A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention / For Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Held at Washington, D.C., in February, A.D. 1861

by L. E. Chittenden

MR. WICKLIFFE'S PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION.

Whereas, the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares, "that no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This clause is one of the compromises without which no Constitution would have been adopted. It was a guarantee to the States in which such labor and service existed by law, that their rights should be respected and regarded by all the States; and it is not within the competency of any State to disregard the obligation it imposes, or to render it valueless by legislative enactments. And whereas, the House of Representatives of the United States did, on the —— day of February, by unanimous vote, declare that neither the Congress of the United States nor the people or government of any non-slaveholding State, has the constitutional right to legislate upon, or to interfere with slavery in any slaveholding State in the Union.

This declaration is regarded by this Convention as an admission that the statutes of those States, passed for the purpose of defeating the provision of the Constitution aforesaid, and the laws of Congress made to enforce the just and proper execution of this constitutional guarantee, are in violation of the supreme law of the land.

The provisions of the statutes in many of the non-slaveholding States, commonly known and called "personal liberty bills," amount in their consequences to a practical nullification of the acts of Congress of February 12th, 1793, and September 18th, 1850, and are in violation of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, as before stated. That the spirit of those statutes appears to be repugnant to the principles of compromise and mutual and liberal concessions which dictated the section of the Constitution in question, and which pervades every part of that instrument. It is, therefore, respectfully requested by this Convention that the several States abrogate all such obnoxious enactments.

That the spirit of comity between the States, and the spirit of unity and fraternity which should actuate all the people of these United States, require that complete right and security of transit with all persons who owe them service or labor should be allowed to the citizens of each State by the laws of every other State.

Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing be sent by the President of this Convention to the Governors of each of the free States, as the deliberate judgment and opinion of this Convention, and that he request the same be laid before their respective Legislatures.

Mr. CHASE:—I move that all the resolutions, of the States, under which Commissioners have been appointed, or relating to subjects to come before this Conference, be printed. I think this course convenient and necessary, and one reason that I may assign is this: The opinion of the Legislature of the State of Ohio, as expressed in one of the resolutions adopted by that body, is, that it would have been wiser and better if the time for holding this Conference had been deferred until a later period. Ohio has expressly said in her resolutions that she is not prepared to assent to the terms of settlement proposed by Virginia, and has expressed the opinion that the Constitution as it now stands, if fairly interpreted and obeyed, contains ample provision for the correction of all the evils which are claimed to exist. Nevertheless she is willing to meet in a friendly spirit and consult with her sister States. But the opinion extensively prevails that this Conference ought not to have been called upon so short a notice and before the inauguration of the incoming administration. We, the Commissioners from that State, are instructed in the resolutions, to which I have referred, to use our influence to procure an adjournment of this Conference, before final action is taken, to the 4th of April next. I shall feel it my duty, at some future time, to make a motion to that effect. The extent to which I shall urge its adoption will depend in some measure upon the course of events and the opinions of my colleagues. In the mean time I wish to see all the resolutions printed.

The motion of Mr. Chase was agreed to. The resolutions as printed will be found in the [appendix].

Mr. ALLEN, of Massachusetts:—Before the adjournment to-day I desire to know what will be the order of business when these various reports come up for discussion. By the general rules governing parliamentary proceedings, to which I suppose we are subject, I understand the first question will be upon the substitution of the minority report presented by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Baldwin) for the report of the majority; and that, upon that question, amendments may be offered, and either accepted or rejected, both to the reports of the majority and the minority. I think it would be well to have this matter understood. Am I right in this?

The PRESIDENT:—The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has correctly pointed out the manner of proceeding.

On motion of Mr. Hackleman, the Conference then adjourned until 12 o'clock to-morrow.

---

TENTH DAY.

Washington, Saturday, February 16th, 1861.

The Conference was called to order by the President at 12 o'clock m.

Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. Sunderland.

The Journal was read by the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Puleston, and, being corrected, was approved.

The PRESIDENT:—I have received a communication from Mr. W.C. Jewett, which I am requested to lay before the Conference. Should any member desire to have it read, it will be presented upon motion. I am not inclined to occupy the time of the Conference by reading it, unless some member specially requests that it be read.

Mr. SEDDON:—Let it be laid on the table without reading.

The PRESIDENT:—That disposition will be made of it.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I am instructed, by the Committee on Rules and Organization, to propose an amendment to the Eleventh Rule which has been adopted. As the Rule now stands, no appeal is allowed from the decision of the Chair upon questions of order. It is not probable that either the Chair or the Conference would wish to be bound in that way. The purpose of the resolution is to assimilate the Rule in this respect to the practice in parliamentary bodies, and to allow an appeal from the decision of the Chair to the Conference itself. I offer the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the Eleventh Rule of this Convention be so amended as to allow an appeal from the decision of the President, which appeal shall be decided without debate."

On the passage of this resolution a division was called for, and upon a count by the Secretaries, the President declared it adopted.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I now offer another resolution—the following:

"Resolved, That in the discussions which may take place in this Convention, no member shall be allowed to speak longer than thirty minutes."

We must all by this time be impressed with the necessity of prompt, immediate, and efficient action. I do not charge any member of the body with any purpose unnecessarily to consume the time of the Convention in making speeches. I have no reason to believe that any such purpose exists. But the present Congress is rapidly drawing to a close. If any plan is adopted it will be nugatory, unless recommended by Congress. If we are to sit here until each member of the Conference has spoken upon each question presented, as many times and as long as he pleases, I fear the Congress will close its labors before we do ours.

Mr. DAVIS:—I think thirty minutes quite too long. Our opinions are formed. Before this time probably every member has determined his course of action, and it will not be changed by debate. I move to strike out the word "thirty," and insert the word "ten."

Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I am altogether opposed to this attempt in advance to cut off or limit debate. I am sure it cannot meet with favor from the Conference, for reasons so obvious that I will not occupy time in stating them. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Several gentlemen here interposed and appealed to Mr. Hitchcock to withdraw his motion, as it would cut off all debate upon the merits of the resolution. Mr. Hitchcock accordingly withdrew it.

Mr. SEDDON:—We have one rule already which prohibits any member from speaking more than twice upon any question without special leave, and a member cannot speak a second time until every other, who desires to speak, has spoken. This was the rule, I believe, in the Convention that formed our present Constitution, and no one complained of its operation there. I am as much impressed with the necessity of expediting our action as any one can be, and should be among the last to protract our sessions. But this resolution looks too much like suppressing discussion—like cutting off debate. I desire at the proper time to be heard upon the report which I have submitted. It will be impossible to discuss the grave questions involved in it in the space of a brief half hour.

Mr. CHASE:—I hope Governor Wickliffe will consent to a postponement of his resolution for the present. It is anticipating a necessity that may not arise. As yet no one has abused the privileges of debate. It is not well to assume in advance that any one will do so.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I have no wish to press this resolution upon the Convention, and it may be as well to postpone it for the present. I will move its postponement until Tuesday morning next.

The motion to postpone was unanimously agreed to.

Mr. CRISFIELD:—I move that the hour of meeting hereafter be ten o'clock in the morning.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:—I am sure that we shall all agree that this hour is quite too early. I wish to make all reasonable progress, but I think we shall find it difficult to secure a quorum at that hour. I move to amend by inserting eleven o'clock.

Mr. EWING:—I think we had better let the hour of meeting remain where our rules leave it. We shall find our labors severe enough if we commence at twelve o'clock.

Mr. CRISFIELD:—I will accept the amendment of my colleague. Let the time of meeting be eleven o'clock.

The motion of Mr. Crisfield as amended was agreed to without a division.

Mr. CHASE:—I have a motion which I desire to make, and as I do not wish to press it to a vote at the present time, I will move to lay it on the table. But I wish to have it before the Conference. It is apparent to me that we ought to pass it at some time, in order to give members who may belong to delegations in which differences of opinion exist, an opportunity of appearing on the record as they personally wish to vote. I move to amend the first rule by inserting after the word "representing," the words, "The yeas and nays of the delegates from each State, on any question, shall be entered on the Journal when it is desired by any delegate."

On motion of Mr. Chase, the amendment was laid upon the table.

The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the order of the day, the question being upon the several reports presented by the General Committee of one from each State.

The chair was taken, at the request of the President, by Mr. Alexander, of New Jersey.

Mr. BALDWIN:—I move to substitute the report presented by myself for the report of the majority of the Committee. I will consent to strike out that part of it which relates to—

Mr. TURNER:—Before the gentleman from Connecticut proceeds with his argument I trust he will give way for the introduction of a resolution. I am sure the time has come when we ought to pass such a resolution as I now offer. I am unwilling to sit here longer unless some means are taken to secure a report of our proceedings.

The PRESIDENT:—A resolution is not now in order.

Mr. TURNER:—I ask that the resolution may be read for the information of the Conference, and also ask the leave of the Conference for its introduction.

The resolution was read. It provided for the appointment of a stenographer.

The question was taken, and upon a division the leave to introduce it was refused.

Mr. BALDWIN:—I rise for the purpose of supporting my motion to substitute the report presented by myself for that presented by the majority of the committee. As I was about to remark, when the resolution just disposed of was introduced, I will consent to strike out all that portion of my report which precedes the words "whereas unhappy differences," &c., in order that the substitute offered may conform more nearly in substance to the proposition of the majority. It seems desirable on all hands that whatever we adopt here should be presented to Congress; and if it receives the sanction of that body, should be by it presented to the States for their approval. My report when thus amended will be in a proper form for such a disposition.

My report, it will be noticed, is based mainly upon the action of the Legislature of Kentucky. I have adopted those resolutions of Kentucky as the basis of my recommendation, on account of the short time which remains for any action at all, and because it appears to me that the kind of proceeding indicated in them is best calculated to meet with favor in the States which must approve any action taken here before it can be made effectual.

The resolutions of Virginia, under which this Convention is called, were adopted on the 19th of January last. The resolutions of Kentucky to which I have referred were adopted on the 25th of the same month. It is not only the necessary presumption that the latter were passed with a full knowledge of the action of Virginia, but I understand from their reading that they were adopted in consequence of the proposition of the latter State. I am disposed to favor the line of policy initiated in the resolutions of the State of Kentucky.

There are two ways of presenting amendments to the Constitution provided in that instrument. By the first, by Congress whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem such amendments necessary: or by the second, the same body, upon the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the States, may call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. These two are the only modes in which, under that instrument, amendments can be proposed to the Constitution. Either of these is adequate, and it was the manifest intention of its framers to secure due consideration of any changes which might be proposed to the fundamental law of our Government.

It is conceded on all hands that our action here will amount to nothing, unless it meets the approval of Congress, and such proposals of amendment as we shall agree upon are recommended by that body to the States for adoption. The session of the present Congress is drawing to a close. There remain only fifteen or sixteen days during which it can transact business. Can any one suppose that in the present state of the country, with the large number of important measures before Congress and awaiting its action, any proposition of real importance emanating from this Conference could be properly considered by either House in this short time? I am assuming just now that this is a Convention which has the right, under the Constitution or by precedent, to make such propositions. But if we do not remember, most certainly Congress will, that however respectable this body may be, however large may be the constituency which it represents, it is, after all, one which has no existence under, and is not recognized by the Constitution. In a recent speech in the Senate, Judge Collamer, of Vermont, one of the ablest lawyers in that body, has more than intimated a doubt whether Congress could, under the Constitution, entertain proposals of amendment presented to it by such a body as this. But, waiving all technicalities, the substantial objection which influences my mind is, that the course of action proposed by the majority of the committee is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. When the people adopted that instrument and subjected themselves to its operation, they intended and had a right to understand that it should be amended only in the manner provided by the Constitution itself. They did not intend that amendments should be proposed under, or the existence of the Constitution endangered by any extraneous pressure whatever. They wisely provided a way in which amendments might be proposed, or rather two ways. Under either of them, due examination and consideration was secured. They would not have consented to any other way of proposing amendments. The General Government, on the adoption of the Constitution, for all national purposes, took the place of the State Governments. The people of the United States from that time, in the language of a distinguished Senator from Kentucky, owed a paramount allegiance to the General Government, and a subordinate allegiance only to the State Governments. Changes in the Constitution, then, can only be properly made in the manner provided by the Constitution. Propositions for changes in it must come from the people, or their representatives in Congress. Any attempt to coerce Congress, or to influence its action in a manner not provided by the Constitution, is a disregard of the rights of the people.

Why are we assembled here to urge these amendments upon Congress? to induce Congress to recommend them to the people for adoption? Are we the representatives of the people of the United States? Are we acting for them, and as their authorized agents, in this endeavor to press amendments upon the attention of Congress? Because, if our action is to have any effect at all, it must be to induce Congress to conform to our wishes—to propose the very amendments which we prepare.

The members of the House of Representatives were elected by the people. They were selected to perform, and they do perform, their duties and functions under the obligations of their official oaths. There is no question about their agency, or their right to act in the premises. The Constitution makes them the agents of the people. The Legislature of the State of Kentucky, well understanding and appreciating the only true method in which constitutional amendments should be proposed, with all the formality of a legislative act approved by the Executive of that State, has applied to Congress for the call of a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and has requested the President to lay those resolutions immediately before Congress. She wishes other States to unite with her in the preparing and proposing of amendments to the Constitution. This is the correct, the legal, the patriotic course. This was what Kentucky had the right to ask, and this is all she has asked.

Mr. Baldwin here read the Kentucky resolutions, as follows:

Resolutions recommending a call for a Convention of the United States.

Whereas, The people of some of the States feel themselves deeply aggrieved by the policy and measures which have been adopted by some of the people of the other States; and whereas an amendment of the Constitution of the United States is deemed indispensably necessary to secure them against similar grievances in the future: Therefore,

Resolved, by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, that application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, pursuant to the fifth article thereof, be, and the same is hereby, now made by this General Assembly of Kentucky; and we hereby invite our sister States to unite with us, without delay, in a similar application to Congress.

Resolved, That the Governor of this State forthwith communicate the foregoing resolution to the President of the United States, with the request that he immediately place the same before Congress and the Executives of the several States, with a request that they lay them before their respective Legislatures.

Resolved, If the Convention be called in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing resolutions, the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Kentucky suggest for the consideration of that Convention, as a basis for settling existing difficulties, the adoption, by way of amendments to the Constitution, of the resolutions offered in the Senate of the United States by the Hon. John J. Crittenden.

DAVID MERIWETHER,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

THOMAS P. PORTER,
Speaker of the Senate.

Approved January 25, 1861.
B. MAGOFFIN.

By the Governor:
THOMAS B. MONROE, Jr.,
Secretary of State.

Mr. BALDWIN continued:—Now, what are we asked to do by the majority of the committee? It is not to unite with Kentucky or to accede to her wishes for a convention of the States, under the Constitution, but to thwart the wishes of Kentucky, and to induce Congress itself to originate and propose amendments, or to propose those which we may originate. Kentucky asks that the people of the States themselves might elect delegates to a convention, who should carefully consider the whole subject. The Kentucky resolutions were transmitted to the President, who sent them to Congress, as he said, with great pleasure. Kentucky stated that she was in favor of the so-called Crittenden resolutions, but she did not request Congress to propose them as amendments to the Constitution.

How is this body constituted? Do we, its members, represent the people of the several States? Have they had an opportunity to elect delegates, to select those in whom they had confidence and whom they could trust? Not at all. Why should we assemble here and express our wishes to Congress in reference to the Constitution without permitting California, Oregon, or many other States not here represented, to unite in our deliberations? I cannot assent to such an unfair proceeding toward other States.

Suppose one-half the States should request Congress to propose amendments, will Congress agree to it? No, sir. The Constitution provides that Congress shall not propose amendments without the consent of two-thirds of the States. Congress has not deemed any amendments necessary, so far as we know, and yet a majority of the committee of this body ask Congress to propose the amendments on our responsibility alone. It appears to me, then, that this proceeding must be regarded not as one known to the Constitution, but as a revolutionary proceeding. All the States are not represented here, nor have all had an opportunity to be so represented. Some of us are acting under the appointment of the Legislatures of our States; other delegates are simply appointed by the Executives of their States and are acting without any legal authority. We are not standing upon equal ground; some are only acting upon their own judgment; others are acting under instructions from their several Legislatures. If the Virginia Legislature itself were here, its action would differ materially from the present views of the delegates from that State.

But how is this? The Resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia make the statement that unless these questions are settled, and settled soon, there is danger of the disruption of the Union. Admit this to be so, and it furnishes no reason for changing the mode of proposing constitutional amendments. The Constitution knows no such danger. It is a self-sustaining Constitution, and was supposed to contain within itself the power to secure its own preservation. The Constitution ought not to be amended without the deliberate action of the people themselves. I cannot and I will not disregard their rights. I cannot recognize the claim that the secession of a State, by an ordinance of its Convention, can carry either the State or its people out of the Union. There is no such thing as legal secession, for there is no power anywhere to take the people out of the protecting care of the Government, or to relieve them from their obligations to it.

And where is the clause in the Constitution that authorizes the call upon Congress to do what Congress is asked to do here? The Constitution was adopted "to form a more perfect Union." The people were not to be allowed to alter it, except in the two modes prescribed in it. The Convention which adopted it did not propose that changes should be made in it without ample time for deliberation and discussion. We are here, then, simply as conferees from States expressing our individual opinions. We are now asked to recommend to Congress amendments to our fundamental law; we have no more right to do so than members of the so-called Southern Confederacy. We, a mere fraction of the people, propose to unite in bringing a pressure upon Congress, which shall induce it to propose these amendments. This was not one of the modes contemplated or provided by the framers of that sacred instrument.

General Washington presided over the Convention which prepared our Constitution. None knew better than he the reasons which made its adoption necessary to the preservation of the Government—none knew better the dangers which would probably surround it in after years. In that last counsel of his to the American people—his Farewell Address—a paper drawn up with the greatest deliberation, embodying opinions which he entertained as the result of a long life of active study and reflection, he warns us against all such proceedings as those contemplated by the majority of the committee. I am sure the delegates from Virginia will not now refuse to listen to the words of that illustrious man, uttered upon the most solemn and momentous occasion of his life. Hear his words:

"Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel."

Again:

"But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress, against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts."

Are not these admonitions at the present moment peculiarly worthy of our attention? And with them before us, can we invoke the action of Congress for the alteration of the fundamental law of the Government in any other ways than those provided in the Constitution? I earnestly hope not. If we act at all, let us act in that regular method which gives time for consultation, for consideration, and for action among the people of all the States. It appears to me, that in adopting the line of policy proposed by the majority of the committee, we are doing the very thing which Washington warned us not to do.

He said further:

"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts, can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unmoved, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

And again:

"Toward the preservation of your Government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you should steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to affect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions."

And still further:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."

If we adopt the majority report here, we attempt to correct the Constitution by an amendment in a way which, the Constitution does not designate. Washington says if there is any thing wrong, let it be corrected in a constitutional way; and that, sir, is just what Kentucky has said, and that is what every loyal State will say. Kentucky has inaugurated this proceeding, and it is one eminently worthy of her—true as she has always been to the Union. I cannot disregard this action of her Legislature. I do not think any exigency exists which requires us to disregard it. I am ready, and my State is ready, to confer with other States in reference to the Constitution, when asked to do so in any of the modes pointed out by that instrument.

Entertaining these opinions, and with these convictions, I should be untrue to my sense of duty to the Government and the State I represent, and to the people of the United States, if I should consent to disregard the Constitution and my obligations to it.

I have stated these considerations because they are powerful enough to influence and control my course. Others must act upon their own convictions. I have come to the conclusion that I ought to submit this minority report with distrust, and with distrust only, because so many of the able statesmen composing the majority of the committee have seen fit to adopt different views. My report leaves every thing to the people, where I think every such question should be left. When they consult together and decide in the constitutional way I shall bow to their decision, whatever it may be.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I do not propose to follow the gentleman (Mr. Baldwin) through all the ramifications of his speech. I have made the Constitution my study for many years, and I have looked at the causes which give it strength and the causes which give it weakness. I believe that our fathers organized this Government in great wisdom. Its strength was in the affections of the people. It never had any other strength, and it was never intended it should have. It was not intended to be sustained by standing armies. Its strength was intended to be placed in the affections of the people, and I had hoped it would endure forever. Without the affections of the people it is the weakest Government ever established. The people! What a spectacle do we witness now! One portion of the people has lost confidence in the Government, and now seven States have left it. The Government cannot realize that they are gone. We have established the right of revolution, and that right gave to the world this splendid Government. This was the first precedent; it will stand for all time. It will always be acted upon when the people have lost confidence in the Government. I hate that word secession, because it is a cheat! Call things by their right names! The Southern States have framed another Government; they have originated a revolution. There is no warrant for it in the Constitution, but it is like the right of self-defence, which every man may exercise. The gentleman from Connecticut has forgotten that the Government made Congress the recipient of petitions. Why was this? It was that Congress might be influenced by the wishes of the people and act upon them.

We are twenty States assembled here. Congress has been in session more than two months. The Government is falling to pieces. Congress has not had the sagacity to give the necessary guarantees, the proper assurances to the slaveholding States. This session will make a shameful chapter in the history of this Government, to be hereafter written. Why should this Congress refuse to give the people guarantees? The proudest Governments in the world have been compelled to give their people guarantees.

We are assembled here to consult, and see what can be done; to consult as representatives of the States. Is there any impropriety in our stating what would restore confidence, to our putting this in writing, and to our proposing the plan of restoration we think should be adopted to Congress, and asking Congress to submit that plan to the people? Are we not the representatives of the people, sent here to do what we think ought to be done, and to ask Congress by way of petition to repair the foundations of the Government? It is all legitimate, and legitimate in the most technical sense.

Suppose we ask Congress to act on this proposition. We come directly from the people. We ask Congress to submit a plan which we think will save the Government, to the people. Is this taking any advantage of the States? They can take all the time they wish for deliberation, and we can bring no pressure to bear on them. In these times of great peril and trouble, we ask Congress, backed by the moral force of the States we represent, to act and save the country.

Two or three years hence will not answer. The foundations of the Government are undermined and growing weaker every day, and if the people who may give to it the necessary repair and strength do not do so, they will be called to a fearful account. When the building is on fire, it is no time to inquire who set it on fire. The North say the South did it, and the South say the North did it.

We are all interested in this Government; we love the Constitution; we love the Union; we want to repair it—we want to lay the foundation for bringing back the States who have left us, by reason and not by the sword. The delay which the gentleman proposes is too long; the Constitution has provided a shorter way. In adopting that we are only recognizing the right of petition.

I, sir, will answer to Kentucky; I don't want the gentleman to come between me and the people of Kentucky. He has no right to speak for the people of that State—her representatives here have that right and will exercise it. Why were these resolutions passed? Because Congress had failed to provide the means needful to our safety. The resolutions under which the Kentucky delegation came here were passed on the 29th, not the 25th of January. They were passed after the resolutions to which the gentleman refers. They ought to be regarded, as they are in fact, as the deliberate expression of the Legislature of Kentucky in favor of this Conference. In them it is stated that Kentucky heartily accepts the invitation of her old mother Virginia. She acts in no unwilling spirit, she hastens to avail herself of any opportunity to save the Government. She believes a favorable opportunity is offered by this Conference. I repeat again: Adopt the report of the majority of the committee and I will answer to Kentucky. I will go farther. I will answer that Kentucky herself will adopt the very proposals of amendment to the Constitution contained in the committee's report.

But the gentleman insists that the action proposed is not only improper but that it is revolutionary. I deny that it is revolutionary. It is no more revolutionary than any other form of petition. It is a petition sustained by the moral force of twenty States—a petition which Congress will not disregard.

But if the report of the majority is revolutionary, what of the gentleman's report? Is that provided for by the Constitution? Is that according to the forms of the Constitution? No, sir. Every argument he has brought against the report of the majority, applies with equal force to his own. His views will answer for those who are willing to stand by and see this Government drift toward destruction—to see this country involved in civil war. It will answer for those who will oppose all action, and who wish to do nothing at all. His report is a new excuse for inaction. It will not answer for us.

Sir, we are acting under a fearful responsibility. The eyes of every true patriot in the nation are turned toward this body. The people are awaiting our action, with anxious and painful solicitude. They know and we know that, unless the wisdom of this Conference shall devise some plan to satisfy the people of the slaveholding States—to quiet their apprehensions, a disruption of the Government is inevitable. If we adopt the gentleman's views, go home and do nothing, we take the responsibility of breaking up the Government.

I do not propose to discuss the merits of the majority report at the present time. I have only sought to answer the arguments of the gentleman against our acting at all. But I claim that this way of proceeding is entirely irregular. The report of the gentleman is not in order. The report of the majority was first presented, and should be first acted upon. I move to lay the report of the gentleman from Connecticut upon the table.

Mr. LOGAN:—I would ask Mr. Guthrie to withdraw his motion. If the motion were adopted it would prevent discussion. It was expected that we were to discuss the subject to-day. It is not of much consequence which report is first acted upon. They are all before the Conference, and the merits of all of them are under discussion.

Mr. Guthrie withdrew the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. Morehead, of Kentucky, took the chair.

Mr. CURTIS:—I am a member of the present Congress; I have faithfully attended its deliberations, and have anxiously watched its course. Mr. Guthrie will find that there are other and different objections to the line of policy he proposes, to which he has not alluded, and which he does not understand. But they are objections which have determined, and will determine, the action of Congress. I would ask Mr. Guthrie if the adoption of his propositions, previous to their action, would have prevented the States which have already seceded from going out.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I think it would have prevented them; all but South Carolina. I did not intend to assail Congress, or any member of it, personally.

Mr. CURTIS:—I do not agree with the gentleman. We know, and the gentleman knows, that there has been for a long time a purpose, a great conspiracy in this country, to begin and carry out a revolution. That has been avowed over and over again in the halls of Congress. Can you expect a member of Congress to do more than reflect the will of his constituents, the will of his people? Would you have him do any thing different? There were forty or fifty different propositions before the Congressional Committee of Thirty-three. There are many here. There are many difficulties attending the solution of this question in every respect. But we may as well speak plainly. I cannot go for the majority report of the committee, and among other reasons, for this reason: Their proposition makes all territory we may hereafter acquire slave territory.

Mr. JOHNSON:—No; such is not the fact.

Mr. CURTIS:—I have read it, and such is my construction.

Mr. JOHNSON:—Such is not the intention.

Mr. CURTIS:—Any future territory which we acquire must be from the south; we have extended as far as we can to the north and the northwest.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Will you agree to divide all future territory?

Mr. CURTIS:—I will do almost any thing to save the Union. I will reflect the will of my constituents. I think it ought not to be divided equally, but the South ought to have its share. There is another trouble. Look at the difficulty of getting any proposition through Congress. Congress has only fifteen days of life. I ask you, even with general unanimity, if you can hope to pass at this session any new proposals of amendments? If you do, you will get along faster than is generally the case. There is one proposition before Congress that I believe can pass. It is the Adams proposition, to admit all the territories south at once. It is already slave territory. It is now applying for admission. If this is acceptable to the South, I will go for it. We are bound to admit it under the ordinance of 1789.

Mr. GOODRICH:—Do I understand my friend to claim that the ordinance of 1789 involves a proposition to divide the territory?

Mr. CURTIS:—I understand that in connection with the subsequent legislation it does.

Mr. GOODRICH:—The concession of territory from North Carolina contains a prohibition from acting on the subject of slavery in the territory ceded.

Mr. CURTIS:—I agree entirely with the gentleman. I am opposed to slavery, but we must divide the territory. Let us leave slavery where it is, and admit the territory for the purpose of settling the question. I do not agree with Mr. Guthrie that this Government depends on the will of the people. It is a self-supporting government; it will support itself. There is no justification for the action of the seceded States, and I cannot agree that Congress is responsible for their action. The secession plot was formed before Congress assembled. There was a power to check it. If our President had acted as Jackson did, there would have been an end of it. The day for hanging for treason has gone by. We must look at things as they are. Even in battle the white flag must be respected. Let this subject be frankly discussed in a conciliatory manner. If any State has the right to go out of the Union at its own volition, then this Government, in my opinion, is not worth the trouble of preserving. The President is sworn to protect and uphold the Government. So long as there is a navy, an army, and a militia, it is his sworn duty to uphold it—to uphold it as well against an attack from States as from individuals. The Government is one of love and affection, it is true, but it is also one of strength, and power. Where was there ever a more indulgent people than ours? Our forts have been taken, our flag has been fired upon, our property seized, and as yet nothing has been done. But they will not be indulgent forever. Beware, gentlemen, how you force them further. Gentlemen talk about the inefficiency of Congress; I wish there was some efficiency in the Executive. If there was, or had been, our present troubles would have been avoided.

Mr. TURNER:—I do not understand that the report of the majority is applicable to future territory. I move the recommitment of the report, to have that question settled.

Mr. JOHNSON:—It is true there are different constructions which may be placed on the report. I think if it had been understood to apply to future territory, it could not have received the support of a majority of the committee. Mr. Crittenden's proposition applies to future territory. I submitted a proposition to the committee also intended to apply to future territory. A majority of the committee was opposed to it. Mr. Ewing drew this part of the amendment, and there is some difference of opinion about it. In my opinion the amendment would not apply to future territory, and I intended at the proper time to offer an amendment which should make it plain, and not leave it open to construction. Personally, I should be glad to apply it to future territory, but I shall yield. I think if we can settle the question now, there will be no further trouble. I do not believe any territory will be acquired hereafter without great unanimity. It is not quite true, although it may be probable, that the future territory will be south of the line proposed.

Mr. TURNER:—I am still more confirmed that it was the intention of the committee to have the amendment only apply to existing territory. If this is settled now, it will shorten the debate. If the gentleman will move to amend now, I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. JOHNSON:—I move to amend by inserting the word present before the word territory in the first line of Section I., with such other verbal amendments as may make the sense conform, and to adopt that amendment now. This covers the whole ground. I wish to discuss these amendments, but am physically unable to speak to-day, and would prefer to have the discussion deferred.

Mr. JOHNSON then moved an adjournment, which was carried on a division, and the Convention adjourned at two o'clock and fifty minutes.

---

ELEVENTH DAY.

Washington, Monday, February 18th, 1861.

The Convention was opened with prayer by Rev. P.D. Gurley.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Mr. Chittenden offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the rules of this Convention be so far modified as to require the Secretary to employ a competent stenographer, who shall write down and preserve accurate notes of the debates and other proceedings of this body, which notes shall not be communicated to any person, nor shall copies thereof be taken, nor shall the same be made public until after the final adjournment of this Convention, except in pursuance of a vote authorizing their publication.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I have no desire to occupy time in debating this resolution, much less to waste it in a fruitless attempt to oppose what seems to be the settled purpose of a majority of this Convention. But if this body will consider the purpose which the resolution seeks to attain, it may, perhaps, be found less objectionable than other similar ones which have been defeated. The objection heretofore made is, that a publication of what transpires here would lead to an excited criticism in the country, which would be unfavorable to the calmness and ultimate success which should attend our deliberations. While I entertain no such apprehensions, permit me to observe that this resolution contemplates no present publication of our debates, but a publication at such a time, and in such a manner, as will be unobjectionable. That time may not come till after our adjournment. I am free to say, that when we are dealing with the important issues now before us, I prefer to have our action, our words, our whole conduct, all that we do and say, open and public. We should fear no criticism when we are right; we ought to be held to account when we are wrong. But if gentlemen will not consent to this, at least let the daily record of each of us be made up now: let it be full and perfect. When a question comes up hereafter which concerns the sentiments or the action of a member, let its decision depend upon no uncertain recollection, a recollection which must fade and grow dim with each one of us, as the time of this Convention recedes into the past. Such a record can injure no one; it may be of infinite service hereafter. I could not justify myself to my conscience, or to those who have a right to hold me responsible for my acts here, if I failed to do all that lays in my power to have the true history of this Convention laid before the country. A naked journal amounts to nothing. It is a skeleton. Our discussions alone will give it form and comeliness. I have prepared this resolution upon consultation with many members, whose ideas of what should be done here agree with mine. They concur with me in the propriety of offering it. If it fails, the responsibility of keeping our discussions from the people will not rest with us.

Mr. POLLOCK:—I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:—Let the vote be taken by States.

The vote was so taken, and the following States voted in the affirmative: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Virginia, and Pennsylvania—11.

The following States voted in the negative: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and New York—8.

So the motion to lay on the table prevailed.

When the State of Ohio was called, a member of her delegation stated that it was equally divided.

Mr. TUCK:—I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to introduce a proposition in the form of an address to the people of the United States. I do so after having consulted a considerable number of members; and having found that it meets their approval, I desire to read it, and will then move that it be laid on the table and printed.

Mr. RANDOLPH:—Is the gentleman's motion in order?

Mr. EWING:—I object to the reading.

Mr. CLAY:—Certainly; I object also.

Mr. TUCK:—I will acquiesce with a single word. I certainly hoped no curt objection would be made to the reading of any proposition which any member might deem it his duty to offer. As gentlemen differ from me in this respect, I will hand the paper to the Chair. I hope at least it may be permitted to lay on the table.

The PRESIDENT:—I hold it the gentleman's undoubted right to read the paper if he chooses.

Mr. TUCK:—Very well.

He commenced reading when he was interrupted by

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I hope Mr. Tuck will withdraw this paper. If the Convention agrees to any result, I shall favor its submission to the people with an address. I will pledge myself to suggest the gentleman's name as one of a committee to prepare the address at the proper time.

The PRESIDENT:—The gentleman from New Hampshire has the floor.

Mr. Tuck then completed the reading of the paper, as follows:

To the People of the United States:

This Convention of Conference, composed in part of Commissioners appointed in accordance with the legislative action of sundry States, and in part of Commissioners appointed by the Governors of sundry other States, in compliance with an invitation by the General Assembly of Virginia, met in Washington on the 4th of February, 1861. Although constituting a body unknown to the Constitution and laws, yet being delegated for the purpose, and having carefully considered the existing dangers and dissensions, and having brought their proceedings to a close, publish this address, and the accompanying resolutions, as the result of their deliberations.

We recognize and deplore the divisions and distractions which now afflict our country, interrupt its prosperity, disturb its peace, and endanger the Union of the States; but we repel the conclusion, that any alienations or dissensions exist which are irreconcilable, which justify attempts at revolution, or which the patriotism and fraternal sentiments of the people, and the interests and honor of the whole nation, will not overcome.

In a country embracing the central and most important portion of a continent, among a people now numbering over thirty millions, diversities of opinion inevitably exist; and rivalries, intensified at times by local interests and sectional attachments, must often occur; yet we do not doubt that the theory of our Government is the best which is possible for this nation, that the Union of the States is of vital importance, and that the Constitution, which expresses the combined wisdom of the illustrious founders of the Government, is still the palladium of our liberties, adequate to every emergency, and justly entitled to the support of every good citizen.

It embraces, in its provisions and spirit, all the defence and protection which any section of the country can rightfully demand, or honorably concede.

Adopted with primary reference to the wants of five millions of people, but with the wisest reference to future expansion and development, it has carried us onward with a rapid increase of numbers, an accumulation of wealth, and a degree of happiness and general prosperity never attained by any nation.

Whatever branch of industry, or whatever staple production, shall become, in the possible changes of the future, the leading interest of the country, thereby creating unforeseen complications or new conflicts of opinion and interest, the Constitution of the United States, properly understood and fairly enforced, is equal to every exigency, a shield and defence to all, in every time of need. If, however, by reason of a change in circumstances, or for any cause, a portion of the people believe they ought to have their rights more exactly defined or more fully explained in the Constitution, it is their duty, in accordance with its provisions, to seek a remedy by way of amendment to that instrument; and it is the duty of all the States to concur in such amendments as may be found necessary to insure equal and exact justice to all.

