel about words? Settle those as you like, but we ask all the friends of the Union to stand by, and reject all amendments which affect the substance of the article. Such a course will end all contention.
We read in Sacred History that the Israelites were once so conscientious that they would not fight on Sunday. They were attacked and overthrown. They finally agreed to compromise the question of conscience so far as to fight in self-defence on Sunday. They were attacked then, and the enemy was overthrown.
The report is not such as we could wish it might be, but, such as it is, we will accept it and stand by it. We will adopt it, and we ask the North to adopt it, in the true spirit of compromise.
Mr. LOGAN:--I am under the necessity of believing that the gentleman from Iowa is in earnest, in offering this amendment; but if I were to present it, I should not expect any one to believe I was in earnest. What is the compromise which this amendment proposes? It is, in substance, that the North will take three-fourths of the Territory under the Constitution, and the rest by force. If gentlemen entertain such views, we might as well come to a direct vote at once, and see whether any thing can be done.
The gentleman from Iowa says this is the Missouri Compromise; but it lacks much of it. Besides, circumstances have greatly changed since 1820, when the compromise was adopted. Now, seven States have left us and gone out of the Union, and we are acting in view of that fact. There is a contest between the North and the remaining Southern States, and the latter have no better chance in that contest alone, than Turkey had in the grasp of the rugged Russian Bear. The gentlemen from these States do not threaten. All they say is, "If we cannot agree longer together, let us go in peace. We will fight only in self-defence."
They ask us further, "If we stay with you, how do you intend to treat us? As equals, or as inferiors?" If as inferiors, we cannot sustain ourselves with our people, saying nothing of our own self-respect. I acknowledge the force of these inquiries.
A civil revolution terminated at the last election. The power to wield the Government came into the hands of the Republicans. The circumstances suddenly change. Political power leaves the South. What now shall we give them in place of that? Shall we leave these States at our mercy? This is an earnest time. We should act as if the fate of a great nation depended on our action. If we intend to say we will do nothing, let us say so plainly, and not by indirection.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I thank GOD I hear a voice such as I have just heard from that section of the country (Iowa)! I have been a member of a recent Legislature of North Carolina, in which there was a majority of secessionists. I have been jeered at in that body for the opinions I have expressed, for I have told those gentlemen repeatedly that if we could once get the ear of the North, the North would do us justice. They pointed me to the raid of JOHN BROWN--to the meeting in Boston, where the gallows of JOHN BROWN was carried with solemn ceremonies into the Cradle of Liberty. They pointed me to the man who presided over that meeting, since elevated to the high and honorable position of Governor of Massachusetts. Notwithstanding all this, I have replied that the masses of the northern people would deal fairly by us. I have told these secessionists to their teeth that Mr. LINCOLN was properly elected under the Constitution, and that he ought to be inaugurated. Their reply was, "Kansas, and the JOHN BROWN raid!"
Now, I ask this Conference to look for one moment at the effect of the amendment which is proposed. It withdraws all constitutional protection from us north of 36° 30´. Adopt it, and what has Massachusetts to do but to import her foreigners into the country south, and take possession of it. New York will back her, and we shall be swept from the face of the earth.
If the gentleman from New York means to say that the nation can put its foot on to the neck of the States and crush them into submission, let him go into Virginia and join in another JOHN BROWN raid. Virginia will treat him as she did JOHN BROWN. No! the gentleman has not studied the motto of the Union. There is the E pluribus as well as the unum. If the new President proposes to come down to the South and conquer us, he will find that the whole temple shall fall. We can be crushed, perhaps, but conquered, never!
Mr. BRADFORD:--Maryland has, under the lead of her constitutional Chief Magistrate, determined to preserve her position of neutrality, and not by any action of hers to add to the prevailing excitement on either side. She has done what she could to allay the existing irritation, and will continue to pursue the same policy she has hitherto adopted.
Here is a large file of amendments. Almost every delegation has given notice of an intention to offer one or more. If we begin to adopt them, I feel sure that we shall destroy all hope of an ultimate agreement.
Mr. President, I desire to make an emphatic declaration to this Conference. It is this: Give us the report as it came from the committee, without substantial alteration, and there is no power on earth that can draw the State of Maryland out of the Union! Maryland has been called the heart of the Union. The day she leaves the Union, that heart is broken! I am now inclined to set my face against all amendments. I think that is the better course.
In the populous section of the State where I reside, the universal cry is, "For God's sake, settle these questions!" Why can we not settle them? The committee inform us that the members of which it is composed, were nearly unanimous upon all points except the territorial question. Will reasonable men not yield a little to each other in order to settle that?
Then let us look calmly at the consequences which must follow our disagreement. I will enter into no panegyric of the Union. To use an often repeated expression, it needs none. It is enshrined in the hearts of the people with all the glories of the past, with all the glorious hopes of the future. It has given us a position in the front rank of the nations. There is every prospect that it will make us in the end the most powerful among the nations. Who can look unmoved upon the spectacle of such a Union about to fall into fragments? What sacrifice too great to avert such a ruin?
We all understand, we all agree that we can save the Union by settling this miserable question of slavery in the Territories. We should be unworthy of ourselves and our trusts, if we set our division upon this question above the preservation of the Union. How can it be possible that Union men, or even politicians, can hesitate as to which path ought to be taken? One leads to ruin, the other to a haven of safety.
It will be a world-wonder hereafter, if we do not agree. The people--the whole country, will stand aghast at the spectacle of folly we present. I would not, for all the wealth and honors the nation could bestow, be remembered hereafter as a man who stood between these measures of pacification and the people who should finally decide upon them. I would not have the priceless blessing of the Union put in peril for a single hour, when its safety can be purchased at so small a cost.
Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The civilized world is amazed at the present condition of one of the greatest Governments on the face of the earth. I participate in that amazement myself. What is that condition? In a time of profound peace, of great prosperity, with the Government itself in the hands of southern men, State after State has dared to attempt to sever its connection with the Union. Even Florida, which has cost us so many millions, which ever since we had her has been a constant slough of expenditure, says we cannot even have the national property which happens to be within her territorial limits!
I am not so strong a believer in the effect of legislative action as many others. I have looked at the main points of our differences in the light of history, and it is my belief that the laws of soil and climate will settle this question of slavery in the Territories, much more effectually than we can settle it by any legislative or constitutional provisions.
The Missouri Compromise once settled this Territorial question in a manner satisfactory to the South. Through the influence of the South it was repealed. Now the South desires to have its provisions restored. As I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, it exactly restores the status quo.
We are told, farther, that the natural allies of the border slave States have left them; that, reduced in numbers, they cannot maintain their position against the North. This assumes that the North is hostile to the South. I deny it. I say that my state is the natural ally of Kentucky, a more powerful ally than she ever had South.
Parties are governed by certain natural laws. A party which adopts a principle at war with the sentiments of the people may succeed for a time by the force of party drill, but in the end it will go down. The CALHOUN doctrine destroyed a party. Under the operation of the same law the Democratic party has gone down. But you cannot destroy a party before its time. The effort of Virginia now is to overthrow the Republican party. The effort will not succeed. It is equivalent to an attempt to overthrow the country.
I am not frightened at this idea of giving guarantees. I do not think them of much importance. I am willing to give such as are reasonable. We hold to a certain extent to your doctrine of State sovereignty, and would protect it.
Our people North and South are too much alike in many respects. We are all inclined to stand too much upon party abstractions. This is almost the only reason why we cannot agree.
We are told that some things stated here grate harshly upon the ears of gentlemen from the South. The converse of this is equally true. I can take a rebuke, I trust, in a good temper, but I do not like to be stabbed in the house of my friends. I do not like to have doctrines and opinions imputed to me and my party which are only entertained by a little knot of fanatical abolitionists in the neighborhood of Boston; a few men who will not vote under the present Constitution, and who are led and controlled by LLOYD GARRISON and WENDELL PHILLIPS.
Mr. HOUSTON:--I am strongly averse to the introduction of the subject of party into the deliberations of the Conference. I did not intend to allude to party at all; but since the subject has been referred to in such impassioned terms, I feel that I must say a word about it.
Many references have been made in this debate to the opinions of WASHINGTON. I wish his opinions were better observed and respected. I refer to his appeal to his countrymen not to form parties with reference to geographical lines, and asking them to frown indignantly upon every attempt to form such parties.
What WASHINGTON foresaw, at length has come to pass. Parties have been formed, and are now in existence, divided by geographical lines, having no interests or opinions in common. But no such parties can long exist without threatening the stability of the Government.
So long as parties were national in their character; so long as they excluded sectional interests from their platforms, their existence was a benefit rather than an injury to the Union. Gradually they have all drifted toward sectionalism, until now we find ourselves in a position which taxes the ability and ingenuity of the ablest men to provide for the existence even of our Government.
Now, I see no chance of safety for us until we reëstablish political parties upon their old bases, excluding all sectional considerations. When this is accomplished, the country is safe. It can only be done by settling this territorial question, and removing all inducement to the formation of sectional parties.
The election of Mr. LINCOLN was a fair election. It afforded no just pretext for secession, much less for the formation of sectional parties, or for creating sectional issues.
The time has come when the advice, the counsels of WASHINGTON, become his most precious legacy to the country. Shall we not regard the solemn admonitions of the Father of his Country?
I would ask our friends from the North--for they are our friends and not our enemies--whether they will not listen to these counsels of WASHINGTON? He was always ready, always willing to submit to just compromises, when they were necessary to the peace and happiness of his country. Will they not emulate his example now?
Delaware does not feel any special interest in this question of slavery in the Territories. She would have it settled in that way which would promote the interests of the whole Union. Her present impression is, that the report of the committee presents the most practicable and equitable mode of adjustment. Long ago Delaware favored the abolition of the slave trade. She has been consistent in her course on that question ever since. It is not unlikely that she may soon favor the abolition of slavery within her limits. Her progress has been in that direction. When the present Constitution was adopted, Delaware had fifteen thousand slaves. Now she has not more than eighteen hundred.
Mr. TUCK:--I recognize the reason and propriety of the wishes of the gentleman from Maryland, to try the proposition now before the Conference upon its merits. I certainly do not desire to have time taken up in unnecessary delay. I do not think much of these statements about civil war. Nor is there any attempt here to defame or injure any section. No member here has any such intention. We seem to be divided into two parties. Both are willing to act; neither asks for delay. One desires action through Congress, the other through the people, acting in General Convention. We all have confidence in the people. What do you see in this Conference? One-half of the Republicans here, are ready to join hands with those who would invoke the action of Congress, and carry their propositions through, to send them at once to Congress. I am ready to carry your propositions directly to the people.
A word now to the Democrats in this Conference. You have always been our superiors in political address and management. You expect in four years to bring the Government back under your control. My strong bias is in favor of a General Convention. That bias I got from the old Democratic party. The first mention of such an idea I found in an article in the "National Intelligencer"--a paper which certainly does not advocate radical views. I am aware of the opposition which this idea will meet with here, and yet I have heard many gentlemen from the South say, that this idea carried out--the question fairly submitted to the people, and decided by them, their decision would be satisfactory. And would not many of the Southern slave States be satisfied with a decision upon these questions by a General Convention? Would not Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee be willing to submit their interests to such a tribunal?
Now, I wish to ask the members representing the Southern States in this Conference, whether, when we offer you a General Convention, fairly elected, which shall patiently hear and firmly decide all our points of difference, you had not better accept it? I assure you, gentlemen, in the most perfect good faith, that a convention is the best alternative the North can now offer you. It is a fair and an honorable alternative; and because it is so, the North will insist that it ought to be satisfactory to you. If you refuse it, I ask you whether, in the sight of GOD and Man, you will not have stood between the country and peace? We act in secret here, but in the end all our actions will be exposed to the world. It will be seen that we were ready to do justice to you, and to submit all your claims to the final verdict of the people. Should you not at least wait for their decision?
Mr. DONIPHAN:--Will the gentleman support these proposals of amendment in a convention of the people, and will he use his influence to elect members of such a convention who will do the same? If the North will give us such pledges as will secure that kind of action, perhaps we will go for a General Convention. Without such a pledge, a General Convention would be worse than useless.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I am glad I have obtained the floor for a few minutes. I feel that it will be very painful for me to address the Conference, on account of physical debility.
But I came here with the single purpose of accomplishing the settlement of one or two important questions. Permit me, once for all, and for the last time, to tell the gentlemen from New Hampshire and Connecticut, that they wholly misunderstand the import of the action of the Legislature of Kentucky, and the views of the "Louisville Journal." I have said, before, that in view of the fact that Congress could not settle our difficulties, the Legislature of Kentucky asked for a National Convention, as our only hope of making an adjustment. After this came the invitation of Virginia, like a bright beam of hope. Virginia invited you all, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, and the other States, to meet and consult for the public safety. If you did not wish to secure our common safety, you should not have accepted her invitation.
Mr. BOUTWELL:--Then we are to understand that if we do not favor the CRITTENDEN resolutions, we should not have come here at all.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I say nothing of the kind. But I insist that you should tell us now, what the conclusion is to which you have arrived. We want to know what you gentlemen, representing the Northern States, intend to do. Give us your votes. We have had enough of discussion, which amounts to nothing. If you will consent to no arrangement, let us know it now. We have a duty to perform toward our own people. We wish to relieve them from suspense, so that they may determine what their future course shall be, in view of the fact that you will do nothing for them.
Mr. COOK:--If Illinois had understood that she was only to come here for the purpose of agreeing to the propositions of Virginia as announced in the resolutions which accompanied her invitation, the Conference may be assured that Illinois would not have appeared here at all. She understood that she was invited to a Conference, in which all the States were to meet upon a basis of perfect equality. The very resolutions of the Legislature of Illinois, under which we received our appointments, assert that their adoption is not to be regarded as an assent to the resolutions of Virginia.
We think we are not passing the limits of propriety, when we insist that we should be permitted to state the views and opinions of the people of Illinois, on the questions which this Conference proposes to decide. To state what we will and what we will not concede. There seems to be an unwillingness to give us this permission. If the people are now ready to give their sanction to the propositions contained in the Virginia resolutions, they would send delegates here who would accept these propositions without debate or discussion. They have not yet done so. If they intended to limit our right of private judgment, they have certainly not yet expressed any such intention. They understand, and we have not forgotten, that there is a broad distinction between the guaranty of old rights and the creation of new ones.
We now understand just what the South proposes. The question is plainly and distinctly presented to us, whether we will assent to a constitutional recognition of the right to hold slaves in a portion of the Territories of the United States. It is not a question of prohibition at all. We are required to assert the affirmative right of holding slaves independent of State laws, and under the Constitution.
Gentlemen present us this question, and coolly tell us we want no more discussion, no more arguments, no examination of our respective rights under or outside the Constitution. We wish you to tell us at once whether you will assent to our wishes or not. If you will not, then comes some dark insinuations about going home to their people, and certain consequences are to follow, of the precise nature of which we are not informed.
Gentlemen, when was the sanction of the American people ever secured to an important proposition in such a way as this? If we are not to exercise our judgment, and act according to its dictates, upon every proposal of amendment here presented, then, for one, I care not how soon our deliberations end. Until we better understand our relative positions than we seem to at present, I do not see much use in prolonging the discussion.
