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]
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]
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.