In order, therefore, to announce to the country the sentiments of this Convention, respecting not only the remedy which should be sought for existing discontents, but also to communicate to the public what we believe to be the patriotic sentiment of the country, we adopt the following resolutions:

1st. Resolved, That this Convention recognize the well-understood proposition that the Constitution of the United States gives no power to Congress, or any branch of the Federal Government, to interfere in any manner with slavery in any of the States; and we are assured by abundant testimony, that neither of the great political organizations existing in the country contemplates a violation of the spirit of the Constitution in this regard, or the procuring of any amendment thereof, by which Congress, or any department of the General Government, shall ever have jurisdiction over slavery in any of the States.

2d. Resolved, That the Constitution was ordained and established, as set forth in the preamble, by the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity; and when the people of any State are not in full enjoyment of all the benefits intended to be secured to them by the Constitution, or their rights under it are disregarded, their tranquillity disturbed, their prosperity retarded, or their liberty imperilled by the people of any State, full and adequate redress can and ought to be provided for such grievances.

3d. Resolved, That this Convention recommend to the Legislatures of the States of the Union to follow the example of the Legislatures of the States of Kentucky and of Illinois, in applying to Congress to call a Convention for the proposing of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, pursuant to the fifth article thereof.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I object to printing this paper. If that course is taken, every member may offer his disquisitions on the Constitution, and they will be printed at our expense.

Mr. TUCK:—Unanimous consent was given that it be read, laid on the table, and printed.

The PRESIDENT:—There were three motions involved in one. Now the question is upon laying the paper on the table and printing it.

Mr. ALEXANDER:—I call for a division of the question.

The PRESIDENT:—The question will be on the motion to lay it on the table.

Mr. TUCK:—Are we not entitled to have the question taken on the motion to print? I supposed all these questions would be taken in a spirit of conciliation. But if not, I will withdraw the motion to lay on the table, and move that the paper be printed.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I came here in a spirit of conciliation, and I shall act in that spirit. Let us all do so. I disagree entirely with Mr. Tuck and his proposition, but I am in favor of receiving every proposition that is offered, of printing them all, and at the proper time of considering them all. I trust that unanimous consent will be given to printing this paper.

The President then put the motion upon printing the address, and it was carried upon a division.

Mr. Guthrie offered the following resolution, which was adopted unanimously:

Resolved, That if the President shall choose to speak on any question, he may, for the occasion, call any member to preside.

Mr. MEREDITH:—I wish to offer a proposition, and hope for the present it may lie on the table, and be considered hereafter. I do not desire to move it as an amendment to the report of the committee, but think it better to present it as a direct and independent proposition. I present it now only for the purpose of having it before the Convention. It is as follows:

Article.—That Congress shall divide all the territory of the United States into convenient portions, each containing not less than sixty thousand square miles, and shall establish in each a territorial government; the several territorial legislatures, whether heretofore constituted, or hereafter to be constituted, shall have all the legislative powers now vested in the respective States of this Union; and whenever any territory having a population sufficient, according to the ratio existing at the time, to entitle it to one member of Congress, shall form a republican constitution, and apply to Congress for admission as a State, Congress shall admit the same as a State accordingly.

The proposition of Mr. Meredith was laid on the table without objection.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—There appears to be a misunderstanding between the Secretary and myself upon the question of printing the Journal. To avoid question, I move that the Journal be printed up to and including to-day.

Mr. GOODRICH:—I move to amend by adding "and from day to day during the session."

The amendment and the motion were adopted without objection.

Mr. Alexander, of New Jersey, took the chair.

The PRESIDENT:—The Convention will now proceed to the order of the day—the consideration of the report of the committee.

Mr. REID, of North Carolina:—I wish to move an amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Johnson. It is to add to his the words "and future." If adopted, the language will be "present and future territory."

Mr. EWING:—This will render a division of the question necessary. The gentleman had better withdraw his amendment for the time.

Mr. REID:—I am instructed by the Legislature of North Carolina to offer it, and I think best to do so in this regular manner.

Mr. CLEVELAND:—I think the motion of Mr. Reid is out of order. I suggest that if adopted, with Mr. Johnson's amendment, the sense of the proposition as it now stands will not be changed.

Mr. RUFFIN:—I rise merely to make a suggestion to my colleague. This motion must be made at some time, by some one, so that we may have a regular vote upon it. Now, as it is not certain how the report of the majority of the committee is to be construed, I propose at a suitable time to move an amendment which will make the proposition applicable to territory hereafter acquired. If this will suit my colleague, I hope he will withdraw his motion.

Mr. REID:—I came here not to deceive the North or the South. I intend to be plain and unambiguous. Why should we send forth a proposition that is uncertain, vague, and, as gentlemen admit, open to different constructions? If we are to pour oil upon the troubled waters, let us do so to some purpose; above all, let us be definite, plain, and certain. I cannot consent to withdraw my motion. I must insist upon its consideration.

Mr. LOGAN:—I had hoped the question on Mr. Johnson's amendments would have been taken on Saturday. It is an important one, and one which must be met. I would suggest that it would be best to let the question be taken on Mr. Johnson's amendments now. The subject presents itself to my mind in this way: The proposition of the majority, as it now stands, is uncertain. The friends of the proposition ought to be allowed to perfect it, to make it satisfactory to themselves. If there is a doubt about it, let us make it clear that it applies only to the present territory. Then we can have a clear and decisive vote upon it. The substance of the proposition is what I wish to arrive at, and it will be more in order if the vote is not taken till we know what that substance is. I shall not object to its application to future territory. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina will withdraw his amendment, and let the question be taken on that of Mr. Johnson.

Mr. SEDDON:—One word only. I fear we are being placed in an awkward position. I am desirous to have the language of the proposition clear and not delusive. The amendment of Mr. Johnson embarrasses me; I hardly know how to vote upon it. If I vote for Mr. Johnson's motion, I shall have the semblance of favoring the limitation of the proposition to present territory. Mr. Ruffin and myself both want the same thing, but on Mr. Johnson's motion he will vote one way and I the other.

Mr. RUFFIN:—Will the gentleman allow me to explain? I voted against the proposition in committee because, as it now stands, it applies only to existing territory. I wish to carry this proposition, but not by the vote of the South alone. I want Northern votes, and assurances that the people of the North will vote for the proposition and adopt it.

Mr. SEDDON:—I shall feel disposed to vote against Mr. Johnson's motion.

The question was here stated by the President as follows:

The vote will be taken upon the motion of Mr. Reid to amend the amendment offered by Mr. Johnson.

Mr. REID:—It strikes me that the question is this: My proposition is to add the words "and future," but Mr. Johnson's amendment is to add the word "present." Can this be treated as an amendment to his motion? I must say that my duty to my country and State will prevent my voting for the proposition as he proposes to limit it.

Mr. COALTER:—I think the committee ought to be permitted to amend and complete their report. Let us, by general consent, agree to have the word "present" inserted.

Mr. REID:—I object to that all the time.

Mr. TURNER:—I move that the report be recommitted for amendment.

Mr. COALTER:—Shall we adjourn over simply for this? That will use up another day.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope it will not be recommitted. We can settle the question here in a moment.

The PRESIDENT:—The vote will now be taken.

Mr. McCURDY:—I call for the individual names of members voting.

The PRESIDENT:—The call is not in order.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. Reid, and resulted as follows:

Ayes—New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, and Virginia—8.

Nays—Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and Iowa—12.

So the amendment failed.

The PRESIDENT:—The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. JOHNSON:—I trust that I shall not trespass upon the time of the Conference, but the subject now before it is one of great importance, and it involves the consideration of many important questions. The amendment which I offer is for the purpose of making the proposition of the committee clear and plain. I was aware that a construction might be placed upon it different from that which the committee intended; and it is due to the frankness which is manifested here, that the purposes of the committee should be made plain. There ought to be no ambiguity in a constitutional provision. Some of the most important constitutional questions decided by the Supreme Court have been questions of construction. Lawyers would differ about the construction to be given the committee's proposition. I think the Supreme Court has placed a construction upon the terms used here, which would be conclusive. A similar question arose in the Dred Scott case. There the question was upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territories or other property belonging to the United States." The Court in that case decided that the provision had no bearing on the controversy in that case, because the power given by that provision, whatever it might be, was confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which, upon the adoption of the Constitution, belonged to or was claimed by the United States, and was within their boundaries, as settled by the treaty with Great Britain. With this clause in the Constitution, therefore, it could have no influence upon the territory afterward acquired from a foreign government. I think this decision conclusive, and that the proposition, if incorporated into the Constitution, would refer only to the territory now owned by the United States.

It was the wish of the representatives of some States in the committee that the word "future" should be inserted in the report. I was opposed to it: it was so odious to me to put words into the Constitution, or to propose to do so, which should go forth to the world as an indication that this Government proposes to acquire new territory in any way. I have said that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case decided that the words "the territories" in the Constitution only applied to the then existing territory. I think they decided wrong in this respect, though I agree to the correctness of the decision in that case in the main; but such as it is, the decision is binding upon this Conference and the people.

Mr. Johnson here read a portion of the opinion of Judge Taney delivered in the Dred Scott case, and continued:

You perceive that Judge Taney turns the question upon the construction of the word "the." Had the word "any" been used in its place, he must have held that the provision applied to future, as well as the then existing territory.

Knowing that it was the purpose of the majority of the committee to exclude future territory from the operation of this proposition, and that it was due to the committee and the Convention that their purposes should be carried out, I offer my amendment as applicable to the sixth line of the proposition as well as the first.

In discussing the merits of this report, in its application to the existing condition of the country, I have to say a word to my Southern friends. You have sought to extend this provision to territory which shall be hereafter acquired. You have had a decisive vote and have been beaten in this Conference. The fight has been a fair one; the question has been thoroughly understood. We ought to acquiesce in the decision of the majority. We cannot change this decision if we would; and if we could change it, the proposition amended as you would prefer to have it, would never pass Congress. The repeated action of that body, during its present session, shows this conclusively. Accepting this decision then, as definitive, can we not settle the question with reference to existing territory? Shall we settle it? Settle it fairly—recognizing and acknowledging the rights of all, and remain brethren forever with the Free States! From my very heart, I say yes. (Applause.) The proposition as it now stands covers all the territory we have. The whole ground, the whole trouble, which has brought this country into its present lamentable condition—has arisen over this question. I believe if it had been disposed of or settled in some way before, many States would have been kept in the Union that have now gone out. And why should we not settle it?

We have now a territory extensive enough to sustain two hundred millions of people—embracing almost every climate, fruitful in almost every species of production—rich in all the elements of national wealth, and governed by a Constitution that has raised us to an elevation of grandeur that the world has never before witnessed. That we should separate to the destruction of such a Government, on account of territory we have not got, and territory that we do not want, is not, I believe, the patriotic sense of the South.

But this proposition does not stand by itself alone. It is connected, and must be construed, with the provision relating to the acquisition of future territory. The second section of the committee's proposition provides that territory shall not be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty, nor, with unimportant exceptions, unless such treaty shall be ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate. Is not that guaranty enough for us? Should we not act unreasonably if we required further guaranty in this respect? For myself, I should have preferred that the consent of two-thirds of the Senate only should be required, and that that two-thirds should comprise a majority both from the free and slave States.

Mr. RUFFIN:—At the proper time I shall move such an amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON:—If such an amendment is proposed I shall vote for it. I know there will be objections raised to it, but they will be far outweighed by the advantages it will give to the South.

But the objection of Mr. Baldwin is opposed here, and it is one which must be answered. He says this is the wrong way to propose amendments to the Constitution—that our action is inconsistent with that instrument. He does not claim that it is prohibited by the letter, but by the spirit of the Constitution. Where does he get the spirit but from the letter? There are two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution provided by that instrument. Let us see what they are.

Mr. Johnson here read the article of the Constitution providing for amendments, and continued:

One is where two-thirds of Congress deem it advisable to propose amendments; the other is where the States themselves propose them. My learned brother would have us believe that the members of Congress, acting under their official oaths, must each be satisfied that each amendment proposed is proper to be incorporated in the instrument, before they should propose them; and he maintains that there is a difference, in fact, in the two methods prescribed. What right has this body, if there is any force in this objection, to submit his proposition to the States? If what we propose is revolutionary, then what he proposes is revolutionary. I reply to him, with all respect for his legal ability, and with all the humility which becomes me, and insist that he is wrong. He refers to the opinion of Judge Collamer. I hold Judge Collamer in much respect, and his opinion in great honor here, but his statements are at war with the objections made by the gentleman from Connecticut. Judge Collamer maintains that it is the duty of Congress to propose amendments, not to recommend them. It would be entirely proper, according to his opinion, for Congress to propose amendments which they would not adopt themselves. I go somewhat farther, and insist that it is the duty of Congress to propose amendments whenever desired by any State or any considerable section of the Union. If we have no right to suggest a line of action to Congress, no right to petition Congress, no right to ask Congress to propose amendments, as the gentleman insists, we had better go home, or rather, I should say, we should never have come here.

There are twenty States represented in this Conference. I have no doubt other States would have been here, but for the shortness of the time. But how and why are we here? We have come here on the invitation of Virginia; her resolutions are our constitution. We have come here at her instance. For what purpose did she ask us to come here? under what circumstances did she pass these resolutions? Virginia saw that the country was going to ruin—that one State had already seceded, and several others were about to follow. She saw there were circumstances affecting the condition of the South which aroused her to frenzy—not madness, but the frenzy which falls on every patriotic mind when it witnesses a country going to destruction. She saw the country was going to ruin with rapid steps, and that its ruin must be accomplished unless her friends in the free States would come forward, and consent to put into the Constitution additional guarantees which would satisfy the people of the slave States that their rights were secure. See what she did—what she said. She expresses it as her deliberate opinion, "that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable; and the General Assembly, representing the wishes of the people of the Commonwealth, is desirous of employing every reasonable means to avert so dire a calamity, and determined to make a final effort to restore the Union and the Constitution, in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic."

Therefore she invites all States, whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding, who were willing to unite with her in an earnest effort to adjust the unhappy controversies in the spirit of the Constitution, to come together to secure that adjustment. She asks us to agree to some suitable adjustment. She does not leave us to suggest what that adjustment shall be. She tells us herself. She requests us to adopt it, and to submit it to Congress. She does not ask that Congress should call a convention, for Congress could not. Try, if we can, says Virginia, to come to some settlement of these unhappy controversies, and send that settlement to Congress, that Congress may submit it to the country.

Virginia invited you here. She told you just what she wanted. She says if you cannot consent to that, then let her commissioners come home and report the result. If this cannot be done, if the mode of adjustment indicated by her cannot be substantially carried out, then our whole authority is at an end.

This matter of amending the Constitution is not as intricate and difficult a work as gentlemen imagine. Are there not twelve amendments to the Constitution already? Were they submitted to the people by each member of Congress acting under his official oath? Or were they submitted in the very way the gentleman would avoid? Were they not brought into the Constitution by outside pressure?

The Constitution has been amended. I wish to mark how it was done, and then note why it was done.

There was a time when fears were entertained that wrongs might be done to different sections of the Union under the Constitution as it then stood. Congress listened to those fears, and did not hesitate to propose amendments suggested from outside its own body—to submit them to the people for adoption. It was necessary, in the judgment of Congress, to do this, in order to restore confidence. It was done, and confidence was restored. Is not that precisely our case now? Is not confidence lost in the North and in the South?—not exactly lost, perhaps, but shaken. The credit of the Government is gone. Even our naval commanders are unable to negotiate Government bills abroad—are reduced to the degrading alternative of asking the endorsement of foreign States, in order to such negotiation. Some brilliant individuals have suggested that we have already become so poor that our widows and wives must bring out their stockings.

Our last loan was negotiated at twelve per cent. discount. The present loan is not to be taken at any rate, unless the Government descends to the humiliating alternative of securing State endorsements. Our credit is going lower and lower every day, and it will soon come to the point where our bonds will be worth no more than Continental money was.

Suppose we do nothing here. Are gentlemen blind to the consequences? Gentlemen, honest and patriotic as I know you are, have you no love for this Union?—have you no care for the preservation of this Government? God forbid that I should say you have none! I know you too well. My relations have been too intimate with you, and have existed too long, for me to suppose it. You do love the Union. I speak for the South and to the South. I know that we can still labor to keep this Government together. If we follow the plain dictates of our judgment, any other course would be impossible.

The Virginia Convention is even now in session, and what a convention it is! Disguise as we may, deceive ourselves as we will, it is a convention which proposes to consider the question of withdrawing the State from the Union. Kentucky and Missouri, if we do nothing, will soon follow. If there ever was a time in the history of the Government for conciliation, for patriotic concession, that time is now. The time has come when parties must be forgotten. Let not the word party be mentioned here. It is not worthy of us. Representatives of the States, you are above party—high above. The cords that bind you together are a hundred times as strong as those which ever bound any party. Unless we do something, and something very quickly, before the incoming President is inaugurated, in all human probability he will have only the States north of Mason and Dixon to govern—that is, if he is to govern them in peace.

I think there is no right of secession; such is my individual opinion. But there is a right higher than all these—the right of self-defence, the right of revolution. It is recognized by the Constitution itself. The Constitution was adopted by nine of the States only. What right had those nine States to separate from the other four?

Mr. SEDDON:—The right of secession.

Mr. JOHNSON:—I won't dispute about terms. In all such discussions, Heaven save me from a Virginia politician!

The opinions of Mr. Madison upon the Constitution are certainly entitled to value. He had more to do with making it than any other statesman of the time. I desire to read an opinion of his, which will be found in number forty-two of the Federalist:

"Two questions of a very delicate nature present themselves on this occasion:—1. On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it?

"The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case, to the great principle of self-preservation, to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."

Now, apply these principles to the present condition of the country. The cases are exactly parallel. Mr. Madison says in substance, that if one section of the Union refuses to recognize and protect the rights of another—in other words, if the free States now refuse to guarantee the rights of the South, that there is a right of self-preservation, a law of nature and nature's God, which is above all Constitutions. I am not here to inquire whether the South has a right to go out if these guarantees are not given. That is a question which I will not argue. Some of the States have already gone. I hold that to be a fact established.

Now, I put it to my friends of the North: Do you want us to go out? You are a great people, a great country—a powerful people, a rich country. No threat or intimidation shall ever come from me to such a people. I ask you in all sadness whether, in the light of all our glory, of all our happiness and prosperity, whether you will, by withholding a thing that it will not harm you to grant, suffer us, compel us to depart? Let me read what was said by the same great man of Virginia, in anticipation of the existence of the present state of things:

"I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, these considerations, in full confidence that the good sense which has so often marked your decisions will allow them their due weight and effect; and that you will never suffer difficulties, however formidable in appearance, or however fashionable the error on which they may be founded, to drive you into the gloomy and perilous scene into which the advocates for disunion would conduct you. Hearken not to the unnatural voice, which tells you that the people of America, knit together as they are by so many cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue the mutual guardians of their mutual happiness; can no longer be fellow-citizens of one great, respectable, and flourishing empire. Hearken not to the voice which petulantly tells you that the form of government recommended for your adoption is a novelty in the political world; that it has never yet had a place in the theories of the wildest projectors; that it rashly attempts what it is impossible to accomplish. No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys. The kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defence of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies. And if novelties are to be shunned, believe me, the most alarming of all novelties, the most wild of all projects, the most rash of all attempts, is that of rending us in pieces, in order to preserve our liberties, and promote our happiness."

Grant us then, gentlemen of the North, what we are willing to stand upon—what we will try to stand upon, and what we believe we can. At least, this will save the rest of the States to yourselves and to us. The States that are now in the Union will continue there.

What is it we ask you to do? It is to settle this question as to our present territory. To settle it—how? By dividing it. And how by dividing it? By the line of 36° 30´. Apparently, you think we are asking the North to yield something. I tell you it is we who are yielding. By the decision of the Supreme Court we have the right to go North of this line with our slaves. Now, all we ask you to give us here is the territory south of that line; and even as to that, we give you the right to destroy slavery there whenever a State organized out of it chooses to do so. We are, in fact, yielding to you. We abandon our rights North. Will you not let us retain what is already ours, South?

Is it quite certain that the territory south of the line will be slave territory? Those who repealed the Missouri Compromise, believed that Kansas would be a slave State. It did not turn out so. All we ask is, that you should leave the territory south of the line where it has been left by the decision of the Supreme Court. We freely yield you all the rest.

I do not propose to discuss all the amendments proposed. I confine myself to the single one which, if satisfactorily disposed of, will settle all our troubles.

In conclusion, I ask, oppressed by a consciousness which almost overmasters me—which renders me unfit to do any thing but feel—will you not settle this question here? I feel, and I cannot escape the feeling, that on your decision hangs the question, whether we shall be preserved an united people, or be broken to atoms. The States now remaining in the Union may possibly get on for a few years with something like prosperity; but if this question is not settled in some way, man must change his nature or war in the end will come. War! What a word to be used here! War between whom? There is not a family at the South which has not its associations with the North—not a Northern family which has not its Southern ties! War in the midst of such a people! God grant that the future, that the events which must inevitably follow dissension here, may at least spare this agony to ourselves, our families, and our posterity.

Mr. SEDDON:—It is very clear to me that I ought not to make a prolonged address upon a question which I favor. The only question now before us is: Shall this amendment be made plain? We should deal honestly among ourselves; there should be no cheat—no uncertainty—no delusion here. Our language should be so clear that it will breed no new nests of trouble.

But the address of the gentleman from Maryland requires a brief notice from me. I listened with sadness to many parts of it. I bemoan that tones so patriotic could not rise to the level of the high ground of equality and right upon which we all ought to stand.

I appeal not to forbearance—I ask not for pity. I feel proud to represent the grand old commonwealth of Virginia here, and prouder still that I only come here to demand right and justice in her behalf. Aye! and it is more complimentary to you to have it so. I ask for such guarantees only as Virginia needs, and as she has the right to demand. It is far more complimentary to you to appeal to your sense of justice, to your sense of right, than to your forbearance or pity.

Virginia comes forward in a great national crisis. When support after support of this glorious temple of our Government has been torn away, she comes—proud of her memories of the past—happy in the part she had in the construction of this great system—she comes to present to you, calmly and plainly, the question, whether new and additional guarantees are not needed for her rights; and she tells you what those guarantees ought to be.

Nor does she stand alone. She is supported by all her border sisters. The propositions she makes are familiar to the country. They were made by a patriot of the olden time, a time near to that of the foundation of our Government. They were such as he thought suited to the exigencies of his time. They have since then received a larger meed of approval, north and south, than any other plan of arrangement.

My State offers these resolutions of her Legislature as a basis for our action here, with certain modifications acceptable to her people. One of these modifications has since been accepted by the mover of these resolutions himself. Most important among them is the provision as to future territory. The gentleman seems to think that Virginia would not insist on this provision as applicable to territory we may never have. It behooves not me to answer such a momentous question. I am only the mouthpiece of Virginia. She insists on the provision for future territory. She and her sister States plant themselves upon it. What right have I to strike out a clause which she makes specific? What right have I to esteem it of so little weight that it may be thrown aside and disregarded? I do not propose to give my reasons, though they would not be troublesome to give. It was an element in the Missouri Compromise that it should apply to future as well as to existing territory.

Does not the gentleman assert that under the laws as they now stand, we have the right to go north of the compromise line with our slaves? What, then, is our position? Under the decision of the Supreme Court we are entitled to participate in all the territory of the United States. We are offering to give up the great part and the best part of it, and in payment we are to take the naked chance of getting a little piece of the worthless territory south of the proposed line! Such an idea was never entertained by those who made the Compromise. The idea which governed their action was, beyond all doubt, not that present territory alone should be thus divided, but that the question should be removed from doubt and difficulty for all time, and to give us at the South a chance whatever change might come.

Shall we be rewarded for all we give up, and find full compensation in a clause which itself prevents the acquisition of future territory? The statement is in itself a sufficient answer to the question.

But there was another element in the propositions of the Legislature of Virginia. That, was security against the principles of the North, and her great and now dominant party; it was intended to put an end to the discussions that have convulsed the country and jeopardized our institutions.

It was the policy of our fathers to settle these questions. They determined to make a final and decisive line of demarkation, and to let that be conclusive. But this young people could not be restrained, and when new territory was acquired the same question arose again. It now comes up once more. Virginia early saw the seeds of trouble in it, because she saw that the tide of emigration would continue to press toward the fertile lands of the South. She saw and she acted. In consequence of her action we are here. Would it not be wise and well as statesmen and as patriots, that you should do what you can for adjustment? do what you can to bring back your sisters of the South who have departed? It is the part of wisdom to settle. Virginia was wise to ask it.

There is another thing. A great and mighty party has arisen at the North that is determined to exclude the institution of slavery, not only from all future, but from all present territory. We know that in all ways this party has declared that it would not consent to let slavery go where it does not now exist. More heated zealots, also animated and sustained by this same party, have determined that this natural and patriarchal institution of the South should be surrounded by a cordon of free States, and in the end be extinguished altogether.

Is it not wise in Virginia, that she should see that this project of surrounding the South with free States should be guarded against—most effectually guarded against now and in time to come, and so preserve her dignity and power?

This amendment adopted, and the proposition to Virginia will be a farce. Gentlemen, we hold that as the soul is to man, so is honor to a nation. Honor is the soul of nations. Without it, no nation can have a place in history or among the nations. We of Virginia must have in this Confederation the position of an equal. Equal in dignity—equal in right. In the Congress of the States of this Union, we insist on this as our right. We must have the same protection as the States of the North. Otherwise we are a dishonored people. We might live for a time otherwise, but we should be unworthy a place among the nations. We hold property, yes, our property in slaves, as rightful and as honorable as any property to be found in the broad expanse between ocean and ocean.

We feel that in the existence, the perpetuity, the protection of the African race, we have a mission to perform, and not a mission only, but a right and a duty.

Upon this subject I have a word to say in all seriousness. Think not, gentlemen of the North, that we propose to deceive or mislead you. We of the South are earnest in what we say. This is a question which we answer to ourselves. We hold that these colored barbarians have been withdrawn from a country of native barbarism, and under the benignant influence of a Christian rule, of a Christian civilization, have been elevated, yes, elevated to a standing and position which they could never have otherwise secured. In respect to the colored race we challenge comparison with San Domingo, with the freed regions of Jamaica, with those who have been transferred to the coast of Africa. Ask the travellers who have visited those distant shores to contrast the condition of the colored people there with that of those on our Southern plantations, and they will give you but one answer—they will say, we have redeemed and kept well our high and our holy trust.

But this is a matter with our own consciences, not with yours. We appeal to you to leave it where it is, to leave the colored people where they are. Why should you undertake to interfere with the policy of a neighboring State concerning a people about which you know nothing? We feel, we know that we have done that race no wrong. Deep into the Southern heart has this feeling penetrated. For scores of years we have been laboring earnestly in our mission. In all this time we have contributed far more to the greatness of the North than to our own. Yet all this time we have been assailed, attacked, vilified and defamed, by the people of the North, from the cradle to the grave, and you have educated your children to believe us monsters of brutality, lust and iniquity.

I tell you, that from the time the abolition societies aroused the latent anti-slavery spirit of the North until now, nothing but evil has come of the excitement and discussion. It has spread a horrid influence far and wide; it has for years distilled, and is now distilling its poison and venom all over the land.

It was under English, yes, British, Anglo-Saxon instigation that it first commenced. By this instigation it has been fed, been given life, continuity and power. Think you the English authors of this instigation had any purpose but to disrupt this Republic? They professed to regard slavery as an evil and a sin. The fruits of their action were first manifested in religious societies—first in the largest churches in New England, in the Presbyterian or Congregational churches, next the Methodist, then the Baptist, and finally, the venom spread so widely, its influence separated other churches. What has the moral influence of this power done? It has made the abstraction of our slaves a virtue. Societies have been formed for that very purpose, inciting their members and others, by the vilest motives, to steal our slaves, to destroy our property.

Nor have they been sufficiently modest to cloak their designs under the veil of secrecy. These people advocated their pernicious doctrines openly in your leading cities, even within the consecrated walls of Fanueil Hall.

Openly among your people, in the very light of day, these efforts were carried on for the destruction of your sister States. There has not been an effort of the law nor an exertion of public opinion to put them down.

These efforts culminated in the actual invasion of my own old honored State, and your people thought they were doing GOD service in signing a petition to our authorities for mercy to John Brown and his ruffian invaders of our soil. And when these men met the just reward of their crime, there was, throughout the North, in your meetings and your public prints, expressions of sympathy for these robbers and murderers. They were looked upon as the victims of oppression, as martyrs to a holy and righteous cause. Gentlemen, consider these things, and tell me, is there not to-day reason for suspicion; on the part of the South for grave apprehension?

But the half is yet to be told; I have looked only at the moral aspect of the question. Dangerous enough hitherto, it becomes far more dangerous when it culminates on the arena of politics, and asks, with the powerful aid of a majority, the interference and the aid of the Government.

As soon as it became the party of one idea it began to draw to it, first the support of one, then another political party. It went on securing the assistance of one after another until it demoralized, until it brought each to ruin. It destroyed the grand old Whig party. Fanatic enough before, when it had brought that party to its grave, it thrust upon the arena of politics this question of slavery in the territories. Then for the first time it raised the cry of "Free Soil," and brought to its support the hearts of a majority of the people of the northern States.

The people of the North and Northwest have long been noted for their acquisitive disposition, especially for the acquisition of lands. This has been manifested in every form. Carried into effect it has made them powerful, until, not long since, they thought they might get entire dominion at no distant day. Then arose in their hearts a desire greater than the greed of land—the greed of office and power. They then saw that perhaps the North alone might control the national government, and with it the South. Then, too, the great class of protected interests at the North—always greater at the North than at the South—joined with them. All these protected classes, whose advantages had been diverted from other classes to which they belonged, joined with landseekers to secure power. Influence after influence of this sort combined, until it produced your great Republican party; in other words, your great Sectional party, which has at length come to majority and power.

I do not wish to dwell upon the principles of that party, or to discuss them; I simply assert that their principles involve all the sentiments of abolitionism. They may be summed up in this: you determine to oppose the admission of slave States in the future.

You say that the whole power of the country, the whole power of the administration, shall be used in future for the final extinction of slavery.

This, now, is the ruling idea of your great sectional party. It is simply the rule of one portion of the country over another. There is no difference between attacking slavery in the States and keeping it out of the territories. It is only drawing a parallel around the citadel at a more remote point.

Now, see how the South is placed. The South has forborne as long as it can, just as long as party organization existed, and as long as the South could keep it in existence. It was only when we saw that the whole united Government was to be turned against us, that we began to think of taking the subject into our own hands.

What are we to expect now, when the power, direct and indirect, of this great Government is to be used in the most effective manner against us? A power which claims that we shall not exercise the rights of States even, a power which seeks to coerce us, when we propose to protect ourselves against this lowering and impending danger. You of the North are descended from men who honored the scaffold for the very rights we now seek to exercise. So are we. You would deserve to be spurned by the maids and matrons among you, if you refused to protect yourselves against the dangers thus drawing around you. Can you expect less of us?

Do you tell me that this is an artificial crisis? Would seven States have abandoned all the grand interest they possessed in a glorious and happy Confederacy like ours, but for more serious and vital interests, the interests of safety, security, and honor? Think well of these things, gentlemen!

I have hastily endeavored to show you where I conceive we of the South stand. The feelings which I express are entertained likewise by the border States, by all the citizens of the South, by every householder of my State in a greater or less degree.

The State to which I refer, Virginia, is now met in solemn convocation to consider whether she shall remain in the Union or go out of it; and with the most earnest desire to secure to herself a longer connection with the American Union, a Union of so much honor and pride, and with an equally earnest desire to bring back the wandering States of the South which have already left us, she, my own, my native State, comes here to ask for these guarantees. In my deliberate judgment, the Union and the Constitution, as they now stand, are unsafe for the people of the South, unsafe without other guarantees which will give them actual power instead of mere paper rights. Her stake in this controversy is too deep. In my judgment she has asked too little; I think fuller and greater guarantees ought to be required, and that this Convention should not stand upon ceremony, but in a free and liberal spirit of concession should yield to us all that we ask. Be assured we shall ask none but adequate guarantees.

But I am told that Virginia is content with the Crittenden Resolutions—I say this because I am instructed to say so—that is, if we are to treat these resolutions, not as the principles of the man who offers them, but as the principles of the great party just come into power.

Gentlemen, remember that we of the South are already stripped of one-half our sister States; our system is dislocated; the Union is disrupted.

How can you expect now to retain Virginia, to retain the border States, when they stand in the face of such a great, such an immense party? How can you expect Virginia to remain in the Union without these added guarantees?

I told you I would make no appeals to your pity. If we are not entitled to the guarantees we ask, according to the principles of sound philosophy, of right and justice, then we do not ask them at all.

Mr. BOUTWELL:—I have not been at all clear in my own mind as to when, and to what extent, Massachusetts should raise her voice in this Convention. She heard the voice of Virginia, expressed through her resolutions in this crisis of our country's history. Massachusetts hesitated, not because she was unwilling to respond to the call of Virginia, but because she thought her honor touched by the manner of that call and the circumstances attending it. She had taken part in the election of the sixth of November. She knew the result. It accorded well with her wishes. She knew that the Government whose political head for the next four years was then chosen, was based upon a Constitution which she supposed still had an existence. She saw that State after State had left that Government—seceded is the word used; had gone out from this great Confederacy, and were defying the Constitution and the Union.

Charge after charge has been vaguely made against the North. It is attempted here to put the North on trial. I have listened with grave attention to the gentleman from Virginia to-day, but I have heard no specification of these charges. Massachusetts hesitated I say; she has her own opinions of the Government and the Union. I know Massachusetts; I have been into every one of her more than three hundred towns. I have seen and conversed with her men and her women, and I know there is not a man within her borders who would not to-day gladly lay down his life for the preservation of the Union.

Massachusetts has made war upon slavery wherever she had the right to do it; but much as she abhors the institution, she would sacrifice everything rather than assail it where she has not the right to assail it.

Can it be denied, gentlemen, that we have elected a President in a legal and constitutional way? It cannot; and yet you tell us in tones that cannot be misunderstood, that as a precedent condition of his inauguration we must give you these guarantees.

Massachusetts hesitated, not because her blood was not stirred, but because she insisted that the Government and the inauguration should go on, in the same manner they would have done had Mr. Lincoln been defeated. She felt that she was touched in a tender point when invited here under such circumstances.

It is true, and I confess it frankly, that there are a few men at the North who have not yielded that support to the grand idea upon which this confederated Union stands, that they should have done; who have been disposed to infringe upon, to attack certain rights which the entire North, with these exceptions, accords to you. But are you of the South free from the like imputations? The John Brown invasion was never justified at the North. If, in the excitement of the time, there were those to be found who did not denounce it as gentlemen think they should, it was because they knew it was a matter wholly outside the Constitution—that it was a crime to which Virginia would give adequate punishment.

Gentlemen, I believe, yes, I know, that the people of the North are as true to the Government and the Union of the States now, as our fathers were when they stood shoulder to shoulder upon the field, fighting for the principles upon which that Union rests. If I thought the time had come when it would be fit or proper to consider amendments to the Constitution at all, I should believe that we would have no trouble with you except upon this question of slavery in the territories. You cannot demand of us at the North any thing that we will not grant, unless it involves a sacrifice of our principles. These we shall not sacrifice—these you must not ask us to abandon. I believe further, and I speak in all frankness, for I wish to delude no one, that if the Constitution and the Union cannot be preserved and effectually maintained without these new guarantees for slavery, that the Union is not worth preserving.