Mr. EWING:--Some concession must be expected from both sides, or we cannot agree. As a Northern man, I feel it to be my duty to get these propositions made as acceptable to the North as I can, and then to ensure their submission to the people. Even then, we are not committed to the support of these propositions, though I myself should feel so to some extent. A single question is now presented to us. Shall we accept these propositions when they are perfected as far as they can be, or shall we submit to a dissolution of the Union? I am willing to say that I will yield my personal opinions for the purpose of concession, and I do not think I show myself an inferior man by doing so. In all disputes, the firmest men are the first to yield. Let a man be firm as a rock in battle, but conciliatory in council; especially in such a council as this, where the lives of millions may be concerned. There is a firmness which is but another name for imprudence--for rashness. Take the case of a railroad collision. One engineer may have the right of track; it may be the duty of all others to recognize that right, and not interfere with his exercising it. But, if another gets on to it, he who has the right would not be justified, if, in its exercise, he ran blindly on, and produced a collision, destroying the lives of his passengers, when he could have avoided the collision. So it is here. We may be right--the North may be right; but we should not hazard the existence of the Union by a determination to exercise that right at all events, when, by some slight concessions, we could save the Union. Let us use our judgments--let us act in view of the facts here presented, with that prudence and discrimination which we apply to the ordinary affairs of life, and all will yet be well.
Mr. KING:--I have not spoken hitherto, and should not now say a word, but for the remark of the gentleman from Kentucky. I come here as one of the representatives of the State of New York. As such I am the equal--the peer of any representative of any other State on this floor. I do not intend to be lectured into or intimidated from doing any thing which my judgment tells me I should not do, or should do.
Speaking for New York, I say that she holds her allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the United States above and beyond any other political duty or obligation. With this obligation always before them, her representatives have come here to consult with you upon the present condition of the country. I am as old as the gentleman from Kentucky. I recognize no right in him to lecture me on my political duties. I revere the Constitution of my country. I was educated to love it, and my own father helped to make it. I cannot sit still and hear such declarations as have been hourly repeated here for the last few days.
Mr. SEDDON:--Does the gentleman consider this a consolidated Government or a confederation of States?
Mr. KING:--I consider this a confederation of States under the Constitution, and that in all that respects the General Government, every good citizen owes an allegiance to it above and beyond that which he owes to his State or to any other political authority. And that statement comprises nearly all I wish to say. The State of New York at all times, in peace or war, has been loyal to the Constitution; and, although some of her representatives here may undertake to make you think differently, she always will be. Yes! loyal with all her strength and power! And as one of her representatives, I shall yield nothing on her part to threats, menaces, or intimidations. I believe the Constitution as it now stands gives you guarantees enough--all you ought to have.
Mr. GOODRICH:--I ought not to permit this vote to be taken, without a word of reply to the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina. The impression would certainly be derived from his speech that Governor ANDREW, of Massachusetts, approved of the JOHN BROWN raid. This is not true. There is not a particle of truth in the assertion. There is a gentleman here, who heard Governor ANDREW state publicly when he first heard of that raid, that JOHN BROWN must be crazy. It is true that a meeting was held in Boston to raise funds to support the poverty-stricken family of JOHN BROWN. Governor ANDREW, I believe, presided; and a single paragraph taken from some remarks he made on that occasion, has been scattered broadcast over the country. In order to understand what he did say, both the context and what followed it are indispensable. Those were carefully suppressed. The opinions of Governor ANDREW are well known. They are in sympathy with those of the people of Massachusetts. Neither he nor they approved the JOHN BROWN invasion.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--I call the gentleman to order. He is discussing a subject which is strictly personal, having no connection with the report of the committee, or the amendments offered to that report.
The PRESIDENT:--I think the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts are not in order.
Mr. GOODRICH:--Well, I cannot proceed in order. I only desired to correct a misapprehension. I do not quite understand why these misrepresentations should be made, and then objections interposed to their correction.
Mr. HOPPIN:--I rise, Mr. President, to address the Conference with great reluctance. If there is a gentleman within the sound of my voice whose heart is full of anxious solicitude for the safety of the country, he will know how to sympathize with me. I do not represent a State containing four millions of people, but one of the smallest in the Union; and yet little Rhode Island has a heart which beats true to the Union. It so happened that she was one of the last to accept the Constitution; but when she did accept it--when she took upon herself its obligations--she became faithful to it, and she has ever since been true.
I feel that my position is peculiar. I cannot judge of other men as some gentlemen do. The North is full of men who do not concur in my opinions upon the question of slavery. I know they are honest and honorable men. I should do injustice to them and to myself, if I believed them to be either corrupt or enemies of the Union and of good government; and it is just the same in the South as in other sections. Looking around me upon these able and patriotic representatives, who come here with full hearts and tell us of their position--of the feelings of their people--of the anxiety and apprehension which is so deeply felt among them, can I believe that these men are dishonest? that they do not mean what they say? No, sir! Nobody can be so unjust and unfair as that.
I think of these questions which we are discussing earnestly and continually. My heart is torn by conflicting emotions. I wish to perform my duty toward all sections, and I do feel sure that something must be done for our southern friends. They wish to remain in the Union--they do not wish to be driven out; and they tell us in all sincerity that something must be done to satisfy their people, or they cannot keep them in the Union. I know that the questions presented here are very embarrassing to the North, but we must decide them. We must do the best we can, and the North will sustain us; our constituents will approve our action.
Rhode Island wishes to act fairly by all. She does not herself, need any amendments to the Constitution; but if her sisters need them, she will consider their necessities. Her delegation here acts unitedly, and it's members are influenced by the same spirit. We have done all we could to bring ourselves to a rational conclusion; and we feel, my friends, as though this body ought never to separate until we come to an agreement--until we come to some compromise which will be satisfactory to all.
I cannot now, in the short time that remains, go into a minute examination of the various points presented. This has been done by abler men. But I do feel that although the questions may be difficult, there are none of them which, as sensible men, we cannot settle. Don't let us forget our great mission and descend into personal abuse. Do not let us forget our high duties. Let us perform them in a friendly and a Christian spirit. Let us look at the facts as they are. Let us not spend our time in trying to find out who struck the first blow, or who is responsible. Let us all unite together in one great, final effort to save the country and the Union.
As matters now stand, we who represent Rhode Island can see no way more desirable than to vote for and support the report of the committee. And yet we do not insist upon that report. Show us any thing better, and we will go for it. But we will do nothing to widen the breach--we will do all we can to heal it. My friends, I say once more, let us go to work earnestly, and do not let us separate and go to our homes, until we can carry with us the glorious news that we have healed up all dissensions and adopted a plan that will secure the Union and make it perpetual.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I understand that the proposition of the gentleman from Iowa is to restore the Missouri Compromise. If so, does not his proposition commend itself to the Conference as one that will command the respect and support of the country? I have asked, many others have asked, what is the cause of our present difficulties? The question meets no direct reply--no definite answer. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise is referred to, hinted at, as the principal cause. If an answer were extorted, I think it would be, the repeal of that Compromise.
The history of the Missouri Compromise is so simple that we all understand it. Southern men forced the measure upon the North. The few northern men who voted for it were swept out of their political existence at the election which followed its passage. Which section is responsible for its repeal--the North or the South? You say its repeal was moved by a northern man. Very true! But he was a northern man who had adopted southern principles, and who sought to secure the favor of the South by this act. Southern men supported his proposition and carried it through Congress against the votes and the remonstrances of the North.
The South, then, established and destroyed the Missouri Compromise. The South wishes to have its provisions restored. Why, then, are you not satisfied to have it put into the Constitution, and so make it permanent and perpetual, if the North will consent to it? Are the circumstances of the South so much changed? If it was equitable in 1820, à fortiori it ought to be equitable in 1861. Territory has been acquired since 1820, it is true, but it is all or nearly all, south of the compromise line. Restore the Missouri Compromise and this territory will be devoted to southern institutions. What territory has been acquired since? Will gentlemen reply, "Oregon"? I insist that Oregon was virtually acquired before. It only required the final agreement upon a boundary line.
If there is any proposition in which the North can concur--any that will restore harmony between the North and the South--it is the restoration of the Missouri Compromise. If any other is proposed less favorable or just to the North, I do not believe the people will adopt it.
I am not insensible to the condition of the country. Neither are my colleagues, nor the constituents they represent. But you must not expect us here, in the worst emergency you can imagine, to forget or throw away the rights of our people. If we consent to support this amendment, it is as far as we can go. You ought not to ask us to go farther.
Mr. DENT:--I will only occupy one moment. Maryland has spoken in language which satisfies me. As I understand him, I concur in what my colleague has said.
Now the nut is to be cracked. The majority report proposes to give up three-fourths of our territory to the North absolutely, retaining the little balance for the South. The amendment proposes to pick the kernel out of the balance, and to leave the husks to us. To that we shall agree when we are compelled to; not before.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--The Supreme Court has already decided, in terms which are not ambiguous, that Congress has no right, under the Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Now, our brethren of the North propose to give us the Missouri Compromise. What do they mean? Do they intend to give us a substantial right--one that we can enforce and rely upon, or do they intend to keep it from us? They are shrewd as well as honorable men. They know that the effect of this amendment will be to leave the territory south of the line, without the slightest acknowledgment or guaranty, just where it is at the present time, so far as slavery is concerned.
The construction placed upon the Missouri Compromise was, that the prohibition of slavery north of the line which it established, implied the right of holding slaves south of the line. At the time of its adoption there was, in respect of this construction, no difference of opinion: Such was the construction of Mr. WEBSTER.
Now you propose to leave it still for Congress to legislate as to the territory south. You secure that north, by a prohibition in the Constitution; you will get that south, by the action of Congress.
The decision in the Dred Scott case may be reversed. It afforded no permanent protection. One of your leaders (Mr. WILMOT) says he will war against it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. SMITH) denies the force of the decision in this respect. Now, gentlemen, all we of the South want, is to have this question settled. You know well that the adoption of this amendment, so far from settling it, leaves it all open; or rather it settles the question North, and leaves it open South. The country is in danger--that all concede. Will you, because you do not agree in opinion with the Supreme Court, refuse to join us in one more effort to save the country?
Mr. CLAY:--I have not unnecessarily occupied a moment of the time of this Conference, and it is not now my intention to occupy the whole ten minutes to which I am entitled. But I do wish to express some of the opinions which I entertain upon the questions immediately under our consideration. "Red Gauntlet" has been cited as an authority in this body, but I think I might cite another of the same class which would be more in point. It is the "Bleak House," by Charles Dickens, in which the circumlocution office is so graphically described. It would be decidedly more appropriate to our present action.
Why have we come together? What brought us here? We have come to devise the means of saving a distracted and bleeding country. What the South asks you to do, is, to recognize the property which her citizens possess; and when they take that property to the Territories, to secure its protection there, or rather to protect it south of the line of 36° 30´. Will you do it? Are you going to do it? If you intend to recognize our property south of this line, write it down so plain that my constituents can understand it--so that they will not be cheated. If you intend to do nothing, let us know it at once. We will then know what to expect, and how to advise our people.
The question of slavery is but an incident to the great questions which are at the bottom of our divisions. Such differences have brought war after war upon Europe. It is, after all, the old question of the balance of power between the different sections and different interests. Who does not remember that in 1832 and 1833 the Tariff brought up the same questions? Why did South Carolina then threaten to nullify? Because nullification then, was one of the effects which the disregard of the rights of a section caused.
The South have always insisted upon terms of equality with the North. To this equality no one can deny she is justly entitled. So long as new States came in pari passu, North and South, she was satisfied. When this equilibrium was disturbed, she began to insist upon guarantees. Now, when you propose to put the point of equilibrium out of sight altogether, the South insists upon these guarantees, as not only necessary, but indispensable to her safety. This is right and fair. The North would insist upon the same thing, under like circumstances.
Gentlemen from the North have complained here that we have not stated exactly what would satisfy us. We have told you what we wanted over and over again. We want the CRITTENDEN resolutions. We told you that, when we first came here. We have now been here for nearly four weeks, and the CRITTENDEN amendment has never once been submitted to a vote. Since our difficulties first assumed importance, there has never been a measure of pacification suggested which has met with such a measure of acceptance as the CRITTENDEN resolutions. State after State has sent petitions to Congress asking for their adoption. Almost the entire South, with Virginia, the Mother of States, in the advance, tells you that these resolutions will be an acceptable measure of pacification, and yet you will not give us a vote upon them; you will scarcely consent to consider them. Even the committee, whose report is so unsatisfactory to the North (and a portion of the South also), does not appear to have given them much attention.
Mr. President, in behalf of the South, I think I know what to say. If our differences are to be settled at all, we must have our property in our slaves in the Territories recognized; and when that property is constitutionally recognized, it must be constitutionally protected. Such, I know, are the sentiments of the people of Kentucky.
Mr. ALLEN:--I wish to ask the attention of the Conference for only one moment to the true aspect of the question now before us. We are asked if we will suffer the Union to be destroyed on account of the Territory of New Mexico. Let me ask these gentlemen who it is that proposes to break up and destroy the Union? It is the South--it is not the North. But all that I pass by.
If it were merely a question of who should have the beneficial possession of our present unoccupied territory, we would give that up at once to the South. But it is not a question of possession at all. It is the question which shall control and give direction to the policy of the country--the institutions of Slavery or the institutions of Freedom! You ask for a provision in the Constitution which will place that policy under the control of the institutions of slavery. This we cannot grant you.
We of the North stand where our fathers did, who resisted the Stamp Act; who threw overboard the tea in Boston harbor. We have been taught to resist the smallest beginnings of evil; that this is the true policy. Obsta principii was the motto of our fathers. It is ours. The debates of this Conference, and those of the Convention of 1787, will stand in a strange contrast to each other.
Mr. BALDWIN:--I now offer the minority report of the committee, with the accompanying resolutions as an amendment to--
The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from Connecticut is not in order.
The vote was then taken by States, upon the amendment offered by Mr. CURTIS, to the substitute proposed by Mr. FRANKLIN, for the first article of the section reported by the General Committee, with the following result:
AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and New York--6.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12.
And the amendment was lost.
Mr. CORNING:--I dissent from the vote of New York.
Mr. WILMOT:--I wish to be recorded as voting Aye!
Mr. DODGE:--I dissent; I am against the amendment.
Mr. WOOD:--I wish my vote recorded in favor of the amendment.
Mr. COOK:--And so do I.
Mr. LOGAN:--I am the other way.
Mr. TUCK:--I dissent from the vote of New Hampshire.
Mr. GRANGER:--And I from that of New York.
Mr. WOLCOTT:--I dissent from the vote of Ohio. I notice that my colleague, Mr. CHASE, is not present at this moment.
Mr. BRONSON:--I also dissent from the vote of New York. My associate, GEN. WOOL, is confined to his room by a severe indisposition. For his benefit, and as I know he feels a deep interest in these votes, and desires to have his name appear upon the record, in his behalf I offer the following resolution:
Resolved, Whereas JOHN E. WOOL, a delegate from New York, is unable to attend the Convention, from sickness, therefore that he be permitted, when he does attend, or by communication in writing to the Secretary, to have his dissent recorded, as to any vote of his State.
This resolution was agreed to without a division.
The PRESIDENT:--The question now will be upon the adoption of the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FRANKLIN), to the first section of the article reported by the committee.
Mr. FRANKLIN:--Before that question is taken, I desire to accept certain verbal amendments which have been proposed by various members, which will, I think, improve the substitute which I offer. These amendments are as follows:
1st. In the fifth line, as printed, after the words "nor shall any law be passed," insert the words "by Congress or the Territorial Legislature."
2d. In the sixth line, after the words "the taking of such persons," insert "from any of the States of this Union."
3d. In the eighth line, before the words "according to the common law," insert the words "course of the."
4th. In the seventh line, after the words "prevent the taking of such persons," insert the words "from any State in the Union."
These amendments I adopt, and wish them to be treated as incorporated into my substitute.
The PRESIDENT:--Such will be assumed as the pleasure of the Conference, as no objection is made.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am content, on the part of the committee, that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania should be adopted in the place of the first section of the article reported by the committee. It amounts to the same thing, and is expressed in shorter and better language.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I move to amend Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute as follows:[3] I think these words would be more acceptable to the people of the Northern States.
[Footnote 3: This was a verbal amendment. I was not able to note it at the time, nor have I since been able to procure it.]
Mr. PALMER:--Does not the gentleman's amendment involve an Hibernicism? I think if we are to adopt the report of the committee, the FRANKLIN amendment admits of no improvement. It had better stand as it is. If we undertake to change it we shall all get to sea.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I withdraw my proposition.
Mr. JAMES:--It was moved yesterday to insert the words, "or facilitate" after the words "hinder or prevent," in that part of Mr. FRANKLIN'S amendment which negatives the right to pass laws. What was done with that?
Mr. FOWLER:--Nothing. I moved it, and I insist upon the motion.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I submit to the Conference whether this amendment is necessary or proper. Suppose some new question arises relating to slavery which it may be greatly for the interest of the Territory to protect. Suppose mines are discovered, and the Territory should want slaves to work them. Shall we put it into the Constitution that no law shall be passed to encourage their emigration?
Mr. BRONSON:--I see no need of it.
Mr. JAMES:--The point generally comes out. Now you say that you will have the right to go into the Territory with your slaves, and no law shall be passed to prevent you, no matter how much such a law would promote the material interests of the Territory. The converse of this you will not agree to. You are not content to let slavery stand by itself, you must have it nursed by the Territorial Legislatures. Does slavery always require such partiality? I say the power of the Legislature should be exercised on both sides, or it should not be exercised at all. I am trying to perfect the article. If it is to pass, and go to the people as a measure of pacification, and if you expect them to adopt it, you must not have it so one-sided and unfair. The people will understand it--it will be our duty to explain it to them, and to give them its history.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--But your amendment would prohibit the passage of a law permitting the transit of a slaveholder through the Territory with his property. Remember, also, that the prohibition only continues so long as the territorial condition exists.
Mr. SMITH:--Before this vote is taken, I wish to call attention to the character of the prohibition. "Nor shall any law be passed to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons to said Territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation," &c. Now, this is very broad. Suppose a law giving the right of transit to the people of the free States, or any law for their protection in the Territory, as inhabitants, is held by the Territorial Judge to "impair the rights arising from said relation." He holds it unconstitutional. Where is the remedy? What views are entertained upon some of these points in some sections of the South we know. If you do not adopt this amendment it is quite in the power of the Legislature to exclude any person from the Territory whose presence there may be thought injurious to slavery. Did the committee intend this?
The question upon the adoption of Mr. FOWLER'S amendment resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--10.
NOES.--New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--10.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GROESBECK:--I move to amend the substitute offered by Mr. FRANKLIN, by inserting after the words "nor shall any law be passed," the words "by Congress or the Territorial Legislature." I think this is necessary to make our intention plain. Otherwise it might be said that the prohibition did not apply to Congress.
Mr. FRANKLIN:--I think the suggestion a very proper one. I will accept the amendment.
Mr. WILMOT:--I only wish to understand where we are. Have we disposed of the word "facilitate"?
The PRESIDENT:--That amendment was not adopted.
Mr. WILMOT:--Then I move to insert before the word "status," the word "legal."
Mr. RUFFIN:--That raises again every question we have been discussing. The word, as used in the substitute, only refers to the status in fact.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--This brings up all our old troubles. Let us reject it.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--I wish to understand this subject, and what will be the effect of adopting this amendment. I understand that the slave has what we call a status. The substitute of Mr. FRANKLIN is intended specifically to recognize and protect that status in the Territories as fully as it is protected and recognized in the States. I think it has that effect. Adopt the amendment, and the effect is precisely the opposite. The amendment rescinds the status.
Mr. PALMER:--I wish to make an inquiry of the mover. Does the amendment, after all, make any difference? Must not any status, not against law, be, of necessity, a legal status?
Mr. WILMOT:--No. I think there is a wide difference, and the South thinks so. One is a status in fact, the other, one in law.
Mr. LOGAN:--I hope we shall not adopt the amendment. We all want these questions settled. The amendment opens them all wider than before. If we intend to give the South the right she asks for, and, as I think, rightfully asks for, let us give it to her in plain and unequivocal language. Let us not give her a legacy of litigation, by using words which mean one thing or the opposite, according to the construction you place upon them. I wish to settle all these questions fairly. The amendment leaves the question as to what constitutes a legal status, to be decided by the Court. The North would claim that there cannot be such a thing as a legal status, a legal condition of slavery. The South would claim the opposite.
Mr. WILMOT:--If the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina had been adopted, I would not have moved this. The section then would have been unambiguous and clear. Now it is all open to construction.
Mr. CHASE:--In my judgment it is unimportant whether the amendment is adopted or not. The condition of the slave in the Southern States is one arising out of law, established by legislative provisions. Status in fact must mean status in law as well as status in fact.
I have listened with attention to the appeals made by gentlemen who urge the interests of the South in favor of a settlement of these questions. But you are now prosecuting a plan which will be the subject of debate throughout the country. Adopt your article in either form, and the question, What does status mean? will still remain.
A majority of the people have adopted the opinion that under the Constitution slavery has not a legal existence in the Territories. The triumph of this opinion is not the result of any sudden impulse. A President has been elected, and a Government will soon be organized, whose duty it will be to respect and observe the opinions of the people. You are now seeking, by the adoption of a single section, to change these opinions and this policy. Do not deceive yourselves, gentlemen. You will never accomplish this result so easily. You are presenting such a subject for debate and excitement as the country never had before. It is best we deal frankly.
The vote was taken upon the adoption of the amendment, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--9.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--11.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GOODRICH:--I move to insert in the substitute offered by Mr. FRANKLIN, after the words "south of that line," the words "not embraced by the Cherokee treaty."
A word of explanation. Do we intend to prohibit the Cherokee Nation from changing the status of persons within their Territory, if they think proper to do so? Would not this be a violation of our understanding, if not of our treaty stipulations with these Indians?
Mr. EWING:--I have looked into this subject, and I do not think the proposition would be improved by the amendment.
Mr. GOODRICH:--Then I will withdraw it for the present.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope the vote on the main question will now be taken. It is evident that the sense of the majority is against accepting amendments.
Mr. GOODRICH:--That obliges me to renew my motion. I do renew it, and ask for a vote by States.
The vote upon the amendment offered by Mr. GOODRICH was taken, with the following result:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--11.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--9.
So the amendment was adopted.
Mr. TURNER:--I move to amend the substitute offered by Mr. FRANKLIN, by inserting after the words "hinder or prevent," the words "or encourage."
I think there is a palpable difference between the word "encourage" and the word "facilitate." The former is broader and less restricted. If this measure is to be commended to the favor of the North, it should be deprived of this one-sided character.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--We have already decided this question. In every practical sense the words are synonymous.
The vote was taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. TURNER, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--10.
NOES.--New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--10.
And the amendment was lost.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I ask the Conference now to let us have a vote.
Mr. SEDDON:--Not just yet. I move to amend the substitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, by the insertion after the clause providing for the division of the territory, of the following:
"All appointments to office in the Territories lying north of the line 36° 30´, as well before as after the establishment of Territorial governments in and over the same, or any part thereof, shall be made upon the recommendation of a majority of the Senators representing, at the time, the non-slaveholding States. And, in like manner, all appointments to office in the Territories which may lie south of said line of 36° 30´, shall be made upon the recommendation of a majority of the Senators representing, at the time, the slaveholding States. But nothing in this article shall be construed to restrain the President of the United States from removing, for actual incompetency or misdemeanor in office, any person thus appointed, and appointing a temporary agent, to be continued in office until the majority of Senators as aforesaid may present a new recommendation; or from filling any vacancy which may occur during the recess of the Senate; such appointment to continue ad interim. And to insure, on the part of the Senators, the selection of the most trustworthy agents, it is hereby directed that all the net proceeds arising from the sales of the public lands, shall be distributed annually among the several States, according to the combined ratio of representation and taxation; but the distribution aforesaid may be suspended by Congress, in case of actual war with a foreign nation, or imminent peril thereof."
Mr. SEDDON:--I invite the careful and deliberate attention of the Conference to the provisions of this amendment. It is commended by high authority. It is commended by nothing inferior to the wisdom and experience of our honored President. It is intended as a division of the territory between the North and the South.
Now, to insure a fair operation of the provisions of the Constitution, as they will stand in that instrument when amended as we propose, we deem it very essential that the rights of the southern section should be secured by such an amendment as this. It will be noticed that Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute precludes us from any appeal to Congress or the Territorial Legislatures for affirmative protection. The powers of those bodies will be negative only. We have nothing left, then, but the Federal Courts. We ask now that we may not be subjected to the government and power of Federal officers, whose opinions are against us--who will exercise those powers for our oppression. Congress or the President may send into a Territory in the southern section, a set of officers who are anti-slavery propagandists, who will exercise all their official powers to our injury. I hold this amendment to be eminently just and fair. We have no protection from Congress; none from the Legislature. Is there a chance, even, unless such a provision is adopted, that the South will ever be placed in the favorable possession or enjoyment of the rights you are willing to concede to us?
The latter portion of the amendment is equally just. The Government holds the public lands in trust. It is better to divide their proceeds at short intervals, and thus remove the subject from all danger of corrupting influences. But I shall leave this to be discussed by the mover.
Mr. PALMER:--I move to rescind the ten-minute rule adopted by the Conference, so far as the President is concerned.
The motion of Mr. PALMER was agreed to without a division.
President TYLER:--I am very grateful for the compliment which the Conference extends to me in the vote which has just passed. I will not abuse its kindness.
The amendment which is offered may, at first sight, appear to be extraordinary; but I wish to say, in all seriousness, that all my experience in public life leads me to favor its adoption. I wish to have the Conference understand fully its import and meaning.
That policy is the best, which reduces within the narrowest limits the patronage to be exercised by the Executive authority. Every party out of power has discovered that in the patronage of the President there is a voice of greater potency than is heard elsewhere in the Government. This amendment places a limitation upon the power of the President. It confers upon a majority of the Senators from each section the power to recommend appointments to office, and this will be found in practice equivalent to the power of appointment. It is the only practicable limitation of Executive patronage. The power of the Executive in this Government is very great. Limit it, abridge it as you may, and the President will have a power in the Government which is not possessed by any sovereign of any throne in Europe.
This is not a political question. Our warrant for the adoption of this plan will be found in the tranquillity it will give to the country--in the peace which will result from it. We are now settling differences between the States. Adopt this provision, and we secure unanimity forever. You will always find that dissatisfaction is confined to limited portions of the country. The North is content with the existing state of things--so is three-fourths of the South. Remove this power from the Executive, and those measures will be adopted which will promote the welfare of the greater number. Do you not see that you have in this way good security for the selection of the best men?
Suppose the Government should start to day on this new policy--that it should avoid all propagandism--should place honest, competent men, only, in office--should let all others understand that there was no chance for them--should permit both sides, all sides to be fairly represented. You would ensure peace, secure quiet in the country forever. You would thus heal the wound, not cicatrize it. How small would be the cost of so great a victory!
May I not go one step farther. I have heard with pleasure the feelings expressed, the references made, to the Cotton States. I have scarcely heard an unkind word said against them. We have come here to cement the Union--to make that Union, of which gentlemen have so eloquently spoken, permanent, noble, and glorious in the future as it has been in the past--not to be content with it as a maimed and crippled Republic.
Now, eight flourishing States are practically lost to us. The crest of the noble Mexican Gulf has separated from us. Let us exert every power we possess to bring them all back to the fold. Why should we not? Every motive of interest or patriotism should induce us to do so. Suppose the States were vacillating and in doubt where to go. Suppose they were set up for sale in market overt, and the States of Europe were to bid for them--for this, not only the richest portion of our own country, but of the world--because this portion of our land has an element of wealth and power which must be prized and valued wherever commerce is known. What would not one of the Powers of Europe give for this favored section? The treasures of the continent would be opened. Nations would unlock the caskets of their crown jewels to secure it. England would double her national debt to have it; so would France; so would Russia. And yet we stand here higgling over these little differences which alone have caused our separation. Is it not better that we should rise to the level of the occasion, and meet the requisition of the times, instead of expending precious hours in the discussion of these miserable abstractions?
We talk about the events of the Revolution and their consequences. Have we forgotten our revolutionary history? Have we forgotten the MARIONS, the SUMTERS, the PICKENS, of those times? Has the spirit of sacrifice which, animated those men wholly departed from their descendants? God forbid!
Our body politic is not free from disease. The disease should be treated properly and judiciously. Whenever disease shows itself we should apply a suitable remedy--one that is suggested by the pharmacy of mutual brotherhood, and yet powerful enough to reach every nerve in our political system.
It is to accomplish this purpose that we have come together. It is to secure this desirable result that I urge the adoption of this amendment. I press it because I feel that it will give peace to all sections. Adopt it, and from that moment you may date the beginning of the return of the seceded States into the fold of the Union. How heartily would we welcome their return! Do we not all desire it? Has not Virginia a heart large enough to give them their old place in the Union? Has not Rhode Island and New Jersey?
I say my proposition will accomplish this, and a single reason will disclose the ground of my faith. It preserves the equilibrium, the balance of power, between the sections. It enables each section to appoint its own officers, to protect its own interests, to regulate its own concerns. It is fair and equal in its operations. With it, no section can have any excuse for dissatisfaction. I pledge the united support of the South to the Union, if it is adopted.
The latter branch of the amendment looks to the annual distribution of the net proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the several States. This was one of the favorite ideas of HENRY CLAY. His argument upon this subject, to my mind, was always conclusive. Will the party which has adopted his principles repudiate this, or will its members put their feet down firmly and give it their support?
I have watched the operations of this Government with great interest and care, and I have noticed that every approach toward making each source of revenue or expenditure separate and independent of all others, tended to the profit and advantage of the Government, and increased the chances of securing honorable and honest agents to transact its business. A marked instance of this will be found in the administration of the affairs of the Post Office Department. And here I cannot refrain from relating an anecdote which is strongly in point, and which forms one of the pleasantest recollections of my own connection with the administration of the General Government.
Upon a certain occasion I called my cabinet together. Sad complaints had been made concerning the administration of several of the Departments, and the press had not failed to predict heavy losses to the Government through the dishonesty and the defalcations of its agents. I determined that I would know what the facts were, and I directed all the departments to furnish me, by a certain day, with a correct and accurate list of all their defaulting employés, and on the same day I summoned my cabinet to consider these reports. The lists came in from the several Departments, and I assure the Conference that they were formidable enough to give ample occasion for anxiety. But the list from the Department of the Post Office was not forthcoming. My friend, Governor WICKLIFFE, was at that time at the head of that Department. The day of the cabinet meeting arrived. We were all assembled but the Postmaster General. We waited for a long time for him and for his report. At length he came, bringing his report with him, but with the marks of great care and anxiety upon his brow. He had discovered a defalcation in his Department. He had been occupied for a long time in tracing it out, but he had at length succeeded. He came to announce to the President that the postmaster of a certain "Cross Roads" in Kentucky had absconded, and defrauded the Government out of the sum of fifteen dollars! and worst of all, his bail had run away with him!!