The people of the North have always submitted to the decisions of the proper constituted powers. This obedience has been unpleasant enough when they thought these powers were exercised for sectional purposes; but it has always been implicitly yielded. I am ready, even now, to go home and say that, by the decision of the Supreme Court, slavery exists in all the territories of the United States. We submit to the decision and accept its consequences. But in view of all the circumstances attending that decision, was it quite fair—was it quite generous for the gentleman from Maryland to say that, under it, by the adoption of these propositions, the South was giving up every thing, the North giving up nothing? Does he suppose the South is yielding the point in relation to any territory, which by any probability would become slave territory? Something more than the decision of the Supreme Court is necessary to establish slavery anywhere. The decision may give the right to establish it, other influences must control the question of its actual establishment.

I am opposed, further, to any restrictions on the acquisition of territory. They are unnecessary. The time may come when they would be troublesome. We may want the Canadas. The time may come when the Canadas may wish to unite with us. Shall we tie up our hands so that we cannot receive them, or make it forever your interest to oppose their annexation? Such a restriction would be, by the common consent of the people, disregarded.

There are seven States out of the Union already. They have organized what they claim is an independent Government. They are not to be coerced back, you say. Are the prospects very favorable that they will return of their own accord? But they will annex territory. They are already looking to Mexico. If left to themselves they would annex her and all her neighbors, and we should lose our highway to the Pacific coast. They would acquire it, and to us it would be lost forever.

The North will consider well before she consents to this—before she even permits it. Ever since 1820 we have pursued, in this respect, a uniform policy. The North will hesitate long before, by accepting the condition you propose, she deprives the nation of the valuable privilege, the unquestionable right, of acquiring new territory in an honorable way.

I have tried to look upon these propositions of the majority of the committee, as true measures of pacification. I have listened patiently to all that has been said in their favor. But I am still unconvinced, or rather I am convinced that they will do nothing for the Union. They will prove totally inadequate; may, perhaps, be positively mischievous. The North, the free States, will not adopt them—will not consent to these new endorsements of an institution which they do not like, which they believe to be injurious to the best interests of the Republic; and if they did adopt them, as they could only do by a sacrifice of principles which you should not expect, the South would not be satisfied; she would not fail to find pretexts for a course of action upon which I think she has already determined. I see in these propositions any thing but true measures of pacification.

But the North will never consent to the separation of the States. If the South persists in the course on which she has entered we shall march our armies to the Gulf of Mexico, or you will march yours to the Great Lakes. There can be no peaceful separation. There is one way by which war may be avoided and the Union preserved. It is a plain and a constitutional way. If the slave States will abandon the design, which we must infer from the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia they have already formed, will faithfully abide by their constitutional obligations, and remain in the Union until their rights are in fact invaded, all will be well. But if they take the responsibility of involving the country in a civil war; of breaking up the Government which our fathers founded and our people love, but one course remains to those who are true to that Government. They must and will defend it at every sacrifice—if necessary, to the sacrifice of their lives.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I came here with my colleagues representing a Southern State. I have had full and free communication with the people of all portions of the South, before, during, and since the election of the sixth of November, and I state here, that I have never dreamed that there was the slightest objection anywhere to the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln. To-day is the first time I ever heard the question raised, and yet I do not believe that any such objection now exists.

It is said that this is not a fit time to hold such a conference—not a suitable time to consider the questions now before us. Is there any reason why we should not consider the rights of any section of the country, whether a President is going out or coming in? As one delegate I will not consent to postpone the action necessary to secure our rights for any such reason as this.

Now, as to this question of slavery in the Territories. It is true that the Supreme Court has decided it in favor of the South. It is equally true that parties have repudiated that decision both in platforms and on the stump.

When territory has been acquired by the blood and treasure of the common Union, you cannot exclude one portion of the cestuis que trust from its rights. The Supreme Court so decided, and its decision was just and equitable.

At the South, we ask for our rights under the Constitution. We say, let all questions which affect or concern them be decided. The gentleman from Massachusetts says he will not give them up, that his State will not yield. Well, if this is so, let us go to the ballot box. If the question is decided in the gentleman's favor there, we know how to take care of ourselves.

The gentleman from Massachusetts does not understand this question. He does not understand why we of the South want it—why we must have it settled. There was a time when the embargo law threw our slaves out of employment. The North then contemplated a dissolution of the Union. Why? Because she thought the Government wanted power—was inefficient. Now, there is a sense of insecurity felt throughout the South. Our property is depreciating, going down every day. We feel this want of security very deeply, this want of faith in the Government under which we live. The South is in agitation.

Suppose some event should in some way strike down the value of your property at the North. Would you not wish to have its security restored? Would you not call for guarantees? If you would not, you are not men. This is all we want; all we ask for, is security. There is nothing in the territorial question that we may not settle by a fair compromise.

The commonwealth of Virginia called this Conference in high patriotism. I have an earnest faith in her sincerity and her purity in doing so. She hoped to meet her sisters animated by the same patriotism—that they would join with her in granting the assurances, in giving the securities we need. Gentlemen, you can give us these securities—these assurances. We shall then go home and tell our people that we can still live on together, in security. Will it do to say that this cannot be done before the inauguration of Mr. Lincoln? No! No such answer should go to the people of any of the States—no such answer will satisfy them. Give us the guarantees here. We will satisfy the people of the whole nation as to the appropriateness of the time.

There is no truth in the assertions of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We are willing to go before the old commonwealth of Massachusetts with all her glorious memories, willing to go before New York with her half million of voters, confident that both will do us justice. Why stand between us and the people? At least, let us ask their judgment upon our propositions.

We come here to confer, to propitiate, not to awaken old troubles and differences. If there are such existing and which must be settled, why should we not settle them here? We all wish to bring back the seven States which have left us; we have a common interest in them. I think they should not have deserted us; that they should have consulted us first, and then there would have been no necessity. If they were here, their presence surely would not have weakened us, nor would their presence have disturbed the North. We come not here to widen our separation—to drive them further off. We come to consult together, to give and receive justice.

I confess I am not much in favor of the second proposition of amendment. We must regard this as a progressive country. From four millions of people we have risen to thirty millions! Where will we be in eighty years more? There will be in that time a great population in our now unsettled territory—perhaps greater than all our present population. I thought the amendment unwise, but I consented to it, for if we would agree we must all yield something.

And now I hope, and hope most earnestly, that without crimination or recrimination we shall vote in good temper and in good time, so that our proposals may in due time go before Congress and before the people.

Do not let us give up to revolution anywhere, in any section of the Union! Do not you of the North impose upon us the necessity of fleeing our country! God knows this same necessity may come to you of the North, and sooner than you expect it. If disruption—if war must come, one-half your merchants, one-half your mechanics will become bankrupt. You are marching that way with hasty steps. Not one man, North or South, but must suffer if the sad conclusion comes. Our products will depreciate. Next year not one-half the fields now whitened by the rich growth of cotton will be cultivated if this unhappy contest goes on.

The people of my section, the people of the South, are restless and impatient. They are already in the way of revolution—all these influences are leading them on. Can they remain quiet when the fortunes of one-half of them are struck down? Can you at the North remain quiet under like provocations? And yet harmony may even yet be restored. All these differences may be settled harmoniously. We believe they may be settled now.

Mr. TUCK:—If we should agree to all your propositions, and Congress still should not act upon them, would not these difficulties be still more complicated?

Mr. GUTHRIE:—No, sir! No! We would then tell our people that this Conference would, but Congress would not do any thing to save the country. In such an event we would wait for the ballot box and a new Congress.

Mr. GOODRICH:—Permit me one question to the gentleman from Kentucky. Would this Convention, in his opinion, have been called by Virginia, if either Mr. Douglas or Mr. Breckenridge had been elected?

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I do not think it would have been called in that event. Let me say, however, one thing which escaped me. It is not a divided Democracy—not the existence of a Whig party, but it is the union of all discordant elements combined, which have brought the abolitionists into power, which has produced this sense of insecurity in the South. It is their combined power which the people of the South feel, and which they wish to guard against.

Mr. CLEVELAND:—I feel bound to say to all here present, that unless this debate stops now, we might as well go home. I have pondered much upon the remark of my worthy friend from Kentucky, that if we could not do good here, at least we ought not to do harm. Why should we do any thing to aggravate these unhappy circumstances? Let us not widen our dissensions; let us do nothing to postpone or destroy the only hope we have for the settlement of our troubles.

Let us be gentle and pleasant. Let us love one another. Let us not try to find out who is the smartest or the keenest. Let us vote soon, and without any feeling or any quarrelling.

Mr. SEDDON:—I fear from some remarks that have been made during this discussion, that not only my motives, but the terms in which I have expressed them, have been misapprehended. I have been untrue to every purpose of my mind, if I have spoken with any bitterness or acrimony. I thought it was my duty to be plain—at the same time temperate though emphatic. I thought I had been so. Nothing is farther from my purpose than the irritation of any section, much less of any member here. Most assuredly I did not intend to create dissension or to give the slightest occasion for personal feeling or recrimination.

The PRESIDENT finding it necessary to leave the Conference, now called Mr. Alexander to the chair.

Mr. CLEVELAND:—I did not mean to stir up anybody. I want to settle these unhappy points of difference here. I want to settle them to-day, now, this very hour. Suppose we do not settle them! Does not border war follow? does not civil war come? I speak to all of you, both North and South. What becomes of your property in such a case? Who wants to stake it all on such a hazard? We settled this question once fairly, and, as everybody thought, finally. That was in 1850. Why was not that settlement permitted to stand? Nothing but the ambition that has sent so many angels down to hell could have ever brought it up again.

It is too late to bring charges against either section now—too late to bring charges against individuals. The question now before us is,—Which is the way to lead the country out of her present danger? We want faith and good works—these alone will do it. If these fail, we have no hope elsewhere. I am in favor of the propositions of amendment submitted. These we can stand upon throughout the land. The people will adopt them. In the name of all that is good and holy let us settle these differences here.

Why talk about territory to be acquired hereafter? We have just the same title to it that the devil had to the territory he offered our Saviour on a certain remarkable occasion—just the same title, at all events, no better. For Heaven's sake, gentlemen, let us act for the good of the country! let us give to every section its rights—to every man his rights, and let this be remembered through all time as the Convention of Patriots which sacrificed every selfish and personal consideration to save the country!

Mr. GOODRICH:—I wish to make one remark to the Conference, and especially to the gentleman from Kentucky. Much is said here about equal rights. We have always believed in that doctrine. We believe this to be a country of equals. We went into the last Presidential contest as equals—and as such we elected Mr. Lincoln. Now, when we have the right to do so, we wish to come into power as equals—with that superiority only which our majority gives us. When we are in power and disturb or threaten to disturb the rights of any portion of the Union, then ask us for security, for guarantees, and if need be you shall have both. How would you have treated us if we had come to you with such a request at the commencement of any Democratic administration?

Mr. LOGAN:—I want to refer the report of the majority, and the substitute proposed by the minority, back to the committee. I believe that it is better to have action upon all these questions at the earliest possible moment. The question now is, not which section of the Union is suffering most—all sections are suffering; all are feeling the influence of this agitation; all look with fear and trembling to the future; all desire a speedy and a peaceful conclusion of our differences. If we cannot settle them here—if we cannot induce Congress to submit our propositions of amendment to the people, then I pray from my heart, I hope and believe, that our friends in every section will wait patiently until these propositions can go before the State Legislatures and receive proper consideration there.

The PRESIDENT here stated the proposition, to refer the reports of the majority and the minority of the committee back to the committee, with instructions.

Several members objected to the motion, declaring it not in order.

The motion was thereupon withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:—The question recurs upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland, to insert the word "present" before the word territories, in the first line and the fifth line of the propositions of the amendment to the Constitution submitted by the majority of the committee.

The amendment was adopted without a count of the yeas and nays, and the first section of the majority report, after the adoption of the amendment, is as follows:

ARTICLE 1. In all the present territory of the United States, not embraced within the limits of the Cherokee treaty grant, north of a line from east to west on the parallel of 36° 30´ north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited whilst it shall be under a Territorial Government; and in all the present territory south of said line, the status of persons owing service or labor as it now exists, shall not be changed by law while such territory shall be under a Territorial Government; and neither Congress nor the Territorial Government shall have power to hinder or prevent the taking to said territory of persons held to labor or involuntary service, within the United States, according to the laws or usages of the State from which such persons may be taken, nor to impair the rights arising out of said relations, which shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts, according to the common law; and when any territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population required for a member of Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of representation, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary service or labor, as the Constitution of such new State may provide.

Mr. ROMAN:—I move that when this Conference adjourn, it adjourn to meet at seven o'clock this evening.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I move an adjournment of the Conference.

Mr. ROMAN:—Is not my motion first in order?

The PRESIDENT:—The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Vermont.

The motion to adjourn was put and carried.

---

TWELFTH DAY.

Washington, Tuesday, February 19th, 1861.

The Conference was called to order by the President at eleven o'clock.

The proceedings were opened with prayer.

The Journal was read by Assistant Secretary Puleston, and, after sundry amendments, was approved.

Mr. SUMMERS:—The Committee on Credentials have received and considered the credentials of Mr. Francis Granger, of New York, appointed to fill a vacancy in the delegation from that State, occasioned by the resignation of Mr. Addison Gardiner. They are satisfactory, and if no objection is made, the list of delegates from New York will be altered accordingly.

No objection was made, and Mr. Granger's name was added to the list of delegates from New York.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I ask now that the resolution limiting the time to be occupied by each member in debate be taken up. I have become satisfied that unless we place some restrictions, in this respect, upon the discussions, we shall occupy much more time than we wish to have expended in that way. The session of the present Congress will soon terminate. Our labors will be useless, unless we submit the result of them to Congress in time to secure the approval of that body. The propositions will be debated there, and that debate must necessarily occupy time. I am sure no gentleman wishes to defeat the main purpose of the Conference by delay. The resolution is as follows:

Resolved, That in the discussions which may take place in this Convention upon any question, no member shall be allowed to speak more than thirty minutes.

Mr. DAVIS:—I move to amend the resolution by inserting ten minutes instead of thirty minutes.

Mr. FIELD:—Is it seriously contemplated now, after gentlemen upon one side have spoken two or three times, and at great length—after the questions involved in the committee's reports have been thoroughly and exhaustively discussed on the part of the South—and when only one gentleman from the North has been heard upon the general subject, to cut us off from all opportunity of expressing our views? Such a course will not help your propositions.

Mr. BOUTWELL:—Massachusetts will never consent to this.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—If we cannot get Massachusetts to help us, we will help ourselves. We got along without her in the war of 1812; we can get on without her again. The disease exists in the nation now. It is of no use, or rather it is too late to talk about the cause, we had much better try to cure the disease.

Mr. FIELD:—New York has not occupied the time of the Conference for three minutes. Kentucky has been heard twice, her representative speaking as long as he wished. I insist upon the same right for New York. I insist upon the discussion of these questions without restriction or limitation.

Mr. DODGE:—I wish to speak for the commercial interests of the country. I cannot do them justice in ten minutes.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I am very desirous to reach an early decision, and yet I do not quite like to restrict debate in this way. Suppose, after holding one morning session, we have another commencing at half-past seven in the evening?

Mr. CARRUTHERS:—We have come here for the purpose of acting; not to hear speeches. There is no use in talking over these things; our minds are all made up, and talking will not change them. I want to make an end of these discussions. I move that all debate shall close at three o'clock to-day, and that the Conference then proceed to vote upon the propositions before it.

Mr. ALLEN:—The object which brought us together I presume we shall not disagree about. We came here for the purpose of consultation over the condition of the country. If this is true, nothing but harm can come from these limitations upon the liberty of speech. The questions before us are the most important that could possibly arise. Before our present Constitution was adopted it was discussed and examined in Convention for more than three months. We are now practically making a new Constitution. Though we as members differed widely when we came here, I think progress has been made toward our ultimate agreement. I think the general effect of our discussions is to bring us nearer together. I think our acquaintance and our association as members lead to the same end.

The gentleman from Kentucky says that we have come here to heal disease. I don't quite agree with him as to the disease. I differ widely from him as to the proper method of treating it. He seems disposed to apply a plaster to the foot, to cure a disease in the head. If these debates should continue for a week, the time would not be lost, the effect would be favorable. We should have more faith in each other, a more kindly feeling would be produced. Do not let us hurry. You may force a vote to-day, but the result will satisfy none. Such a course will give good ground for dissatisfaction. You may even carry your propositions by a majority, but what weight will such a vote have in Congress or with the people?

Mr. CHITTENDEN:—We who represent smaller States intend to be very modest here, but you will need our votes when you seek to place new and important limitations upon a Constitution with which we are now satisfied. I will answer for one State, and tell you that she will not listen to a proposition that comes to her with a taint of suspicion about it. If you will not allow her representatives to participate in the examination and discussion of these propositions here, her people will reject them without discussion, if they are ever called to act on them. She has not occupied the time of this Conference for one minute upon the general subject. She may not wish to do so. I submit whether it is wise for you to cut off her right to be heard here, if she chooses to exercise it.

Mr. RANDOLPH:—I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee, that we came here to act and not to talk. We have had talking enough, perhaps too much already. I have drawn up a resolution which I think covers the whole subject, I move its adoption. The resolution was read as follows:

Resolved, That this Convention will hold two sessions daily, viz., from ten o'clock, a.m., to four o'clock, p.m.; and from eight to ten o'clock, p.m.; and that no motion to adjourn prior to said hours of four and ten, p.m., shall be in order, if objection be made; and that on Thursday next, at twelve o'clock, noon, all debate shall cease, and the Convention proceed to vote upon the questions or propositions before them in their order.

The President commenced a statement of the various propositions relating to the subject now pending, when Mr. Alexander moved to lay the whole subject on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was negatived by the following vote:—ayes, 48; nays, 54.

Mr. GOODRICH:—I call for the division of the question.

The PRESIDENT:—So many motions have been made that it is somewhat difficult to decide, by the rules of Parliamentary law, which is in order.

I will divide the questions as follows:

1st. Will the Conference hold two sessions daily?

2d. Shall the debate be closed on Thursday at twelve o'clock?

3d. Shall each member be limited to ten minutes in the discussion?

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—I hope the questions will be decided affirmatively.

Mr. CHASE:—It appears to me that we can arrange this whole subject without serious difficulty. If Mr. Wickliffe will adhere to his resolution, and the other proposals are withdrawn, we can then proceed. If any gentleman finds it necessary to ask for an extension of his time, it will no doubt be granted to him. Mr. Randolph's proposition exacts too much labor. I think the Conference had better limit the time of each member. I am opposed to fixing a time for terminating the discussion. It will not be agreeable to many who may be cut off. It is contrary to the spirit of the rules we have already adopted. I hope we shall not be compelled to vote on the questions one by one, and I will suggest to Mr. Randolph whether it would not be better that his resolution should be withdrawn.

Mr. HOPPIN:—I hope the resolution will pass as it is. We have come here to act. We are all ready to take the vote now. The sooner we vote the better. There is every necessity for prompt action.

Mr. MOREHEAD:—If the proposition had emanated from another quarter, I should feel at liberty to urge its adoption. As it is, I would pay the highest respect to it. I regret extremely to hear the talk about sides in this Conference. I came here to act for the Union—the whole Union. I recognize no sides—no party. If any come here for a different purpose I do not wish to act with them; they are wrong. I hope from my heart that we can all yet live together in peace; but if we are to do so we must act, and act speedily.

Mr. Chase again stated his proposition.

Mr. CRISFIELD:—If I understand rightly, the question should be on striking out the latter clause of the resolution, so as to perfect it and make it meet the case. I make the point and—

Mr. RANDOLPH:—I think the gentleman from Maryland is right.

Mr. ALEXANDER:—I desire to ask whether a resolution to supersede the motion to adjourn is in order?

The PRESIDENT:—I think the question should first be taken on the motion to strike out the last clause in the resolution.

Mr. STOCKTON:—If the Conference felt as I do, it would at once establish such peremptory orders as would bring a speedy termination to this whole business. Upon what, let me ask gentlemen, does the salvation of the Union depend at this moment? What is it alone that prevents civil war now? I answer, it is the session of this Convention—this august Convention! We stand in the presence of an awful danger! We feel the throes of an earthquake which threatens to bring down ruin on the whole magnificent fabric of our Government! Is it possible that we should suffer this ruin to take place? Would it not impeach the wisdom and good sense of our day and generation to permit the edifice which our fathers constructed—to crumble to pieces? No! fellow countrymen, it is necessary that we, by trusting in God, who guided our ancestors through the stormy vicissitudes of the Revolution, should this day resolve that the Union shall be preserved!

In the execution of that resolve let us unfold a new leaf in our national history, and write thereon words of peace. Peace or war is in our hands—an awful alternative! Peace alone is the object of our mission; to restore peace to a distracted country. I have spent my whole life in the service of my country. I love the people of every State in it. They have been under my command and I have been under theirs. I know them, and I know that this Union can never be dissolved without a struggle. Will you hasten the time when we shall begin to shed each other's blood? No! gentlemen, no!

There seems to be but one question which gives us any difficulty in adjusting. That is, about the right of the South to take their slaves into the territories. Is it possible that we can permit this Union to be broken up because of any difference on such a question as this? Better that the territories were buried in the deep sea beyond the plummet's reach, than that they should be the cause of such a deplorable result.

But it is not the value of the territories which is in dispute; it is not whether the North or the South shall colonize them, because, as the gentleman from New York has said, that though the territory south of 36° 30´ had been ten years open to Southern colonization, only twenty-four slaves had been introduced into it. No, the real question is, whether pride of opinion shall succumb to the necessities of the crisis.

The Premier of the incoming administration has declared that parties and platforms are subordinate to, and must disappear in the presence of the great question of the Union. This gives me hope. Let him and his friends act upon that, and this Conference can in six hours, in conjunction with a committee of his political friends, adjust such terms of settlement as will save the Union.

The Roman Curtius offered himself as a sacrifice to save Rome, when informed by the oracle that the loss of his life would save his country. We are now in greater danger than Rome was then; but is there no Curtius for our salvation? We are not called upon to give up life, property, or honor, but to concede justice and equal rights to our Southern brethren. We only want the courage to yield extreme opinions. What power, after victory, refuses to lower the lofty terms which were asserted on the eve of the battle for the sake of peace? But the Republicans say, shall we surrender the fruits of victory to the vanquished? I answer, how are you to enjoy your fruits without pacification? You expected to govern the whole country. You aspired to the control of the whole empire. Without peace you will not succeed in establishing possession of that magnificent country which your predecessors governed, but you will govern a little more than half of it, and with that you have to provide for war.

It is easy to dispose of the threatening attitude of the South by denouncing it as a rebellion—as treason. It is idle to disguise the danger. The revolt of a whole people, covering a territory equal to half of Europe, is a revolution. You cannot dwarf the movement by stigmatizing it as treason. Its magnitude and proportions make the sword, and not the law, its arbiter. Is it possible that people can be so infatuated as to contemplate the use of the sword to conquer secession? Will you hasten the time when we shall begin to shed each other's blood? Coerce! force fifteen States! Why, you cannot force New Jersey alone! Force the South? They won't stop to count forces—neither side can be frightened. Don't think of it. You cannot frighten either, no more than the hero could be frightened whom the Roman poet has immortalized. Suppose after the expenditure of a thousand millions you shall have stopped dismemberment and subjugated the South, what is to become of the country then? what is to become of the army and its chiefs who have conquered? When the Long Parliament had murdered Charles, subdued Ireland and Scotland, and compelled the deference of all Europe, they supposed they would enjoy the fruits of their victories. They began to discuss the expenses of the army, and the expediency of its reduction. They had hardly commenced when Cromwell entered Westminster Hall and turned out the Republican party of that day. The whole country, tired of war, crouched under the iron heel of the Puritan soldier. The Republican party of England succumbed; Cromwell died; his son resigned the Protectorate, and the Republican party of England rose to the surface and made its last struggle for its power. General Monk and his army approached London, and Parliament with servility waited the pleasure of the army. The army declared for the King, and the King was restored.

When men meet to save the country, they must be prepared to give up every thing—to give their lives if necessary. How can men stop for party platforms when their country is in danger? But will the country consent to be dragged into civil war to maintain the Chicago Platform? It will not. That Platform was erected upon a perishable foundation. In the language of the New York Senator, it must "disappear."

I appeal to the brotherhood, to the fraternity of the North. My friends, peace or war is in your hands. You hold the keys of peace or war. You tell us not to hasten in this matter. But you do not realize the facts—no one does. It is said that the South challenges and invites war. No such thing. The mad action of South Carolina does not truly represent the South. There are disunionists South as well as North. It is the duty of patriotic men to checkmate the disunionists of both sections. By a proclamation of war, we shall effectually play into the hands and gratify the disunionists of both extremes. Civil war consolidates the South as a unit for disunion. The gallant southern men who have so nobly battled for the Union against great odds, will then be overpowered and forced into the ranks of the defenders of the South. While the South will thus be undivided and stand in solid phalanx, what will be our condition here at the North?

Can it be supposed that the Union men of the Democracy of of the North will stand by and see the country plunged into civil war to maintain the Chicago Platform? Will they acquiesce in the demolition of this Union by these means, when it can be preserved by peace? No, sir! Do you talk here about regiments for invasion, for coercion—you, gentlemen of the North? You know better; I know better. For every regiment raised there for coercion, there will be another raised for resistance to coercion. If no other State will raise them, remember New Jersey. The Republican leaders of the North, with hot haste, have worked through the Legislatures of the several States resolutions of a belligerent character, offering the military power of those States to the Government to subdue the South. Did the people of the North authorize those Legislatures to make any such tenders? Would the people of the North sanction any such nefarious policy? I know well the enormous bribe with which the Republican leaders would seduce the North into fratricidal war. The expenditure of uncounted millions, the distribution of epaulets and military commissions for an army of half a million of men, the immense patronage involved in the letting of army contracts, the inflation of prices and the rise of property which would follow the excessive issue of paper money, made necessary by the lavish expenditure;—these, indeed, are the enormous bribes which the Republican party offers.

How arrogant it is for the Republican leaders to tender the military power of their States! Who gave them or their States authority to raise armies? For national purposes the whole militia of the Union is subject to Congress. Congress alone has power to declare war and to call out the militia, and Congress can only call upon the militia to suppress insurrection or repel invasion. Pause, gentlemen! Stop where you are! You will bring strife to your own doors, to your very hearthstones—bloody, disheartening strife. War will be in your own homes, among your own families. Under ordinary circumstances you would hesitate. If the question was about tariff, you would hesitate and look at the awful consequences. That there is a diversity between us is very true. What of it? It lies in a nutshell. We can fix it in a minute, if you will be calm and act like brothers.

The only question, as I understand it, for I have thought and studied upon it, is this: You of the North will not yield to the South the small privilege of taking their slaves into the territories of the common Union. You will not give them a fair chance with you, even in the Government property—the territories. When the territories become States they will have to take care of themselves. You cannot theorize slave soil into free soil, nor vice versâ. Am I not right? Does the South ask any control or power over these territories after they have become States? No, gentlemen; the South demands no such thing. It is not demanded by her, and never will be. All I ask for the South, and all she asks for herself, is this: Let us be free to come with our slaves into all your territories, and hold them there until the territory is made up into States.

I have shown that if peace be not secured, the uprising of the South would be a revolution, and cannot be treated as mere insurrection. The bravado, therefore, of offering armies to the Government, can only have the effect, at this crisis, of preventing a peaceful adjustment. Against all such demonstrations we must fix our faces like flint. Peace we must have. The Union can only be preserved by peace. The South asks no more than the North will concede, if the people of the North can express their sentiments. The South only asks for equal rights, and to be let alone. For thirty years she has asked no more. The South will soon present its cause in an authoritative shape. Their conventions will soon declare their propositions. Let the North be prepared to consider them in conventions representing their people fairly. If this is done, there is no doubt the present crisis will pass without danger. Until time for these results can be taken, let warlike demonstrations be resisted. Let the Government abstain from collision, even with South Carolina. There is as much of loyalty to the Union at the South as anywhere. It has only disappeared in the presence of danger which threatened their domestic tranquillity, their safety, and their honor. Let the hostile attitude which the North assumed at Chicago give place to the recognition of the rights of the South, and we shall see an outburst of loyalty to the Union throughout the entire South, like that which welcomed to old England its constitutional sovereign after a long and bloody civil war, forced upon the English people by the Puritans. It is the spirit of the same fanatic intolerance which has caused our present troubles.

Intelligent citizens should abandon platforms and stand up for peace. Peace with all nations has been the master policy. It has elevated our country to its present condition of power and prosperity. Do not let us sacrifice peace, and suffer violence and discord to usurp its reign. We have a magnificent future if we can only preserve the Union as our fathers constructed it. While it lasts there is a great light in the firmament in which all may walk in security, hope, and happiness. It is a light reaching far down the depths of futurity cheering and guiding the steps of our children. It is a light shining to the remotest corner of the earth—raising up the down-trodden and illuminating the homes of the victims of oppression. But let that light be now eclipsed, go out in blood and darkness, and the hopes of mankind are forever blasted.

Gentlemen, will you not consider? Shall we not settle the question here, and not trouble the rest of the Union with it? We will settle it fairly and squarely. It is too small a matter to get mad about—to set about destroying the Union. Why quarrel over such a simple question? No, gentlemen, you shall not do it. I am going to talk to you as individuals—as men—as patriots. I know too many of you and too much about you. You love your country too well to destroy her for such a cause. You are too patriotic. The North will never dissolve this Union on any such pretexts. You cannot destroy your country for that. You love it too much. I call on you, Wadsworth and King, Field and Chase and Morrill—as able men, as brothers—as good patriots—to give up every thing else if it is necessary, to save your country. But we don't ask you to give up any thing in the way of principles.

Now that Chicago Platform of yours is a nice paper. It has many good things in it. But it must not control this question. You can keep that platform and save your country: but you must save your country. Shall we go into war upon this little question about the Territories. No! No!!

Under the most favorable circumstances possible for the experiment of self-government, with every possible inducement to preserve our country, we must not give it up. The years of civil war which will succeed dismemberment of the Union will cause true men to seek refuge and security, from military despotism, in some other country. Some Cæsar or Napoleon will spring from the vortex of revolution and war, and with his sword cleave his way to supreme command. If all history is not a failure, and if mankind are now what they have always been, such will be the fate of free government in the United States, in the event of war. Shall we bring such a catastrophe upon us to vindicate the Chicago Platform? No! the American people will rise in their omnipotence and trample into dust the man who dared to put in jeopardy this Union, in order to maintain such demagogism. Away with parties and platforms and every thing else which would obstruct the free and patriotic efforts now making for the salvation of the Union. It shall not be destroyed. I tell you, friends, I am going to stand right in the way. You shall not go home; you shall never see your wives and families again, until you have settled these matters, and saved your good old country, if I can help it. Spread aloft the banner of stripes and stars, let the whole country rally beneath its glorious folds, with no other slogan on their lips but the unanimous cry, The Union, it must be Preserved!

Mr. GRANGER:—New Jersey has addressed New York as though she supposed the delegation from that State to be united in its opinions, and its action. Let me set the gentleman himself and the Conference right on that point at the commencement. The members composing that delegation do not agree; very far from it. The vote of that delegation hitherto has been determined by a majority only; a majority reduced to the very smallest point possible now, since the delegation is full. It may be said that New York voted at the last Presidential election against us by a majority of fifty thousand; but let me assure you that if the noble propositions of the majority of your committee, which I read for the first time yesterday, could be submitted to them, the people of New York would adopt them by even a larger majority.

These are noble propositions; they are worthy the eminent and patriotic committee from which they have emanated. They present a fair and equitable basis for the adjustment of our difficulties; they are a shield and a sure defence against the dangers which threaten us. They are such as the people expect and such as they want. They know that the politicians who have brought the country to the verge of ruin can be trusted no longer. The time has come when they must act for themselves. Be assured, gentlemen, they will do so.

I wish to say a few words about the last election in New York, for it has been widely misrepresented and misunderstood. How did we go into that canvass? Upon what principles was it conducted? What representations were made? I am one of the men who have struggled to meet and oppose this Republican party from the outset—to avert, if possible, the adoption of its pernicious principles by the people of New York. I took my stand upon the Compromise of 1850, and separated myself politically from all men who could not stand with me on that platform. We struggled on until that Compromise was adopted by the Baltimore Convention.

The Kansas bill was introduced at a most fatal hour. It was distasteful to the whole country; satisfactory nowhere. In due time the Charleston Convention was assembled, and the Democratic party was broken up forever.

What next? Next came the Chicago Convention. It may have been conducted with dignity, and it nominated a candidate. I differ widely from that candidate in my principles and my policy. And yet I believe in him although I opposed his election. I would trust his Kentucky blood to the end, if all else failed. I think he is honest. I have no idea that he will permit the policy of his administration to be controlled by the hotheaded zealots who have been so conspicuous in the last canvass. I expect to see him call to his council board, cool, dispassionate, and conservative men; not men who are driven to the verge of insanity upon this question of slavery.

What next? The Baltimore Convention was held. The tragedy was consummated; the contest was ended. The mere scuffle to secure the control of the Convention which ended in its division, has brought the country into all its present difficulties. If that Convention had presented to the people a good conservative Democrat, there were seventy-five thousand good old line Whigs who would have buckled on their armor and would have won the battle for him.

When the Southern papers began to threaten disunion because Lincoln did not suit the South, I was not one who abused or denounced them. I knew the temper of some of the politicians in the free States. I knew the action of the South was not impulsive. I knew there was a reason for it. They said their capital was to be rendered worthless—their property to be destroyed, and their country made desolate. God forbid that I should chide them for thinking so!

The Northern mind is in some respects very different from the Southern. It is not started by slight scratches, but strike the rowel deep, and there is a purpose in it that nothing can conquer or restrain. The people of the North will carry that purpose into execution, with a power as fierce as that of the maddest chivalry of South Carolina. The rowel was struck deep and the consequences were not considered.

Subjects have been introduced into this discussion which I should have been glad to have avoided, which it would have been better every way to have avoided. The gentleman from Virginia has referred to the John Brown invasion. That is one of those subjects. He spoke of the feeling at the North regarding insurrections. I assure you that the North regarded the invader in that case as a foe in your homes—uncurbed and unrestrained—a terrible enemy. I would say to the gentleman from Virginia, that although too many instances among extreme men may have been found of attempts to justify that invasion, such was not the general feeling at the North. Those instances were rare exceptions; and because they were so few and so exceptional, acquired a degree of notoriety and received a degree of attention to which they were never entitled. Such instances as these have always served to prejudice the South improperly against the North. Men are too much given to forming opinions of us from the intemperate acts of a few meddling men.

How do we stand at the present moment in this respect. You will find a few men among us, even now, rash enough to say, "Let these Southern slaveholders go. The 'nigger' will rise upon them and cut their throats!" The action of such men, I admit, gives some color and justification to your charges and prejudices against the whole Northern people.

I agree with you, gentlemen, that this is now a question of peace or war. I believe it to be so from my very soul. The North has been much to blame in bringing it upon us. What has been the language used at the North? Men have used such expressions as this, "The South secede? Why, you can't kick out the South." And men who knew no better believed the statement to be true. I appeal to northern men to say whether this has not been so. I myself thought four States would go, but I believed secession would stop there. We had more to hope from Louisiana than from any other Gulf State. She has gone, and has now taken up a most offensive and threatening position. Virginia to-day is in more danger of immediate secession than Louisiana was a few short months ago.