This is only one of the many proofs which my own experience would furnish of the propriety, if not the necessity of keeping each Department of the Government by itself--of not connecting it with others, and of making the agents of each Department responsible to itself alone. Carry this idea into practice in all the Departments of the Government, and a better class of agents would be secured, and the loss by defaulters would be much lessened.
The enormous increase of the expenditures of the General Government might, by the same process, be prevented. How does it happen that in a time of peace these expenses have risen from twenty-three millions of dollars up to seventy or eighty millions? In the same proportion, the sum to which they will reach in another decade will be frightful! It is high time that a stop was put to this lavish expenditure, and especially to the losses by dishonest agents. The plan here proposed will give you a starting point. The proceeds of the vast domain of the public lands are now so mingled with the other expenditures of the Government, that no one can tell what becomes of them. They are now common plunder. Divide them among the States, and they will be saved--they will be applied to some worthy object, and you will have adopted a principle which, after a little time, under any honest administration, will be applied to the other Departments of the Government. I trust the whole amendment may be adopted. As the amendment may be divided into two parts--one relating to appointments to office, and the other to the public domain--I would ask that the vote may be taken upon each proposition separately.
The vote was then taken upon the first portion of the amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON, with the following result:
AYES.--Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--5.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--14.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. JOHNSON:--I cannot concur in the vote just given by Maryland. I desire to have my dissent recorded.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I dissent, also, from the vote of Maryland.
President TYLER:--The last part of the amendment will be considered as withdrawn.
Mr. McCURDY:--I move to amend the substitute proposed by Mr. FRANKLIN, by adding thereto the following words:
"Provided, That nothing in this article contained shall be so construed as to carry any law of involuntary servitude into such Territory."
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope we shall reject all such amendments. I consider this simply procrastination.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--I wish to raise a point, a question of order. This conflicts directly with the sense of the substitute proposed. We ought not to entertain it.
The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. McCURDY, with the following result:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa--7.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--13.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. ORTH:--I dissent from the vote of Indiana.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I rise to inquire whether it will now be in order to offer a substitute? I have one which I wish at the proper time to present.
The PRESIDENT:--The question is now upon the adoption of a substitute--that offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania--to the first section of the article reported by the committee. I do not think any other substitute is in order at the present time.
Mr. CHASE:--I hope that this vote may be postponed, and I will briefly state the reason why. I am informed that a delegation from the State of Kansas has arrived during the day, and that their credentials are now in the hands of the appropriate committee. That committee has not yet reported, and cannot until they have a meeting after our adjournment. The credentials of three of these delegates have been presented by myself but a few minutes since. The Committee on Credentials, I am informed, will not report until Monday. I wish the youngest State in the Union to express her opinion upon this motion. I therefore move an adjournment.
Mr. EWING:--I do not think any delay is necessary. We can let them vote on Monday.
Mr. SUMMERS:--I only wish to say a word of explanation in behalf of the Committee on Credentials. The delay in the case of Kansas is not the fault of that committee. The delegates themselves think it better that the report should not be made until all the delegates arrive who are expected. The committee can report at any time.
The vote was taken on the motion to adjourn, with the following result:
AYES.--Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Indiana--5.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--12.
So the motion to adjourn was negatived.
The PRESIDENT:--The question will now be taken upon the substitute of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FRANKLIN), offered for the first section of the article reported by the committee.
Which vote being taken, resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--14.
NOES.--Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri--4.
And the substitute was agreed to.
Mr. FIELD:--There seems to be a misapprehension as to the proper time for offering substitutes for the whole report of the committee. I shall act upon the understanding that the proper time to offer them will be when we have gone through with the report of the committee. If I am wrong I wish to be corrected now.
Mr. LOGAN:--I am informed that Mr. LINCOLN, the President-elect, has arrived in this city. I feel certain that the Conference would desire to treat him with the same measure of respect which it has extended to the present incumbent of that high office. I therefore move that the President of this Convention be requested to call upon the President-elect of the United States, and inform him that its members would be pleased to wait upon him in a body at such time as will suit his convenience, and that this Convention be advised of the result.
The motion of Mr. LOGAN was agreed to unanimously.
Mr. WILMOT:--I move an adjournment to half-past seven o'clock this evening.
The motion was agreed to, and the Conference adjourned.
* * * * *
EVENING SESSION--SIXTEENTH DAY.
WASHINGTON, SATURDAY, February 23d, 1861.
The Conference was called to order by the President, at half-past seven o'clock.
The PRESIDENT:--I have addressed a note to the President-elect, announcing the desire of the Conference to offer their respects to him in a body, at seven and one-half o'clock this evening, or at such other time as would be agreeable to him. I have received his reply, stating that he will be pleased to receive the members of this body at nine o'clock this evening, or at any other time which may suit their convenience.
The Conference then proceeded to the order of the day, being the consideration of the second article of the section reported by the committee.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to strike out the second article, and to insert the following in its place:
"Territory may be acquired for naval and commercial stations and transit routes, and by discovery, and for no other purposes, without the concurrence of four-fifths of the Senate."
It is generally conceded that under our present Constitution the United States have no power to acquire territory for coaling or naval stations, within the country of a foreign power. It was the committee's intention to remedy this defect by the present section. But as it stands, I do not like it. The idea is somewhat awkwardly expressed. I wish to have the enabling power conferred in direct terms.
Mr. SUMMERS:--I would ask to interrupt the order of business for a moment, in order to make a report from the Committee on Credentials, in the Kansas case. The defect adverted to in the case of Mr. STONE, has been supplied to the satisfaction of the committee, and Messrs. CONWAY, EWING, and ADAMS, have also presented themselves as delegates from the State of Kansas, with proper credentials. It has not been our practice heretofore to admit members by a formal vote, nor do I see any necessity for making the case of Kansas an exception. The committee would suggest that the clerk enter the names of these gentlemen upon the roll of delegates, unless objection is made.
The PRESIDENT:--The Secretary will make the entry, as no objection is made.
Mr. SUMMERS:--Some days ago I introduced into the Conference, and caused to be printed, a substitute which I proposed to offer for the second section of the committee's article. I offer it now, as follows:
"No territory shall be acquired by the United States without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the satisfaction of such treaty."
I do not propose to occupy time in discussing it, but I ask a minute or two to explain its provisions. The second section of the article proposed by the committee, requires that a treaty under which territory or commercial or naval stations is acquired, should require four-fifths of the Senate for its ratification. This, I think, is an unnecessary restriction upon the treaty-making power. Occasion may arise when it would not be advisable to wait for the exercise of this power at all. The question of acquiring territory may arise under circumstances when delay would be fatal. Suppose our title to an island in the Arctic Ocean, or a point upon the shore, by discovery or otherwise, which might be settled by prompt action! There might be no national authority with which we could treat for its acquisition. I think it would be hazardous to provide that in no event should territory be acquired except by treaty. The case I have supposed has no relation whatever to the case of an ordinary acquisition of territory by treaty with a recognized foreign power.
But the question of slavery always arises when the subject of acquiring territory is mentioned. This clause would fix the status, would put it in the power of either class of States to prevent the acquisition, but it would not permit a small number of States to do it. To leave it where a majority of the Senators of both sections could control the subject, would seem to me the mode of settlement least objectionable. The ratification would require two-thirds of the Senate, like all treaties, and these two-thirds would include a majority of both sections.
Objection will be made to this classification of the States. I do not like it myself, but there it no way to avoid it. I have adopted the language of the Ordinance of 1787. There can be no very sound objection to the use of these terms. The objection is rather sentimental than otherwise.
The amendment I offer ought to satisfy the South, and I think it will. The South asks for these provisions because they settle all questions about our present territory, and prevent questions arising over that we may acquire hereafter. They will give to both sides equality of power. But voting is far more important now than speaking. I will consume no more time.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--The gentleman from Virginia desires to try his motion. For the present, I will withdraw mine.
Mr. FIELD:--I have only a word to say on this subject. There are very grave objections to this classification of sections. I will not repeat them here. I supposed the sense of the Conference had been expressed against it.
But I wish to inquire why this second section is necessary at all? It came up in the committee rather by accident than otherwise. I do not think any one of the committee intended to make it one of the subjects of our action, and the section was finally presented by a small majority.
Let us leave this subject where the Constitution leaves it. We can now acquire territory by discovery or by treaty. So far the Constitution has operated satisfactorily. The country owes much of its greatness to this very provision of the Constitution. No grievance to the South, assuredly, has been caused by it. I am much averse to any alteration.
Mr. BARRINGER:--I think, after some reflection, that this amendment is of much more importance than many of us have supposed. I shall vote for it, because I do not wish to have too many limitations placed upon the power of the Government in relation to the acquisition of territory. We know how difficult it is to change our fundamental law. Very few amendments to the Constitution have been made since the death of WASHINGTON. We are now establishing our fundamental law for ages to come. Is there upon the face of the civilized earth a nation with such a limitation upon the power of acquiring territory as this original article proposes? Its adoption would place us at the feet of foreign nations.
In war, conquest is one means of indemnity--often the best and only one. We must look to the acquisition of future territory; we must make our settlement with that in view.
Reference has been made here to the seceded States, and some hard words have been used toward them. This is not the place for such words. What is the condition of these States now? They say they are out of the Union. We say, No! The question between us may be decided by the Courts; it may be decided by the sword. But we all want them back; we would place no restrictions upon their return. They will only come back by treaty. Unless you adopt this amendment, the section proposed will be applicable to their case, and a mere fraction could keep them out of the Union forever.
In regard to the subject of slavery, what we want is security for the future. That we can arrange. In my opinion you will never get back the seceded States, without you give them some hope of the acquisition of future territory. They know that when slavery is gathered into a cul-de-sac, and surrounded by a wall of free States, it is destroyed. Slavery must have expansion. It must expand by the acquisition of territory which now we do not own. The seceded States will never yield this point--will never come back to a Government which gives no chance for the expansion of their principal institution. They will insist upon equity, upon the same rights with you in the common territory, and the same prospect, of acquiring foreign territory that you have. If you are not prepared to grant all this, do not waste your time in thought about the return of the seceded States.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--New Jersey voted to make the first section of the article reported applicable to future territory, not because she wishes to acquire new territory, but because she knows that it will be acquired; and she believes all questions raised here can be settled now, in regard to it, better than they can be hereafter. These questions have raised a ferment in the nation; we would settle them any way. We should have voted for these restrictions upon the power of acquiring territory; and still we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that in a few years new territory must be acquired. Look at Sonora, at all Mexico; they furnish the reason for our action. An effort will be made, perhaps, to secure the new territory by treaty. Better get it in that way than by conquest.
Personally, I would oppose any farther acquisitions. We need no more territory, and yet I know that more will be acquired. The North wishes it more than the South. In the end, the North will insist that we should have Cuba. What is the sentiment of our commercial cities now?
I think we ought to surround this power of acquisition by some judicious restrictions; not make them too strong, or the country will break over, and not regard them. What restriction would not have been broken down, when the question came up in relation to Texas? We must anticipate occasions of the same kind. I am inclined to vote for the substitute of the gentleman from Virginia. At all events let us adopt some limitations. If not these, then such as are contained in the original article.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:--I propose to amend the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia, by inserting after the words "United States," the words "except by discovery, and for naval and commercial depots and transit routes."
There is now a law, the constitutionality of which has not been doubted, providing for the acquisition of territory by discovery. But the Court, in the Dred Scott case, decided that territory could not be acquired, except as preliminary to the formation of a State. This difficulty should be obviated. I think the amendment I propose will do it. If we adopt the proposition of Mr. SUMMERS, we cut off the power of acquiring territory for transit routes, &c., except by treaty. I think my amendment will make the section more satisfactory to the South.
Mr. SUMMERS:--I will accept the amendment, and treat it as a part of my substitute.
Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I feel a deep solicitude in this subject. We are here for the purpose of settling a great difficulty. Instead of settling it, we shall add to it by placing these unnecessary obstructions in the way of acquiring territory in future. Would not the South be safer by the adoption of this guarantee? It is the only one, aside from the first section, which gives the South a grain of power. We cannot go on with things as they are--only seven States to contend with all the rest of the nation. We must all desire that the seceded States should return to the Union. How are they to come back? By treaty, or by the sword? Who will not prefer to win them back by adopting principles in our amendments which will make it for their interest to return? If the amendment is adopted, no future territory will be acquired without the consent of a majority of Senators on both sides of the line. Reject this, and I have not the slightest hope of ever seeing the seceded States again in the Union. I believe this amendment will meet the wishes of a large majority of the people of Virginia.
The vote upon the adoption of the substitute proposed by Mr. SUMMERS resulted as follows:
AYES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--9.
NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--10.
And the amendment was lost.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I will now renew my proposition, and ask a vote upon it by States.
The vote upon the substitute offered by Mr. GUTHRIE, for the section of the article reported by the committee, resulted as follows:
AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio--10.
NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa--10.
And the amendment was lost.
Mr. PRICE dissented from the vote of New Jersey, and Mr. BARRINGER from the vote of North Carolina.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--As the hour named for the call upon the President-elect is approaching, I move that a committee of three members be appointed by the President to make arrangements for the introduction of the members of the Conference.
The motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE was agreed to, and the President appointed Messrs. WICKLIFFE, FIELD, and CHASE, as the committee.
Mr. McKENNAN:--I move a reconsideration of the vote of the Conference rejecting the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia. I am not at all certain that we may not think it advisable to adopt that amendment.
The order of the day was now suspended, and the committee appointed to wait upon the President-elect, reported that they had performed that duty, and that the President-elect would be pleased to receive the members of the Conference in his parlors in Willard's Hotel, at the present time.
For the purpose of waiting on the President, on motion of Mr. EWING, the Conference adjourned until the 25th inst., at ten o'clock A.M.
SEVENTEENTH DAY
WASHINGTON, MONDAY, February 25th, 1861.
The Convention was called to order at ten o'clock, pursuant to adjournment, by President TYLER, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. SMITH.
The Journal of Saturday was read.
Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The Delegates from the State of Indiana desire that the vote of that State upon the proposition of amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. CURTIS), on Friday last, may be recorded. The vote was taken on Saturday, and Indiana desires to record her vote against said proposition.
The Conference granted the leave asked, and the vote of Indiana was accordingly entered upon the Journal.
The PRESIDENT:--There have been transmitted to me the proceedings of a meeting of the Democrats of Pennsylvania, in which are contained certain resolutions relating to the matters now before us. I am informed that the meeting was one of the largest ever held in that State. The usual course would be to enter them upon the record, but in this instance I would suggest the propriety of having them read. However, the Conference will take such order upon them as it thinks proper.
Mr. POLLOCK:--The policy of the Conference from the beginning has been not to receive or consider resolutions of a partisan character. That decision was made on one of the early days of our session, upon a series of resolutions adopted by a convention held in New Haven, Connecticut, which were presented by Mr. CLAY. I think we had better pass over the subject informally, and I would call for the order of the day.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I think the resolutions had better be referred to the Committee on Credentials.
Mr. CLAY:--I quite approved of the course taken by the Conference of the resolutions which were sent to me for presentation. I hope we will pursue the same course now. I move that these resolutions be entered upon the Journal as received, and that they be laid on the table.
The motion of Mr. CLAY was agreed to, and the resolutions were laid on the table.
Mr. SMITH, of New York:--I would inquire whether any action has been taken under the order of the Conference for the printing of the Journal from day to day. It is very important that we have these Journals, that we may know exactly what has been done. No gentleman can carry all our proceedings in his memory.
The Secretary made a statement to the effect that he had not found time fully to complete the Journal, or to arrange for its being printed under the rule requiring that secrecy should be preserved; that the Mayor of Washington had proposed to have the printing done under a supervision which would secure its non-publication by the press, and that various reasons existed why the order of the Conference had not been complied with.