My friend from New Jersey says that if this Convention does not prevent it, there must be war. I agree with him. War! what a fearful alternative to contemplate? War is a fearful calamity at best, sometimes necessary I admit, but always terrible. It cannot come to this country without a fearful expenditure of blood and treasure. It will leave us, if it leaves us a nation at all, with an awful legacy of widows' tears—of the blighted hopes of orphans—with a catalogue of suffering, misery, and woe, too long to be enumerated and too painful to be contemplated. For God's sake! let such a fate be averted at any cost, from the country. If it comes at all, it will be such a war as the world never saw. War is commonly, and almost universally, between nations foreign to each other—whose individuals are strangers to each other, and whose interests are widely separated. But we are a nation of brothers, of a common ancestry, and bound together by a thousand memories of the past—a thousand ties of interest and blood. It will be a war between brothers—between you who come to us in summer, and we who visit you in winter. It will be a war between those who have been connected in business—associated in pleasures, and who have met as brothers in the halls of legislation and the marts of commerce. Save us from such a war! Let not the mad anger of such a people be aroused. And, gentlemen, if war comes it must be long and terrible. You will see both parties rise in their majesty at both ends of the line. They will slough off every other consideration and devote themselves, with terrible energy, to the work of death. Oh ye! who bring such a calamity as this upon this once happy country! Pause, gentlemen, before you do it, and think of the fearful accountability that awaits you in time and in eternity.

But I am here to answer for the State of New York; the Empire State and the people of the Empire State. I have never been classed with the rash men of that State who have aided in bringing about this condition of things. I will not be classed with those who now thrust themselves between the Empire State and those glorious propositions of your committee. They are in the smallest possible majority even in our delegation. All I ask is, that we may have the judgment of the people upon these propositions, and I will be answerable for the rest; and these gentlemen who rely upon the fifty thousand (50,000) majority of last November, will have a fearful waiting for of judgment. Fifty thousand majority! Who does not know how that majority was made up? It was not a majority upon the question of slavery at all. It came in this wise: The opposite party was divided and distracted. The Republican party united all sorts of discordant elements; men voted for Mr. Lincoln from a great variety of motives. Some, because they wanted the Homestead law; some because they wanted a change in the Tariff; and, gentlemen, let me assure you, there were more men who voted for Mr. Lincoln—solely on account of the Tariff—than would have made up this fifty thousand majority. I know the people of New York, and I know I can answer for them when I say, Give us these fair and noble propositions and we will accept them with an unanimity that will gratefully surprise the nation.

How does the nation stand to-day? Look at Kansas! She is a State and yet in beggary. She is stretching out her hands to us for relief. We have relieved her for the time, but she will need more aid again. The whole country is excited and agitated. The press, North and South, is full of misrepresentation and vituperation. Sections are arrayed against each other. Men fear to trust each other. The very air is full of anxiety and apprehension. Such, gentlemen, is the miserable condition of the country. The nation is in great peril. Its interests, its institutions, its property, are all in great and common peril. Paralysis has seized upon the whole country. In vain now shall we argue about causes. The effect is upon us. Business is stagnated. Those who have capital do not dare to move it. But we here must do something. Mr. Lincoln is coming, and all along the route the people are doing him honor. But that triumphal march is insignificant compared with the anxiety felt throughout the country that this Convention should agree upon some plan that will save the Government and the Union.

In one thing, under other circumstances, I would agree with the gentleman (Mr. Boutwell) from Massachusetts. Had the border States elected their members of Congress, I would wait. But the elections in the border States are yet to be held. And upon what idea? Why, sir, upon the idea that their whole interests and their whole property are in danger. Aspiring and dangerous men will go before an excited people full of anxiety and uncertainty for the future, and by them be elected instead of the sound, wise, and conservative gentlemen usually selected to represent those States. Those elections would be a mad scene of aspersion and vituperation. I cannot, I will not trust them. Rather give me in those States the glorious results of years gone by.

I say, and I am proud to declare here, that I had no association with the dominant party in the old Empire State at the last election. I struck every other name from the ticket, except those who voted for Bell and Everett. Glorious names! which received the triumphant endorsement of the mother of Presidents—the grand old commonwealth of Virginia.

Sometimes I meet with men who tell me what is going to be done. They talk of retaking forts now held by seceded States by force, of restoring things to their former condition, as they would about sending a vessel for a cargo of oranges to Havana. But they forget that the next administration, like the philosopher who would move the world with a lever, has no holding spot—no place whereon to stand. It is one thing to hold a fort where you have it, but quite another thing to take it when held by the enemy.

Who can magnify the importance of this Conference to all the nation? It is the most important ever held in this country. It holds the key of peace or war. The eyes of the whole people are turned hopefully upon it. By every consideration that should move a patriot, let us agree. Let us act for the salvation of our common country. I came here very unexpectedly to myself. Long withdrawn from political circles, living in comparative retirement, at peace with the world and myself, I would have preferred to remain there; but when I heard of my appointment as a delegate to this Conference, I felt it my duty to come here and say these few things to you.

And now let me close by again assuring you, that if all you ask of New York is the adoption of the propositions which I heard here yesterday as the propositions of a majority of your committee, New York will do you justice. She will answer "Yes" by a most triumphant majority—a majority compared with which any heretofore given will seem insignificant! I will occupy time no farther. There is much which I would add, but this is a time for action and not for words.

Mr. RUFFIN:—There are few members of this Conference who attend its sessions with greater interest than myself. I presume that we have come together influenced by various considerations. There are some, I have no doubt, who do not desire the preservation of the Union—who do not care for the safety of the Government which our fathers founded. They may not avow their purposes, they may even conceal them under specious words, but their purpose will be disclosed when we see them arrayed against all projects of settlement—all measures to quiet the existing excitement. Others may think there is no necessity for any action at all, may think so honestly. But let me assure them they are mistaken—sadly mistaken.

Now, I do not care what motives influence others. It is of no consequence to me what their designs or purposes may be, I have no concealment and no deception. I came here for a purpose which I openly and distinctly avow. I proclaim it here and everywhere. I will labor to carry it into execution with all the strength and ability which my advanced years and enfeebled health have left me. I came to maintain and preserve this glorious Government! I came here for Union and peace! (Applause.)

My health is such that if I could avoid it, I would not mingle in this discussion. I would not say one word, if I did not know perfectly well that life or death to my part of the country was involved in the action of this Conference. If gentlemen felt as as deeply as I do, they would deprecate as I do the introduction of party or politics into this discussion, or the slightest reference to them. Of what importance is party, compared with the great questions involved here? Parties or men may go up or down, and yet our country is safe. But such Conferences as this, in such emergencies as the present, must act, if our country is to be saved. Let us discard politics and party—let us be brethren and friends.

A gentlemen asked yesterday whether the Convention would have been called, if a Democrat had been elected President. Certainly not. But considerations of a party character would not have prevented it. The true necessity that called us here, is that a President has been elected by a large majority, and a new and strong party is coming into power, which our people believe entertain views and designs hostile to our institutions. Do not understand me as charging the fact upon the new Government. Perhaps I might say that I do not believe it myself.

But that will not answer. Our people are agitated and excited, and we have come here to tell you all, with sorrow in our hearts, that if you will not do something to restore a confidence that is shaken, we are ruined, and we must see this noble Government go down.

We ask you for new constitutional guarantees; and what are the propositions we make? Is there any thing in them which you cannot grant? Is there any thing which it would be dishonorable for you to yield? You reply to us, that you will consent to call a convention to discuss and adjust matters. That will not do. We must act on the existing state of facts. Seven States are already in rebellion—in revolution! I don't care which you call it; either word is bad enough. Tennessee and North Carolina already form fourteen hundred miles of what is virtually a frontier. We are now the border States; we are to be the theatre of war, if it comes. The slave property we speak of will be in still greater peril than it is now. Now think of these things, and tell us whether we can wait for all this complicated machinery of a convention to be put into operation. At the very shortest, it will take three or four years to accomplish any thing.

But my friend from Massachusetts says he does not wish to do any thing at all; that the North is under duress, and her people would despise themselves if they acted under duress. No! no! This is not true in any sense. We respect the people of the North too much to attempt to drive them, or to secure what we need by threats or intimidation. We want the aid of the people of Massachusetts, and we will appeal to their sense of right and justice.

I believe that these propositions, if adopted, will not only satisfy and quiet the loyal States of the South, but that they will bring back the seven States which have gone out. I must be frank and outspoken here. We cannot answer for these States. We cannot say whether they will be satisfied. But we can even stand their absence. We can get on without them, if you will give us what will quiet our people, and what at the same time will not injure you.

Gentlemen, we of North Carolina are not hostile to you; we are your friends—brothers in a common cause—citizens of a common country. We are loyal to our country and to our Constitution. We lose both of them, unless you will aid us now.

As for me, I am an old man. My heart is very full when I look upon the present unhappy and distracted condition of our affairs. I was born before the present Constitution was adopted. May God grant that I do not outlive it. I cannot address you on this subject without manifesting a feeling which fills my heart. Let me assure you, in terms as strong as I can make them, that we cannot stand as we are; that unless you will do something for us, our people will be drawn into that mad career of open defiance, which is now opening so widely against the Government. All I ask of you is to let these propositions go to the people—to submit them at once to their conventions, and not wait the action of the Legislatures of all the States. We want the popular voice—the decision of the people, and the whole people; and if it is to avail us at all, we must have it at once and speedily.

Mr. NOYES:—I did not design to trespass upon the time of the Conference at this stage of the debate. But statements have been made upon this floor to-day which I cannot permit for a single hour to remain unanswered. I should be recreant to my conscience, and especially to my State, if I did not answer them here and now.

I came here for peace, prepared to do that justice to every section of the Union which would secure peace—prepared to go to the farthest limit which propriety and principle, and my obligations to the Constitution, would permit me, to satisfy our southern friends. I did not wish to commit myself to any thing, until I had patiently seen and heard all that was to be said and proposed. Even now I regret that this incidental discussion upon a subject entirely collateral has arisen. How thoroughly it shows the idleness and folly of attempting to limit, or trammel, or hamper discussion upon the general questions which are presented for our action!

Sir, I speak for New York! Not New York of a time gone by! Not New York of an old fossiliferous era, remembered only in some chapter of her ancient history, but young, breathing, living New York, as she exists to-day. Full of enterprise, patriotism, energy—her living self, with her four millions of people, among whom there is scarcely to be found a heart not beating with loyalty to the Constitution and the Government.

In behalf of that New York, the one and only one alive now, I propose to reply to some of the statements made here by one of her representatives.

In the name of the popular voice of that State, recently uttered in tones that I supposed any one could understand, I tell you, gentlemen of this Convention, beware of false prophets. This day, the Scripture is fulfilled among you. [Pointing to Mr. Granger.] "A prophet is not without honor save in his own country, and in his own house!"

New York must stand upon this floor, and upon every other floor, as the peer of every other State. Her representatives must have the same rights as any other—and they must be treated like any other. If, in her judgment, New York ought not to give her assent to these propositions, that assent shall not be given; it can never be secured by threats or intimidations. She must have the same rights as any other State, certainly the same rights as New Jersey.

Mr. STOCKTON:—I am sure the gentleman is mistaken; I said nothing intended as a threat or an intimidation.

Mr. NOYES:—Well, let me say it once for all, New York will yield nothing to intimidation.

Now, what is the question which has led to this most extraordinary discussion? It is simply whether debate shall be hampered, or practically cut off, by short limitations as to time, after one section has had an opportunity of expressing its views.

Virginia has called this Conference together. We thought she had no right to do so, and that no possible good could come from her doing it. But we waived all considerations of that kind, and upon her invitation we came here.

She asks us to consider new and important amendments to the Constitution, alterations of our fundamental law; and in the same breath we are told that we must not discuss them—that we must take them as they are offered to us, without change or alteration.

We take time to make treaties. We do not even enter into private contracts without taking time for consideration and reflection. We have been here a little more than a week. The greater part of that time has been occupied by the committee in preparing these propositions. The discussion has scarcely commenced. I submit to the Conference, is it kind, is it generous, is it proper to stop here? Is it best to do so?

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—The gentleman seems to think my resolution was aimed at the delegation from New York. That is not true in any sense. I did not wish to cut off debate at all. I thought we might economize time and still have debate enough to satisfy everybody.

Mr. NOYES:—I believe I perfectly understand your proposition.

Mr. CHASE:—I have agreed to support the resolution, and must adhere to my agreement.

Mr. NOYES:—Personally I might be in favor of the adoption of the half-hour rule, for I think I could say all I desire to say in relation to these propositions within that time. I have certainly no desire that this discussion should be unreasonably protracted. But such limitations are always embarrassing. Other gentlemen do not wish to have them imposed. Mr. Field objects to them; and if gentlemen really think they need more time, I think it ungenerous not to yield to their wishes. And I insist that such a course is least calculated to promote conciliation. The more free and full you make this discussion, the more will your results find favor elsewhere. It has been my belief from the beginning, that by careful comparison of our views, by a discussion of all our points of difference, we should, in the end, come to an agreement. I had hoped that such sentiments would have universally prevailed, and that no desire would be shown to force the action of any delegation. I am willing to say for myself that if the thirty minute rule be adopted I will give way at once.

But I must proceed to notice some statements which have been urged here as reasons why we must adopt—

Mr. FIELD:—Will my colleague yield to me for one moment? I have a communication to make which I think will make every lover of his country in this Conference rejoice. It is news from a slaveholding State. It shows that her heart beats true to the Union.

Missouri has just elected delegates to a convention to consider the questions now agitating the Country. I hold in my hands a telegram, stating that a very large proportion of the delegates elected are true Union men.

The PRESIDENT:—I will assume it to be the pleasure of the Conference that the telegram be read.

Mr. FIELD then read the telegram announcing that Union delegates to the Convention in Missouri had been elected by heavy majorities. The announcement was received with much applause.

Mr. NOYES:—This news is indeed cheering. It is an additional evidence of the depth to which love for our country has struck into the hearts of its people—another inducement to make us agree—another reason why we should not be led off upon false issues.

The Constitution has provided the only proper way in which amendments may be made to it. If these methods are followed, amendments will be thoroughly discussed and considered, and they will not be adopted unless the interests of the nation shall be found to require their adoption.

The State of Virginia seeks to precipitate action; to secure these vital changes in our fundamental law in a manner unknown to it, and in a manner which, in my judgment, it is not advisable to adopt. I make no complaint of Virginia. It is the right and privilege of any State to make such a request, but it is none the less unconstitutional.

Shall we be told that Virginia cannot wait, that her people are so impatient that they will not give the country time to consider these important changes in its form of Government? Why should there be such indecent haste? Why not wait a week—month, and even six months, if that time is necessary? Be assured, gentlemen, that no substantial alteration of the fundamental law of this Government will ever be made until it has been discussed and considered by the Press and the people in all its details. The thing is impossible!

I have a few words to say for New York, as I said in the commencement—for the New York of the present day. Where, I ask, is the gentleman's (Mr. Granger) warrant of attorney to speak for the people of that State? Where is the evidence upon which he founds the assertion which he makes on this floor that New York will adopt the propositions to which he refers? Let me assure you, gentlemen, that the political principles of the people of New York do not sit thus lightly upon their consciences. They gave a heavy republican majority at the last Presidential election, not because they were carried away upon collateral issues, but because the principles of the Chicago Platform met their approval—because they thought the time had come when the destinies of this nation should no longer be left in the hands of men who would use them only to promote the interests of one section of the Union. Do not mistake, sir, the effect of that great demonstration! The people of New York were in earnest; they went into the election with a strong, determined purpose, and it is too late now to misconstrue or misunderstand that purpose. They were not influenced by collateral issues. Their action was upon the great principles involved. They believed that the platform of the Republican party embodied the true principles upon which the Government should be conducted, and they said so. You will find that their minds are to-day unchanged.

But the gentleman says, the result of recent elections shows that a change in their minds has taken place; that it indicates a strong wish on their part for conciliation and peace. Sir, I deny that such a change has taken place. There may have been slight changes in a few cities where the whole power and strength of the Democratic party has been put forth. But the country, upon the great issues before it, is unchanged. The county of St. Lawrence has just elected every Republican candidate for supervisor. In other counties, nearly the same unanimity prevails. The great heart of the country is still loyal and Republican.

And, sir, these threats of dissolution will all react against you. They operated in the Presidential election only in one way. I have no doubt that these threats gave Mr. Lincoln five thousand votes in New York City alone. The people are sick of them. They know that if they once yielded to them, they would be forced to do so again. They do not like these insinuations against the Government involved in the propositions made here. If you wish them to be considered favorably by the people of New York, you must send them out free from all suspicion of duress or intimidation; you must permit them to be examined, discussed, and dissected here, by the representatives of New York and of every other State. I am opposed decidedly to cutting off or limiting these discussions. Let all parties be heard; give them time, and time enough, to deliberate, and the result will be peace and harmony to the country.

Mr. RIVES:—I rise for the purpose of answering some of the observations of the gentleman from New York; and first of all I wish to say a word about the motives and purposes of Virginia in calling this Convention. She has called this Convention together because she believed it would exert a powerful influence for the safety and honor of the country, and the perpetuity of its institutions. She is met in limine with the reproach that her action is unconstitutional. How unconstitutional?

Is not our Government based upon the sovereignty of the people? Is not that the idea upon which this Government rests? And when the people act, are they to be told that their action is unconstitutional or improper? Cannot Virginia and her people, acting through their representatives, suggest the means of amendment or improvement in our Constitution to Congress?—the Congress which represents the people, and whose members are servants only of the people? Can she not call together a convention of this kind and suggest measures to be considered by it for the purpose of saving an imperilled country? Virginia knew well that this was to be an advisory Conference merely. She invited commissioners from all the States to come here and present their views, to compare and discuss them, to devise measures for the benefit of the country, in the same way that any assemblage of the people may lawfully do. Has the gentleman looked into the history of our present Constitution? Virginia did the same thing previous to the adoption of that Constitution, which she is doing now.

Some State must invite a Conference, if one is to be had. If it was proper that Virginia should do it before the adoption of our present Constitution, it is eminently proper that she should do it now. There are occasions, sir, in the history of nations, when men should rise far above the rules of special pleading. This is one of them. Let the gentleman look into the history of the old articles of Confederation; let him read the debates which arose upon their adoption. Virginia originated measures then, far more important than any before us now; and there were gentlemen then, who took the same ground that gentlemen do now, who sought by the use of dilatory pleas, by interposing objections, temporary in their nature, to prevent and delay action upon the great national questions then under consideration. Now, in a time of great peril, when the whole country is convulsed, when the existence and perpetuity of the Government is in danger, Virginia has invoked her sister States to come here and see whether they cannot devise some method to avoid the danger and save the country.

In the preamble to the first ten articles of Confederation, there is to be found an express reference to the action of the State Legislatures in initiating proposals of amendment. Every amendment that has hitherto been made to our Constitution originated with the people, and directly or indirectly through the action of State Legislatures. What purpose can gentlemen have in interposing these dilatory pleas, objections merely for delay, when we all know that Congress is now waiting for—actually inviting the action of this Conference?

Senator Collamer, in his speech already referred to, makes the distinct proposition, that when any considerable portion of the people (certainly a much smaller portion than is here represented) desire to have amendments submitted, it is the duty of Congress to propose them, and to do so without committing that body either for or against them. Governor Corwin, also of the Congressional Committee of Thirty-three, having this subject in charge, is understood to have stated that the committee desire to consider the propositions which may here be adopted.

Now, as I said, these dilatory objections were interposed previous to the adoption of our present Constitution.

Mr. NOYES:—Are we to understand that Virginia then asked for a General Convention to consider amendments to the Constitution?

Mr. RIVES:—No! The Annapolis Convention met. The invitation under which that body was convened was addressed to all the States. Five only responded, and they proposed a General Convention of all the States, to meet at Philadelphia. Virginia was the first to act and to appoint her delegates. I repeat, that the same objection was then urged, that Congress or the States should propose the amendments. The first Convention was just as unconstitutional as this. The two cases were perfectly alike. The crisis is infinitely more important now than it was then. Then, there was no disintegration of the States. They still held firmly together. How are we now? Seven States are out of the Union. The Union is dissolved! Virginia loves the Union. She cherishes all its glorious memories. She is proud of its history and of her own connection with it. But Virginia has no apprehension as to her future destiny. She can live in the Union or out of it. She can stand in her own strength and power if necessary. Her delegates come here in no spirit of supplication, nor do they propose to offer any intimidation. She has called you here as brothers, as friends, as patriots. If the future has suffering in store for Virginia, be assured all her sister States must suffer equally.

Mr. President, the position of Virginia must be understood and appreciated. She is just now the neutral ground between two embattled legions, between two angry, excited, and hostile portions of the Union. To expect that her people are not to participate in the excitement by which they are surrounded; to expect that they should not share in the apprehensions which pervade the country; to expect that they should not begin to look after the safety of their interests and their institutions, were to expect something superhuman. Something must be done to save the country, to allay these apprehensions, to restore a broken confidence. Virginia steps in to arrest the progress of the country on its road to ruin. She steps in to save the country. I am here in part to represent her. I utter no menace; intimidation would be unworthy of Virginia, but if I perform my duty I must speak freely. The danger is imminent, very imminent.

Our national affairs cannot longer remain in their present condition; it is impossible, absolutely impossible that they should. My Republican friends, will you not take warning? Were there not pretended prophets of old, who cried, "Peace! Peace! when there was no peace"? Political prophets to-day say there is no danger. Have their counsels been wise heretofore? Can you not see that there is danger, and imminent danger in them, now?

Look, sir, at our position! I mean the position of the loyal South. By the secession of these States we are reduced to an utterly helpless minority; a minority of seven or eight States to stand in your national councils against an united North! It is not in the nature of the Anglo-Saxon race thus to stand in the face of a dominant and opposition party. Were the case reversed, you would not do it yourselves. We cannot hold our rights by mere sufferance, and we will not; we do not ask you to hold yours in that way. If the other States had kept on with us—had remained in the Union—we might have secured our rights in a fair contest. Now other paths are open to us, and one of these we must follow.

I desire to say a word in answer to the propositions of my honorable friend from Connecticut. What did he tell us? He said that this was a self-sustaining Government; a Government that possessed the power of securing its own perpetuity, and one that must not yield or make concessions. Sir, let me say that ideas, that principles, that statements of that kind have led to the downfall of every Government on earth which has ever fallen. What but ideas and language of this kind, forced our colonies into rebellion, and lost America to the British crown?

Sir, I have had some experience in revolutions in another hemisphere—in revolutions produced by the same causes that are now operating among us. What causes but these led to the two revolutions in France? One of them I saw myself, where interest was arrayed against interest, friend against friend, brother against brother. I have seen the pavements of Paris covered, and her gutters running with fraternal blood! God forbid that I should see this horrid picture repeated in my own country; and yet it will be, sir, if we listen to the counsels urged here!

It is too late to theorize, too late to differ theoretically. I do not believe in the constitutional right of secession. I proclaimed that, thirty years ago in Congress. I have always adhered to my opinions since. But we are not now discussing theories; we are in the presence of a great fact. The South is in danger; her institutions are in danger. If other excuses were necessary, she might justify her action in the eyes of the world upon the ground of self-defence alone.

I condemn the secession of States. I am not here to justify it. I detest it. But the great fact is still before us. Seven States have gone out from among us, and a President is actually inaugurated to govern the new Confederation.

With this fact the nation must deal. Right or wrong, it exists. The country is divided. Wide dissensions exist. A people have separated from another people. Force will never bring them together. Coercion is not a word to be used in this connection. There must be negotiation. Virginia presents herself as a mediator to bring back those who have left us.

The border States are not in revolt; and by border States I mean States on both sides of the border. They are here, and they came here to unite with you in measures that will reunite the country, and save it from irredeemable ruin.

There was one observation of the gentleman from Massachusetts that surprised me. He complained of Virginia for thrusting herself between the Republican party and its victory. It is not so.

Mr. BOUTWELL:—I said that Massachusetts thought her action had that appearance.

Mr. RIVES:—Let me say to you, Republican gentlemen, we wish to make your victory worthy of you. We wish to inaugurate your power and your administration over the whole Union. We wish to give you a nation worth governing. Do us at least the justice of supposing we are in earnest in this. We are laboring to relieve you from the difficulties that hang over you. War is impending. Do you wish to govern a country convulsed by civil war? The country is divided. Do you wish to govern a fraction of the country? Behold the difficulties that you must encounter. You cannot carry on your Government without money. Where is the capitalist who will advance you money under existing circumstances?

Gentlemen, believe me, as one who has given no small amount of time and careful reflection to this subject, when I tell you that you cannot coerce sovereign States. It is impossible. Mr. Hamilton's great foresight made him assert that our strength lay in the Government of the States—of the undivided States. Look at New York. She herself is a match for the whole army of the United States. Look at the South. She stands now almost upon an equality with you. You may spend millions of treasure, you may shed oceans of blood, but you cannot conquer any five or seven States of this Union. The proposition is an utter absurdity. You must find some other way to deal with them. In the wisdom of the country some other way must be found.

Several gentlemen have referred to our army and our navy. As a citizen of the United States, I am proud of both. I am proud of the country they serve. I have enjoyed at times her honors, at others endured her chastisements. I respect the power which our army and our navy give to our nation, but our army and navy are impotent in such a crisis as this.

Mr. President, even England herself has been shaken to her centre by rebellions in her North with which she has been forced to contend. In Paris, too, I have myself seen regiment after regiment throw down their arms and rush into the arms of the people, of their fellow-citizens, and thus oppose, by military strength, the government under which their organization was formed. Will you repeat such occurrences here? Will you 'destroy the imperishable renown of this nation'? No! I answer for you all—you will not. Now, we, representatives of the South and of Virginia, ask of this Convention, the only body under heaven that can do it, to interpose and save us from a repetition of the scenes of blood which some of us have witnessed.

Our patriotic committee have labored for two weeks—have labored earnestly and zealously. Their report, though not satisfactory to Virginia in all respects, will yet receive her sanction, and the sanction of the border States. The representatives of Virginia know they are yielding much, when they tell you that they will support these propositions. We will do it because they will give peace to the country. Now, sir, when we are just in sight of land, when we are just entering a safe harbor, shall we turn about and circumnavigate the ocean to find an unknown shore? No, sir! no! Let us enter the harbor of safety now opened before us.

Mr. President, I know Massachusetts well. She is a powerful Commonwealth. She has added largely to the wealth, the power, and glory of this Union. I respect the gentleman who has addressed this Convention in her behalf; but when he went out of his way and stated that he abhorred slavery, the statement grated harshly on my ears. We of the South, we of Virginia, may not and do not like many of the institutions of Massachusetts, but we cannot and we will not say that we abhor them.

Let me recall to the gentleman from Massachusetts who has addressed us, a fact from history. Let me show him that his own State was powerful in colonial times in extending the time for the importation of slaves! Let me tell him that his State has helped to fasten the institution of slavery upon a portion of this nation. Is it for a son of Massachusetts now to complain of the result of the acts of his own State? Is it for him to use these reproaches, which, if not ungrateful, are at least wanting in charity? It was a representative of Massachusetts, Mr. Gorham, through whose motion and influence the time for the importation of slaves was extended in that period of our colonial history. Virginia ever, in every period of her colonial existence, exerted herself to close her ports against the importation of slaves. It was the veto of her Royal Master alone that rendered her efforts nugatory. It was New England that fastened this institution upon us. Shall she reproach us for its existence now?

Mr. BALDWIN:—At the time of the adoption of our present Constitution, it was well understood that Georgia and South Carolina would not enter the Union without slavery. The only question then was, should slavery have an existence inside the Union or out of it.

Mr. RIVES:—No, sir! The gentleman is mistaken. In the Constitution, as first proposed to the Convention, an unlimited right was given to import slaves. Mr. Ellsworth declared that it would be an infraction of State rights to prohibit this importation. New England, engaged in commerce, found an advantage in the right of importation, and she endeavored to force it upon the South.

I regard the present course of New England as very unfair. She is herself responsible for the existence of slavery—she is now our fiercest opponent; and yet New Jersey and Pennsylvania, who have not this responsibility, have always stood by the South, and I believe they always will.

It is not by abhorring slavery that you can put an end to the institution. You must let it alone. We are responsible for it now, and we are willing to stand responsible for it before the world. We understand the subject better than you do. It has occupied the attention of the wisest men of our time. In fact, it is not a question of slavery at all. It is a question of race. We know that the very best position for the African race to occupy is one of unmitigated legal subjection. We have the negroes with us; you have not. We must deal with them as our experience and wisdom dictate; with that you have nothing to do. The gentleman from Massachusetts may congratulate himself that there are no negroes in that Commonwealth. I ask him what he would do, if he had the race to deal with in Massachusetts as we have it in Virginia?

I said, twenty years ago, in the Senate of the United States, and my whole experience since having confirmed the truth of the statement I repeat it now, that candid minds cannot differ upon this proposition, that the present position of the negroes of the United States is the best one they could occupy, both for the superior and inferior race.

And to the people of New England I have this to say: Your ancestors were most powerful and influential in fastening slavery upon us. You are the very last who ought to reproach us for its existence now. We do not indulge reproaches toward you. It is unpleasant for us to receive them from you. Their use by either can only serve to widen the unhappy differences existing between us. Let us all drop them, and, so far as we can, let us close up every avenue through which dissensions may come. We call upon you to make no sacrifices for us. It will cost you nothing to yield what we ask. Say, and let it be said in the Constitution, that you will not interfere with slavery in the District, or in the States, or in the Territories. Permit the free transit of our slaves from one State to another, and in the language of the patriarch, "let there be peace between you and me."

Let us all agree that there shall be landmarks between us; the same which our fathers erected. Let us say that they shall never be removed. I think upon this point I can cite an authority that will command universal respect. I discovered it in my researches into the history of the very Constitution we are now considering.

Mr. Rives here read an extract from a letter written by Mr. Madison after his retirement from public life. I have not a copy of this letter, but the substance of the portion read by Mr. Rives was a statement by Mr. Madison, that upon the passage of the Missouri Compromise, President Monroe was much embarrassed with the question of the constitutionality of the prohibition clause; that he took counsel with Mr. Martin, who declared that, in his judgment, Congress had no power over the subject of slavery in the territories.

Mr. JAMES:—Will you leave that question just where the Constitution leaves it, upon your construction of that instrument? If so, we will agree to give you all necessary guarantees against interference.

Mr. RIVES:—No! I will not leave it there, for it would always remain a question of construction. I prefer to put the prohibition into the Constitution.

The gentleman from Massachusetts speaks for the North. Massachusetts does not constitute the North. I venerate the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I have many friends there. I look with pride upon her connection with the Revolution; upon her public men, her manufactures, her public institutions. Her people who have accomplished so much, will not turn a deaf ear to our wants now. We wish to go to her people and obtain their judgment upon our propositions. But Massachusetts is not all the North. Rhode Island constitutes a part of it. She has always spoken for us. She will speak for us to-day. What does New Jersey say? What does the great State of Pennsylvania and the greater Northwest say? Surely they do not echo the sentiments of the gentleman from Massachusetts. They are with us, and we will trust to them.

I dislike this way of answering for sections of the country. I have heard similar language from Mr. Calhoun. He was fond of saying, "The South says—The South thinks—The South will do," this or that. I did not like it then. It stirred up all the rebellious sentiments of my nature; for I knew the statement was not true. I do not like such language better now. Let the people of Massachusetts speak. I know they will not refuse to fulfil the compact of their fathers.

We are brothers. I feel we can settle this important question which portends over us like an eclipse; we can leave this glorious country to our posterity. Once more let me refer to the noble and eloquent counsels of Madison, and I am done. As children of the same family, as fellow-citizens of a great, glorious, and proud Republic, he invoked the kindred blood of our people to consecrate our common Union, and to banish forever the thought of our becoming aliens.

Mr. EWING:—I have never in any manner countenanced the discussions of slavery and the questions connected with it, at the North. I have always, so far as possible, discouraged those discussions. No good can possibly come from them. Is the North the censor morum of the South? We have faults enough ourselves; let us consider and try to correct them, before we interest ourselves so much in those of our neighbors.

If there was any danger that slavery would be extended at the North, I would oppose its extension there, and I would teach my sons to oppose it. But this danger has never existed. Does any one fear that slavery will go into New York or Massachusetts? No sane man thinks or ever thought so.

But it exists, and we must deal with it as it is. As one northern man, I do not want the negroes distributed throughout the North. We have got enough of them now. I have watched the operation of this emigration of slaves to the North. Ten negroes will commit more petty thefts than one thousand white men. We cannot permit them to come into Ohio. Wherever they have been permitted to come, it has almost cost us a rebellion. Before we begin to preach abolition I think we had better see what is to be done with the negroes.

Thirty years ago the subject of abolishing slavery was agitated in Virginia. Some of the most eloquent speeches were made in favor of the abolition movement that I ever read. The act providing for gradual abolition, was, I believe, lost by a single vote. I thought then that the result was an unfortunate one. But there is something to be said on both sides of the question. Had the act passed, the negroes would have been sent South, and we should have had plantation slavery, instead of the humane form which now exists in Virginia. But Virginia would have had one great, one powerful advantage. Her power would have increased tenfold. Free labor would have come in to take the place of slave labor, and the banks of the Potomac and the James would have blossomed as the rose.

The North has taken the business of abolition into its own hands, and from the day she did so, we hear no more of abolition in Virginia. This was but the natural effect of the cause. Now, we can never coerce the Southern States into abolitionism. It is not the way to convert them to our views by saying that we abhor their institutions. But these northern men will not listen to reason. They keep on making eloquent speeches—their pulpits thunder against the sin of slaveholding. All grades of speech and thought are made use of, and the sickening sentimentalism of some of them is disgusting. They repeat poetry. They say:

"I would not have a slave to till my ground,
To watch me when I wake—to fan me when I sleep;"

and much more of the same stuff!

In this way false ideas are inculcated throughout the North. The whole scheme is full of falsehood. It would be far better for each man to look for the beam in his own eyes before he troubles himself about the mote in his neighbor's.

England, also, has been very fierce in denouncing slavery in this country, and yet we have no slavery or misery to be compared with that existing in the India provinces. It is said that in a single season two hundred thousand of her subjects were starved to death in one province of Hindostan.

I might say the same thing almost of Ireland. Two millions have died there from famine, and God knows how many more would have perished but for the relief sent from this country. I say, and I have abundant reason for saying, that I never have, and I never will, favor any of these denunciations of southern slaveholders and slavery.

Let us rather look at this subject as members of a common family—let us acknowledge our mutual faults. The slave trade was once fostered by the North. That was when it was profitable, and when large fortunes were made in that trade by northern men. When it became unprofitable the North began to denounce it, and to call it sinful. Now, we fastened this institution upon the South, cannot we permit her to deal with it as she chooses?

I do not say that there is a necessary conflict between the white and the black races, but I assert that they cannot unite—that they cannot occupy the same country upon an equality. Our free laborers of the North will not work with slaves or with blacks. I have had experience in this matter, and I know I am right. The only way we can do, is to divide the common territory—divide it fairly, honestly.

Suppose there were two sons who succeeded to a joint inheritance of lands. One says to the other, "Your family is not so moral as mine, therefore your sons shall have none of the lands." Would this be right or honest? Would any one attempt to justify it? And yet this is what extreme men of the North are practically saying to the citizens of the South.