Mr. SMITH:--Then I hope the order will be complied with to-day. It is very important that each member should have a copy of our daily Journal. I certainly expected one this morning. I will not make a motion now, but if these copies are not furnished, I shall move the appointment of a committee to secure their future publication.
Mr. DENT:--There was a vote passed upon this subject. It may have been in the absence of the Secretary.
The PRESIDENT:--The Conference is informed that the Journal shall be published as soon as possible.
Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I have two amendments which I shall offer. At present I desire to have them laid on the table and printed.[4]
[Footnote 4: I suppose these amendments offered by Mr. BROCKENBROUGH were never printed; certainly no printed copy of them was ever distributed to the members of the Conference, and they were never inserted in the Journal. In preserving my notes, I naturally assumed that I could rely upon the printed copies distributed to the members, for the various amendments offered. At the period of writing out these notes communication with Mr. BROCKENBROUGH is impossible, and I am obliged to omit farther notice of his amendments. I am not even able to state the subjects to which they referred.]
The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the order of the day, which is the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the substitute offered by Mr. SUMMERS, for the second section of the articles of amendment reported by the committee.
Mr. McKENNAN:--At the request of one of my colleagues I would ask a postponement of the vote upon my motion of reconsideration for the present. It will produce no injurious result, and I think myself we had better hold this amendment subject to the future action of the Conference.
Mr. SUMMERS:--I will not withhold my consent to the postponement. But I hope the members of this Conference will consider my amendment, and give it their attention when it comes up again.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--If we pass Mr. SUMMERS' amendment, we should pass by the consideration of the whole section. I think that is the better way. Let us now proceed to the consideration of the third section in the article of amendment proposed by the committee.
The PRESIDENT:--Such will be taken as the pleasure of the Conference.
The third section was read.
The PRESIDENT:--The third section is open to propositions of amendment.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to amend this section by striking out the words "by land, sea, or river," occurring after the words "or transportation."
Mr. GUTHRIE'S motion was adopted without a division.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I now move to insert after the words "during transportation," the words "by sea or river."
Which motion was also agreed to without a division.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I now move to amend the third section by striking out all after the word "give," in the second line thereof, and inserting as follows:
"to Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof, touching persons held to service or labor therein."
SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any person held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, under the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to impair any rights pertaining to that relation, under the laws now in force within the said District, while such relations shall exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of said State, and of those to whom the service or labor is due, or making them just compensation therefor; nor the power to prohibit or interfere with members of Congress and officers of the Federal Government whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them, for personal service only, retaining, and taking away persons so held to service or labor, nor the power to impair or abolish the relations of persons owing service or labor in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and Territories where such relations are established or recognized by law.
SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States to any State or Territory thereof where the same obligation or liability to labor or service is established or recognized by law; and the right during such transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, or landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; nor shall the Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or labor than on land.
Although it may not be strictly in order, yet, as a part of my plan, I wish to bring forward a substitute which I shall offer to the seventh section of the committee's article, which, if adopted, should be numbered
SECTION 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases where the Marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous assemblage; or where, after such arrest, such fugitive shall be rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such service or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the same, the United States shall pay to such party the full value of such service or labor.
I offer these in separate sections, in order not only that the vote may be taken upon each one separately here, but also when the same questions come before the people. The first section of my amendment, as I understand from every quarter, sets all opposition at rest; all are willing to agree to it. This may be adopted and the others rejected, which could not be done if the original section was adopted. The other sections conform to the language of our present Constitution, and for that reason I think they will meet with more favor. Each subject is thus made to stand on its own merits.
The PRESIDENT:--The question will be taken upon each section of the substitute proposed.
Mr. JAMES:--I propose the following as a substitute for the first section of the amendment offered by Mr. HITCHCOCK. It is, I believe, the same as that proposed in Congress by the Committee of Thirteen. I understand, also, that the Committee of the House of Representatives are about to substitute it for what is known as the ADAMS Proposition. We all have the same purpose in view, to negative in express terms the right of Congress to interfere with the institution of slavery within the States. I present the amendment because I think it expresses the purpose in better language.
SECTION 1. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
Mr. CHASE:--This amendment would be limited in its application to the States. Congress would still have power in this respect over Territories.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--The report of the committee has been agreed upon after much discussion, and printed. We all understand it, and I hope we shall adhere to it without any alteration. If we begin to adopt these amendments no one can tell where they will carry us.
Mr. JAMES:--My proposition is offered as an amendment to that offered by Mr. HITCHCOCK.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--So I understand; but his amendment is proposed as a substitute for the third section of the article reported by the committee. I object to the whole of it.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--Do I understand that the question now is upon substituting Mr. HITCHCOCK'S amendment for the committee's report.
Mr. JAMES:--No. It is upon substituting my proposition for the first section of Mr. HITCHCOCK'S amendment.
The vote upon the amendment offered by Mr. JAMES resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Indiana--7.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--13.
And the amendment was lost.
Mr. WOOD:--I must enter my dissent from the vote of Illinois.
Mr. FOWLER:--I have an amendment which I offer to the substitute proposed by Mr. HITCHCOCK--
Mr. RANDOLPH:--I object to it as out of order. Let us take the vote upon the various sections of Mr. HITCHCOCK'S proposition. If they are rejected, then these amendments may all be moved to the committee's report.
The PRESIDENT:--I have already decided that the substitute is open to amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--Then I will appeal from the decision of the Chair.
The PRESIDENT:--I will state the ground of my decision. It is true, as claimed by the gentleman from New Jersey, that if the propositions of Mr. HITCHCOCK are rejected these amendments may be moved to the sections reported by the committee. If, on the contrary, they are adopted, or either of them, so far as they are adopted they must stand as the order of the Conference, and are no longer subject to amendment. I understand the Parliamentary rule in such a case to be well settled.
A somewhat confused debate here arose, when Mr. RANDOLPH withdrew his appeal from the decision of the chair.
Mr. BALDWIN:--I move to amend the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio, by striking out the words "nor shall Congress have the power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or labor, than on land." I do not think these words are appropriate in a provision of the Constitution.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I supposed the Conference would understand my purpose. It was to substitute my three sections for the third section of the committee's report. I did not suppose this series of amendments would be offered. For the present, I will withdraw my amendments.
Mr. HARRIS:--The gentleman forgets that if we once adopt them, they are no longer subject to amendment.
Mr. BRONSON:--I wish to make a suggestion. I don't know but Parliamentarians would call it a point of order. Now let us go on and decide whether we will, or will not, adopt the third section as reported by the committee.
Mr. SEDDON:--I have several amendments which I am constrained to offer to this third section. My State would think me remiss if I did not offer them. I move, first, to insert after the words "State or Territory of the United States," the words "or obstruct, hinder, prevent, or abolish."
By the section as reported by the committee, Congress is prohibited from controlling or abolishing slavery in any State or Territory. This amendment which I propose will prevent any action in relation to it--in aid of it, or otherwise. The Territorial Legislature will always be the creature of Congress, and under the committee's section it might act upon the subject of slavery. I understand that the purpose of the committee was to prevent Congress from abolishing slavery in the Territories, but not to prevent the Territorial Legislature from acting in aid of it. My amendment will secure slavery from all interference. That is what we want.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--The first section of the report covers this. The amendment, I think, is unnecessary.
Mr. SEDDON:--I think the first section, properly construed, would prevent the Territorial Legislature from enacting a law in aid of slavery, even if the whole people of the Territory desired it.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I do not desire to go over these questions again. If the Conference intends to come to any conclusion at all, I hope it will vote down all these amendments.
Mr. SEDDON:--I call for a vote by States.
Mr. WOOD:--I move that the amendment be laid on the table.
Mr. BALDWIN:--Which motion is in order--mine or that of the gentleman from Virginia?
The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from Ohio having withdrawn his amendment, the proposal of the gentleman from Connecticut is no longer before the Conference. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Virginia to amend the third section of the article reported by the committee.
The vote upon the amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--6.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky--14.
And the amendment was not adopted.
Mr. SEDDON:--I now move to amend the third section reported by the committee, by striking out the words "City of Washington," and inserting in their place the words "District of Columbia."
The motion of Mr. SEDDON was agreed to without a division.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not see why this privilege of bringing their slaves into the District should be limited to members of Congress.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--It is not. The expression is "representatives and others."
Mr. SEDDON:--I now propose to amend the same section by inserting after the words "without the consent of Maryland" the words "and Virginia." I think slavery ought not to be destroyed in the District of Columbia without the consent both of Maryland and Virginia. If there is any reason for requiring the consent of one State, the same reason exists as to the other. This amendment will make the section much more acceptable to the slaveholding States.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--The committee did not require the assent of Virginia, because no part of the present District came from Virginia. We thought it unnecessary.
Mr. DENT:--Maryland and Virginia originally joined in the cession of the District to the United States. Afterwards that portion which came from her was re-ceded to Virginia. But this question is not one of territory alone. The policy and interest of the two States are intimately connected. It would be far more satisfactory to both these States, and to the South, if the assent of Virginia was required before Congress could abolish slavery in the District. Still Maryland does not insist upon it.
Mr. EWING:--I can see no necessity for, or propriety in, the amendment. We might as well require the consent of North Carolina or any of the other slave States. Virginia owns none of the District. She has no right to interfere.
The amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri--5.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas--14.
Mr. SEDDON:--My next proposition is to amend the third section by inserting after the words "landing in case of distress, shall exist," the words "and if the transportation be by sea, the right of property in the person held to service or labor shall be protected by the Federal Government as other property."
We claim that our property in slaves shall be recognized by the Union just like any other property--that no unjust or improper distinction shall be made. When we trust it to the perils of the seas, we wish to have it protected by the Federal Government.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I would inquire of the gentleman from Virginia whether it has not already been decided that this species of property is as much entitled to Federal protection as any other. I refer to the "Creole" case. The British Government made compensation for this species of property in that case. This was done upon the award of the commissioners pursuant to the decision of the umpire.
Mr. SEDDON:--Yes! But on the express ground that slavery was recognized in the islands. Express notice was given, that when the emancipation policy was adopted, the same principles would not be recognized. We are now removing doubts. We wish to have these matters no longer involved in uncertainty. We insist upon having these provisions in the Constitution.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I wish to say a word on this subject, much as I regret the consumption of time. I am willing to leave this question where it is now; and my reason is this: If we put this into the Constitution, the question may be raised, whether if foreign nations should interfere with this kind of property on the high seas, the Government would not be bound to consider it a cause of war. We ought not to bind ourselves to go to war. War should always depend upon considerations of policy. We should raise a thousand troublesome questions by putting these words "shall be protected" into the Constitution. The matter is well enough as it is. Our rights in this respect are well enough protected by the ordinary course of national diplomacy. I would not be willing to put into the Constitution language which would embarrass us hereafter.
Mr. SEDDON:--I will frankly say that I think slave property upon every ground is as well entitled to the national protection as any other species of property.
Mr. BARRINGER:--This amendment brings up the very gist of the matter. The question of the right of our property to Federal protection is now an open one. In the case of the Creole it was settled by negotiation, and not by the courts. The question so often hinted at and suggested in this Conference is now fairly brought up for decision. Governor CHASE struck at the very root of the matter the other day, when he said that slavery was an abnormal condition. He laid down the opinion of the North. He is a statesman and a lawyer. He says that slavery cannot exist anywhere until it is established or authorized by law. This is the Northern idea, and it is a technical one. I hate technicalities almost as bad as I do sectionalism. The North deals in both. I regret to speak in these terms of the North, but I must if I speak truth. Now, I will lay down what is the opinion of the South upon the subject. We say that the right to hold and use slave property, always, everywhere, exists until it is prohibited by law. We say that it is a natural right, which grows out of the very necessities of society. We hold that the condition of slavery is a normal condition--not local at all; that it is found everywhere, except where it is forbidden by law. We claim that the right to hold slaves is a natural right, recognized by the law of nations, and of the world. I am quite aware that the North does not agree with our opinion.
Mr. VANDEVER:--I would ask whether this normal condition is confined to the blacks, or does it extend to all races?
Mr. BARRINGER:--Most assuredly it is not confined to a single race. It extends to all races. Slavery of all races exists even in Europe.
Mr. FIELD:--Not now!
Mr. BARRINGER:--Perhaps not now, and why? For the reason that it has been abolished by law, as in the recent case of Russia. Slavery once existed in the Northern States. By law it was also abolished in those States. We say that when slave property is on the high seas it ought to be protected--the rights of the owner ought to be protected.
This question came up in the case of the "Amistead." Mr. ADAMS claimed that although these slaves were recognized by the laws of Spain as property, yet, when once upon the high seas, they were, by the law of nations, free, and these slaves have never been paid for to this day.
This amendment is highly important to the South. The concession we ask is no greater than has been made before. In the treaties of 1783 and 1815, slaves were to be protected as property.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not wish to nullify the action, or change the course of our Government on this question. Slaves upon the high seas have always been recognized as property. Look at the treaty of 1815. That recognized slaves as property, and those which were taken from the District were paid for. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, took the same ground now taken by the North. The Government took the opposite ground. The question was ultimately referred to the Emperor of Russia, who decided that property in slaves must be recognized by the law of nations, and sustained our view. Take the "Creole" case also. But I will not go over the ground. The "Amistead" case stood upon grounds which were entirely different.
But it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Constitution. The rights of the South in this respect are well enough protected now.
Mr. GRANGER:--I regret that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia has again raised a question which was decided against him by a large majority in the Conference a few days ago.
Mr. SEDDON:--The gentleman is quite correct. The principle must be the same whether applied to the Territories or to the high seas.
Mr. GRANGER:--It is claimed by the South that slaves are property everywhere. Why, then, name slave property more than any other species in the Constitution?
Mr. BARRINGER:--We say that slaves are both persons and property.
Mr. GRANGER:--It has always been the course of the Government to pay for slaves taken on the high seas. The gentleman has referred to the "Amistead" case as having been decided against the southern claim. I present the "Amistead" case as a perfect answer to the miserable calumnies which have been disseminated against that Court. The Judges in that case were unanimous with a single exception, and he was a Judge from a free State. We of the North upon these national questions are prepared to go with you to the extreme verge of right and loyalty.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I have no desire to complicate these questions of international law. The treaties of 1783 and 1815 were participated in by JAY and the elder ADAMS. They expressly provided for the payment for slaves like other property. This is plain English, and settles the question so far as the North is concerned. I am for letting it alone where it is.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I am not able to support this proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. I consider the right of property in slaves, in the slave States, and in the territory south of 36° 30´, as fully recognized and established in the report of the majority of the committee. In this very clause this property is expressly admitted, and Congress is prohibited from interfering with it. This is enough--it is all that should be done. We have come here to settle our domestic troubles. The report of the committee recognizes and affirms these rights of the South which have heretofore been denied or doubted. I think their report gives us all the assurance we need. We were not sent here to engraft new principles into our foreign policy, and I will not consent to enter upon that business. We have got this right of property specifically recognized, and no administration hereafter will refuse to carry out the plain provisions of the Constitution.
Mr. SEDDON:--Where in the article do you find this right recognized? It simply prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery within certain limits. Nothing beyond that.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I find the recognition pervading the whole report. The right of transportation, for instance, is secured. Does not that involve, of necessity, a recognition of the right of property? I am sure the South is safe in leaving this question where the report leaves it.
Mr. HOUSTON:--We feel disposed to adhere firmly to the report of the committee. We know the arduous labor they have bestowed upon the subject, and feel that we ought to be satisfied with the result. We do not wish to have our friends put us in a false position. We shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, not because we do not think it is right on principle, but because we think it is unnecessary. The right of property in slaves is protected now wherever that property goes.