The Missouri Compromise was intended to settle the rights of the respective sections in the territories. The line adopted was not unfair to the North. The same line will answer now. I am for adopting it and arranging this difficult subject finally.

But one and another says, "Don't let us extend slavery." To that I answer, that our action will not make one slave more or less. There is no question of humanity involved in our propositions. I cannot see what question is involved so far as the North is concerned. We need no more territory. We do not want New Mexico. We have territory enough now for one hundred and fifty millions of people, and enough for the expansion of our people for one hundred and fifty years.

If gentlemen are found here who wish to make trouble, who cannot see the peril we are in, and how easily we can avoid the danger which threatens us, I shall be much pained, but not half so much as I shall be, to see this Union broken up and the Government destroyed.

I was surprised to hear the assertion of the gentleman from Connecticut, that this was an unconstitutional assembly. I hear to-day the statement made that it is a revolutionary assembly. If these assertions were true I would not be a member of it for one moment. If revolutionary, it is either treasonable or seditious. But it is neither. These gentlemen forget the constitutional right of petition. We have the right to meet here. We have the right to do just what we are proposing to do, and the right is to be found in the Constitution.

I am surprised, too, at the assertion, that there is a wish here to limit or cut off debate—that this resolution would cut off New York. Would it not cut off Ohio? I have no intention of depriving any gentleman or any State of any right. I do not believe such an intention exists in the Conference.

Mr. MORRILL:—In my judgment many subjects have been considered here, and many things said to the North especially, that are superfluous, and much more that is useless. I have listened to the gentleman from Ohio and to some gentlemen who have preceded him. They have all referred, in terms which I do not choose to characterize, to the action and the opinions of the North.

The gentleman from Ohio refers in strong terms to what he calls the sentimentalism of the North. He has recited poetry which he says is popular there.

Now, once for all, let me ask those gentlemen who are proposing various methods of settling our differences: Do you propose to make war upon the sentiments, the principles of the North? If you do, we may as well drop the discussion here. Our people, and we, their representatives, cannot meet you upon that ground. Our principles cannot be interfered with; we carry them with us always. Our consciences approve them. We can negotiate with you, and treat with you upon subjects which do not involve their sacrifice. If it is your purpose to attack them, you may abandon all other purposes so far as this body is concerned. The people of the North will never sacrifice their principles. It is useless for you to ask them to do so. It is entirely useless for you to urge war upon the sentiments or opinions of the North.

Again; let me tell you there is no disloyalty in the free States. The word dissolution has not been thought of there during the last half century. In all your discussions, in all your action, remember that we are loyal to the Constitution and the Union.

Strong appeals are made here to the free States. You call them by the general name of the Northern States. Gentlemen undertake to pledge different sections to this or that policy. We are told that New York—that Massachusetts—that Pennsylvania will adopt or will not adopt various propositions that are made here.

Sir, in my judgment all such questions are unworthy of our consideration. We spend time to little purpose upon them. The true question here is, "What will Virginia do? How does Virginia stand?" She to-day holds the keys of peace or war. She stands in the gateway threatening the progress of the Government in its attempts to assert its legal authority. Evade it as you may—cover it as you will—the true question is, "What will Virginia do?" She undertakes to dictate the terms upon which the Union is to be preserved. What will satisfy her?

Mr. CLAY:—Has not Virginia spoken? Has she not already told us what she wants?

Mr. MORRILL:—I am coming to that point very soon. I assert again that Virginia must not be misunderstood in this matter.

The peril of the time is Secession. Six States are already in revolution. A distinct confederacy, a new government, has been organized within the limits of the United States.

Does Virginia to-day, frown upon this atrocious proceeding? No! so far from that she affirms that these States have a right to do what they have done. She boasts that she has armed her people, that she has raised five millions of money, and that she will use both to prevent the interference of the National Government with these States, now in revolution. Whether her course will conciliate the free States—whether under such circumstances the free States will negotiate with Virginia or others in her position, I leave for others to consider. It is my opinion that the people of this country will first of all demand the recognition of the supremacy of the Government.

Mr. RUFFIN:—No! I do not understand such to be the position of Virginia. She appeals to both sides to refrain from violence while these negotiations are pending.

Mr. SEDDON:—No! A little farther than that. Virginia will not permit coercion. She has plainly declared she will not. But in the very highest spirit of patriotism, she has asked for this Convention, and she proposes to exhaust the very last means of restoring peace to the Union. This is exactly her position. She hopes, and I hope, that this Convention will interpose to preserve the peace and to save this country from war.

Mr. MORRILL:—I thought I did not misunderstand the position of Virginia. She is armed to the teeth, and she now proposes to step in between the Government and the States. I understand her attitude. It is an attitude of menace. It gives aid and comfort to those who trample upon the laws and defy the authority of this Government.

No action of the Conference can be consummated for months: I might almost say for years. Any propositions we may make must go to the people. They must and will take time for consideration. Endeavor to force their action and you will secure the rejection of the terms proposed. While the people are acting you will have a Government and it must operate. It must operate not upon a section only, but upon the whole country. During this time, does Virginia propose to maintain the position she has assumed? To prevent by force of arms the execution of the laws of the Union in the seceded States? Yes, and we are told that her position is one exhibiting the highest patriotism. In my judgment her position is one of menace, and not of pacification. If I rightly understand her, nothing that is here proposed to be done will satisfy her even if adopted.

And now I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Seddon) a plain question, and I wish to receive a frank answer. If this Conference agrees to the amendments proposed by the majority of the committee, will Virginia sustain the Government and maintain its integrity, while the people are considering and acting on the new proposals of amendment to the Constitution? If she will not do this, if this proposition does not meet the heart of Virginia, there is no use—

Mr. SEDDON:—I can let Virginia speak for herself. She has spoken for herself in most emphatic language. She has told you what will satisfy her in the resolutions under which this body is convened. I have no right whatever to suppose that she will accept less. She is solemnly pledged to resist coercion. She will resist it to the very last extremity. She arrived at that conclusion after grave deliberation, and it was attended with every manifestation of concurrence on the part of the people. I have no reason to suppose there was any hesitation at the time, or that there has been any change since, or that there is any hesitation in her purpose now.

Now, if the gentleman wants my private opinion, I will tell him that whether the propositions of the majority of the committee or her own be adopted here, or by the people, the purpose of Virginia to resist coercion is unchanged and unchangeable.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I rise to a point of order. It appears to me that this discussion is very foreign to the subject before the Conference. It is so long since that subject has been named, that many have doubtless forgotten it. The question is upon the adoption of the resolution limiting the debate. I think we had better keep to the question.

The PRESIDENT:—The gentleman is undoubtedly correct in his statement of the question, but the discussion of the general subject has been permitted to go on without objection by the Convention, and I do not think it would be right to stop it now.

Mr. SEDDON:—I said the position of Virginia was unchanged. She considers this a Government of love and not of force. She thinks there should be no force or coercion used toward any sovereign State acting in its collective capacity. She does not propose to permit such coercion to be used.

And now, having answered the gentleman frankly, as he desired, I wish to ask him a question, and I wish also an explicit and frank answer. My question is this: Is it the purpose or is it the policy of the incoming administration to attempt to execute the laws of the United States in the seceded States by an armed force? The answer to this question involves information of the utmost importance to my State and others whose interests are involved with hers. It should be at once communicated, and especially to my part of the country. I now ask the gentleman, if he knows what the purpose of the incoming administration is in this respect, to state it here, and now. His relations to some of the officers elected will entitle his opinions to grave consideration. I invite a full and frank answer to my question.

Mr. MORRILL:—There is a point in the gentleman's answer which may as well be met, but I will not be diverted from the question I was discussing. I will show him in a moment why I cannot answer his inquiry from any personal knowledge of my own.

Sir, I was endeavoring to ascertain what was the present position of Virginia; to find out what she would accept and be contented. I wanted her to speak emphatically. She has done so. I now understand from Mr. Seddon, that he has no assurances to give that Virginia will accept the propositions of the committee, and that while any propositions are pending she will resist the enforcement of the laws in the seceded States.

Then let it be understood that Virginia has spoken. That she makes the Crittenden resolutions her ultimatum, that she must have them and all of them, that nothing less will satisfy her. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is idle for us to stay here, useless for us to discuss the various propositions which are made here, unless we expect to satisfy Virginia.

It is important for us to understand her position. I do not under-estimate her influence. When the propositions of this Conference are presented to the people of the free States, the first question they will ask is, "Will Virginia adopt them? Will she be satisfied with them?" If she will not, there will be no action upon them. If she will, her position will exercise a powerful influence upon the people of the North in favor of their adoption.

But if Virginia puts her ancient Commonwealth across the path of the Government, if she stands between the administration and the enforcement of the laws, the execution of its official duty, its positive obligations—if this is the manner in which she proposes to mediate, her mediation will be accepted nowhere. Such I understand to be the position she assumes. It is a position of menace.

Mr. STOCKTON:—If the gentleman from Maine wants to get up a row, we are ready for him. He shall have enough of it right here! I should like to know why he makes such charges against Virginia? They are unfounded; we don't wish to hear them.

(There was at this point considerable confusion in the Conference, which was promptly suppressed by the President.)

Mr. MORRILL:—Gentlemen need not be disturbed or excited. I have accomplished my object. I know now what to expect from Virginia; the North will know what the course of Virginia is to be, and we can all act understandingly. I do not propose to waste valuable time in idle discussions in this hall, when we can come to the true point at once. I do not propose to talk around this question, nor to deceive or mislead the Conference. Other gentlemen may think differently, but I now understand Virginia to say, that the Federal authority shall not be reëstablished by the ordinary means, (where it is resisted) in certain of the States comprised in the Federal Union.

I will now answer the question of the gentleman from Virginia, in relation to the proposed policy of the incoming administration. I have no personal knowledge upon this subject. Mr. Lincoln I never saw in my life. I know nothing of his opinions, except from his speeches; but I will say, that if he and his administration do not use every means which the Constitution has given them to assert the authority of the Government in all the States—to preserve the Union, and the Union in all its integrity, the people will be disappointed. I have felt and now feel the importance of the action of Virginia, and I have done what I could to learn here what we may expect from her.

In conclusion, let me say, that unless we can have the earnest concurrence of the slave States in whatever we do, and especially unless we have the heart of Virginia with us, our action will give no peace to the country.

Mr. Zollicoffer moved that the Conference adjourn. The motion was lost by a viva voce vote.

Mr. BROWNE:—I think we have debated these matters long enough. Let us come back to the question before us. Personally I am in favor of limiting debate to the shortest time, for I feel the necessity for prompt action. I think if Mr. Randolph would strike out the latter clause of his resolution, requiring the final vote to be taken on Thursday next, we should have no difficulty in agreeing to it. Its adoption in its present form might cut off some delegation or some gentlemen from speaking at all. I would not do this. Let every one speak, but let the speeches be short. I move to strike out the last clause of the resolution.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I did not expect to raise such a storm by introducing this resolution. I now ask to withdraw it and stop the debate.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—The gentleman cannot do that, as several motions are involved. I object to his proposal to withdraw the resolution. I move to lay the whole subject on the table, and to make it the special order for ten o'clock to-morrow.

The motion of Mr. Morehead was carried.

Mr. SUMMERS:—I move that when the present session of the Conference adjourn, its next meeting be at seven o'clock this evening.

A Member:—Say eight o'clock.

Mr. SUMMERS:—Well, then, let it be eight o'clock. But let me ask you, gentlemen, not to protract or unnecessarily delay our action here.

Mr. President, my heart is full! I cannot approach the great issues with which we are dealing with becoming coolness and deliberation! Sir, I love this Union. The man does not live who entertains a higher respect for this Government than I do. I know its history—I know how it was established. There is not an incident in its history that is not precious to me. I do not wish to survive its dissolution. My hand or voice was never raised against it. They never will be. The Union is as dear to me as to any living man; and it would be pleasant, indeed, if my mind to-day could be as free from fear and anxiety about it, as the minds of other gentlemen appear to be. But, Sir, I cannot shut my eyes to events which are daily transpiring among a people who are excited and anxious, who are apprehensive that their rights are in danger—who are solicitous for—who will do as much to preserve their rights as any people. They must be calmed and quieted. It is useless now to tell them they have no cause for fear. They are looking to this Conference. This Conference must act. If it does not, I almost fear to contemplate the prospect that will open before us.

Sir! this Conference has now been in session fifteen days. While I have felt reluctant to do any thing which should have the appearance of precipitating our action, of cutting off or limiting debate, I have all the time been pressed with this conviction; that if we are to save this country we must act speedily. I have been in constant communication with the people of Virginia since I have been here. I know that this feeling of apprehension which existed when I came away, has been constantly increasing in my State since; and even last night I received letters from members of the Convention now in session in Richmond; gentlemen who are as true to this Union as the needle to the pole, informing me that every hour of delay in this Conference was an hour of danger.

I do not agree with some of my colleagues in their construction of the resolutions of the Virginia Legislature inviting this Conference. I understand that she suggests the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden as one acceptable way of settling our present difficulties. She says that she will be satisfied with a settlement on the basis of those resolutions. But she has not made them her ultimatum. She has not said she will not consent to any other plan of arrangement. Her purpose was not to draw up certain articles of pacification; to call her sister States together, and say to them, "These or nothing! We have dictated the terms upon which the matter between us may be arranged. We will have these or we will not arrange at all!" I understand her as offering no restrictions whatever. She invites a conference—she asks the States to confer together. She expects reasonable concessions, reasonable guarantees, and with these she will be satisfied.

Nor do I know why the gentleman from Maine places Virginia in the position he described, nor upon what authority. I reply to him that he makes a grave assumption when he attributes to Virginia a dictatorial position. I have come here, and I trust my colleagues have also, animated by a single purpose:—that purpose is to save the Union. Virginia claims no greater rights than any other State. She would not take them if they were offered.

Let me say here, that it is my purpose to carry out the wishes of the people of Virginia; that exercising the best judgment I have I shall try to ascertain what that purpose is, and shall do all I can to accomplish it. When the proper time comes I shall cast my vote for the proposals of amendment offered by my colleague (Mr. Seddon); I shall do so for several reasons. The first and most important of them all is this: The Union is our inheritance—it is our pride. To preserve it, what sacrifice should we not make? Its preservation is the one single desire that animates me. Can I not be understood by my Northern friends? Will you not yield something to our necessities—to our condition? Will you not do something which will enable us to go back to our excited people and say to them, "The North is treating us fairly. See what she will do to make our Union perpetual!"

Again; I shall vote cheerfully for Mr. Seddon's propositions, because the Legislature of my State has said that such amendments will satisfy the people of Virginia. I think the Legislature is right. I think in this respect it reflects the will of the people of Virginia. Remember, sir, that these propositions have been for some time before the country, that they have been discussed and commented upon by the public Press—that they will probably settle our difficulties, now and forever. They were introduced into Congress by a distinguished and an able man—a statesman, whose integrity and fidelity no one has ever questioned, and no one will question. It is my firm belief that the States can adopt them without any material sacrifice, and that they will adopt them if they have the opportunity.

But if the Crittenden resolutions—if the propositions of my colleague cannot be recommended by this Conference—do not find favor with the majority here? What then? Shall we dissolve this body, and go home? Shall we risk all the fearful consequences which must follow? No, sir! No! We came here for peace. Virginia came here for peace. We will not be impracticable. You, representatives of the free States, will not be impracticable. Therefore, I tell you that it is my firm belief that the people of Virginia WILL accept the proposals of amendment to the Constitution as reported by the majority of the committee. I believe these propositions would be acceptable to our people. I believe if we should pass them here, that the Convention now in session in Richmond would at once adopt them and recommend them to the people of that honored member of the Federal Union. Can you not? Will you not give us one chance to satisfy our people, and to save us from that other alternative which I almost fear to contemplate?

I feared when the result was announced, that the late election in Virginia of the delegates to the Convention now in session, would be misapprehended and misunderstood at the North: that the North would regard it as a triumph of the Union sentiment in Virginia. In one sense it was such a triumph. The advocates of immediate and unconditional secession were defeated, were defeated by a heavy majority.

But the members comprising that Convention represent the true feeling of the people who elected them, and they represent the present feeling of Virginia. The people of that State are full of anxiety. They fear that the new administration has designs which it will carry into execution, fatal to their rights and interests. They are for the Union, provided their rights can be secured; provided, they can have proper and honorable guarantees. It is useless to discuss now whether they are right or wrong. Such is the condition of affairs now, and it is too late to enter into the causes which produced it. We must deal with things as they are.

I have known many gentlemen who have represented the interests of New England long and well. I know what sentiments filled their hearts years ago, and I do not believe those sentiments are changed now. I appeal to Vermont. Among her representatives here, I see a gentleman with whom, for a long time, I was upon terms of peculiar intimacy. In the whole course of that intimacy I cannot recall a single occurrence which did not impress me with his integrity, his ability, his justice. I appeal to him. I appeal to him by every consideration which can move a friend, which can influence a patriot, which can govern the action of a statesman. I appeal to Massachusetts, to all New England, which I know possesses many like himself; and I ask you to consider our circumstances, to consider our dangers, and not to refuse us the little boon we ask, when the consequences of that refusal must be so awful. Can you not afford to make a little sacrifice, when we make one so great? Can you not yield to us what is a mere matter of opinion with you, but what is so vital with us? Will you not put us in a position where we can stand with our people, and let us and you stand together in the Union? I have no delicacy here. The importance of our action with me, transcends all other considerations. I do not hesitate to appeal to New England for help in this crisis.

If New England refuses to come to our aid, it will not alter my course or change my conviction. In no possible contingency which can now be foreseen shall these convictions be changed. I will never give up the Union! Clouds may hang over it, storms and tempest may assail it, the waves of dissolution may dash against it, but so far as my feeble hand can support it, that support shall be given to it while I live!

When the dark days come over this Republic, and there is nothing in the future but gloom and despondency, I will do as Washington once said he would do in similar circumstances: I will gather the last handful of faithful men, carry them to the mountains of Western Virginia, and there set up the flag of the Union. It shall be defended there against all assailants until the friends of freedom and liberty from all parts of the civilized world shall rally around it, and again establish it in triumph and glory over every portion of a restored and united country.

Sir, the questions which now agitate and alarm the country do not affect the interests of all sections of the Union, or if they do affect all sections, certainly not in the same proportion. The farther sections are removed from each other, the less do the interests and the principles of their people assimilate. Maine and Louisiana, far distant from each other, differ widely. Approaching the line between the slave and free States all these differences grow less. This is shown by the action of this Conference. The border States can settle these questions. They will settle them if you will let them alone. Pennsylvania and Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey, States along the line, whose people are most vitally interested, can have no difficulty in coming to an agreement. With all the possible political interests which you may have, not only are the relations of society, of business, and commerce, to be interrupted, but these States are to form the long frontier between two foreign nations, if that fearful contingency is to happen, so often and so confidently referred to here.

Why, then, should remote sections interfere to prevent this adjustment? If they cannot aid us, why not let us alone? Let them look along the valley of the Ohio River, one of the most fertile sections of the continent, in itself great enough and fruitful enough to support a nation. It has already a large population, and that population is increasing every day. The people are attached to each other by every tie that binds society together. They now live in harmony and friendship; their property is secure. They are prosperous and happy. Such a people cannot be, must not be divided.

And therefore, I say, that if we are driven to that alternative; if the representatives of the two extremes will not give us the benefit of their counsel and assistance, the Central States, and the great Northwest, must take the matter into their own hands. North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, with Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other States near them, must unite with Ohio and the Northwest to save the country. They have the power to do it—they must do it.

Remember, sir, that I only refer to this as a last alternative. It is one to which I hope and pray we may never be driven. I cannot yet give up the hope, that all we need here is patient and thorough discussion and examination of the subject; that when the true condition is understood, we shall unite together to restore confidence to the country. It must be so. The consequences of farther disagreement are too great, the crisis is too important to permit mere sectional differences, mere pride of opinion, party shackles or party platforms to control the action of any gentleman here. The Republic shall not be divided. The nation shall not be destroyed. The patriotism of the people will yet save the country against all its enemies.

Mr. Ruffin gave notice, that at the proper time he wished to offer two amendments to the second section of the propositions reported by the committee.[1]

Mr. Field and Mr. Dodge rose and made motions at the same time.

The floor was given to Mr. Dodge, who moved, that when the Conference adjourn, it adjourn to meet at ten o'clock to-morrow.

Mr. Randolph moved to amend, by inserting half-past ten o'clock.

Several motions were made by different members, and much confusion arose, which was suppressed.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:—We all, no doubt, wish to economize time as much as possible. The prevailing wish seems to be to meet about eleven o'clock to-morrow. That can be accomplished by a simple motion to adjourn, which I make, and which should take precedence of all others.

The President put the motion to adjourn, and declared it not carried.

A Member:—I move to amend Mr. Dodge's motion, by inserting seven o'clock this evening.

This motion did not prevail, and the question was taken upon Mr. Dodge's motion, which was adopted, and the Conference then adjourned.

---

THIRTEENTH DAY.

Washington, Wednesday, February 20th, 1861.

The Conference was called to order by President Tyler at ten o'clock, and after prayer by the Rev. Dr. Sampson, the Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Mr. HARRIS:—I desire to call the attention of the Conference to the fact, that the time has not yet arrived when the Conference, by its rules, should commence business. The rule is, that the daily session shall commence at eleven o'clock.

The PRESIDENT:—The Conference, previous to its adjournment yesterday, adopted the motion of Mr. Dodge, fixing this hour for the commencement of the present session.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I wish to call attention to the 9th rule in the printed list. It has not been adopted by the Conference. It is in here by mistake. The Committee on Rules did not intend to recommend it. I ask now that it be stricken from the record.

Mr. FIELD:—I rise to debate that motion.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Then I withdraw it.

Mr. HARRIS:—I wish to offer a preamble and resolutions, and would like to have them read for the information of the Conference. I ask to have them printed and laid upon the table, so that I can move them as an amendment at the proper time.

The resolutions were laid upon the table and ordered to be printed, and are as follows:

Whereas, The Federal Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land, and should command the willing obedience of all good citizens; and whereas it is alleged that sundry States have enacted laws repugnant thereto. Therefore,

Resolved. That this Convention respectfully requests the several States to revise their respective enactments, and to modify or repeal any laws which may be found to be in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Resolved, That the President of this Convention is requested to send a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to the Governor of each of the States, with the request that the same be communicated to the Legislature thereof.

Mr. RANDOLPH:—I must now insist upon having my resolution, offered yesterday, considered. Congress is about adjourning, and, if we do not close our labors to-day, we cannot have our propositions acted upon under the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. They can be kept out on the objection of any member. I do not wish to debate the resolution, and I hope the debate will not be continued in the general manner it was yesterday.

Mr. FIELD:—There seems to be a disposition to stop debate now, after nearly the whole time has been occupied by the other side. Yesterday the whole session was occupied by a general discussion of this question. It is my right to debate it as generally as other gentlemen have done. I shall avail myself of that right. I may not speak thirty minutes, but I will not submit to the imposition of a different rule upon me, if I can avoid it, from that which has been imposed upon others. The first question is on striking out the last clause of the resolution. On that I have nothing to say except that I ask for a vote by States.

A vote by States was then taken, and resulted as follows:

Ayes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont—12.

Noes.—Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—8.

Mr. CLAY:—I move to lay the whole subject upon the table. It is useless to attempt to stop discussion in this way.

Mr. CHASE:—I call for a vote by States.

The motion of Mr. Clay prevailed by the following vote.

Ayes.—Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts. New York, Vermont, Virginia, and New Hampshire—10.

Noes.—Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—9.

Mr. McCURDY:—There is really but one question that ought to engage the attention of this Conference. All others may be settled in half an hour. This question is a great one, and assumes a variety of forms. I wish to vote upon it understandingly, and I want some information from the committee which has had it in charge.

I ask that committee whether they are not proposing a change in the Constitution, which, if adopted, will operate as a direct and effectual protection of slavery in all the territories of the United States? This appears to me to be the true question for our consideration. I wish to know what meaning is attached by its friends to one part of the proposed article.

It states that "the status of persons owing service or labor as it now exists shall not be changed by law," &c.; and again, "that the rights arising out of said relations shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts according to the common law." The status, then, shall not be changed. By that term I suppose condition is intended. I understand that perfectly. There shall be no law to change the condition, to impair the rights of the slaveholder; but shall there be no law to protect these rights? Now, what is intended by this? Why not make this provision plain, and not leave it open to any question of construction? The ghost of the old trouble rises here, and will not down at the bidding of any man. I believe under this article the institution of slavery is to be protected by a most ingenious contrivance. The common law, administered according to the pro-slavery view, is to be called in for its protection.

Now I ask the chairman of the committee reporting these propositions what he means by the common law? The common law, as we understand it, is the law of freedom—not of slavery. But I do not here propose to discuss that question. I wish to know how the truth really is. How does the committee, how do the friends of this proposition understand it?

By the common law a slave is still a man: a person, and not a personal chattel. He may owe service, as a child to its parent, an apprentice to his master, but he is still a person owing service. He is all the time recognized as a man. As such he may own and hold property, take it by inheritance and dispose of it at pleasure, by will or by contract. All these rights, all the principles on which they are founded, are in direct antagonism to slavery. The argument may be carried much farther, but this is far enough for my purpose. By the slave law, all this is reversed. The master owns the body of the slave, may sell or otherwise dispose of him, may make him the subject of inheritance. The slave loses all the attributes of a person, and becomes property as much as the horse or the ox that feeds at his master's crib. These, in a condition of slavery are the rights of the master over the slave. These rights the common law, under this proposition, is to recognize, protect, and enforce. I believe I am not mistaken in this. What other construction can you give the article? It is a distinct proposal to engraft slavery upon the common law: to declare in the Constitution that slavery is recognized and protected by the common law.

Now, the North has always protested against this. She will never consent to it. She understands all the consequences as well as you. No doubt it would be a great point gained for you, to have the Constitution recognize the institution of slavery as part of the common law. For then slavery goes wherever the common law goes. Its rights under this provision are not confined to the territories. Once established, these may be enforced in a free State just as well. It is the old proposition over again, which has come before the American people so many times under so many different guises. It makes slavery national, freedom sectional. If this is so, if such is the construction which it is intended this section shall receive, why not state it openly? why leave it as a question of construction?

This construction involves other considerations. This new kind of common law is to be substituted for the old. The latter has been understood for centuries almost. Its principles have been discussed and settled. It is a system founded by experience, and adapted to the wants of the people subject to it. Its very name implies that it was not created by legislative authority. A strange common law indeed that would be which is created by the Constitution.

But this is not all. Other principles of the common law are subject to change. They are adapted to the advance of civilization, to the wants of communities. Change is the universal law of nature. This new kind of common law is alone to be perpetual.

It is not my purpose to enter into a general discussion of the subject. This point struck me as important, as needing elucidation. If I am wrong in this construction, the committee will correct me.

Mr. EWING:—The proposition contained in the first article of the proposed amendment, is copied from the Crittenden resolutions in substance. It is true that the language is somewhat changed, but the legal effect is identical in both the propositions. The term "status" &c., as there used is not applicable to all the territory of the United States. It only extends to that portion of the territory south of 36° 30´. It crushes out liberty nowhere. It changes nothing—no rights whatever. Again, whatever may be the status of the person in the State from which he comes, that is preserved in the territory, and that alone. It is precisely similar to the case of a contract to which the lex loci gives the construction, and the lex fori its execution.

I like the common law. I have made it my study. I like the use of this term here. It was a good system when not as perfect as it is now. The common law of England even tolerated slavery until it was abolished. The colliers of the North of England were once, to all intents and purposes, as much slaves as any negro on the Southern plantations, except in the matter of separation of families. I can refer you to a precedent on this subject, which you will find in a book of no very high authority. I mean the novel, Red Gauntlet.

The general principle applicable here is this: Whenever you establish the right—no matter how, if you establish it—the common law asserts the remedy. There is no crushing out about it. The simple proposition is this: Slavery exists already in that little worthless territory we own below the proposed line. Will we agree that it shall remain there just as it is now, so long as the territorial condition continues? That is all. There is no mystery or question of construction about it.

Mr. FIELD:—The questions now before the Conference I suppose arise upon the report presented by the majority of the committee, and upon the motion to substitute for that report the propositions of the minority of the same committee.

I propose to add to this report the three following propositions; and I will read them for the information of the Conference.

I. "Each State has the sole and exclusive right, according to its own judgment, to order and direct its domestic institutions, and to determine for itself what shall be the relation to each other of all persons residing or being within its limits.

II. "Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

III. "The union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble; and no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligations of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States."

These additions would render the majority report much more acceptable to the northern people than it is in its present shape, though even then, I am bound to declare, I could not support it. I prefer the substitute. In what I have now to say, I shall not confine myself to a discussion of these propositions, but availing myself of the latitude of debate hitherto allowed to gentlemen who have addressed the Conference in favor of the report of the majority of the committee, I shall endeavor to bring to the notice of this body, more fully than I have yet done, my views upon the general question presented for our consideration.

For myself, I state at the outset that I am indisposed to the adoption, at the present time, of any amendment of the Constitution. To change the organic law of thirty millions of people is a measure of the greatest importance. Such a measure should never be undertaken in any case, or under any circumstances, without great deliberation and the highest moral certainty that the country will be benefited by the change. In this case, as yet, there has been no deliberation; certainly not so far as the delegates from New York are concerned. The resolutions of Virginia were passed on the 19th of January. New York (her Legislature being in session) appointed her delegates on the 5th of February. We came here on the 8th. Our delegation was not full for a week. The amendments proposed were submitted on the 15th. It is now the 20th of the month. We are urged to act at once without further deliberation or delay.

To found an empire, or to make a constitution for a people, on which so much of their happiness depends, requires the sublimest effort of the human intellect, the greatest impartiality in weighing opposing interests, the utmost calmness in judgment, the highest prudence in decision. It is proposed that we shall proceed to amend in essential particulars a Constitution which, since its adoption by the people of this country, has answered all its needs; with a haste which to my mind is unnecessary, not to say indecent.

Have any defects been discovered in this Constitution? I have listened most attentively to hear those defects mentioned, if any such have been found to exist. I have heard none. No change in the Judicial Department is suggested. The exercise of judicial powers under the Constitution has been satisfactory enough to the South. The Judicial Department is to be left untouched, as I think it should be. You propose no change in the form of the Executive or Legislative Departments. These you leave as they were before. What you do propose is, to place certain limitations upon the Legislative power, to prohibit legislation upon certain important subjects, to give new guarantees to slavery, and this, as you admit, before any person has been injured, before any right has been infringed.

There is high authority which ought to be satisfactory to you, that of the President of the United States, now in office, for the statement that Congress never undertook to pass an unconstitutional law affecting the interests of slavery except the Missouri Compromise. Well, you have repealed that. You have also every assurance that can be given, that the administration about coming into power proposes no interference with your institutions within State limits. Can you not be satisfied with that? No. You propose these amendments in advance. You insist upon them, and you declare that you must and will have them or certain consequences must follow. But, gentlemen of the South, what reasons do you give for entering upon this hasty, this precipitate action? You say it is the prevailing sense of insecurity, the anxiety, the apprehension you feel lest something unlawful, something unconstitutional, may be done. Yet the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Seddon) tells us that Virginia is able to protect all who reside within her limits, and that she will do so at all hazards. Why not tell us the truth outright? It is not action under the Constitution or in Congress that you would prevent. What is it, then? You are determined to prevent the agitation of the subject. Let us understand each other. You have called us here to prevent future discussion of the subject of slavery. It is that you fear—it is that you would avoid—discussion in Congress—in the State Legislatures—in the newspapers—in popular assemblies.

But will the plan you propose, the course you have marked out, accomplish your purpose? Will it stop discussion? Will it lessen it in the slightest degree? Can you not profit by the experience of the past? Can you prevent an agitation of this subject, or any other, by any constitutional provisions? No! Look at the details of your scheme. You propose through the Constitution to require payment for fugitive slaves: to make the North pay for them. You are thus throwing a lighted firebrand not only into Congress, but into every State Legislature, into every county, city, and village in the land.

This one proposition to pay for fugitive slaves, will prove a subject for almost irrepressible agitation. You say to the State Legislatures, you shall not obstruct the rendition of fugitives from service, but you may legislate in aid of their rendition, thereby implying that the latter kind of legislation will be their duty. You thus provide a new subject of discussion and agitation for all these Legislatures. In the Border States especially, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, you will find this agitation fiercer than any you have hitherto witnessed; of which you complain so much. You will add to the flame until it becomes a consuming fire.

You propose to stop the discussion of these questions by the press. Do you really believe that in this age of the world you can accomplish that? You know little of history if such is your belief. Free speech is stronger than constitutions or dynasties. You might as well put your hands over the crater of a burning volcano, and seek thus to extinguish its flames, as to attempt to stop discussion by such an amendment of the Constitution. Stop discussion of the great questions affecting the policy, strength, and prosperity of the Government! You cannot do it! You ought not to attempt to do it!

I wish to speak kindly upon this subject. I entertain no unfriendly feelings toward any section. But while you are thus complaining of us in the free States, because we agitate and discuss the question of slavery, are you not, in a great degree, responsible for this agitation yourselves? Do you not discuss it, and agitate it? Do you not make slavery the subject of your speeches in the South, and in the presence of your slaves? Do you not make charges against us, which in your cooler moments you know to be unfounded? Do you not charge us in the hearing of your slaves with the design of interfering with slavery in the States, with a design to free them if we succeed?

You have done all this and more, and if discontent, anxiety, and mistrust exist among your people, let me say that such discussion has contributed more to produce them, than all the agitation of the slavery question at the North. But your amendments are not pointed at your discussions. That kind of agitation may go on as before. It is only the discussion on the other side you would repress!

If the condition of affairs among you is as you represent it, have you no duties to perform; is there nothing for you to do? Should you not tell your people what we have assured you upon every proper occasion, that the Republican Party has always repudiated all intention of interfering with slavery, or any other Southern institution within the States? This you all know. Have you told your people this? If you would explain it to them now, would they not be quieted? Do not reply that they believe we have such a purpose. Who is responsible for that belief? Have you not continually asserted before your people, notwithstanding every assurance we could give you to the contrary, that we are determined to interfere with your rights? It is thus the responsibility rests with you.

Although such is my conviction, supported, as I think, by all the evidence, I am still for peace. Show me now any proposition that will secure peace, and I will go for it if I can. We came here to take each other by the hand, to compare views, explain, consult. We meet you in the most reasonable spirit. Any thing that honorable men may do, we will do.

We will go back to 1845 when you admitted Texas; back to the Missouri Compromise of 1820. You certainly can complain of nothing previous to that time. If, since then, there has been any law of Congress passed which is unjust toward you, which infringes upon your rights, which operates unfairly upon your interests, we will join you in securing its repeal. We will go farther. If you will point out any act of the Republican Party which has given you just cause for apprehension, we will give you all security against it. We will do any thing but amend the fundamental law of Government. Before we do that we must be convinced of its necessity.

When you propose essential changes in the Constitution you must expect that they will be subjected to a critical examination; if not here, certainly elsewhere. I object to those proposed by the majority of the committee—

1st. For what they do contain.

2nd. For what they do not contain.

I do not propose to criticize the language used in your propositions of amendment. That would be trifling. I think the language very infelicitous, and if I supposed those propositions were to become part of the Constitution, I should think many verbal changes indispensable. But I pass by all that, and come at once to the substance.

I object to the propositions, sir, because they would put into the Constitution new expressions relating to slavery, which were sedulously kept out of it by the framers of that instrument; left out of it, not accidentally, but because, as Madison said, they did not wish posterity to know from the Constitution that the institution existed.

But I object further, because the propositions contain guarantees for slavery which our fathers did not and would not give. In 1787 the convention was held at Philadelphia to establish our form of Government. Washington was its presiding officer, whose name was in itself a bond of union. It was soon after the close of a long and bloody war. Shoulder to shoulder—through winter snows and beneath summer suns—through such sufferings and sacrifices as the world had scarcely ever witnessed—the people of these States, under Providence, had fought and achieved their independence. Fresh from the field, their hearts full of patriotism, determined to perpetuate the liberties they had achieved, the people sent their delegates into the convention to frame a Constitution which would preserve to their posterity the blessings they had won.

These delegates, under the presidence of Washington, aided by the counsels of Madison and Franklin, considered the very questions with which we are now dealing, and they refused to put into the Constitution which they were making, such guarantees to slavery as you now ask from their descendants. That is my interpretation of their action. Either these guarantees are in the Constitution, or they are not. If they are there, let them remain there. If they are not there, I can conceive of no possible state of circumstances under which I would consent to admit them.

Mr. MOREHEAD:—Not to save the Union?

Mr. FIELD:—No, sir, no! That is my comprehensive answer.

Mr. MOREHEAD:—Then you will let the Union slide.

Mr. FIELD:—No, never! I would let slavery slide, and save the Union. Greater things than this have been done. This year has seen slavery abolished in all the Russias.

Mr. ROMAN:—Do you think it better to have the free and slave States separated, and to have the Union dissolved?

Mr. FIELD:—I would sacrifice all I have; lay down my life for the Union. But I will not give these guarantees to slavery. If the Union cannot be preserved without them, it cannot long be preserved with them. Let me ask you, if you will recommend to the people of the southern States, in case these guarantees are conceded, to accept them, and abide by their obligations to the Union? You answer, Yes! Do you suppose you can induce the seceded States to return? You answer: We do not know! What will you yourselves do if, after all, they refuse? Your answer is, "We will go with them!"

We are to understand, then, that this is the language of the slave States, which have not seceded, toward the free States: "If you will support our amendments, we will try to induce the seceded States to return to the Union. We rather think we can induce them to return; but if we cannot, then we will go with them."

What is to be done by the Government of the United States while you are trying this experiment? The seceded States are organizing a Government with all its departments. They are levying taxes, raising military forces, and engaging in commerce with foreign nations, in plain violation of the provisions of the Constitution. If this condition of affairs lasts six months longer, France and England will recognize theirs as a Government de facto. Do you suppose we will submit to this, that we can submit to it?

I speak only for myself. I undertake to commit no one but myself; but I here assert, that an administration which fails to assert by force its authority over the whole country will be a disgrace to the nation. There is no middle ground; we must keep this country unbroken, or we give it up to ruin!

We are told that one State has an hundred thousand men ready for the field, and that if we do not assent to these propositions she will fight us. If I believed this to be true, I would not consent to treat on any terms.

From the ports of these seceded States have sailed all the fillibustering expeditions which have heretofore disgraced this land. There, have those enterprises been conceived and fitted out. Their new government will enter upon a new career of conquest unless prevented. Even if these propositions of amendment are received and submitted to the people, I see nothing but war in the future, unless those States are quickly brought back to their allegiance.

I do not propose to use harsh language. I will not stigmatize this Convention as a political body, or assert that this is a movement toward a revolution counter to a political revolution just accomplished by the elections. Nor will I speak of personal liberty bills, or of northern State legislation, about which so much complaint has been made. If I went into those questions, much might be said on both sides. We might ask you whether you had not thrown stones at us?

Did not the Governor of Louisiana, in his message to the Legislature of his State, recommend special legislation against the supporters of Mr. Lincoln? Is there not on the statute books of Maryland a law which prohibits a "black Republican" from holding certain offices in that State?

Mr. JOHNSON:—There was a police bill before the Legislature of Maryland, in which some provision of that kind was inserted by one who wished to defeat it. Its friends were compelled to accept the provision in order to save the bill. The courts at once held the provision unconstitutional. All that is so.

Mr. FIELD:—I am answered. It is admitted that the Legislature of that ancient State did place upon her statute book an act passed with all the forms of law, containing a provision so insulting to millions of American citizens.

Mr. HOWARD:—Will Mr. Field permit me a single question? I ask it for information, and because I am unable to answer it myself. I therefore rely upon his superior judgment and better means of knowledge. It appears to me that Massachusetts, Maine, and New York have gone much farther. The charge is a serious one. Maryland has never refused to submit to the decisions of the proper judicial tribunals. The Constitution has provided for the erection of a tribunal which should finally decide all questions of constitutional law. That tribunal has decided that the people of the slave States have a legal right to go into the territories with their property. The gentleman from New York tells us he is in favor of free territory, and his people are also.

Now, I wish to ask, where in the Constitution he finds the right to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to the popular voice? In what clause of the Constitution is this power lodged? Where does he find this right of appeal to the people, a right which he insists the North will not give up?

Mr. FIELD:—I am happy to answer the question of the gentleman from Maryland, and I reply that when once the Supreme Court has decided a question, I know of no way in which the decision can be reversed, except through an amendment of the Constitution. I have the greatest respect for the authority of the Supreme Court. I would take up arms, if necessary, to execute its decisions. I say that States, as well as persons, should respect and conform to its judgments, and I would say they must. But I am bound in candor to add, that in my view the Supreme Court has never adjudged the point to which the gentlemen refers; it gave opinions, but no decision.

I was about to state, when I was first interrupted, that the majority report altogether omits those guarantees, which, if the Constitution is to be amended, ought to be there before any others that have been suggested. I mean those which will secure protection in the South to the citizens of the free States, and those which will protect the Union against future attempts at secession; guarantees which are contained in the propositions that I have submitted as proper to be added to the report of the majority.

But, sir, I must insist, that if amendments to the Constitution are required at all, it is better that they should be proposed and considered in a General Convention. Although I do not regard this Conference as exactly unconstitutional, it is certainly a bad precedent. It is a body nominally composed of representatives of the States, and is called to urge upon Congress propositions of amendment to the Constitution. Its recommendations will have something of force in them; it will undoubtedly be claimed for them in Congress that they possess such force. I do not like to see an irregular body sitting by the side of a legislative body and attempting to influence its action.

Again, all the States are not here. Oregon and California—the great Pacific dominions with all their wealth and power, present and prospective—have not been consulted at all. Will it be replied that all the States can vote upon the amendments? That is a very different thing from proposing them. California and Oregon may have interests of their own to protect, propositions of their own to make. Is it right for us to act without consulting them? I will go for a convention, because I believe it is the best way to avoid civil war.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—If a General Convention is held, what amendments will you propose?

Mr. FIELD:—I have already said that I have none to propose. I am satisfied with the Constitution as it is.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—Then, for God's sake, let us have no General Convention.

Mr. FIELD:—I think the gentleman's observation is not logical. He wants amendments, I do not. But I say if we are to have them, let us have them through a General Convention.

And I say farther, that this is the quickest way to secure them. If a General Convention is to be called, let it be held at once, just as soon as possible. If gentlemen from eight of the States in this Conference represent truly the public sentiment of their people, as I will assume they do, there is no other alternative. We must have either the arbitrament of reason or the arbitrament of the sword. The gloomy future alone can tell whether the latter is to be the one adopted. I greatly fear it is. The conviction presses upon me in my waking and my sleeping hours. Only last night I dreamed of marching armies and news from the seat of war. [A laugh from the Kentucky and Virginia benches.]

The gentlemen laugh. I thought they, too, had fears of war. I thought their threats and prophecies were sincere. God grant that I may not hereafter have to say, "I had a dream that was not all a dream."

Sir, I have but little more to trouble you with. In what I have said I trust there has been no expression that will be taken in ill part. I have spoken what I sincerely felt. If there has been an unkind word in my remarks I did not intend it, and am sorry for having uttered it.

For my own State and for the North I have only to say that they are devoted to the Union. We have been reminded of Hamilton's opinion, that the States are stronger than the Union, and that when the collision comes the Union must fall. This is a mistake. In the North the love for the Union is the strongest of political affections. New York will stand by the flag of the country while there is a star left in its folds. If the Union should be reduced to thirteen States—if it should be reduced to three States—if all should fall away but herself, she will stand alone to bear and uphold that honored flag, and recover the Union of which it is the pledge and symbol. God grant that time may never come, but that New York may stand side by side with Kentucky and Virginia to the end. That we may all stand by the Union, negotiate for it, fight for it, if the necessity comes, is my wish, my hope, my prayer. The Constitution made for us by Washington, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton, and the wise and patriotic men who labored with them, is good enough for us. We stand for the country, for the Union, for the Constitution.

I found yesterday upon my table a pamphlet bearing the title of "The Governing Race." It contains a sublime passage from Longfellow's poem of "The Ship," which, as it closes the pamphlet, shall also close my observations:

"Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O UNION, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!
We know what Master laid thy keel,
What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,
Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,
What anvils rang, what hammers beat,
In what a forge and what a heat
Were shaped the anchors of thy hope!
Fear not each sudden sound and shock,
'Tis of the wave and not the rock;
'Tis but the flapping of the sail,
And not a rent made by the gale!
In spite of rock and tempest's roar,
In spite of false lights on the shore,
Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea!
Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee,
Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,
Our faith triumphant o'er our fears,
Are all with thee,—are all with thee."

Mr. WHITE:—I shall not occupy much of the time of the Conference. All the speeches that have been made, and all the declamation that has been uttered on this floor, have not made a single convert. Last of all would I wish to follow the gentleman who has just taken his seat. He proposes to postpone action, asserts that we are acting without consideration, in haste, and without due deliberation. I look upon this subject from a different point of view. I believe the motive of Pennsylvania in first responding to the invitation of Virginia was to induce the States to meet here in council, and remove that peril which now threatens our common country.

Pennsylvania had another reason. She is a border State; she has a deeper and more vital interest in the present unhappy differences than New York or the North. If there is to be war; civil, unnatural war, whose country is to be devastated, whose fields laid waste and trampled down? They are those of the border States—of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, and possibly New Jersey. These are the States that are to suffer. Gentlemen from New York and the North East, in the bosom of their families, their towns and cities not in the least danger, may be as impassive as the granite rocks that bind their shores. We have a deeper, a more vital interest; therefore we feel and speak. When Pennsylvania received the invitation of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and other States had seceded. Dangers were accumulating. Then it was that the old conservative Keystone State threw herself into the breach. She sent her delegation here to save the country and not to change the Constitution—not to alter it, but to explain it and to give our Southern sisters the guarantees they once did not ask and did not need. We believed that the great majority of the people of the Southern States were Union loving men, who choose to sail under the flag of the Union, rather than under any piratical and treasonable banner. We knew there were rebels within those States, as there is a faction at the North composed of men as much rebels as they are. We knew, also, that there was a large body of men at the South, who, though loyal at heart, were in a state of great anxiety and apprehension, and who might be stirred up by demagogues, through appeals to their State pride and other influences, to take a stand against the Union.

The Republicans denied that they wished to interfere in any manner with the institution of slavery. We have come here to give the slave States a declaratory exposition of our views. We have come bearing the olive branch. We are met by the South in a spirit of conciliation. The delegates tell us that they hope to be able to bring back their erring sister States into the fold of the Union, if they can go to them bearing satisfactory guarantees from us. Pennsylvania is willing that we should give them that opportunity. We have lived in harmony with them: we wish to live in peace with them. If the seceded States will not come back, if the other Southern States cannot bring them back, then, are we in any worse position? No, sir! we are not. We desire to place ourselves right before the world. Then, if some States will not stay in the Union, on their heads be the responsibility. Then, if any wrong has been done, if any right has been violated, Pennsylvania will not be responsible. We shall have done our duty, on them will the responsibility rest. They must answer for it before the world and before the judgment-seat.

What will be the consequence of postponing action on this subject? We are strengthening the position of the seceded States. We

"Keep the word of promise to the ear,
And break it to the hope."

Every rebel will rejoice at our inaction.

The continuance of Virginia in the Union depends upon the action of a convention now in session in Richmond. If we send her commissioners home to say to that convention, "The North will wait two years and then consider your propositions," what will the convention say to that? The seceded States have at this moment commissioners at Richmond entreating Virginia to join their Confederacy, and to detach herself from the free States. If we fail to act, who can fail to foresee the consequences? Maryland is about calling a convention. She, too, will act, and she will go where her associations and her interests carry her.

From this you can infer some of the reasons why Pennsylvania has sent her commissioners here. Her object was not delay. Her wish was for action—speedy action. She wishes to do all she can to accelerate action. She wishes to have some plan laid before the country at once—something fair to all sections—and then, with, the alternatives before them, let the people decide. She wishes to pour oil on the troubled waters.

We are told by our friend from New York, that the amendments are badly drawn. If so, let him help us to correct them. No one can do it better. Surely there is talent enough in this Conference to remedy such defects as are suggested by him.

Gentlemen say they do not wish to convert free territory into slave territory. Neither do I. We are not doing that. All the territory south of the line proposed is slave territory already. The adoption of these propositions does not extend slavery at all.

The first advantage the Republican party ever obtained in Pennsylvania, was on account of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, followed by the decision of the Supreme Court, declaring that the normal condition of the territory was a condition of slavery, and on that ground holding the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Such being the state of the matter, do we lose any thing by the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30´? No! All that vast territory north of the line will be dedicated to freedom. The South asks that faith shall be kept; that slavery in the territory south of the line shall not be interfered with. This is the only material averment in the declaration.

The second article contains a modification of the Constitution which was not intended. This I understand it is proper to amend.

Another proposition is to put a barrier into the Constitution, which will prevent the acquisition of territory in future by joint resolution. To this I am sure the gentleman from New York will not object.

Sir, I have read and carefully considered all the proposed amendments. To my mind they present no essential changes, or modifications, or constructions, of that instrument. I can see no injury in them to the interests of the North. I think they are rather to the advantage of the North. I believe the people of the North will hasten cheerfully to adopt them.

Now, if we can adopt them—if we can make them a part of our organic law, and thus settle these differences, who will not be glad? There is still a deep and abiding love of the Union in the hearts of all the people. They will hail with joy any action of yours which tends to strengthen it.

Mr. TUCK:—I should not address the Conference at this time if I did not discover early signs of closing the debate, and I prefer to be clearly understood upon the subject of discussion before it closes.

I well understand the appeals of the border slave States. They think that one-half their number are already out of the Union. They deem themselves weakened by their defection. I well understand the inquiry of the eloquent gentleman from Virginia, when he asked, on the second day of the session, "Can't you understand our position?"

I have listened to appeals stronger and more eloquent than I ever expect to hear again. The representatives from the South on this floor are skilful in debate and eloquent in speech. Were there no view of the case but the one they present, I might become a convert myself.

They have seen half of the slave States, acting on the theory of right claimed by the South, undertake to go out of the Union. If they love the States they represent, and the Union of all the States, they should be filled with apprehension and alarm. The venerable gentleman from North Carolina (Judge Ruffin) has appealed to us with an ardor, patriotism, and eloquence which has produced an indelible impression upon my mind, while the gentleman (Mr. Seddon) from Virginia, in describing parallels of attack which the North, as he said, were constructing, in the course of events, about the institution of slavery, commanded my undivided attention. Yet gentlemen greatly err in assuming that we of the North are acting under some wizard influence, and, out of pure malignity, are plotting the overthrow of slavery. There is no plot or general concert in the action of the North on this subject. We are, like the South, subject to general laws affecting mind and morals, as well as pecuniary concerns, which laws cannot be disregarded. We cannot act otherwise than we do. Ideas and principles control, and we and those whom we represent will act in accordance with them, whatever be the consequences.

Much is said here about saving to the Union the slave States not yet gone. All I have to say on this point is, I wish to save them, and I trust we shall have less trouble with the seven than with the fifteen.

The chair was here taken by Mr. Alexander.

The people of this country, North and South alike, obey the laws of interest and morality. There is no disposition at the North to destroy slavery. Let these accusations and criminations be heard no more. What I am about to say may weigh but little, but I know something of the North, and a little of the South. I fully believe that the institution of slavery within the States should be left with them exclusively—that such is the prevailing sentiment of the North. I say so because there is no disposition at the North to interfere with it. Do we believe that we can manage slavery better than you? No, sir! I believe that we could not manage it so well. If we had been reared on your soil in the midst of slavery, we could manage it just as well. It is a mistake and a pernicious error, for the South to believe that either party at the North proposes to raise any question relating to slavery within State limits. There is not a man at the North who could stand up long enough to fall down, if he should take such a position.

There are problems connected with slavery which we cannot solve; we do not wish to undertake their solution. We will leave them with you.

What, then, should we do? My answer is, live along as we have done before. We will live with you in the Union, under a Constitution that requires us to help you keep the peace. Where you dwell, we will dwell. Your people shall be our people, and where you die, we will die. Our Constitution is good enough for a people who are wise enough to live under it. With such a Constitution, Virginia proposes to leave the Union.

Will you leave the Union because the Constitution has not been rightly construed? No; for it has been construed to your entire satisfaction. It has been made to speak your views. The judges of our Supreme Courts represent your opinions. There has never been a construction of the Constitution adverse to your interests. The Dred Scott decision protects slavery in all the territories according to your desire, though against our strong conviction of law and right. Will you leave the Union because you have not had the Government your share of the time? You have had possession and control of it for fifty years out of seventy-two; and during a large portion of the twenty-two years, when we have had the President from the free States, the administration has been under the control of southern sentiments, and southern interests have been in the ascendency, through the servility of northern men. Do you leave the Union in order to secure the protection of a better Constitution? No; for they who have left us have said that the Constitution was well enough, if the people were sufficiently enlightened to live under it. Why is it, then, with all these facts before you, that you propose to turn away from the Government of our fathers, from all the glories of the past, the blessings of the present, and the hopes of the future, to hunt for new and better things under a new Government?

You are going out of the Union because you say we propose to immolate you—to turn you over to the mercies of a Government of slaves set free. How unfounded is such a belief! Are we not brothers still? I doubt whether there was a better feeling between the masses of the North toward you ten or seventy years ago than there is to-day. Can you find better fortunes elsewhere? Where do you propose to go? To the doubtful fortunes of a Southern Confederacy? You certainly are not acting with your accustomed prudence and forethought. You know what the teachings of history are in relation to nations in that belt of latitude. You know how they have always compared with northern nations. Together the two sections may be prosperous and powerful; separated you can judge where the advantage must fall. Had we not better try and get along as we are?

This Conference presents some singular scenes. Although made up, so far as the North is concerned, of members of both political parties, yet, by a majority, it supports southern views of southern interests as earnestly and emphatically as any southern man has done. In all conflicts of the past and present you have carried your points, and you have reason to think you may do so in future. Yet you insist upon separation. Be assured, you will experience as bitter feuds among yourselves as you do in the fellowship of those you leave. You cannot be reconciled to even the existence of a minority against you, but you will find you cannot escape the minorities, and may fall into one yourselves. You propose to join the fortunes of the Southern Confederacy, in which, there is a contention already. You turn your backs upon the Government of the Father of his Country, whose portrait is before us, and join your fortunes to a mere southern nationality. Beware of the act. Look back over the last two thousand years, and contrast the stability of governments in southern latitudes with those more northern, under latitudes which you leave. Mexico, Central America, and South America, furnish valuable lessons on this Continent, while the Eastern Hemisphere is, in this respect, full of instruction. Will you leave a people whose character and habits are like those which have produced the permanence and power of Russia, France, and England, and ally yourselves to those more southern people who have not hitherto enjoyed stability, power, or happiness? Is it not wiser to stay where you are, to scorn the pernicious doctrines of new teachers, and to live and die under the flag of our fathers?

The annexation of Texas opened a Pandora's box of evil. Had not that taken place, the Missouri Compromise would not have been repealed. Had not that Compromise been repealed, the shadow of our present troubles would not have arisen.

You speak of the opposition of the North to slavery. Believe us or not, it is true, nevertheless, that slavery is regarded at the North as strictly a State institution; as such, we are content to let it remain; we desire to let it remain such. But let not the North be misunderstood in its position. The North is willing to let slavery remain where it is—where our fathers left it; but against its extension into the territories, the North is inflexibly and unalterably opposed.

If there is any thing to pacificate I am in favor of pacification, but in favor of it according to the Constitution. The Constitution embraces all that any State can reasonably ask or honorably concede. But if from change of circumstances or other causes, the men of the South are of the opinion that their interests are overlooked or ill-defined, I, for one, will favor a call of a convention to consider amendments to the Constitution, and I will vote for such amendments as shall give as substantial protection to the South as the North ought to ask for, in the change of circumstances.

I submitted an address and resolutions a few days since for adoption in this Convention, which I hope may be carefully read before being rejected. They contemplated a convention, and their design is to give assurance of justice to the public. I oppose the proposition for an address by the committee, to be issued to the public after our adjournment. We wish to know beforehand what we adopt, and to weigh every word. There is a northern sentiment to be regarded as well as a southern sentiment.

We of the North have heard much said in denunciation of us, and have thought it political clap-trap and gasconade. But if we are made to believe in your hostility to us and the Government, we may conclude it is best to let you leave us. We have no fears in trusting ourselves, if necessary, to our industry, our habits, and enterprise, separate from the slaveholding States. Opinions are changing rapidly. I do not like the idea of maintaining the Union by force of arms. It is not in accordance with the theory of our Government.

A Virginian stated only a few days ago, that there was nothing which the South could ask or that the North could give, that was not found in the Constitution. But you say that we do not understand it alike—that the two sections differ in their construction of it. Well, if that is so, we are willing to submit to the courts.

You have always fared well enough there. If that is not enough we will leave the whole subject, amendments and all, to a General Convention. That we now propose. We propose it fairly, not for any purpose of delay or postponement. Call the convention as early as it can be done. We will aid you. We will go home and in good faith urge our people to go into the convention, and there patiently and fairly consider all your claims, all your complaints. We would urge them to concede all they can without a sacrifice of principle. We will do this as a party, and with all our strength. Now, this does not quite come up to what you want, but is it best for you to insist upon breaking up the Government on that ground? That is neither sensible nor safe. We are like two lobes in the same skull; one cannot outlive the other. Destroy one and you destroy the other. I do not believe this Republic can stand without the Union which our fathers made. But it will stand—it must stand. Wise counsels will yet prevail. You will yet believe us sincere in our desires to relieve you. The end of the Union has not come—it is not coming. The Union will yet outlive us and our posterity.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:—In rising to express briefly my views, I feel oppressed and embarrassed in view of the magnitude of the subjects we are discussing, and in the presence of this distinguished auditory. I cannot claim to represent an Empire State with its four millions of people, nor a Bay State, which we are told, with its wealth, its enterprise, and its commerce, can settle a new State every year. But with my colleagues, I represent a State which performed her part in the dark night of the Revolution—her share in that great struggle for our priceless institutions—a State which has ever since been faithful in the discharge of all her constitutional obligations. In that bloody conflict, upon her own soil, New Jersey joined hands with the North and South. There is scarcely a church spire within her borders beneath whose shadows does not lay the remains of some of the entombed patriots in that great conflict from both these sections, commingled with those of her own sons!

New Jersey was true to the Union in that great struggle—she has always since been true; and under the favor of Providence she always will be faithful to the Union and its memories, so inseparably connected with the glory and honor of her sons. Other States may have done as much, may have as good a record, may be entitled to equal credit with her. But in all her past history, I can point to her fidelity to the Union and her sister States with no blush of shame upon my brow. Other States might be wanting! New Jersey never! She has always been true to her constitutional obligations; she has always kept—never sought to avoid them.

With a narrow stream separating her from a slaveholding State, there were never any underground railroads in New Jersey; she never rescued a fugitive slave from the custody of the law; no personal liberty bill ever disgraced the pages of her statutes, nor ever will disgrace them. In 1793 she enacted a statute providing for the prompt return of fugitive slaves found within her limits. She subjected any judge required to act under it, to imprisonment, if he neglected to perform his duties. That law has ever since been in force. It was reënacted in 1836, and again in 1846, when some of its defects were amended. Courteous as just, she provided by another law, passed in 1820, that any southern gentleman visiting her territory, might bring with him his household slaves, travel in, through, and out of the State, or even take up his temporary residence as securely in this respect as at home. This law was reënacted in 1847, and again in 1855; one of my worthy colleagues here was associated, upon the commission which revised this act, with that distinguished New Jersey Republican, William L. Dayton.

In the recent unhappy political contest, New Jersey, ever anxious to do justice to all sections of the Union, and injustice to none, as if hesitating and doubtful toward which of the two parties in that struggle she ought to incline, extended her fraternal hands to North and South, by giving one-half her electoral vote to each; thus showing that she still retains her unselfish spirit, which leads her to sacrifice her own preferences to her duty to the Union.

In the same spirit to-day she bears her full share of the heavy sorrow that rests, like a pall, over the people of the whole country as they witness this glorious fabric, which our fathers erected and cemented with their blood and their prayers—trembling, shattered, and dismembered. In the conciliatory spirit of my State, I, as a Jerseyman, proud of the title and every thing connected with it, wish to say a word to the South in all frankness and candor. I freely tell you that, in my opinion, you have a right to guarantees, and to constitutional guarantees. It is no answer to say that the Constitution has not been broken. That is not the question now. Reference has been made to the fact that Washington signed the present Constitution. Yes, but when he did so we had a population of but three millions, and now we have a population of upward of thirty millions. Is it surprising that some change should be required in that instrument with this great change in the nation? The balance of power so long fluctuating between the free and the slaveholding States has at length entirely changed. It has now come to us of the free States, and therefore we are bound to respect the claims of the South, and quiet the apprehensions of its people.

It is of little use to make patriotic speeches here. The South demands guarantees, and I feel under obligations to respond to that demand. I assert as a general principle, that whoever has a right is entitled to have it guaranteed. I believe there is not a gentleman here, who, in his heart, does not think so. If it is right for them to have these guarantees at all, they should have them to-day. I do not care whether Virginia occupies a menacing attitude or not, my moral code is still the same; it is not effected by any thing that has been done or can be done by Virginia or any other State. It is my belief that nineteen-twentieths of the people of the North to-day are in favor of giving to the South all the guarantees it asks against all interference with slavery in the territories. Some say, "We admit this, but we will do nothing until the Republican President is inaugurated on the 4th of March." I am ready to do it now; and my obligations to do right will not be changed by the 4th of March rolling over my head.

Gentlemen have made eloquent and patriotic speeches asserting their determination not to interfere with the rights of the South. That is very pleasant and very proper. But those speeches are the expressions of individuals, and they pass away. Where is the man who will consent to hold any political right at the will of any man or class of men, no matter how kindly disposed? We all require security. The highest and grandest aim and object of government is not the stability and peace of society, but a well-grounded confidence in the minds of the people of the perpetuity of that stability and peace.

The South asks the right to use and occupy a portion of the common territory of the country. As a northern man I will accept the compromise, and I believe a large majority of the people will agree with me. You, gentlemen of the South, have asked that the arrangement may be extended to territory hereafter to be acquired. New Jersey has voted in this Convention against interference with slavery in the territory, present or future, and she is the only northern State that has cast her vote in favor of your demand. Her representatives have been told somewhat sneeringly, that while slaveholding States voted against this proposition, New Jersey was the only free State that voted for it. Well, we accept the responsibility, and will bear it. New Jersey has made up her record. There it stands, and there let it stand forever. We are proud of it. If civil war is to come, if this land is to be deluged with fraternal blood, when that time comes there will not be a northern State represented here that would not give untold millions to be placed upon that record by the side of New Jersey.

The fact is, sir, we have acquired our liberties too cheaply. Had we purchased them at the cost our fathers did, by coloring the snows of winter by our blood tracks, and by passing the summers in the unhealthy morass, we should have learned to prize them more highly; we should be more patriotic and less proud, more sensible and less sensitive.

A word further on the subject of extending this provision to territory hereafter acquired. Gentlemen, you do not want that provision; you do not need any provision as to future acquisitions. You are better off without it. No present rights are involved in it. You are providing for a contingency which may never, and probably never will happen. Would it not be inconsistent for a nation to commit suicide because a constitution is not made to meet an improbable contingency? You have territory enough for the next two hundred years. You say you require it to maintain your honor, to preserve your fair equality, to maintain your lawful rights. Permit me to say you have no rights in territory which we never owned, and I hope never may. This is no question of honor or equality. But if we should acquire territory and should then exclude you from it, will it not then be time enough to resort to the expedient of national suicide as a remedy for the wrong? Nor do you require it for any particular purpose. You have within your States room for all the increase of a century. Your interest is to retain your sons at home and develop the wealth and advance the prosperity of your States, and not to send them to the western wilderness where one-half die in the process of acclimation. The fact that you are all in favor of placing in the Constitution new restrictions as to the acquisition of territory, proves you do not consider you need more territory. I heard it said, the other day, by a gentleman from Virginia, that the South wanted the provision for a finality, to end forever this dispute about slavery. With all my heart I sympathize with him in his desire to end this discussion forever. You think you have suffered from these discussions at the South; so have we at the North. It has separated families and neighborhoods; it has broken up and scattered Christian churches; it has severed every benevolent society of the land; it has destroyed parties; it broke up the good old Whig party, and more recently sapped the strength and vigor from the Herculean Democracy. It now threatens the dissolution of the Union. Let us crush the head of the monster forever. Let us do it by restricting and defining its limits in existing territory.

Suppose the word "future" had been inserted. You do not wish to destroy all probability of the adoption of this proposition at the North. These proposals could not pass Congress, with the word "future," by the requisite vote; and if it passed Congress, there is no hope that twenty-five out of twenty-eight States would have adopted it. With it you would have given great strength to the opposition at the North. It would have created a more powerful anti-slavery party than ever before existed. No, you are better off by confining the provisions of this compromise to present territory—you having, as well as the North, in the contemplated amendment a veto on the acquisition of territory.

The North will want new territory before you will desire it. They will demand Mexico and Cuba for the advantages of trade. You then, having the veto power, can say to them—No, gentlemen, we will not agree to it unless our particular institution is there respected; or, if you please, you may go further and say, We will not acquiesce unless this territory comes in as a slave State so as to restore measurably the balance of power in the Government. With this veto power you would have the North in your hands, and could make your own terms. You make the provision more of a finality by letting it stand as it is.

But gentlemen say, they want the amendment for another purpose, in order that they may induce States that have gone out to return. Here, again, I sympathize with you. I had rather bring back South Carolina than to secure the annexation of both the Canadas. I would give more for one American than for a regiment of John Bulls. Ungenerous as South Carolina has been, I would receive her home again. I desire the States to return. Let their place at the Federal Board remain vacant for them. Let the stars of their sovereignty on our nation's ensign remain unobliterated and without further dishonor. We are ready to receive them. But this provision as to future territory is not necessary for their return. The same considerations to which I have alluded, and which, will satisfy you that such provision is not requisite, will satisfy them. The guarantees which the North are ready to give as to the representation, taxation, and return of property, and the compromise as to the existing territory, will do much to satisfy them. To effect a compromise, you of the South must demand as little as you can render satisfactory to your people, and we of the North must give as much as our people will approve, and both parties must consent to avoid all objectionable phraseology.

Now, a few words to my friends of the North. There is resting upon us a grave responsibility. We are bound to settle this question finally in this Convention. Talk about a convention of the people! We who have no constitution, we who are tied up to no technicalities, must settle it. We of the North may meet political death; but let political death come, it is enough to have lived for, if we can settle this question.

But one asks, Will you strike hands with treason, and enter into compacts with rebels and traitors? Yes, sir! I will strike hands with just such rebels and traitors as I see around me; and I would give them what they ask as cheerfully and as freely as I would give a glass of water to a soldier returning wounded and weary from the field of battle.

But it is said we must first see whether we have a Government. We must try the strength of the Government. We must know whether the Government can assert its supremacy and compel obedience to its laws. Sir, that is just what I do not want to try. What, try the strength of the Government! and do so at the end of an administration in which corruption and treason and every evil principle have been contending for the mastery, when our ships are all away beyond sea, when our arms and our fortifications are out of our hands, when our treasury is bankrupt, our people divided, insolvency and ruin threatening our country, and all the Gulf States defying the authority of the Government? No, sir! this is no time to try the strength of the Government. When we do that, let us select some more auspicious period.

But another says these proposals of amendment contravene the Chicago platform. What if they do? Is the Chicago platform a law to us? Is it a law to any one? It was passed upon ten minutes' consideration in a convention of five thousand people. If it was a law, the convention should have been perpetual and never dissolved, in order that the law might have been subject to requisite modifications without a change of circumstances. A strange manner in which to enact such a law! But things have changed since the Chicago Convention. In fifty days, fifty years of history have transpired. This is enough to release us from the obligation, if any existed. It is not a law; it is a doctrine, the spirit, the policy of the party that it undertakes to enunciate. It is not a law, because a majority of the people have never given it their sanction. Mr. Lincoln was elected by less than a majority. And in his vote how many old Whigs and Democrats may be counted who did not support him because he stood upon the Chicago platform, but because they preferred him to either of the opposing candidates. And even if it is a law, I call upon the North to support the proposals of amendment here submitted. Let us, as Republicans, be honest, and when the opportunity offers are we not bound so to change the Constitution that three-fourths of all our present territory, now open to slavery, shall be consecrated to freedom? Yes, we are bound to relieve that three-fourths from slavery. All we need to do to secure this, is not to carry slavery where it is not, but to secure it where it is. I can go home to the Republicans of New Jersey with a clear conscience and say to them, that by our action here we have not carried slavery one inch farther than it was before. If they are not satisfied with that, they must be dissatisfied.

But there is one plank in the Chicago platform to which I will call the attention of my Republican friends. It must not be forgotten. I read from a genuine copy which I brought from Chicago myself.

"Resolved, That to the Union of the States, this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surpassing development of internal resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad, and we hold in abhorrence all schemes of disunion, come from whatever source they may."

It is a rule of construction, that all parts of an instrument must be construed together; that due regard and effect must be given to all parts of it, unless they are clearly repugnant. Will any gentleman tell me how the Union can be more effectually preserved than by controlling disunion? It is by granting what is asked to those who might disturb its tranquillity, when they ask nothing unreasonable. This resolution every patriot can subscribe to; and I hold that it can be as effectually violated by the neglect to do all we can to turn aside disunion, as by affirmative action against the Government. And let me say that the party in this country which goes between the people and the preservation of the Union, will sink so low, eventually, that a bubble will not return to mark the spot where it went down. But I cannot understand how any one who is honestly opposed to the extension of slavery, as a political institution, can refuse the compromise proposed. The federal courts, to which we have committed the power, have decided that slavery, of right, goes into all the territories. The distinguished Republican from Massachusetts has told us that the court cannot be so organized, even if we keep the power, as to change that decision in twenty-five years. In that time the whole question will be determined. Now we have an opportunity, at once and forever, by constitutional enactment, to prohibit slavery from going into three-fourths of the territory, by simply agreeing that as to the other one-fourth, while it remains a territory, the status of slavery shall not be changed. I confess I have not the ingenuity to contrive how I should apologize to an audience of Republicans for refusing such a contract.