Mr. BARRINGER:--I admit that the policy of the Government hitherto has been as the gentlemen claim. If the South could have been satisfied with that, we should never have been sent here--this Convention would never have been called. But we have come together for the reason that we fear the established policy of the Government will be changed by the party now coming into power. We ask for assurances that the old policy should be continued; and we wish to have the obligation to continue it, written down in the bond.
The Chair restated the question, and Mr. SEDDON called for a vote by States.
The vote upon Mr. SEDDON'S amendment resulted as follows:
AYES.--Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Missouri--4.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17.
And the amendment was lost.
Messrs. BUTLER and CLAY, of Kentucky; Messrs. DONIPHAN and JOHNSON, of Missouri; Messrs. HOWARD and DENT, of Maryland, dissented from the votes of their respective States.
Mr. SEDDON:--I now move the following amendment of the same third section. After the words "in case of distress, shall exist," insert the following:
"And the rights of transit by persons holding those of the African race to labor or service, in and through the States not recognizing the relations of persons held to labor or service, in passing with them from one State or Territory recognizing such relation, to another, shall be secure."
I only wish to say in reference to this amendment that it secures a right specifically referred to in the resolutions of Virginia under which this Conference is called. On that account I feel bound to offer it, but I will not occupy time in its discussion.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--In the early years of our Government this right was extended by courtesy to the slaveholding States. Since these differences have sprung up, in some States it has been denied--in others, the courtesy still exists. We considered this question thoroughly in committee. We did not wish to put any thing into our report that would operate to excite the prejudices of any section against it, and so lessen the chances of its being adopted. We thought it best not to insert such a provision. I am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. SEDDON:--I call a vote by States.
The amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--4.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17.
Mr. SEDDON:--One more amendment. I move to amend the third section as follows: after the words "by the laws thereof touching," insert the words "the relations existing between master and slave or."
I shall not detain the Conference for five minutes in the discussion of this amendment. I wish, however, to have the words "master and slave" somewhere inserted in this article, in plain English language, so that the dangerous delusion so prevalent at the North, that the Constitution does not recognize slavery, may be thoroughly and forever removed; so that the Constitution shall, beyond any question, recognize the relation of master and slave; a duplex relation--a relation of person and property. I wish to meet that question fairly and squarely. Let it be thoroughly understood as a relation of person and property. This is what we ask, and this is what we insist upon. Put this into the Constitution, and you take the shortest and the most effective means of settling the question, and of promoting peace and tranquillity. You strike the axe to the very root of bitterness, whence has sprung all our trouble, all our difficulties. I ask a vote by States.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--What I have already said applies with equal force to this amendment. I will not repeat my objections.
The amendment offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--18.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--Maryland votes "No," not because she specially objects to the amendment, but she stands by the report of the committee.
Mr. DENT:--I dissent from the vote of Maryland.
Mr. CLAY:--And I from the vote of Kentucky.
Mr. ALEXANDER:--[5]
[Footnote 5: The published Journal states that Mr. ALEXANDER dissented from the vote of New Jersey. My notes do not show that he dissented, and I think the Journal may be erroneous in this particular.]
Mr. HALL, of Vermont:--I move to amend the third section by striking out the word "nor," immediately succeeding the words "persons so bound to labor," and inserting the following:
"But the bringing into said District of persons held to service, for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pass all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor shall Congress have."
It is well known that much of the agitation upon the question of slavery has formerly arisen from the existence of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. Since the prohibition of 1850, the public mind has been much more quiet, so far as this subject is concerned. I suppose the committee did not intend to change the law of 1850, but I fear their action will not be so understood at the North. I propose to make the matter clear. [Mr. HALL here read the section of the Act of 1850 referring to this subject.] My amendment puts the language of this act into the Constitution. My only purpose is, to have this question left in exactly its present position. Without the amendment, I fear it will be claimed that the article restores the slave-trade in this District. Nothing would more effectually destroy the article at the North.
Mr. WHITE:--The language of the report is clear. It gives no right to sell slaves in the District.
Mr. HALL:--I wish to be understood. The article prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery. Ergo, it will be claimed they cannot prohibit the exercise of any of its functions. The construction, to say the very least, will be doubtful. It should not be left in doubt.
Mr. NOYES:--The slave-trade in the District of Columbia has always been a subject of great dissatisfaction. I don't know that it is considered of much importance in the South, but at the North it always has been. Ten years ago it was abolished by act of Congress. I fear that unless the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont is adopted, the effect of the committee's report will be to restore the slave-trade in the District. The section reported by the committee permits any person to bring his slaves into the District; to retain them there as long as he chooses, and to take them away. It recognizes the right of absolute dominion. It secures it effectually. It imposes upon the soil of the District the right of holding, retaining, and taking away the slaves by the owner himself, his agent or assignee. The slave-trade, in my judgment, is thus restored.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am satisfied that the article reported by the committee is not susceptible of misconstruction, and I hope we shall not mar the report by adopting the amendment. Our intention was only to permit public officers to bring their servants here.
Mr. AMES:--Two words will cure all this difficulty. The insertion of the words "for personal service only."
Mr. GUTHRIE:--We have no intention of reviving the slave-trade in the District. I have no more to say.
Mr. DODGE:--I hope this section will not be left in doubt. When I first read it I said to myself, "This thing will never do; it will bring the slave-trade back to the District."
Mr. AMES:--Will the gentleman from Vermont accept my amendment?
Mr. HALL:--No. I cannot accept it. I offer the amendment in good faith, for I believe it necessary.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--Cannot we avoid the verbiage of the amendment?
Mr. EWING:--I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont, so that I can vote for that proposed by Mr. AMES.
The vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment being taken by States, resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--11.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--10.
And the amendment was adopted.
Messrs. HOPPIN and BROWNE, of Rhode Island, dissented from the vote of that State.
Mr. McCURDY:--I move to amend the original article of the committee's report by the addition of this proviso. My object is to prevent the sale of slaves in the waters of New York or any other port:
"Provided, That nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent any States in which involuntary servitude is prohibited, from restraining by law the transfer of such persons, or of any right or interest in their services, from one individual to another, within the limits of such State."
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I insist there is not the slightest necessity for this amendment. I hope gentlemen will stop interposing these useless propositions; they confound the sense of the article, and we are guarding against questions which by no possibility can arise.
The vote was then taken on the amendment of Mr. McCURDY, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--11.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--10.
And the amendment was agreed to.
Messrs. LOGAN and PALMER, of Illinois, dissented from the vote of that State.
Mr. HOWARD:--I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut if he ever knew or heard of a case where a slave was sold in a free State?
Mr. McCURDY:--I do not intend to argue that question; but as I am appealed to, although the proviso is adopted, I will state the grounds on which it rests.
Mr. CLAY:--I wish to know whether the object of the amendment is to prevent the making of contracts connected with the purchase or sale of slaves in the free States?
Mr. McCURDY:--My object is apparent from the amendment. It explains itself. I wish to prohibit any transactions concerning the purchase or sale of slaves, either within the free States or the navigable waters connected therewith, or under free State jurisdiction. If there were no such prohibition, a cargo of slaves might be brought from the coast of Africa into the port of New York, and transferred there to parties residing in the slave States. The free States have a right to direct what shall, and what shall not be a subject of commerce within their limits. I presume it is not intended that the Constitution shall prohibit the exercise of this right. I desire not to leave this open to construction, but to make the section declare that no such intention exists.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am now satisfied that we shall get nothing here that is satisfactory to the people of the south side of the river. We are continually waylaid by suspicions, which are unjust, unfounded, and ought not to exist. If this class of amendments is to be adopted, I cannot go on, with respect to myself or the Convention. I feel now, since this amendment is adopted, that my mission here is ended.
Mr. REID:--I move to insert at the end of the third article reported by the committee these words: "Persons of the African race shall not be deemed citizens, or permitted to exercise the right of suffrage, in the election of federal officers."
Mr. GUTHRIE:--This is worse than ever, and it comes from the South too.
Mr. REID:--I will withdraw it then.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to move the adoption of the previous question. We may as well come to the point now as ever. There is no use of discussing this question any longer. I move the previous question upon the report.
Objections and cries of "No, no," were made by several members.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I will withdraw the motion.
Mr. TURNER:--I think it would be very unreasonable for any gentleman to expect that we were to get through with the questions presented by this report without the exercise of mutual forbearance. The adoption of an amendment implies no disrespect to the committee. No member of the committee should take it in that sense. I will move a reconsideration of the vote by which the last amendment was adopted. I do not think we had better take the vote now, but pass the subject for the present.
The PRESIDENT:--It can be passed by common consent.
The vote was reconsidered without a division, and the immediate consideration of the question passed.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I now renew the offer of my substitute for the third section of the article reported by the committee.
Mr. FIELD:--I thought when the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. McCURDY'S amendment was agreed to, it was understood that the consideration of the whole section was to be passed for the present. My vote upon that amendment was given deliberately, and I have no idea that this Convention is to break up because a vote is passed in it which is distasteful to any man, State, or delegation.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I think I must insist upon the consideration of my substitute.
Mr. BROWNE:--I move to lay the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Ohio on the table. If that motion is carried, I do not understand that the effect of it is to lay the report of the committee on the table.
Mr. SMITH:--I rise to a question of order. I think the question now should be on Mr. McCURDY'S amendment. I ask for information. I do not quite see how that amendment can be informally passed over without at the same time passing the consideration of the whole article.
The PRESIDENT:--It was passed by universal consent.
Mr. CHASE:--As I understand it, the gentleman from Illinois made the motion that the vote be reconsidered, and the consideration of the amendment passed for the present, and this was agreed to by the Conference unanimously.
The motion of Mr. BROWNE to lay the motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK on the table, was agreed to without a division.
Mr. BALDWIN:--I move to strike out these words in the third section: "Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons bound to labor than on land." I have already stated that I think this language singularly inappropriate to a provision of the Constitution. The Constitution already prohibits such distinctions in the laying of taxes, and, therefore, there is no necessity for the adoption of this clause. But I have another and more important objection to it; it contains and proposes to place in the Constitution the distinct recognition of the right of property in slaves. This recognition was carefully avoided in the Convention which framed the Constitution, and the North always has been, and always will be, opposed to any such recognition. Place it there, and your article will never be adopted in any of the free States.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--The first statutes passed by Congress on this subject recognized the right to tax slaves. This implied the right to hold slaves. This recognition of the right of taxation was made in express terms. The gentleman has forgotten the history of the legislation on this subject. The object of the committee is to prevent any possibility that those who come after us should make any distinction between these classes of property in levying taxes. We do not seek a recognition of the right of property in slaves in this; that right is already recognized to our satisfaction in the Constitution.
Mr. TUCK:--I understand the gentleman from Kentucky, and I think he is right. If we adopt the article at all we ought to retain this language.
The vote was taken by States on the amendment proposed by Mr. BALDWIN, with the following result:
AYES.--Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut--3.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--18.
Mr. PRATT dissented from the vote of Connecticut.
Messrs. NOYES and SMITH also dissented from the vote of New York.
Mr. FOWLER:--I move to strike out the words "without the consent of Maryland," immediately following the words "service in the District of Columbia."
I can see no necessity for requiring the consent of Maryland to the abolition of slavery in the District. There is no more reason for it than for requiring the consent of Maine, or any other State. By the cession of the District to the United States Maryland has parted with all power over it, and the exclusive power of legislation is given to Congress. The District has become the common property of the Union as much as any of the Territories, and ought to be controlled in the same way.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I hope this amendment will not prevail. The District is almost surrounded by the Territory of Maryland. The abolition of slavery in it would be very destructive to our interests and property. To convert the District into free territory would offer a direct invitation to our slaves to abscond and go into the District. Even if the rendition clause of the Constitution was faithfully observed and carried out, it would involve us in much expense and difficulty. If we are required to maintain faith with the Government, the Government must keep faith with us.
Mr. FOWLER:--I did not suppose my motion would meet with such serious objections. If they exist I will withdraw it.
Mr. BATES:--I have an amendment to propose, which I think will improve the language of the section, and make it more consonant with that used in the Constitution. I move to amend the third section by striking out the word "bound" wherever it occurs therein, and inserting in its place the word "held;" also to insert after the words "to labor" wherever they occur, the words "or service."
The amendments proposed by Mr. BATES were adopted without a division.
Mr. CARRUTHERS:--I propose to amend the section as it stands after the adoption of the amendments of Mr. BATES, by inserting between the words "or" and "service" where they occur in that connection, the word "involuntary."
Mr. EWING:--I had rather leave out the word "involuntary;" it would look better. As the section now stands, both voluntary and involuntary service are included.
Mr. CARRUTHERS:--By the insertion of the words "service" in Mr. BATES' amendment, one portion of my purpose is accomplished. I will withdraw my motion.
Mr. GROESBECK:--I would ask if it is now in order to move a substitute for the whole section. I have one which meets my wishes, and which, I think, will meet the views of, and be acceptable to, the Conference.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not think it is in order to offer a substitute at the present time.
Mr. GROESBECK:--Then I will call it a motion to strike out and insert, which, certainly, is in order. I, therefore, move to strike out the whole of the third section and insert the following:
SECTION 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish or control within any State the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof respecting persons held to service or labor therein.
SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to legislate respecting the relation of service or labor in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, but within States where that relation is established or recognized, and while it continues, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland, and compensation to persons to whom such service or labor is due.
SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal from any State or Territory of persons held to service or labor therein, to any other State or Territory in which persons are so held; and the right during removal of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist, but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory without its consent. No higher rate of taxation shall be imposed on persons so held than on land.
Three objects are sought to be obtained by the third section as proposed by the committee: one is, the declaration that Congress has no power over slavery in the States; the second, that Congress shall not legislate respecting slavery in territory under its jurisdiction, but within the limits of States, without the consent of such States, nor abolish slavery in the District without the consent of Maryland; the third concerns the subject of the removal of slaves from place to place. It is desirable that these three subjects should be so presented that one or more of them may be adopted, and the others rejected; a purpose that cannot be accomplished if they are all embraced in the same section. My substitute is plain and simple, and I think covers the whole ground.
Mr. ROMAN:--Has not the gentleman entirely left out the provision relative to bringing slaves into the District of Columbia?
Mr. GROESBECK:--I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary. Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within the District cannot be taken from the owner under any authority of Congress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensation would in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, or elsewhere. Under the Constitution, slavery cannot be abolished without compensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in the subject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolish slavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner.
Mr. SEDDON:--The owner should always have compensation, it is true; but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property in slaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalent for the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself the question whether he will part with his property upon receiving suitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this right would be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is a farther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The North denies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensation also, unless compelled to make it under the Constitution. The North holding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolish the institution without paying for it.
Mr. GROESBECK:--I am willing to amend Section 4 of the substitute I offer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relation without making compensation, and the section may be thus considered.
Mr. DODGE:--I wish to support the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK; and let me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; we should use language which common men can understand, and which does not require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have some confidence in each other.
Mr. BARRINGER:--There is another entire and important omission in Mr. GROESBECK'S proposition: there is no provision whatever for the Territories.
Mr. DENT:--I think the Conference had much better adhere to the section reported by the committee as it has been already amended. We have all read and studied that section. We understand it. A State that will not adopt the whole of the section will not adopt any part of it, and so there is no use in severing the subjects provided for. I am opposed to the adoption of the substitute. We understand the original article better than we can any other.