Now, what can we of the North, we Republicans, do? By a settlement here we can retain the Border States, and, in my opinion, that is equivalent to saving the Union. Retain the Border States and the seceding States must come back. If the Border States go, I believe war is inevitable. How can two sections exist with only an imaginary line between them. I do not believe the South will ever consent to give up the Capital, claimed to be within her borders, and the North could never surrender it. Sir, I shrink from the prospect of civil war. The picture of civil war has often been painted, and by abler hands than mine. Its calamities and miseries, the sufferings that attend it, strike a chill of horror to the soul. But such a picture as a civil war in this country would be, has never been drawn. History would be searched in vain for its parallel. A civil war between the members of a family, between brother and brother, father and son, who have all enjoyed the same blessings which their fathers made early and bloody sacrifices to secure! Shall it be said that such a people, for such a cause, risked their interests, their country, their all, and rushed blindly into the calamities of a civil war? He has read history to little account who has not learned that such a warfare is, in its nature, not only cruel, but protracted. It is like letting loose the hurricane. Passion and poverty, carnage and crime, desolation and death, become the condition of a hitherto happy people. For thirty years Germany was ravaged, and millions slain by a contest occasioned by a difference in religious opinions. For more than thirty years the war of the Roses devastated England. The French Revolution, including the "Reign of Terror"—originating in a question of taxation and terminating with the supremacy of Napoleon—lasted nearly ten years. For a like decade civil war raged between England and Scotland, originating in a question of authority between the King and Commons, and ending in Cromwell's protectorate. Why, I ask, if we admit this fiendish visitant to our borders, should we anticipate that our fate would be more favorable? No! war is to be averted, and a nation still covered with glory is to be preserved by holding the Border States in the Union.

If I am asked what I would do; I answer, Compromise—compromise! Two gentlemen cannot live in a parlor together a single day without reciprocal compromises. I would not be "stiff in the back and firm in the knees." There is such a thing as too much "backbone." I say I would "back down" to save the country. I am not ashamed of the expression. Our Government itself was a compromise, and in nothing more so than as to the slavery question. Henry Clay was the great compromiser. The Missouri Compromise was his. Resigning his office as Speaker, on the floor of Congress by irresistible argument, and eloquence unequalled—though twice defeated, he succeeded in establishing the compromise line of 36° 30´—and thereby erected a barrier which severed the angry currents of opinion on this distracting theme, and which was as valuable to this nation as the isthmus at the equator, holding in check the mighty ocean on either side. The North has compromised before; let her do it again. Let our friends at the South take as little as they can, and let the North yield as little as she can, but let us come together. The party that stands between the people and the preservation of the Government will be crushed to atoms. It will be remembered in history only with curses and indignation.

We all love this Union, and we mean to preserve it. There is no one here who, as he has witnessed the freedom, the comfort, the prosperity, and the pure religion disseminated among the people, has not hoped this nation was to accomplish great social and moral good for our whole race. Yes, in fond conception we have seen her the Liberator and Equalizer of the world—walking like an angel of light in the dark portions of the earth. These sacred anticipations may not be disappointed without a fearful accountability somewhere. And, sir, suffer me to say that this whole people have a strong regard for each other, notwithstanding the petulant differences which have arisen between us. Kindred blood flows in our veins, and that of our fathers mingles on the same field; and even now, in the day of our country's peril, our affections meet at the hallowed grounds of Mt. Vernon, of Marshfield, and of Ashland.

We have our history. Washington and Franklin, and Henry and Sumter, as well as Bunker Hill, and Yorktown, and Trenton, are yours, and they are all ours.

We have our religion—and with every diurnal revolution of this sphere, from North and South, through the efficacy of a common faith, a goodly company are ascending to that realm of peace where their harmonious union shall never more be severed. And to-day, from a thousand hearthstones in the sunny South, and in the more rigid North, the family prayer ascends to the Father of us all, for a blessing on our common country and for the preservation of this Union. Those prayers will be heard, and this priceless Union will be preserved.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I wish to call the attention of the Conference for a moment to another subject, in order that members may give it their consideration. I shall call up my motion to terminate the debate upon the report of the committee early to-morrow, and ask to have the discussion closed on the 21st instant. I am sure that I shall be sustained in this by every member who wishes to have this body come to any agreement. I wish to have the vote taken on the twenty-second day of February, that we may see whether the same day that gave a Washington to our Fathers, may not give Peace to their posterity.

Mr. DODGE:—I have listened with intense interest to the addresses which have recently been made to the Conference. I respect the ability which they have exhibited—I honor the patriotism which has produced them. They have presented the important principles involved in the action of this Conference in a much more interesting and forcible manner than I could; and I would not occupy the attention of this body with a single observation, if I had the good fortune to be associated with a delegation in which unanimity of opinion and feeling prevailed. But I am not so fortunate. In that delegation I find many shades of opinion. I respect the views of my brother delegates. It is not for me to assume to sit in judgment upon them. I give each one of them credit for the same honesty and integrity which I claim for myself; and if I happen to differ from them, I claim that such difference honestly arises from the different paths in life which we pursue, which may lead us to take different views of the same subjects as they are here presented.

The Conference has heard the ideas of political and professional men expressed upon the important questions now presented for its consideration. These ideas have been well expressed, and we have all been interested in hearing them. Will you now hear a few words from a body of men who have hitherto been silent here, but who have a deep and abiding interest in the happiness and prosperity of the country and in the preservation and perpetuity of the American Union?

Sir! I am here as a plain merchant, out of place, I very well know, in such a Conference as this; but accident has brought me here, and I will tell you how and why I came. Three weeks ago I left my business—which in times like these certainly deserves all my attention—to come to the city of Washington on business of a public character. I came at the suggestion and request of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, hoping, in my humble way, to serve the public interests in this crisis. Inconvenient though it was, and involving personal sacrifices of no ordinary character, when others thought my country had need of my poor services, I did not hesitate to respond to her call. And I hope I may never hesitate under such circumstances.

I came here to visit Congress, as a member of a committee, bearing a petition to that body signed by more than thirty-nine thousand of my fellow-citizens, all interested in the welfare and permanence of this Government. This number included more than twenty thousand business men and firms. This petition was earnest and emphatic. In it, we asked and prayed that Congress would adopt some plan that would settle our present sectional troubles; that would relieve the country from the anxiety and apprehension which pervaded it, and permit business and commerce to resume their accustomed channels, with assurances of safety in the future. We knew that the time had arrived when patriotic men must act; that commercial and financial ruin was impending. Our petition set forth, that in the opinion of the signers, the plan contained in what were called the "Border State Resolutions" was best calculated to secure the end desired. We thought those resolutions ought to be satisfactory to the reasonable and true Union men of the South, and that they ought not to be obnoxious to the prejudices or objections of the people of the free States. Still we were not strenuous—we were not committed to any particular plan. All we desired, was to secure such action on the part of Congress and the Executive, as would satisfy the country; such action as would give the country peace.

When we came to Washington we met seventy republican members of the Senate and House of Representatives. We had with them a most satisfactory and delightful interview. It gave me renewed hope for my country and her interests when I heard the expressions of conciliation and good will which these gentlemen used; I felt my confidence renewed.

Besides these gentlemen, who met and heartily coöperated with us, there were several members from the Border States whose expressions were not less friendly, although they did not think it expedient to act with us. Our committee made all the representations and explanations which were deemed necessary; and having performed my duty in that connection, in the earnest hope that we had influenced the action of Congress in the right direction, I was about to return home with my colleagues, when I received a telegraphic despatch requesting me to attend the meeting of this Conference. I obeyed the summons; and since I received it, I have been laboring with all the ability, strength, and power with which GOD has blessed me, to secure the adoption of some plan here, that would settle our difficulties and avert from our beloved country the evils with which she is now threatened.

Sir, there has not one moment passed since I came here, during which I have not felt a deep and overpowering sense of the grave responsibility which rests upon myself and the other members of this Conference. I am accustomed to the trials, vexations, cares, and responsibilities of business; I know how to meet and grapple with them calmly. But I do not feel so here. My days are anxious and excited—my nights are wakeful and sleepless. In all the weary watches of last night, I could not close my eyes in slumber. The reason was, because I saw from a point of view which you do not, the certain and inevitable ruin that is threatening the business, commercial interests of this country, and which is sure to fall with crushing force upon those interests, unless we come to some arrangement here.

I speak to you now as a business man—as a merchant of New York, the commercial metropolis of the nation. I am no politician, I have no interest except such as is common to the people. But let me assure you, that even I can scarcely realize, much less describe, the stagnation which has now settled upon the business and commerce of that great city, caused solely by the unsettled and uncertain condition of the questions which we are endeavoring to arrange and settle here.

I tell you what I do not get from second hands, but what I know myself, when I assure you that had not Divine Providence poured out its blessings upon the great West in an abundant harvest, and at the same time opened a new market for that harvest in foreign lands, bringing it through New York in its transit, our city would now present the silence and the quiet of the Sabbath day. Why is this? It is because we, who have lived together in harmony with each other, a powerful and a happy people, are breaking up—are preparing to separate and go out from one another!

The merchants of our great commercial cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, are not listless or unenterprising men. They are accustomed to the interests, the bustle, the excitement of business. They have heretofore seen their stores crowded with buyers. During the day the interiors of their places of business were like busy hives. Not unfrequently have their clerks been obliged to labor all through the night to secure and send off the goods which they had sold to reliable customers during the day. When business is good and driving throughout our commercial cities, wealth and comfort are secured to merchants and agents engaged in commerce in those cities, and it indicates general prosperity in the country to which the goods purchased are transmitted. It shows a healthy condition of affairs both in city and country.

How stands the matter in those cities to-day? Now, just when the spring trade should be commencing, go to the extensive and magnificent establishments for the sale of goods in any of the cities I have named, where goods are sold which in prosperous times found their way into almost every family to a greater or less amount in this great country. What will you see in those cities now? The heavy stocks of goods imported last autumn, or laid in from our own manufactories, remain undisturbed and untouched upon the shelves. The customers are not there—they have not made their appearance. The few who have come at all, come not as buyers, but as debtors who cannot pay, and whose business is not to make purchases but to arrange for extensions. The merchants, in despair, are poring over their ledgers; checking off the names of their insolvent debtors, a new list of whom comes by each day's mail. Their clerks sit around in idleness reading the newspapers, or thinking mournfully of the wives and children at home, who will go unclad and hungry if they are discharged from their places, as they know they must be, if this condition of things shall continue. All alike, employers and employed, with all dependent upon them, are looking anxiously, and I wish I could say hopefully, to the Congress of the United States, or to this Conference, as the only sources from which help may come.

There are thousands and tens of thousands belonging to these classes all over the country who must have relief, or their ruin is inevitable. And then look at that other class, numerically larger, perhaps, certainly not less worthy of our regard, who are dependent upon these; I mean the mechanics, the day laborers, and those in turn dependent upon them. What are they to do? If some change does not come, if something is not done again to start the wheels of commerce and business, what is to become of them?

And look, too, at New England! She has latterly been the workshop of the South and the West. She has furnished their people with her manufactures—they have been her market. An excellent market, too, have they furnished her; she has grown rich through their consumption. How stands the matter with New England to-day? True, some of her shops are running, but many more are still. The noise of the loom, the rattle of the shuttle, have ceased in many of her factories, while others are gradually discharging their operatives and closing their business. But I will pursue this branch of the subject no farther. No one acquainted with the facts, will deny that the whole country is upon the eve of such a financial crisis as it has never seen—that this crisis will come as sure as that the sun will rise, unless we do something to avert it!

What is it that has thus stopped the wheels of manufactures and arrested the ordinary movements of commerce? What is it that has produced this unusual and uncommon stagnation of business? What is it that has driven away from the markets of the North those hitherto so welcome to them? I do not propose to go into the history of these questions. I will not attempt to enlarge upon the answers to them. I can condense the answer into few words. It is because anxiety, distrust, and apprehension, are universally prevailing. Confidence is lost. The North misunderstands the South—the South misunderstands the North. Neither will trust the other, and the consequences to which I have adverted necessarily follow.

I am a merchant. I am unused to public discussions or arguments, but I am a business man, and I take a business view of this subject. I can see as clearly as I can see the sun at noonday the causes of our present embarrassment. I believe I can see equally clear how those causes may be removed.

We have come here for a grand and lofty purpose. What nobler work can engage the mind of a true patriot than that of devising the means of saving his country when it is in peril? That work is ours. In performing it, are we not acting under a grave and solemn responsibility? We are, sir! The people will hold us responsible for the manner in which we perform this great trust. I know the people of this country. They value this Union. They will make great sacrifices to save it. They will disregard politics and parties—they will cast platforms to the winds of heaven, before they will place the Union in peril.

The delegates from New England in this Conference seem to be the most obstinate and uncompromising. They aver that they cannot agree to these propositions because their adoption involves a sacrifice of principles—that New England is opposed to slavery, and will not consent to put it into the Constitution, nor to its extension. They say the people hate slavery, and will not for that reason accept these proposals.

I do not believe one word of this. I know the people of New England well; they are true Yankees; they know how to get the dollars, and how to hold on to them when they have got them. They are a shrewd and calculating as well as an enterprising people; they understand their interests and will protect them. They will not sit quietly by and see their property sacrificed or reduced in value. Once show them that it is necessary to adopt these propositions of amendment in order to secure the permanence of the Government, and to keep up the property and other material interests of the country, and they will adopt them readily. You will hear no more said about slavery or platforms. They will never permit this Government, which has contributed so much to their wealth and prosperity, to be sacrificed to a technicality, a chimera. The people of New England know how to take care of themselves. Give them a chance, and they will settle all these points of difference in some peaceful way.

I am not here to argue or discuss constitutional questions. That duty belongs to gentlemen of the legal profession. I have lived under the Constitution. I venerate it and its authors as highly as any man here. But I do not venerate it so highly as to induce me to witness the destruction of the Government rather than see the Constitution amended or improved.

I regret that the gentlemen composing the committee did not approach these questions more in the manner of merchants or commercial men. We would not have sacrificed our principles, but we would have agreed—have brought our minds together as far as we could; we would have left open as few questions as possible. These we would have arranged by mutual concessions.

Mr. President, I speak as a merchant; I have a deep and abiding interest in my country and its Government. I love my country; my heart is filled with sorrow as I witness the dangers by which it is surrounded. But I came here for peace. The country longs for peace; and if these proposals of amendment will give us peace, the prayer of my heart is, that they may be adopted. Believing such will be their effect, I will vote for them. I would like to say much more, but I will not occupy time that is now so valuable. Let us approach these questions in a spirit of conciliation. Above all, let us agree upon something. Let us do the best we can, and then let us go home and ask the people to approve our action. The people will approve it, and their approval will give us peace!

Mr. SMITH, of New York:—I did not propose to take any part in this debate. The Conference is made up of men, many of whose names are historical, and are intimately connected with the history of the country. I preferred to leave the whole discussion to them.

But as we are all seeking a common end, there are some views which have occurred to me that I thought should be presented, inasmuch as they appear not to have engaged the attention of others. New York, I am aware, has occupied considerable time, and I owe an apology on her part for trespassing farther upon your time.

We are here in a family meeting. On one side Virginia thought the parent was so ill that the family ought to be called together. I thought yesterday that we were undergoing some family discipline—that New York had in some way disgraced herself, and needed correction. I did not know what she had done; but I supposed the reproof was administered to her in a kindly spirit, though it was uncalled for.

The work proposed to us is, to be sure, a work of conciliation. But call it by whatever name you may, nothing less is proposed than an alteration of the Constitution. When we are asked to alter a Constitution that was made by Washington and Madison, under which the country has grown to wealth and happiness, we certainly ought to approach the subject with the utmost deliberation. If we were settling family differences only, we would deliberate. How much more should we do so when we are dealing with the great principles which uphold our Government!

It is by great principles that nations are governed and their destinies are shaped. The world is governed by ideas and not by material interests. These facts must be kept distinctly in view by those who take upon themselves the business of making constitutions.

It is stated that we are called here to settle the terms upon which certain sectional differences are to be arranged. We ought, then, first to ascertain what is the extent—what the limit of these differences.

In the first place, it is agreed that no constitutional rights have yet been invaded. The occasion for fear is not what has been, but what may be done. I suppose we are all alike tenacious of our rights, whether we derive them from the Constitution or from any other source. The rights of the State are just as important to New York as to Virginia. But it is said that appearances exist that indicate an intention on our part to interfere with some of the institutions of the South. We ask for the proof. None is forthcoming—nothing but the most vague and indefinite suspicion.

We propose to give the most satisfactory and absolute guarantees on that subject—the subject of interference with Southern institutions—even to put those guarantees into the Constitution. But that is not satisfactory—we are told that we cannot be trusted. I should hope that no Northern State could ever be truthfully required to admit that it had given cause for such an apprehension. But it is evident that this is not the real occasion of calling us together. What, then, is the occasion?

It is said, that certain sectional rights in the Territories must be secured and guaranteed. In that view I desire to call the attention of the Conference to two or three points in the plan of the proposed security.

As I understand the scheme, it is this: It is proposed to divide our present territory by the line of 36° 30´, with a view to have emigration from the free States go north, and from the slave States go south of that line. This is made in connection with a limitation preventing the acquisition of future territory. Now the first thing that impresses me is the objection to placing any such restraints upon emigration.

Mr. CLAY:—I think the gentleman misunderstands the report. I have seen no proposition that proposes to confine or restrain emigration.

Mr. SMITH:—I concede that there is no express provision restricting emigration, but such I think will be the effect of the amendments.

By the third section, Congress is prohibited, forever, from interfering with the subject of slaves, and the sixth section makes the others, with certain provisions of the Constitution as it now stands, irrepealable and unchangeable. No matter how much the condition of the country may change; no matter if all but the most inconsiderable fraction of the people may desire to change them; these propositions must stand as long as this country stands, a part of its fundamental law.

These are the general provisions which the scheme contains. It is offered as a measure of peace; of conciliation; to calm and quiet the existing excitement.

I think I am right in saying that when you are making a constitution you should consider all the conditions of the people who are to be governed by it; that you should keep in view all sections and opinions. It is my belief that instead of calming the excitement these propositions will aggravate it—will arouse it to a pitch it has never yet attained. I believe this, because the entire proposition goes counter to the fundamental ideas upon which our Government is based.

It proposes to establish slavery South. Is not this the first time in the history of the Constitution that it has ever been proposed, by affixing an article to that instrument, to establish—to plant slavery in territory which was free when it was acquired? The ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery from going into the territory which was acquired by it.

In similar language the article proposes to abolish slavery in the territory north of the line. It is well to consider what is the legal condition of that territory now. New Mexico and Arizona were free when we first acquired them. Is not this provision wholly unnecessary? Mr. Clay left such language out of the Missouri Compromise, as he avowed, on the ground that slavery could not legally go into territory free when it was acquired, without the aid of affirmative legislation. Previous and up to the year 1850, there was no difference of opinion among lawyers on this question. All agreed with Mr. Clay.

Now, slavery has gone into a portion of this territory; violently too; without such legislation. Limits are prescribed to it, it is true, but it is there, and in this way. That is the status which is to be recognized, constitutionalized by these articles. I am aware that there is a law of the territory that authorizes slavery, but slavery went there without law, in spite of the opinions and opposition of Mr. Clay.

This is shown by the debate of 1850. It is proposed now to convert the territory south of the line of 36° 30´ into slave territory, and to make that conversion irrevocable. Suppose these propositions had been applied at the moment the territory was acquired. Then certainly slavery would have been carried there by force of these articles alone. The principle would have been the same; one case being no stronger than the other.

Mr. President, I shall not enter into any discussion of the merits or demerits of the question in any other than its political aspects. I have nothing to say respecting the morals of slavery. If there is virtue in the institution, you have the credit of it; if there is sin, you must answer for it. And here let me say that you discuss the moral aspect of slavery much more than we do. We hold it to be strictly a State institution. So long as it is kept there, we have nothing to do with it. It is only when it thrusts itself outside of State limits, and seeks to acquire power and strength by spreading itself over new ground, that we insist upon our objections.

Whatever the consequences may be, we should not conceal from each other the true condition of public opinion in our respective sections. A correct knowledge of this is essential and indispensable. It is in view of this opinion that our proposals should be framed, if they are ever to be adopted. The settled convictions of a people formed upon mature examination and experience, cannot be easily changed. This should be understood at the outset.

Now, I respectfully submit that no sentiment, no opinion ever took a firmer hold of the Northern mind—ever struck more deeply into it—ever became more pervading, or was ever adopted after maturer consideration, than this: That it is impolitic and wrong to convert free territory into slave territory. With such convictions the North will never consent to such conversion. Never! never!

This was the view of Mr. Clay. His opinion always had great weight at the North. Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, declared to the same purpose, and avowed that Northern men could not be expected to consent to this. We, at least, know how this opinion is consecrated in the hearts of the people of the North, and how idle it is for statesmen to run counter to it.

We are told by the gentleman from Maryland, that all the South wants is to have the force of the decision of the Supreme Court acknowledged as to that part of the territory south of the line, in consideration of which the South will yield what she gains by that decision in the territory north; and also that we must do this, or the slave States will be driven to join those States that have seceded. Now, it is due to frankness to say, that the North does not acquiesce in that statement; that the point as made by the gentleman from Maryland, has been decided by the Supreme Court. We know that the Chief Justice of that court has expressed his own opinion that way; but we don't know that it has been decided by that court. But if it has been so decided, the very ground of the decision is a misapprehension. If I rightly understand the language of Chief Justice Taney, he insists that the Constitution expressly affirms the right of property in slaves. I think it does not. The North thinks it does not.

Mr. Smith then proceeded to discuss the facts in the Dred Scott case, and the various opinions declared by the judges, showing that the decision did not extend so far as claimed by Mr. Johnson, and that the question of the right to hold slaves in the Territories was not presented by the record in that case.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—There were two questions involved in the Dred Scott case. One was, the authority of Scott to sue; the other was, upon the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Both these were decided in that case, and both were decided by the Supreme Court years ago.

Mr. SMITH:—I am aware of the views taken by the gentleman from Kentucky. I am stating as a matter of fact how this decision is regarded by a large portion of the people of the North. I am aware that the Southern construction of the decision is different, and some at the North concur in it. I am trying to see how the majority propositions will suit the people who agree with the Northern view.

I understand it is claimed that the court decided that slaves were property, and that the Constitution did not permit any restraint to be laid upon the owners of that property in the Territories. Yes, the court did decide that the owner had the right to take his slaves into the Territory and hold them there; and to that extent they were property. It is a prevalent idea at the North that the Southern construction of this decision is not fair, and that it would be dangerous to adopt it.

We do not subscribe to the doctrine that the Constitution expressly affirms the right of property in slaves. We may be wrong; it may be a mere misapprehension. But with their present opinions, the people of the North will hesitate long before they make this express affirmation a part of the organic law.

Again; if the Constitution affirms this right, and was understood to do so by its framers, what was the need of the rendition clause? The Constitution is the supreme law in the free States as well as in the slave States. Under this construction the rights of the owner could have been enforced like any other right of property in the courts of law, without any provision for the rendition of slaves.

These are some of the opinions that are entertained at the North. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they have been deliberately adopted, and they prevail extensively. They cannot be changed by our action here. In all we do they must be respected. They are constitutionally entertained.

This proposition to carry slavery into the Territories, opens the discussion of the merits of that institution. Gentlemen say they wish to stop the discussion; that there has been too much of it already; that such a discussion would be especially unfortunate now. I do not propose to enter upon it here. But I desire to know in what manner you could more effectually invite discussion than by placing your proposed amendments before the people?

You must not forget that the people of the North believe slavery is both a moral and a political evil. They recognize the right of the States to have it, to regulate it as they please, without interference, direct or indirect; but when it is proposed to extend it into territory where it did not before exist, it becomes a political question, in which they are interested, in which they have a right to interfere, and in which they will interfere. Such an attempt they consider it their duty to resist by all constitutional means.

The establishing of slavery in the Territories is the practical exclusion of free labor in them. True, there is no direct provision for the exclusion of free labor in your propositions, but such will certainly be their effect. I appeal to gentlemen from the South to say from their own experience whether free labor can be employed side by side with slave labor. This presents another consideration. You of the South ask us to guarantee a right which you say is very important and very dear to you. You ask that your children may enter into and possess these new Territories. We know it. But the North asks the same privilege. We want our children to go there, and live on the labor of their own free hands. They are excluded if slavery goes there before us.

Mr. President, the people of the North do understand, that we are in a contest—a great and important contest. Yet it is one that can be carried on without trampling upon each other's rights—without attempting to secure any unfair advantage. That is the way the North proposes to carry on this contest in relation to the extension of slavery. This contest is between the owners of slaves on the one side, and all the free men of this great nation on the other.

There is another fact that should be kept in view. The Territories are the property not of the individual States, but of the General Government. They are held by the Government in trust, I grant. But in trust for whom? For the whole people of the Union; not in trust for thirty-four distinct States. The idea that these Territories are subject to partition—that South Carolina has the right to demand her thirty-fourth part of them in severalty, is one that by the North cannot be entertained. It is this idea which has produced that other more mischievous one—that an equilibrium must be maintained between the free and the slave States; in other words, between freedom and slavery. Where did this idea creep into the Constitution? It never has found, and it never will find, favor with the people of the North.

We may talk around this question—we may discuss its incidents, its history, and its effects, as much and as long as we please. And after all is said—disguise it as we may—it is a contest between the great opposing elements of civilization—whether the country shall be possessed and developed and ruled by the labor of slaves or of freemen.

Leave it where it is, and all is well. We can live in peace while it is a State institution; extend it, and who can answer for the consequences? Leave it where it is! I humbly suggest that in that direction lays the only path of peace. So long as the Territories are common property, so long will the people insist upon protecting their interests in them. In a Government like ours, conflicts will ensue. The Constitution provides the proper and peaceful way of settling them; and it is not by a partition of every subject in which a mutual interest exists.

Mr. SEDDON:—Does the gentleman consider this a nation, or a federal union of States?

Mr. SMITH:—If I did not consider this a nation I should certainly not be here.

Mr. SEDDON:—Is not the whole machinery of the Government federative? Is not its whole action that of a confederation? Is not the recent election of Mr. Lincoln a proof of the fact? He was elected by less than a majority of the people.

Mr. SMITH:—In all the action of the Government with other governments, we are a nation as much as France or England. In every thing pertaining to the acquisition of territory we are a nation. The rights of the States are preserved in the Constitution, I admit, but their power is to be exercised subject to the powers reserved by the Constitution to the General Government. In all that respects these powers the Government is supreme.

I have only sought to state some of the opinions which are conscientiously entertained at the North upon subjects connected with these propositions. They are entertained there, and they must be respected by the Conference.

This doctrine of the preservation of the balance of power is a new doctrine. It was unknown to the framers of our Constitution. In my opinion it is a most mischievous doctrine to the country, and can only produce the most pernicious results. It is closely akin to the doctrine once broached in the Senate of a duality of the Executive, which, extended, would require a President for every sectional interest. Such ideas were never popular at the North. I do not think they would operate very well in practice at the South.

Mr. CLEVELAND:—Will the gentleman give way for a motion to adjourn?

Mr. SMITH:—Certainly.

On motion of Mr. Cleveland the Conference adjourned to ten o'clock to-morrow.

---

FOURTEENTH DAY.

Washington, Thursday, February 21st, 1861.

The Conference was called to order by the President, at ten o'clock and fifteen minutes a.m., and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. Stockton.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—As I stated yesterday, I now wish to call up my resolutions relating to the termination of the debate, and to have a vote taken upon them.

Mr. CHASE:—Will Governor Wickliffe permit me to make a formal motion, which cannot give rise to discussion? It is this: The resolutions passed by the Legislature of Ohio, under which myself and my colleagues hold our seats, make it my duty to lay before the Conference the resolves I now offer. I ask to have them read, laid upon the table, and printed.

The resolutions were read, and the motion of Mr. Chase concurred in.

The resolutions are as follow:—

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to proceed to final action on the grave and important matters involved in the resolutions of the State of Virginia, in compliance with which this Convention has assembled, and in the several reports of the majority and minority of the committee to which said resolutions were referred, until opportunity has been given to all of the States to participate in deliberation and action under them, and ample time has been allowed for such deliberation and action.

Resolved, therefore, That this Convention adjourn to meet in the city of Washington, on the 4th day of April next; and that the President be requested to address a letter to the Governors of the several States not now represented in this body, urging the appointment and attendance of Commissioners.

Mr. EWING:—I wish to state here that I do not concur in these resolutions.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I now offer two resolutions, one providing that debate shall cease upon the report of the committee, at 10 o'clock to-morrow. The other, that five minutes shall be allowed to the mover of an amendment to explain it, with five minutes to the committee to reply. Upon reflection, I will offer a third: That a motion to strike out and insert shall not be divided. If desired, a vote may be taken on the resolutions separately, as I wish to have each stand upon its own merits. I will not discuss these resolutions, for I think all must be impressed with the necessity for passing them now.

The resolutions were as follow:—

Resolved, 1st, That at 10 o'clock, the 22d February, 1861, all debate upon the report of the Committee of one from each State shall cease, and the Convention will proceed to vote, and continue to vote until the whole subject shall have been disposed of.

2d. If an amendment be offered by the Commissioners of any State, or the minority of such Commissioners, five minutes is allowed for explanation, and the like time is allowed to the committee to resist the amendment, if they desire to do so; and the mover of the amendment, or any member of the same State, may have five minutes for reply.

3d. A motion to strike out and insert shall not be divided.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I shall not debate these resolutions. As I am engaged in taking notes of the discussion, I cannot enter into a contest for the floor, and I would not if I could. My State has not occupied a moment of time on the general subject, nor are her delegates very anxious to address the Convention at all.

Whether the Conference will give one of us a few minutes or not, is simply a question of policy, of which I am not a disinterested judge. It is possible that some suggestions might be made which would be worthy of attention.

Mr. GOODRICH:—I move to amend by inserting Saturday, instead of to-morrow, in the first resolution.

Mr. RANDOLPH:—There is force in the remark of the gentleman from Vermont. No State should be cut off. I suggest that the States whose delegates have not addressed the Conference, should have the preference.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:—I represent a youthful State. She is not the daughter of any particular State or section, but of the Union. We Missourians love the Union, but we have fully arrived at the conclusion that the time has come when something must be done to prevent our entire separation. We have hitherto remained silent. We came here to preserve the Union. Not that we love the Union less, but we love our rights more. We love our rights more than the Union, our property, or our lives. We desire to come to a speedy adjustment. Ten days of Congress only remain. It will be difficult even to introduce our propositions, still more to get them considered. I sustain the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky; and Missouri will vote for it.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I will make the proposition as acceptable as possible. I will insert one o'clock instead of ten.

Exclamations were heard from several members of, "Let us agree," and the question being taken on the first resolution as amended, it was adopted.

Mr. BACKUS:—I move to insert in the second resolution, ten minutes instead of five, wherever the word occurs. That time is none too long to state the purpose of an amendment properly.

Mr. NOYES:—Is this resolution designed to exclude all discussion upon an amendment, except by the member moving it and the committee?

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—No! Such is not the intention. Any one can speak five minutes. I rely on our sense of propriety not to abuse this construction of the resolution.

The amendment of Mr. Backus was decided in the negative by a vote viva voce.

The resolution was then adopted, together with the resolution relating to motions to strike out and insert.

Mr. BROWNE:—I move that when the Convention adjourn, it adjourn to meet at half-past seven o'clock this evening.

Mr. CHASE:—I hope the Conference will not hold night sessions. Our day sessions are protracted and very laborious. I agree with Commodore Stockton, that night sessions are dangerous.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I do not agree with Mr. Chase. I have particularly observed the demeanor of all the gentlemen in the Conference, and know that they are as well fitted for business at five o'clock in the afternoon as at ten o'clock in the morning.

A vote by the States was called for, which resulted as follows:

Ayes:—Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—13.

Noes:—Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Vermont—7.

Mr. WILMOT:—In pursuance of the instructions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, I offer the following. I wish to have it laid on the table, and printed, that I may move it as an amendment to the committee's report at the proper time.

The motion of Mr. Wilmot was agreed to, and the amendment is as follows:

"And Congress shall further 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 deprivation, by violence, of his rights secured by this Constitution."

Mr. DENT:—I ask that the following may be adopted as an additional rule:

"When the vote on any question is taken by States, any Commissioner dissenting from the vote of his State, may have his dissent entered on the Journal."

Mr. CHASE:—I suggest whether it would not be better to call the yeas and nays, on the motion of any Commissioner. I have heretofore introduced a resolution to that effect, which, with the gentleman's permission, I will now call up.

Mr. DENT:—I won't insist.

Mr. Chase's resolution was taken up as follows:

"The yeas and nays of the Commissioner of each State, upon any question, shall be entered upon the Journal when it is desired by any Commissioner, and the vote of each State shall be determined by the majority of Commissioners present from each State."

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I hope the gentleman will waive the first part of the resolution. I think it is the best way not to disclose our divisions any farther than is indispensably necessary.

Mr. CHASE:—I copied the rule verbatim from the one adopted by the Congress of the Confederation. I think it right and fair. But I have no objection to modifying it, so as to have the yeas and nays called on the motion of any entire delegation.

Mr. DENT:—I did not withdraw my motion. I think it will accomplish all we need. It will be taken, of course, that those who do not dissent vote with the delegation.

Mr. REID:—I think it is entirely too late to talk about saving time. How long will it take to have the names of dissenting delegates called? For one, I desire to exercise my rights under the authority of the State I represent. I will not consent to waive them. When the vote of my State is cast, I wish to have the record show who is responsible for it.

The question was taken on the resolution offered by Mr. Chase, and it was rejected, and the additional rule proposed by Mr. Dent was adopted.

Mr. COALTER:—I offer the following, which I shall move as an amendment to the report. I ask that it be laid on the table, and printed:

"The term of office of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the United States, hereafter elected, shall be six years; and any person once elected to either of said offices, shall ever after be ineligible to the same office."

The above motion to lay on the table and print was agreed to.

Mr. BRONSON:—I also have an amendment, of which I ask to have the same disposition made. It is as follows:

"Congress shall have no power to legislate in respect to persons held to service or labor in any case, except to provide for the rendition of fugitives from such service or labor, and to suppress the foreign slave trade; and the existing status or condition of all the Territories of the United States, in respect to persons held to service or labor, shall remain unchanged during their territorial condition; and whenever any Territory, with suitable boundaries, shall contain the population requisite for a representative in Congress, according to the then federal ratio of representation, it shall be entitled to admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without persons held to service or labor, as the Constitution of such new State may prescribe."

Mr. Bronson's motion was agreed to.

Mr GUTHRIE:—I call for the order of the day.

The PRESIDENT:—The order of the day is called for, and the gentleman from New York has the floor.

Mr. SMITH:—At the adjournment yesterday, I had proceeded to state two or three grounds upon which I think the proposals of amendment to the Constitution reported by the majority of the committee would be unacceptable to the North, and I had also stated some special objections to action in this way and at the present time.

The next consideration to which I would invite attention is this: Is it necessary or wise for the Conference, composed as it is of friends of the Union, or is it expedient thus to encounter the settled sentiments and convictions of the people of so large a section of the country? It is not necessary, for various reasons. This territorial question is, after all, a question to be looked at in a prospective view. Why is it necessary to disturb the Constitution by inserting such a provision as you propose? Why is it necessary for gentlemen from the South to have it in, in order to enable them to stand with their people at home?

Slavery is now in New Mexico. That must be acknowledged as a fact. The South think it rightfully there—the North believe it is there wrongfully. But its existence in the territories is a fact nevertheless. President Lincoln cannot help it if he would. The Supreme Court will affirm its rightful existence there, whenever the question comes before that body. That Court cannot be changed before these territories are admitted as States, if the disposition exists to change it. You claim that the question is already decided. How, then, can it be important to you to press the adoption of these sections as a part of the Constitution? My judgment is, that it is best to leave this subject alone—that that is the true way to save the Union.