Mr. WILMOT:--I think the original proposition the best; the word "regulate" has been struck out of it, leaving only the words "impair or abolish."
Mr. McCURDY:--I ask leave to revive my motion. I regret having withdrawn it. I think I have the right to renew it now.
The PRESIDENT (Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair):--The motion of the gentleman from Connecticut is out of order.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I understand we are now considering the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. GROESBECK). If so, I move to insert in his proposition after the word "abolish" the words "or impair."
Mr. GROESBECK:--I think the amendment improves it. I will accept it.
Mr. CHASE:--There is, certainly, a misunderstanding as to the effect of the vote laying the amendment offered by Mr. HITCHCOCK upon the table: it was offered as a substitute to the third section; if it did not carry the whole section to the table, then motions to amend that section are in order. In that view, I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is in order either way: to amend the article proposed by the committee, or to amend the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is entirely out of order; it has once been passed by informally.
Mr. CLEVELAND:--Is it not in order at any time to make a motion which will render the proposed substitute more perfect?
Mr. McCURDY:--I do not wish my proposition ruled out upon any technical construction of rules. I will now move it as an addition to the third section.
Mr. FOWLER:--I move to reconsider the vote adopting the motion proposed by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. HALL).
Mr. FIELD:--I oppose the motion. The amendment is both proper and necessary. It can certainly do no harm to the South; and if the South wishes to be fair, it will not object to it.
Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I oppose the reconsideration of the vote adopting Mr. HALL'S amendment, and I will state very shortly the reason why. If the doctrine is to be established here, that the report of the committee is too sacred to be touched--too perfect to be made subject to amendment--let us know it. It will relieve myself, and I think many others, from farther attendance here; and I wish to say now, that if we are to sit here, such considerations must not be presented in future.
Mr. FOWLER:--I will withdraw my motion.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I certainly wish some one would renew the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment. I do not like to do it myself, but I think if that amendment were reconsidered, we would fix upon some terms that would be satisfactory to all sides.
Mr. AMES:--I do not see the necessity for adopting Mr. McCURDY'S proposition. I think it amounts to nothing. It is simply a prohibition in the Constitution against the exercise of a right which no one wishes to exercise. I oppose it because it is unnecessary.
Mr. McCURDY:--I certainly do not wish to insist upon an unnecessary amendment. If the third section, as reported by the committee, is adopted, it declares that the right of transportation, &c., shall exist. Under this, if no amendment is adopted, slaves may be bought and sold in any of the waters of the free States.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--What difficulty or damage does the gentleman propose to obviate by his amendment?
The PRESIDENT:--The Chair has already decided that the proposition of Mr. McCURDY is not in order.
Mr. CHASE appealed from the decision of the Chair, and upon the appeal the decision was sustained.
Mr. FIELD:--I understand this decision cuts off both the amendments offered by Mr. HALL and Mr. McCURDY; that compels us to vote against the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK.
Mr. CHITTENDEN:--The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. HALL, has been accepted. It stands as the order of the Conference, and cannot be rescinded except by a vote. I sustain the decision of the Chair, because, by every rule of parliamentary law, it was correct. But one thing farther. It is now perfectly in order to move Mr. McCURDY'S proposition, or any other, as an addition.
The PRESIDENT:--Most clearly so.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not discover any particular objection to the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK. If it had been reported by the committee, I should have preferred it; but the South is willing to take the section as it stands, and prefers the original to any substitute.
Mr. NOYES:--I am against the substitute, for it destroys the effect of the amendments offered by Messrs. HALL and McCURDY.
The vote was then taken upon Mr. GROESBECK'S amendment, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, and Indiana--7.
NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas--12.
And it was rejected.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I feel that my mission here is ended, and that I may as well withdraw from the Conference. I seem to be unable to impress gentlemen with the necessity of accomplishing any thing. The report of the committee is not satisfactory to the South; it is even doubtful whether they will adopt it; certainly they will not, if it is cut to pieces by amendments. I may be compelled to sacrifice my property, or go with the secessionists. At my time of life, I do not wish to do either.
Mr. McCURDY:--I regret that my amendment produces so much feeling, but I think, at all events, we should prevent the sale of slaves in the free States; it should be prevented beyond any possibility. I renew the offer of my amendment.
Mr. EWING:--If the laws of New York will permit the sale of slaves within the limits of that State, then we should prohibit the sale in the Constitution as proposed; but so long as that State has power to pass a law prohibiting it, there is no necessity for the amendment. The owner is only permitted to touch with his slaves, under certain circumstances, at the ports of free States.
Mr. RUFFIN:--It is impossible that slaves can be sold in a free State under the section reported by the committee. We propose to give the right of touching at those ports as a privilege, but we give no right of sale there. The laws of a free State could not be evaded in this way. Each State is supreme within its own limits; that supremacy would not be aided by this proviso.
Mr. TURNER:--Suppose a slave owner is compelled to stop at the port of Cairo, through stress of weather or any other cause, and he dies there, are his slaves set free by his death? Does not the law of actual domicil prevail? I think they will be regarded as slaves, and that under this provision they might be administered upon and sold as a part of his estate.
Mr. POLLOCK:--I think we may obviate all difficulty by inserting after the words "landing in case of distress," the words "but not for traffic or sale."
Mr. TUCK:--I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is not proper or best to encumber these propositions with amendments that are not necessary.
Mr. LOGAN:--Every State has the right to regulate transit within its own limits to suit itself. The proposed amendment gives no rights except such as are expressly named: "a right, during transportation, of touching at the ports, and of landing in case of distress." The right of the State to regulate transit is left unimpaired.
Mr. HOWARD:--There is one principle of law which will settle this question at once: property that is held under State laws must be transferred by the operation of State laws alone. Slaves are held and transferred by the specific laws of the States in which they are held.
Mr. PALMER:--The right of sale cannot possibly arise out of the right to touch during transportation at a port, or the right to land in case of distress. I cannot see the slightest occasion or necessity for the adoption of Mr. McCURDY'S amendment.
Mr. McCURDY'S amendment was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and Iowa--7.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--14.
Mr. POLLOCK'S amendment was then adopted without a division.
Mr. VANDEVER:--I wish to propose an amendment by way of proviso:
"Provided nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent any State from prohibiting the introduction as merchandise of persons held to service or labor, or to prevent such State from prohibiting the transit of persons so held to service or labor through its limits."
Mr. FIELD:--This does not cover Mr. McCURDY'S proposition at all. Is there any secret purpose here to bring into the Constitution a provision which will permit the sale of slaves in free States? If there is not, why not say plainly that the States shall have the exclusive right to determine who shall and who shall not cross its borders, and what shall be the subject of sale or traffic within them?
Mr. GUTHRIE:--The States have all the powers which are not expressly delegated under the Constitution to be exercised by Congress. Congress has no power, except such as are expressly conferred upon them. The power to prohibit the sale of slaves rests somewhere. It has not been conferred upon Congress; it must remain in the State.
Mr. SMITH:--The argument of the gentleman from Kentucky seems to me very inconsistent with his report in other respects.
Mr. HOWARD:--The Border States are trying to get back the seceded States. We hope they will come back. We expect the adoption of this report to offer a strong inducement to them to return to the Union. It will not offer such inducement if its general effect is ruined by amendments.
The vote upon Mr. VANDEVER'S amendment resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and Iowa--7.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--14.
So the amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. CLAY:--I have already stated that the State of Kentucky is prepared to adopt the CRITTENDEN amendment; that amendment will be satisfactory to the Border States. The longer we remain here the more I become satisfied that the CRITTENDEN amendment will meet with more general favor than any other; therefore I ask the consent of the Conference to introduce the CRITTENDEN amendment as a substitute for the committee's report.
The consent of the Conference was not given to Mr. CLAY'S proposition.
Mr. GROESBECK:--I move to amend the third section by inserting after the words "in case of distress shall exist," the words "but not the right of transit in any other State or Territory without its consent."
We must certainly do something to cover this difficulty; if we omit the subject entirely, we shall leave much opportunity for cavil on this question when the question goes to the people.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I move to amend the amendment by substituting in place of the words "without its consent," the words "against its dissent."
Mr. GROESBECK:--I will accept the amendment.
The amendment of Mr. GROESBECK was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--10.
NOES.--Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois--8.
Mr. ALEXANDER, of New Jersey, dissented from the vote of that State.
Mr. GRANGER moved that when the Conference adjourn it adjourn to half-past seven o'clock this evening.
The vote upon Mr. GRANGER'S motion was taken by States, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--13.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri--6.
So the motion was adopted.
On motion of Mr. CHASE the Conference adjourned.
* * * * *
EVENING SESSION--SEVENTEENTH DAY.
WASHINGTON, MONDAY, February 25th, 1861.
The Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair.
Mr. SMITH, of New York:--I move that a committee of two be appointed by the PRESIDENT to arrange for the printing of the Journal.
The motion of Mr. SMITH was adopted, and the PRESIDENT appointed as such committee, Mr. SMITH, of New York, and Mr. HOWARD, of Maryland.
The Conference then proceeded to the consideration of the order of the day, being the third section of the article reported by the committee.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I move to amend the third section by striking out the words "or Territory of the United States," occurring after the words "within any State."
I think we shall make the amendment more satisfactory by limiting the prohibition to States alone; still leaving the power in Congress to be exercised in conformity with the other provisions that regulate slavery in the Territories.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I have the same objection to this as to other amendments. It may not be important, but I do not want to commence by adopting amendments at all.
The question was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. HITCHCOCK, and was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Kansas--10.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--9.
Mr. SUMMERS:--I now desire to call up for consideration the amendment proposed by myself on the evening of the 23d instant. The state of the case is this: Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, moved an amendment to my proposition, which was accepted; my amendment was then rejected by a vote of the Conference, and on the 25th the Conference reconsidered the vote by which the amendment was rejected. I will not now repeat what I said, when the amendment was offered, in favor of its adoption. I would only call the attention of gentlemen to the remarks I then made, and say in addition, that I earnestly hope the Conference will now adopt the amendment. It will make the proposition much more acceptable to the South, and, certainly, not more objectionable to the North. The amendment is offered to the second section, and is as follows:
"No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty."
The amendment of Mr. SUMMERS was adopted by the following vote:
AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12.
NOES.--Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas--6.
The PRESIDENT:--No further amendment being offered to the second and third sections, the Conference will proceed to the consideration of the fourth section of the report, or any amendments proposed to that section.
None being proposed, the Conference proceeded to the fifth section.
Mr. SEDDON:--I move to strike out the whole of the section. It has been heretofore stated, on behalf of the North, when this section was under consideration, that its adoption was not desirable, inasmuch as existing laws, properly enforced, amount to a sufficient prohibition of the slave-trade. If the North does not desire it, the South does not. I hope the Conference will consent to strike it out.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I think it very important to retain this section; it can, certainly, do no harm. We all agree, North and South, that the foreign slave-trade should not be revived.
The amendment offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--4.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17.
Mr. BRADFORD:--I move to amend the fifth section by inserting after the words "slave-trade," the words "by citizens of the United States."
In proposing amendments to the Constitution, it seems to me improper that we should attempt to bind any but our own citizens. The adoption of the section in this form would seem to imply that we undertook to prohibit the slave-trade in other countries and among citizens of other countries. I desire to see it prohibited, but wish to have the constitutional provision expressed in appropriate terms.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I object to this amendment. It would nullify the operation of the section entirely. There are in the United States thousands of persons who are not citizens, but who, under such a provision of the Constitution, would revive the slave-trade and infuse into it a vigor which it never before possessed. It would be better to have no section at all than to permit such an amendment as this. The amendment can bear but one construction. It is intended to prohibit the slave-trade by our own citizens, and expressly to permit it by those who are not citizens.
Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment.
Mr. BRADFORD:--I do not desire to embarrass the action of the Conference, and I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. JAMES:--I move to amend this section by striking out the following words: "from places beyond the limits thereof."
The object of this amendment is apparent, and does not need explanation.
The amendment of Mr. JAMES was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kansas--17.
NOES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move that the vote just passed striking out the words "from places beyond the present limits thereof," be rescinded.
I think the action of the Convention in passing this vote was hasty, and not taken upon due consideration. It may be an important question to determine, what are "the present limits thereof." Upon one construction it might prohibit the bringing of slaves from the States which have seceded and left the Union; upon another construction, which assumes that these are still in the Union and does not recognize their secession, it would not cut off the trade between those States and the others. I do not like to have such a question raised.
Mr. BACKUS:--I am against this reconsideration. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose, in this Conference, to recognize the secession of the States at all. I deny the legal power of a State to withdraw itself from the Union without the consent of the others. And beyond this, I do not think the question is raised as the gentleman asserts.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I think the clause is better as it is. By striking out the words "from beyond the present limits thereof," we do not establish any territorial limitation. And whether these States come back or not, no question of territory is raised. But if this reconsideration is carried, and the seceding States do not return to the Union, they will retaliate upon us. In the event of their continued secession we cannot get back from those States those of our slaves who are now temporarily there. We may wish to bring back those slaves, and some of our people may wish to carry ours there.
Mr. GRANGER:--I hope this vote will not be reconsidered. The argument of Judge RUFFIN is conclusive.
Mr. COALTER:--This is likely to be a troublesome question any way. Why not leave it as we have to leave many others--to the discretion of Congress? We certainly do not wish to adopt a provision which will cut off the traffic in slaves between the Gulf States and the others. Nobody is in favor of that, and I am at a loss how to manage this question. The negroes are a portion of the families of Southern men. They are regarded as such in all the transactions of life. Those families may at times become separated. A portion of them may now be in the seceded States, and a portion farther North. Again, it often happens that during one season of the year the planter, with his family and slaves, lives upon the plantation in the Gulf States; and at another season, removes with his family and slaves to a plantation farther North. We do not wish to obstruct a relation or proceeding of this kind. This is not a mere matter of dollars and cents. It is one involving the happiness of families. The blacks themselves are interested in it. I think it better to let the section stand as it does, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of Congress.
Mr. GRANGER:--I have always stood up against all the societies and organizations which have been established at the North to carry on crusades against slavery. My position in that respect is still unchanged. I hold that the people of the free States have nothing to do with slavery; that they are not responsible for it, and that it is their duty to let it alone. At the same time I have just as steadily opposed the slave-trade. I think it inhuman and atrocious, and I am the last man that would consent to its restoration. This section as it stands, in my judgment, cannot be improved. I think we had better leave it, and not raise these troublesome questions which will inevitably be suggested if these words are restored.
Mr. MOREHEAD:--This is a matter which requires some reflection, and, on the whole, I am inclined, for the present, to withdraw my proposition.
Mr. SEDDON:--I do not like this plan of legislating in the Constitution. The Constitution ought to be an instrument defining and limiting the powers of Congress. We had better leave to Congress, or rather, to assign to Congress the power to exercise this prohibition. I, therefore, move to amend by inserting at the commencement of the section these words: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit," and to strike out at the end of the section the words "are forever prohibited."
Mr. ALLEN:--This would be a most effectual way of reviving the slave-trade. It would remove the constitutional prohibition, and permit Congress to prohibit or permit it, as that body may choose. Would that ever hereafter be considered a crime which Congress had power to permit? No. I cannot conceive it possible that any State should seriously wish to see a traffic resumed which has been stigmatized by the whole civilized world as worse than piracy. This is a question which I would not leave to Congress. We know how immensely profitable this trade is--that fortunes are made by a single successful voyage. Don't let such an inducement to corruption creep into our Constitution.
Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of this amendment, not because I am in favor of the slave-trade, but because such a section is out of place in the Constitution. The Constitution is a bill of rights, an instrument which defines and settles the rights of citizens. It is not a law. I have no fear that if we leave this to Congress the slave-trade will be revived.
Mr. DONIPHAN:--I cannot agree with my colleague. I am opposed to the foreign slave-trade in every form. I would not even make a treaty with a nation or a State that would permit it. If the seceded States are to be regarded out of the Union, I would not treat with them; I would not invest Congress with such a dangerous power. Nothing will suit me but an unqualified prohibition of this trade in the Constitution itself.
Mr. HOUSTON:--The gentleman from Missouri has expressed the views of Delaware. His argument is conclusive.
Mr. HOWARD:--The intervention of Congress will be necessary whether this amendment passes or not. The section as adopted makes no provision for the punishment of any one who violates it. If a vessel should be seized while engaged in the trade, this section does not provide for her forfeiture or condemnation, or the punishment of her officers or owners. The section would be inoperative without the action of Congress. Why not let Congress have all the power?
Mr. DODGE:--Congress will declare the punishment.
Mr. SEDDON:--If you cut off the slave with the seceded States, they will do the same with you. I think the Border States should at all events adopt the amendment.
The Conference refused to agree to the amendment of Mr. SEDDON by the following vote:
AYES.--Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri--5.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--16.
Messrs. JOHNSON and DONIPHAN, of Missouri, dissented from the vote of that State.
Mr. MOREHEAD:--I move to strike out the whole of this section, and insert a new one of the following tenor: "The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves into the United States and their Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof."
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I like the amendment proposed better than the original, but I wish to suggest an amendment to it myself.
We are aware that certain countries which are much exercised over the criminality of slavery and the slave-trade, have recently adopted a system, the horrors of which are not surpassed by those of the middle passage. I refer to the importation of coolies and other persons from China and the East. In my judgment, this is the slave-trade in one of its worst forms. I think if we prevent the importation of slaves at all, the provision ought to be made to cover such a case. I therefore move to amend the proposition of Mr. MOREHEAD, by inserting after the words "importation of slaves," the words "or coolies, or persons held to service or labor."
Mr. MOREHEAD:--I accept the amendment of Mr. WICKLIFFE, and should have inserted it myself had it occurred to me. My proposition as it now stands, covers both the points here made; it declares the entire prohibition of the slave-trade, and it makes it also the duty of Congress to pass laws effectually to prevent it.
The amendment offered by Mr. MOREHEAD was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES.--Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--11.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Kansas--8.
Mr. HOPPIN, of Rhode Island, Messrs. ORTH and ELLIS, of Indiana, and Mr. STOCKTON, of New Jersey, dissented from the votes of their respective States.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I move to strike out the whole section. I had rather have no section at all, and no provision upon the subject, than such a one as we have now adopted. The requisition upon Congress making it their duty to enact laws, will be considered as a necessary one; the consequence which must result is, that until Congress legislates, there is no law against the importation of slaves.
The motion of Mr. CROWNINSHIELD was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Massachusetts, Virginia, and Tennessee--3.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas--18.
The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the sixth section.
No amendment being offered thereto, the Conference proceeded to the seventh section.
Mr. TURNER:--I move to strike out the whole of the seventh section, and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."
The seventh section, as it now stands, will encounter more serious objection at the North than all the remaining portion of the article. It is objectionable for many reasons: it looks to the actual exercise of violence and intimidation by mobs and unlawful assemblies at the North. Although such may have occurred in one or two sections only, generally the provisions of the fugitive slave law have been observed and carried out. The whole subject is very distasteful to the North. I think if we keep it out of the article, and in its place secure that respect for the privileges of citizens in the various States, to which, indeed, under the Constitution, they are entitled, we shall do much better.
Mr. LOGAN:--There are various reasons peculiar to some of the free States why this provision should not be adopted. The laws of several of the Western States do not recognize negroes as citizens. I move to amend the amendment proposed by my colleague, by inserting the words "free white" before the word "citizens."
The amendment offered by Mr. LOGAN was adopted by the following vote:
AYES.--New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois--10.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa--8.
Mr. ORTH, of Indiana, dissented from the vote of his State.
Mr. TURNER:--I suppose the purpose of my colleague has been attained. If there is a delegation willing to make such a distinction in the Constitution, they will, of course, support the amendment as it is now amended.
The vote was then taken upon the amendment, as amended, with the following result:
AYES.--None.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana--18.
Mr. WILMOT:--If the seventh section is adopted, I think the North should have some compensation therefor. I think citizens of the North have as much occasion for complaint on account of the action of mobs and riotous assemblies in the slave States, as the slave States have of the occurrence of those mobs and assemblies in the North. I therefore move the following as an addition to the seventh section:
"And Congress shall farther provide by law, that the United States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies, in his person or property, or in the deprivation, by violence, of his rights secured by this Constitution."
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am opposed to this amendment upon the general principles I have so often stated. I oppose it for another reason. I am not in favor of an amendment which encourages mobs and riots at the North, and I will not consent to one which, like this, encourages seditious speeches at the South.
Mr. WILMOT:--Such is not the effect of my amendment. It does not protect a man in making seditious speeches in the slave States. It only secures to the citizen his rights without regard to the State to which he belongs. We have a provision of the Constitution on that subject now, but it is not effective.
Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment. There is great necessity for it.
Mr. SEDDON:--I think gentlemen entirely misconstrue the intent and purpose of the present provision of the Constitution on that subject. It grows out of and rests upon that provision which requires the return of fugitive slaves. It imposes an obligation upon Congress to secure to the owner, when he pursues his slave into a free State, the right which he enjoys as a citizen of his own State. In all other respects it is unnecessary. If a man is injured in his person or his property, he has his redress in the State courts; or if he is a foreigner or a citizen of another State, he may go into the Federal courts and get his redress there. In this respect the citizens of both sections are amply protected.
Mr. STEPHENS:--I earnestly hope this amendment may be rejected. We have come here to arrange old difficulties, not to make new ones. Adopt this, and you lay the foundation stone of disunion. It is an encouragement to seditious speeches and purposes. The clause is well enough as it is. We do not wish to encourage men to come among us and excite discontent among our slaves. We will not permit them to do it. Our safety requires that we should not. Our own citizens do not connive at the escape of slaves. None do it who have any business in our States. We are here for peace. When half a dozen States are out, whose return we wish to secure, shall we put such a clause as this into the Constitution? Do it, and a half dozen others will follow. I am not at all sure that the report of the majority, if adopted, will satisfy my State. It certainly will not if it is mangled and frittered away. I have not occupied time in making speeches here. I say to you gentlemen, beware! If I thought the spirit of the North was truly represented in this Conference, I would go home and advise my State to secede; and if she did not, I would abandon her forever.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I am opposed to the amendment because I think it unnecessary, and because it opens a new and very serious controversy. The rights of Northern men are fully protected now. There is not a court in the South in which a Northern citizen cannot find a lawyer to advocate his cause. If he is poor, he may even sue in forma pauperis, and incur no liability even for costs.
Mr. WILMOT:--I am claiming no more than I have a right to claim under the decision of the Supreme Court. That court, in the case of Prigg vs. The State of Pennsylvania, decided that the Constitution imposes the duty upon Congress of carrying this provision into effect. I insist upon making it plain. Rights upon both sides are sought to be protected by this article. They are correlative.
Mr. LOGAN favored and Mr. EWING opposed the amendment, in a few brief remarks.
Mr. ORTH:--I do not think we shall accomplish much by protracting our present session longer. I move that the Conference adjourn, and ask a vote by States.
The Conference refused to adjourn, by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--7.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--14.
The PRESIDENT:--The question recurs upon the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
The vote upon the question of agreeing to the motion of Mr. WILMOT, resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New York, Indiana, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Iowa--8.
NOES.--Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--11.
And the motion was rejected.
Mr. BARRINGER:--I now move to amend the seventh section, by adding thereto the following words:
"And in all cases in which the United States shall pay for such fugitive, Congress shall also provide for the collection by the United States of the amount so paid, with interest, from the county, city, or town in which such arrest shall have been prevented, or rescue made."
I am certain that no objection can be made to the equity of this amendment. If a municipal corporation shall permit the rights of a slave owner to be disregarded by the rescue of a slave, it not only fails to perform its duty under the Constitution, but becomes an active participant in the crime. Shall the consequences of its own fault be visited upon the people of the whole country? Those who acknowledge and carry out their obligations under the Constitution, as well as those who do not? This would inflict a punishment upon the innocent for the crime of the guilty. It is not right to leave it in that way. It would present an inducement to these violations of law which the provision is intended to prevent. We ought to make the guilty party pay the penalty.
Mr. HACKLEMAN:--If such a proposition were to come from a free State, the mover would be charged with attempting to destroy all hope that the committee's report could be adopted by the people. However, if the friends of the report are willing to adopt it, I do not know that I ought to object. It places the Government in a position where it is bound under the Constitution to prosecute a municipal corporation for the acts of its individual members. It is certainly novel, and introduces a new system into the jurisprudence of the country. Is the mover serious in his proposition?
Mr. BARRINGER:--I am certainly serious. I would like to hear some substantial argument against my motion.
The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. BARRINGER, resulted as follows:
AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas--3.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--17.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. DENT:--I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Maryland. I consider the amendment as eminently just and proper.
Mr. CLAY:--I dissent from the vote of Kentucky.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I have an amendment which I intend to offer at some time, and I may as well propose it now. The people of the free States have complained, and not without good reason, that one clause in the Constitution is not carried into effect in some of the slaveholding States. Their complaints are similar to those made on the part of the South, which it is the purpose of the seventh section to remove. If there have been instances at the North where mobs and riotous assemblies have obstructed the administration of justice in the case of fugitive slaves, so there have been instances at the South where mobs and riots have disregarded the rights of citizens of Northern States. I propose to deal fairly by all sections. Let us remove both causes of complaint. I move to amend the seventh section by adding thereto the following words:
"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I repeat my objection to all these amendments. If our work here is to have any efficacy, we must adhere to the report. Why bring in another bone of contention?
Mr. ORTH:--Will you not extend the same protection to free citizens which you do to slaveholders?
The question was taken on the motion of Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, with the following result:
AYES.--Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kansas--16.
NOES.--Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia--4.
So the amendment was adopted.
Mr. ROMAN dissented from the vote of Maryland.
Mr. AMES:--I move an amendment which will make the section more explicit. I move to strike out the word "force," and to insert instead thereof the words "violence or intimidation."
The motion was agreed to without objection.
Mr. ORTH:--I move to amend the seventh section by adding at the close thereof the following words:
"And such fugitives, after such payment, shall then be discharged from such service."
I am opposed to this whole business of making compensation for fugitive slaves; but if this section is to be adopted, and the Government pays the owner the whole value of the fugitive, upon every principle of equity and justice the fugitive should be discharged, and the master should have no right to reduce him again to slavery. You make the measure of the owner's damages in such a case the value of the slave. Do you intend, after he has secured that, he shall still have the right of capture--that after the damages have been fully paid, he may still call on the courts of law for the slave's surrender? This would be a double compensation indeed. I shall insist upon this amendment, and ask a vote by States.
Mr. ROMAN:--I have not hitherto addressed the Conference, but I should do myself injustice if I remained silent any longer. I came here in good faith, encouraged with the hope that this Conference would do something which would indicate a purpose to protect and acknowledge the rights of the slaveholding States. I have patiently attended your sittings, and little by little that hope has faded, until to-night it has almost passed away. What good can come of these deliberations, when upon every question which is presented the lines of sectionalism are tightly drawn, and with one or two exceptions every northern State is arrayed against us? Suppose these proposals of amendment as reported by the committee are adopted, there is evidently a purpose manifested here by a large delegation from the free States, to prevent their adoption by the people. I know the opposition which in any event will be arrayed against them. It is an opposition which nothing but unanimity among the moderate conservative men of the country can overcome. Believe it or not, gentlemen, I assure you we are in earnest, in our determination to have our rights under the Constitution defined and guaranteed. Our safety, as well as our self-respect, requires this. I have not been satisfied with the majority report, but if I had been disposed to accept it--if the South would accept it now, you will not concede even that. You insist upon weakening its provisions by amendments, and by amendments which are insulting to us.
It is now seriously proposed under the Constitution, by an express provision, to deprive us of our property in slaves against our consent, and to emancipate them by making compensation. What other effect can be given to such an amendment? One of our slaves escapes into a free State. He is arrested by the marshal and discharged by a mob. Does this act discharge him from his service? Does this lawless violence make him free? And if the town or city where the mob occurs is made to pay a slight penalty, does this also divest the owner of his right? This is nothing but an inducement to mobs and riots. Pass this provision, and no fugitive slave will ever again be returned from a free State. There will always be abolitionists enough to pay for a slave, and this payment will set the slave free, and will constitute the only penalty for this violence. For one, I would prefer to have no provision at all on the subject than to have one encumbered with such an amendment.
I have but little more to say. If the peace of this country is to be hereafter established on a permanent basis, and the Union is to be preserved, you, gentlemen of the North, must recognize our rights, and cease to interfere with them. You have nothing to do with this question of slavery. It is an institution of our own. If it is a crime, we are responsible for it, and will bear the responsibility. We have never interfered with your institutions. You must now let us alone.
Mr. ORTH:--The objection of the gentleman from Maryland may be answered in a word. It is for the owner to elect whether or not to accept compensation and set his slave free. If he still chooses to pursue him, he need not accept compensation; but if he does not, and receives payment for him, the slave should go free. As to mobs and riots, we punish men at the North who engage in them.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I entirely agree with my colleague in this respect. We could not accept the section if such an amendment was adopted. The report of the committee is the very least that will satisfy our people. Do not destroy it by such amendments as these.
The vote was then taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. ORTH, with the following result:
AYES.--Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kansas--10.
NOES.--Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia--11.
And the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CLAY:--I move to amend the report by adding a section to be numbered Section 8, as follows:
"The second paragraph of the second section of fourth article of the Constitution shall be so construed that no State shall have the power to consider and determine what is treason, felony, or crime, in another State; but that a person charged in any State with treason, felony, or crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime."
I do not think discussion necessary upon such an amendment as this. It is well known to the Conference that great difficulties have been found to exist in carrying into effect this provision of the Constitution. So far as the slave States are concerned, it is a perfect nullity. Unless it is amended it may as well be stricken from the instrument. I believe the tenor of the decisions at the North has been to permit the executive upon whom the requisition is made, to determine whether the offence charged is a crime under the law of the State to which the person charged has fled. If it is a crime, the fugitive is delivered up. If not a crime in that sense, he is discharged. The decisions of the courts have been to the same effect; whenever the fugitive has been brought upon habeas corpus, the decision has been the same. It is obvious that under this construction of the Constitution no fugitive will be hereafter returned for an offence in which the question of slavery is involved. This is only one of the many evasions of the Constitution which have been practised in the free States. I deem the amendment very important.
Mr. BRONSON:--The gentleman from Kentucky is entirely mistaken in his statement of the decisions of the northern courts or northern governors. The decisions are uniform so far as I know, that where the offence charged is either a crime at common law, or under the statutes of the State from which the fugitive has fled, he has been delivered up.
Mr. CLAY:--Did not the Executive of New York refuse to deliver up a fugitive on the demand of the Governor of Virginia?
Mr. BRONSON:--In that case I think there was no evidence that the offence charged was a crime under the statutes of Virginia, and it certainly was not at common law.
The vote was taken upon Mr. CLAY'S amendment, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia--5.
NOES.--Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kansas--16.
And the amendment was rejected.
And on motion, at two o'clock A.M., the Conference adjourned.