Gentlemen of the South, remember that if you must stand at home with your people, so also must we. There is a North as well as a South!—a northern people as well as southern people. You press us hard on these subjects. But can men who are rational ask us to abandon our own people, to go counter to their convictions and sentiments? We cannot do it! You would not respect us if we did! I am very sure that if this Conference is to attain any beneficial result, it must abandon all idea of coercion or intimidation as applied to the friends of the Union.

It is said we are contending for a party platform—that we are letting party stand between us and the Union. I could trample parties and platforms under foot to preserve the Union, but I cannot understand how honest men can abandon principles because a party has adopted them into its platform. Do not tell us that by adhering to the Union and the Constitution, we are simply adhering to a party platform. Our principles are at least as dear to us, as yours are to you; you must not expect us to sacrifice them either to promote our own material interests or to promote yours.

Let us then sink the question of slavery in the Territories. Let the courts take care of it if need be, or let it be dealt with when it properly comes up. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." In that direction lays the path of peace.

But perhaps it may be suggested that such a course would really leave no plan to be adopted. Perhaps so. Is it, then, not true that we are having all this trouble over a contingency that may or may not arise? That the Constitution is sufficient for all purposes but this, you aver; and yet you say in the same breath that the Court has settled this question entirely and finally in your favor. Why not be satisfied, then, with the settlement? Can you make it more of a finality in the way you propose? No, gentlemen; believe me when I tell you that the true remedy does not consist in endeavoring to humiliate the people of one section for the benefit of another. Remember we are dealing with the American people; I would not throw the Constitution into the vortex of disunion that is opening before us; I would preserve it rather as a rock on which we can all safely stand. Do not throw away the compass by which alone we can safely be guided!

If I were to suggest a suitable remedy, what I think a wise plan, it would be the one adopted on a similar occasion, when one of the States set itself up in opposition to the General Government, with such very beneficial results; and that would be, to have the Government appeal to the people for support—to throw itself into the arms of the people. The result then has become historical. It is remembered with pride and pleasure by all. I would have a similar course pursued now. The result would be equally grand, equally gratifying. It would rally every patriot, every friend of the Union from every section, to its support. You, gentlemen of the South, now friends of the Union, still give it the strength of your support, the favor of your countenance, and you shall be supported and sustained as you can be in no other way. You shall have the support of the power of the Government and of every friend of the Union in the country.

You remember how those patriotic statesmen, Clay and Webster—differing from the Executive, opposing his election with all the strength of their gigantic intellects—when the authority of the Government was questioned, and South Carolina, under the lead of Mr. Calhoun, undertook to set herself up in opposition to it—how they waived all former differences, and instead of encouraging secession by their delay and timidity, without asking for new guarantees or for amendments of the Constitution, came voluntarily and earnestly to the support of the Executive and the administration, because the Executive was right, and was the chosen instrument of the people to preserve the integrity of the Union.

Mr. BARRINGER:—If the gentleman will excuse me, I will state that the course of the Executive against South Carolina was universally acquiesced in except in that State. And yet the opinion that President Jackson far exceeded his powers, was equally unanimous. That precedent has been greatly misinterpreted.

Mr. SMITH:—I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. He entertains his opinions, I do mine, as to what then saved the Union. I should not probably be able to make him think with me; but I feel sure that the idea prevails quite extensively, that South Carolina returned to the path of duty then, because the power of the Government was wielded by an honest and energetic Executive. She came to the conclusion that any other course would probably be attended with danger.

Our present differences had no very remote origin. They belong to our own generation, and we ought to be compelled to deal with them. I think the so-called compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles—that instead of saving the country it brought it into greater danger than it ever was before.

Mr. BARRINGER:—I wish to make a suggestion on that point.

Mr. SMITH:—I hope the gentleman will not forget that he will have a full opportunity to answer me. I am nearly through, and generally no good comes of interruptions. They only consume time.

I was about to say, that I do not propose to go into the question of who was to blame for that repeal. I agree with gentlemen from the South, that there is no profit now in discussing the origin of our troubles—in inquiring who set the house on fire before we put on the water.

Mr. CLAY:—Does the gentleman do justice to Mr. Clay, when at one moment he says that Mr. Clay held up the arms of the administration, strengthened the Executive, and aided the Government in putting down secession, and in the next, states that the compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles, when it is well known that Mr. Clay strongly favored that compromise?

Mr. SMITH:—When I speak of the unhappy effect of the compromise measures of 1850, I ascribe no wrong motives to Mr. Clay or any one else. If he approved that compromise, I have no doubt he did it in the full belief that it would be beneficial to the country. Experience has shown that he was mistaken. Saying this is doing no injustice to Mr. Clay. I spoke only of effects. I spoke of the zeal and the energy with which the patriots and eminent statesmen of all parties of this country have been accustomed to come forward and sustain the administration when any necessity existed for doing so. Now let this Conference—let all true friends of the Union everywhere, with one voice, without attempting to place any section or any man in a false or disagreeable position, unite in one determined effort in behalf of the Union, and in an attempt to bring the rash and dangerous men who would seek the destruction of the Government back to a sense of duty. Let us address the country, let us show that we are devoted to the Union, far beyond any considerations of party or self; let us invoke the aid of all true and patriotic men; let us ask them to lay aside for the time all other considerations, and give themselves for the present to the country! The spirit of the old time is yet alive. We can call it out in more than its old strength and vigor, and it will save the country. Our private interests may suffer, but the great interests of the Union will be strengthened and preserved, and the Constitution, which has been our pride and strength, will not be dragged down into the great whirlpool of disunion. I appeal to the venerable and able men around me, who bear historic names—who have been themselves long connected with the Union and its Government, to join us in our struggle to save the Constitution.

The views I have expressed may be chimerical. I have advanced them with no little diffidence, but I felt called upon to state them in the discharge of a duty I owe to a people who love and will make great sacrifices to save the Constitution and the Union.

A majority vote, one way or the other here, would be of little consequence. It would carry no weight with it. But if the members of this Conference would all unite in such an appeal to the country, the response would be instantaneous and effective. The heart of the country is loyal; the heart of the South is loyal, I believe. We have abundant evidence that it is not too late to rely upon the Union men in Missouri and Tennessee!

Mr. CARRUTHERS:—The vote of Tennessee is entirely misunderstood.

Mr. SMITH:—Perhaps so. I have no acquaintance with the people of Tennessee. But I will not occupy the time of the Conference farther. I have spoken plainly, but I have spoken what I believe to be the honest convictions of a large majority of the people of this Union. Once more I say, let us not destroy the Constitution!

Mr. CLEVELAND:—I have not got up to make a speech. We have had too much speech-making here. It may be very well for gentlemen to get up and make long arguments and eloquent appeals, and show their abilities and powers, but it all does no sort of good—nobody is benefited, and no opinions are changed. I shall take no such course. I want to see whether this little handful of men who meet every day in this hall, cannot get together and fix up this matter which has been so much talked about. Let us pay no attention to the great men or the politicians. They have interests of their own. Some of them have interests which are superior to those of their country.

In the common affairs of life there are always a great many differences of opinion. Some treat these differences one way—some another. Foolish men go to law, and always come out worse off than when they started. Sensible men get together, and talk matters over; one gives up a little, the other gives up a little, and finally they get together. Now, friends, that is just what I want to see done here.

We are all friends—friends of the Union and of each other. Nobody wants to give up the Union, or hurt Mr. Lincoln. The South has got frightened—not exactly frightened, but she thinks the Republicans, since they have got the power, are going to trample upon her rights. She wants the North to agree not to do so. Now I should like to know what objection there was to that? Who is afraid to do that? If we could go to work at this thing like sensible men, we could settle the whole matter in two hours.

Now about these propositions. I do not see any thing alarming in them. I have not set to work to pick flaws in them. Leave that to the lawyers. I don't care much about them, nor does the North care about them. If the South will take them and be satisfied—if they will stop this clamor about slavery and slavery extension, I think she had better have them. For one, I am sick of the whole subject.

Let us then go about the work like sensible men; let us stop making long speeches and picking flaws in each other. It is a matter of business, and pretty important business. Let us consider it as such, and from this moment let us throw aside all feeling, and set about coming to some understanding. We can do it to-day as well as next week. I do not know that these propositions are the best that can be made; but if they are not, let us talk the matter over like good Union men, and see what is best. When we can find that out, let us agree. If we stay here and make speeches until doomsday, we shall be no better off. I am for action, and coming to an immediate decision.

Mr. COALTER:—If the vote of Missouri is to be taken as an evidence of her devotion to the Union, it must also be understood with this qualification: Her interests and her sympathies unite her closely with the South. She feels, in common with others, her share of anxiety for the future. She is devoted to the Union, and at the same time she insists that it is fair and right that these guarantees should be given.

It has been distinctly avowed on this floor that the people of certain sections of the North abhor slavery. Ought we not to be distrustful when a party entertaining such sentiments comes into supreme power? If Massachusetts abhors slavery, how long will it be before she will abhor slaveholders?

Ignorance is the source of all our difficulties. The people of the North know little of the condition of the negro in a state of slavery. We know that the four millions of blacks in the South are better off in all respects than any similar number of laborers anywhere.

But I rise only to correct a false impression in regard to Missouri. I have only besides to express my full conviction that if the North will not give us these guarantees, we are henceforth a divided people.

Mr. GOODRICH:—Mr. President, the object of this Convention, assembled on the call or invitation of Virginia, is, as set forth in the preamble and resolutions of her General Assembly,

"To restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic;" or, as otherwise expressed, "to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally made, and consistently with its principles."

This agrees, in substance, with the purpose of the Republican party, which, in the words of the Philadelphia platform, is declared to be that of "restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson."

Virginia announces to the other States that she "is desirous of employing every reasonable means," and is "willing to unite" with them "in an earnest effort" for the accomplishment of this common end and object of that State and the Republican party; and she is moved to make this her "final effort," by "the deliberate opinion of her General Assembly, that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable," and by a desire to "avert so dire a calamity."

Massachusetts, equally willing to unite with the other States in an earnest effort to further the same end, accepted the invitation of Virginia, and sent Commissioners here to represent her.

The honorable Chairman (Mr. Guthrie) of the committee to report a plan of adjustment, in his opening speech, advocated with earnestness and eloquence a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of the fathers. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. Rives) from Virginia demands a "restoration of the Constitution to the landmarks of our fathers," and his colleague (Mr. Seddon) urges a return to the "policy of our fathers in 1787."

This assumes that we have departed from the principles and landmarks of our fathers, and from the policy of 1787. The call of the Convention assumes this; the platform of the Republican party assumes it, and the gentlemen whose remarks I have quoted assume it, and it is true.

The particular object of a return to the principles and landmarks of the policy of 1787, as stated in the preamble and resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, is, "to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights." This implies that such a return will afford these adequate guarantees. I agree that it will; and I am ready, and Massachusetts is ready, to adjust this unhappy controversy, and to give the guarantees demanded in exactly this way.

Stated in these general terms, there is a perfect agreement between us. But we find a wide difference when we go one step farther, and learn precisely what Virginia claims would be a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of the fathers, and a return to the policy of 1787. This she has told us in one of the resolutions sent out with the call for this Convention. That resolution is as follows:

"Resolved, That in the opinion of the General Assembly of Virginia, the propositions embraced in the resolutions presented to the Senate of the United States by Hon. John J. Crittenden, so modified as that the first article proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36° 30´, and provide that slavery of the African race shall be effectually protected as property therein during the continuance of the territorial government, and the fourth article shall secure to the owners of slaves the right of transit with their slaves between and through the non-slaveholding States and territories, constitute the basis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy, as would be accepted by the people of this Commonwealth."

It was in reference to these propositions that the gentleman (Mr. Seddon) from Virginia, has asked us the question, "Are we not entitled to these added guarantees according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers?"

The true answer to this question is the pivot on which this whole controversy must turn. If the slave States are not entitled to these added guarantees, "according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers," then Virginia, as I understand her Commissioners, and the resolutions of her General Assembly, does not claim them. She stands upon her rights according to that compact. And all such rights Massachusetts is ready to accord to her, fairly and fully.

By the spirit of the compact of our fathers is meant, the Constitution as they understood it, and as the people of that day understood it. And this is what is meant by the "landmarks of the fathers." All admit that the Federal Government should be administered now, as it was administered by its framers. This is what gentlemen from the slave States, in giving utterance to their intense devotion to the Union, say.

Then, what is the Constitution, as understood by those who framed it? What does it mean when interpreted by the light of the policy of 1787? and what is the spirit of the compact which they made? This is the question we are called to consider. In my remarks I do not mean to wander from it.

So far as the Constitution touches the question out of which the present unhappy controversy has arisen, I say it means this: That slavery, as it existed or might exist within the limits of the original States, should not be interfered with to the injury of the lawful rights of slaveholders under State authority; on the contrary, that it should have the right of recaption, and a qualified protection; but that outside of those limits, otherwise than in this right of recaption, it should never exist, neither in the territories nor in the new States.

And let me say here, that when I speak of the original States, I mean the territory of those States as then bounded. Alabama and Mississippi belonged to Georgia, Tennessee belonged to North Carolina, Kentucky belonged to Virginia, Vermont belonged to New York, and Maine belonged to Massachusetts, and were parts of the thirteen original States, at the time the Constitution was adopted. When, therefore, I speak of territory outside the original States, I do not refer to territory within any of the States named.

Mr. BOUTWELL:—I trust my colleague does not claim to speak for Massachusetts, when he denies the right of any State of this Union to establish and maintain slavery within its jurisdiction, or to prohibit it altogether, according to its discretion. This right was reserved to the States; and States in this Union, whether original or new, stand on a footing of perfect equality.

Mr. GOODRICH:—I certainly do not claim to speak for Massachusetts, though I believe the opinion of the great majority of her people agrees with my own on this subject. However, what I claim is, that Ohio and the other States of the northwestern territory have no constitutional power to legalize slavery within their limits; that they were admitted into the Union without any such power, and that every other new State formed from territory outside the limits of the original States, according to the "spirit of the compact of our fathers," should have been admitted without that power, or the right to acquire it. This I will now proceed to show.

On the first day of March, 1784, the northwest territory, constituting the present States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was ceded by Virginia to the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States was then exclusive and paramount, or soon became so—such other States as had claimed any right of jurisdiction having ceded it. The cession of Virginia was made by Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, who were delegates in Congress from that State, and had been appointed Commissioners for this purpose. On the same day the cession was made, Mr. Jefferson, in behalf of a committee, reported a plan for temporary governments in the United States territory then and afterwards to be ceded, and for forming therein permanent governments.

That plan provided, "that so much of the territory ceded, or to be ceded, by individual States to the United States, shall be divided into distinct States." It is obvious that this plan contemplated the possession of territory in no other way than by cession from the States. It was expected that Georgia and North Carolina would cede their western lands, now the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, as they did some years later; and Mr. Jefferson's plan was intended to embrace those lands or territories to be ceded. Consequently, the following provisions, which were part of the plan reported, were intended by him to apply to Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, viz.:

"After the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said States, otherwise that in the punishment of crimes."

Here the States were evidently those to be formed in United States territory. And farther on in the plan it is stated,

"That the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact, and shall stand as fundamental Constitutions between the thirteen original States, and each of the several States now newly described, unalterable ... but by the joint consent of the United States in Congress assembled, and of the particular State within which such alteration is proposed to be made."

This was a proposition to exclude slavery forever after 1800, not only from the territories which had been, and might afterwards be, ceded, but from the States to be formed in them, and to make it a fundamental Constitution between the original States and each new State. It excited a short discussion, and was postponed from time to time to the 19th of April, when Mr. Speight, of North Carolina, moved to strike it out. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reed, of South Carolina. The vote by States, on the motion to strike out, was:

Yeas.—Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina—3.

Nays.—New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania—6.

This was under the Confederation articles, which provided that the vote on all questions should be taken by States, each State casting one vote; that no proposition could be adopted without the vote of seven States in favor of it, and that the vote of no State could be counted unless two members, at least, were present. As there were but six States in favor of the proposition to prohibit slavery after 1800, it was stricken out.

There was but one member present from New Jersey, and the vote of that State was not counted. The member present voted for Mr. Jefferson's proposition. Another vote from that State would have made the required number, and carried the measure.

In North Carolina, Williamson voted for prohibition, and Speight against it. One more vote from that State would have made seven States for the proposition, and it would have been carried.

Jefferson voted for his own proposition to prohibit; and if one of the other two members present from Virginia had voted with him, that, too, would have made the required number of seven States.

The vote North and South, by members, was in favor of prohibition: North, 14; South, 2—total, 16. Against prohibition, South, 7.

The majority was more than two-thirds; enough to carry it over an executive veto under the present Constitution, and yet it was defeated. And this vote was given in favor of absolute and unconditional prohibition, and that alone, without the right of reclaiming fugitive slaves, or any proposition, or any expectation to confer it. Under the Confederation, no such right existed, nor was it agreed to till more than three years afterwards, and then with the greatest reluctance, and as a matter of compromise, as I will presently show.

Such was the action of the American Congress in 1784—a unanimous vote from the North, and two in nine from the South—in favor of excluding slavery forever after 1800, in all new States to be formed, in territory ceded or to be ceded, embracing Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, in the extreme South. Nothing can be clearer than that the interdiction was to apply to all such States, and to constitute a fundamental Constitution between them and the original States, unalterable without the consent of Congress. The new State was to be deprived of all power to admit slavery. This proposition was made and voted for by Jefferson. But how many votes would such a proposition receive in this Convention? Not many, I fear, even from the free States. My friend and colleague, though strongly anti-slavery, and earnestly devoted to freedom in the Territories, is afraid I shall commit Massachusetts to this old Jeffersonian doctrine of no slavery, and no right to establish it in the new States.

From this time till July, 1787, the question of slavery in the Territories and new States remained open and unsettled. In 1785, Rufus King renewed Mr. Jefferson's proposition to prohibit, and it was referred to a committee by the vote of eight States; but it never became a law, a few from the South always preventing it.

The Federal Convention to revise the old, or frame a new Constitution, assembled in Philadelphia on the second Monday of May, 1787. And here let me read a single paragraph from a lecture by Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, delivered in Boston in 1856. It is as follows:

"The history of the times and the debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution, show that the whole subject of slavery was much considered by them, and perplexed them in the extreme, and that those provisions which relate to it were earnestly considered by the State Conventions which adopted it. Incipient legislation providing for emancipation had already been adopted by some of the States. Massachusetts had declared that slavery was extinguished by her Bill of Rights. The African slave trade had already been legislated against in many of the States, including Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, the largest slaveholding States. The public mind was unquestionably tending toward emancipation. This feeling displayed itself in the South as well as in the North. Some of the present slaveholding States thought that the power to abolish, not only the African slave trade, but slavery in the States, ought to be given to the Federal Government; and that the Constitution did not take this shape, was made one of the most prominent objections to it by Luther Martin, a distinguished member of the Convention from Maryland; and Mr. Mason, of Virginia, was not far behind him in his emancipation principles. Mr. Madison sympathized to a great extent. Anti-slavery feelings were extensively indulged in by many members of the Convention, both from the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States."

Mr. Madison's testimony is important here. He was a member of the old Congress in New York, until the assembling of the Constitutional Convention, and took his seat as a member of that body.

The History of the Ordinance of 1787, by Hon. Edward Coles, contains the following statement, as made to him by Mr. Madison:

"The old Congress held its sessions, in 1787, in New York, while at the same time the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States held its sessions in Philadelphia. Many individuals were members of both bodies, and thus were enabled to know what was passing in each—both sitting with closed doors and in secret sessions. The distracting question of slavery was agitating and retarding the labors of both, and led to conferences of intercommunications of the members."

I quote this testimony now, to show that Conferences were held between the members of Congress and the Federal Convention, upon the subject of slavery. I shall quote farther from it on another point, after turning for a moment to the proceedings of Congress.

On the 9th July, 1787, the Convention having been in session about two months, the ordinance for the government of the Western Territory, which had been reported in a new draft on the 26th of the preceding April, and ordered to a third reading on the 10th May, and then postponed, was referred to a new committee, consisting of Messrs. Carrington, of Virginia; Dane, of Massachusetts; R.H. Lee, of Virginia; Kean, of North Carolina; and Smith, of New York. Two days afterwards, July 11th, Mr. Carrington reported what has since been known as the "Ordinance of 1787," with the exception of the 6th article of compact, prohibiting slavery. When it came up the next day, the 12th, for a second reading, Mr. Dane rose and stated as follows:

"In the committee, as ever before, since the day when Jefferson first introduced the proposal to prohibit slavery in the territory, it was found impossible to come to any arrangement; that the committee desired to report only so far as they were unanimous; that they, therefore, had omitted altogether the subject of slavery; but that it was understood that any member of the committee might, consistently with his having concurred in the report, move in the house to amend it in the particular of slavery. He therefore moved as an amendment, to add a prohibition of slavery in the following words:

"That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

And as a compromise, Mr. Davis proposed to add the following proviso:

"Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor-service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully retained and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

This was at once unanimously accepted by the slave States. The next day, the 13th, the ordinance was passed, every slave State present, viz.: Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and every member from those States voting for it. The same prohibition—which a large majority of the South had resisted when presented alone—was now, when accompanied with the proviso, unanimously agreed to.

Here was a sudden change. But the proviso giving the right of reclamation in the said territory, only partially explains it. For a full explanation we must turn again to the Convention. And the first thing is a further extract from Mr. Madison, respecting a letter, before quoted, as follows:

"The distracting question of slavery was agitating and retarding the labors of both bodies—Congress and the Convention; and led to conferences and intercommunications of the members, which resulted in a Compromise, by which the Northern, or anti-slavery portion of the country, agreed to incorporate into the ordinance and Constitution, the provision to restore fugitive slaves; and this mutual and concurrent action was the cause of the similarity of the provisions contained in both, and had its influence in creating the great unanimity by which the ordinance passed, and also in making the Constitution the more acceptable to the slaveholders."

Mr. Madison, also, in the Virginia Convention, urged the ratification of the Constitution for the following among other reasons, viz.:

"At present, if any slave escape to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws; for the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to retain them. This is a better security than any that now exists."

General Pinckney, one of the delegates in the Federal Convention, from South Carolina, in a debate in the House of Representatives of that State on the Constitution, said:

"We have obtained a right to remove our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all the circumstances, we have made the best terms we could, and on the whole I do not think them bad."

In the speech made by Mr. Webster on the 7th of March, 1850, he remarked that:

"So far as we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence of opinion between those respective bodies—the Congress and the Constitution—and it resulted in this ordinance of 1787."

When Mr. Webster had closed his speech, Mr. Calhoun arose, and among other things, said:

"He, Mr. Webster, states very correctly that the ordinance commenced under the old confederation; that Congress was sitting in New York at the time, while the Convention sat in Philadelphia; and that there was concert of action.... When the ordinance was passed, as I have good reason to believe, it was upon a principle of compromise; first, that this ordinance should contain a provision similar to the one put in the Constitution, with respect to fugitive slaves; and next, that it should be inserted in the Constitution; and this was the compromise upon which the prohibition was inserted in the ordinance of 1787."

This agrees with Mr. Madison. The idea he conveys could scarcely have been more identical with Mr. Madison if he had used Madison's words. When the Southern members of Congress voted unanimously for the 6th Article, or anti-slavery clause in the ordinance, with the proviso in respect to slaves escaping into the Territory, it was with the understanding that the Convention would insert a similar provision in the Constitution respecting slaves escaping from one State to another; and this—its insertion in both—was the compromise upon which the prohibition was inserted in the ordinance. Such is the concurrent testimony of Mr. Madison and Mr. Calhoun.

We will now turn to the ordinance of 1787, and see whether it applies, as the one proposed by Mr. Jefferson in 1784 did, to the new States as well as to the Territories, and is the basis of State as well as Territorial Governments, and was so intended. It declares as follows:

"For extending the fundamental principles of civil and religions liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and establish these principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said Territory; to provide also for the establishment of States and permanent governments therein, and for their admission to a share in the Federal councils, on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest.

"It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid: That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by the common consent."

Then follows six articles of compact. Part of the fifth and the sixth are in these words:

"Art. 5.... Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever; and shall be at liberty to form a permanent Constitution and State Government; provided the Constitutional Government, so to be formed, shall be republican and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles."

"Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

Such is so much of the ordinance as bears directly upon the point I am discussing. And the Convention, as if for the very purpose of giving the unequivocal sanction of the Constitution and of the country to this compromise, and of establishing it as the permanent policy of the Government, expressly provided that the "engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

This ordinance, then, which was an unalterable compact, prohibiting slavery, and fixing and establishing freedom as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments in the Territory forever—State Constitutions and Governments of course included—was made valid by the Constitution itself. And on this point I refer to the highest Southern authority, the late Judge Berrien, who was thoroughly pro-slavery in his views, and should certainly be ranked among the ablest lawyers and statesmen Georgia has ever produced, who spoke to this precise point during the compromise discussion in the United States Senate in 1850, as follows:

"Validity was given to their act by the clause in the Constitution, which declares that contracts and engagements entered into by the Government of the Confederation, should be obligatory upon the Government of the United States established by the Constitution."

It is the "act" of Congress in passing the ordinance referred to here. This being so, it was the same in effect as though the ordinance had been written word for word in the Constitution itself. A contract can be made valid, only by making it binding and obligatory upon the parties to it, according to its terms and meaning. To make an unalterable compact valid is to make it perpetually binding.

Having shown that the articles of compact in the ordinance were unalterable; that validity was given to them by the Constitution itself; that in express terms they applied to States as well as to Territories, and must, therefore, being made valid by the Constitution, necessarily have been understood and intended by Congress and the Convention to prohibit slavery as effectually in one as the other, I will now show very briefly that they were also so understood in all parts of the country.

Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, a prominent member of the Federal Convention, and also of the State Convention for ratifying the Constitution, remarked in the latter as follows:

"I consider this clause as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of the land.... The new States which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slavery will never be introduced among them."

Mr. Wilson speaks of the clause authorizing the prohibition of the African slave trade.

In the Massachusetts Convention to adopt the Constitution, Gen. Heath said:

"Slavery cannot be extended. By their ordinance Congress has declared that the new States shall be republican States, and have no slavery."

Colonel Bland, a member of the Convention from Virginia, said he "wished slavery had never been introduced into America," and that "he was willing to join in any measure that would prevent its extending farther." To allow it in new States would not prevent its extending farther, and therefore it was prohibited in such States.

Doctor Ramsay, a member of the Convention of South Carolina, in his History of the United States, says:

"Under these liberal principles, Congress, in organizing colonies, bound themselves to impart to their inhabitants all the privileges of coequal States.... These privileges are not confined to any particular country or complexion. They are communicable to the emancipated slave, for in the new State of Ohio, slavery is altogether prohibited."

This compact, then, applies to State as well as Territorial governments, and was so understood in all sections of the country—northern, central, and southern—when the Constitution was ratified.

Let me now call attention to the very significant proviso to the sixth article. What does the word original mean, and what does the whole article mean with that word in the proviso?

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, &c.; Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

This means that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for the purpose of reclaiming such fugitives—and I admit that slaves were intended—as are lawfully claimed in any one of the original States. The very fact of the proviso implies that Congress understood that the right of reclamation could not exist, unless it was excepted.

And of course it could only exist for the purpose excepted. The intention was to grant the right to the original States, but to limit it to them. It is impossible to conceive of a measure for framing the proviso as it is, if that had not been the intention. As the ordinance itself made provision for the formation of new States, such States must have been in the minds of members when acting upon it. If the object had been to authorize the reclamation of slaves escaping to this territory from other States than original States, it is certain the word "original" would have been omitted. It was intended for the purpose of limiting the right.

Now observe that this article, proviso and all, is part of an unalterable compact to which the Constitution has given validity. Nobody pretends Congress has ever had the power to alter it. Mr. Toombs denies any such power in express terms. A law which Congress cannot alter has substantially the force and effect of a constitutional proviso. This, then, is the only law for the reclamation of fugitive slaves in the five States of the northwest territory; and there can be no other, the Constitution having made it perpetually valid.

Such obviously is the meaning and legal effect of the fugitive slave provision in the ordinance. And the meaning of that, derived as it is not merely from the consent of the Federal and State conventions, but from their concurrent action, necessarily fixes the meaning of the provision on the same subject in the Constitution, and shows how it must have been understood. As the two were parts of the same compromise, of course neither was understood to be inconsistent with the other. The provision in the Constitution is in these words:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

So far as this describes, or was understood to describe, persons held to service or labor as slaves, it necessarily must also have been understood to apply only to the original States. This follows from what has already been shown. And it must have been so understood for another reason, because it was only "in" and "under" the laws of those States that persons could be held to service or labor as slaves. Under the laws of the Territories and new States, their being so held was forever prohibited. Hence, none but those escaped from one of the original States could ever be legally liable to reclamation, according to the understanding and intention of the original parties to this compact. This manifestly was the meaning of "the fathers," when the ordinance and Constitution were framed and ratified.

The two provisions must be construed together. That in the ordinance was intended for the Territories and new States, and that in the Constitution for the original States. If that in the Constitution had been intended for the Territories, it would have read, "escaping into another State or into the Territory," and that in the ordinance would have been entirely omitted. The proviso to the prohibition in the Missouri Compromise in 1820 is a striking confirmation of this. That was copied, word for word, from the ordinance of 1787, or original compromise, except substituting for the words "in any one of the States," the words "in any State or Territory of the United States," as follows:

"Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive," &c. And in the compromise of 1820:

"Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive," &c.

Why say "in any State or Territory of the United States," instead of "in any one of the original States," as in the ordinance of 1787, unless the Congress of 1820 understood the latter to limit the right of recovering fugitive slaves to the original States, and meant by the Missouri bill to extend it to all the States and Territories? They did extend it, but in palpable violation of the "spirit of the compact of the fathers," and of the "policy of 1787."

Originally the Southern States committed themselves to the policy of slavery restriction, by a compact in the nature of a contract for a consideration. By their own votes, they relinquished all pretence of right to any slaves beyond the jurisdiction of the original States. Slaveholders, as such, voluntarily shut themselves out of the new States, in consideration of the right of recovering their fugitive slaves in whatever part of America they might take refuge. The object, as I have clearly shown, was to secure to slavery in the original States the right of recovering fugitives, whether their escape should be from one of those States to another, or to the Territories and new States; but to make that the limit, both of the right of recovery on one side, and of the obligation to permit or allow it, on the other.

It follows, then:

First: That as between the new States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, no right of reclamation exists, or can exist, there being no power in Congress, as the South admit, to alter the compact in the ordinance of 1787, which denies this right.

Second: That no person, escaping from those States into any other State or Territory, can be reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because no person can be held as a slave under their laws.

Third: That no slave escaping from the slave States of Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, or Florida, into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, or Missouri, can be lawfully reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida are not original States.

Fourth: If slaves escape from any State or Territory other than the original States, into the States of the northwestern territory, no lawful power can touch them. The moment they reach those States they become free, because labor or service cannot lawfully be claimed of them in an original State.

Fifth: After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slaves escaping from Arkansas and Missouri, for example to Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota, could be reclaimed, but escaping to Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, they could not be. And the Congress of 1820 so understood it. The particular in which the Missouri proviso was altered in copying from the ordinance of 1787, is proof enough of this.

But did the framers of the Government intend to distinguish in this manner between new and original slave States? Certainly not; and the reason is, they did not mean to have any new slave States. Otherwise they certainly did mean to make this distinction, for nothing can be clearer than that Louisiana and Missouri cannot go to Ohio to recover fugitive slaves within the meaning of this "compact of the fathers;" while Georgia can. Manifestly we have departed from the system devised by the fathers in allowing Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida to be admitted with slavery, which explains, and nothing else can, this anomalous condition of things.

There can be no escape from these conclusions, but to deny that the ordinance has ever had any validity under the Constitution; which would be scarcely less than to deny that the Constitution itself had ever been a valid instrument. Having the like unequivocal sanction of national authority, and expressing alike in the words of Mr. Toombs, "the collective will of the whole," they must stand or fall together.

Originally the territory was not divided by the line of 36° 30´, or by any other line giving part to freedom and part to slavery. It was all secured, and by consent of the South, to freedom. There is nothing, therefore, in the original compromise, to justify the remark of the Editor of the Boston Courier in a recent number of that paper, that "below the line of 36° 30´, the South have the right of prescription." Freedom has an older prescriptive right to all the Territories. The line established by the compromise, between slavery permitted and slavery prohibited, was the boundary line between the then existing States and the Territory of the United States; or the line between exclusive national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the States. It is an erroneous assumption, therefore, that the free States, by the introduction of slavery south of 36° 30´, as well as north of it, would receive more than a fair share or moiety of rights and privileges, as between States or parties entitled to equal privileges. The idea that the extension of slavery under the Federal Government can be claimed by anybody south or north as a right, is wholly inadmissible. The Courier will hold the following declarations from Mr. Webster to be good authority, if others do not:

"Wherever there is a foot of land to be staid back from becoming slave territory, I am ready to assert the principle of excluding slavery." "We are to use the first and last, and every occasion which offers, to oppose the extension of slave power."

"I have to say, that while I hold with as much integrity, I trust, and faithfulness, as any citizen of this country, to all the original amendments and compromises in which the Constitution under which we now live was adopted, I never could, and never can persuade myself to be in favor of the admission of other States into this Union as slave States with the inequalities which were allowed and accorded to the slaveholding States then in existence by the Constitution. I do not think that the free States ever expected, or could expect, that they would be called upon to admit further slave States.... I think they have the clearest right to require that the State coming into the Union, shall come in upon an equality; and if the existence of slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by abolishing slavery or take the alternative of being excluded. I put my opposition on the political ground that it deranges the balance of the Constitution."

Wherever there is a foot of land to be staid back from slavery! Every occasion to be used to oppose the extension of the slave power! New States to abolish the inequality of slavery, or be excluded! I suppose Northern conservatives of the class referred to have endorsed those doctrines and declarations of Mr. Webster a thousand times, as sound, national, conservative, and constitutional. But no Republican, so far as I know, has ever proposed to go an inch beyond the line of policy they indicated. The Chicago, or Republican Platform, certainly does not. And yet that same line of policy, when advocated by Republicans, is denounced as unsound, sectional, radical, and unconstitutional.

We have a great deal said about the equality of the States; of the new with the original States. This is said to be a fundamental doctrine of the Constitution.

It is claimed that citizens of the slaveholding States have an equal right in the Territories with the citizens of the non-slaveholding States; and I admit they have. But it is also claimed that they have the same right to the protection of property in slaves as property in cotton. This I deny. There is no such doctrine of State equality in the Constitution, nor was any thing like it contemplated by its framers. On the contrary, the Constitution denied this doctrine by clear implication, certainly for the first twenty years. It withheld from Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves into the "existing" States till 1808, while their importation into the Territories and new States might be prohibited at once. Ohio was admitted in 1802. Congress had power to prohibit the importation of slaves into that State from that time, and did do it in effect by the very terms and conditions of her admission, which required that her Constitution and Government should not be repugnant to the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which interdicted slavery. But Congress had no power to prohibit the importation of slaves into Georgia till after 1808. Georgia and Ohio, therefore, in this respect, were not political equals from 1802 to 1808.

Nor have the States been all political equals in the sense claimed, since 1808. It will surprise many to be told that there is nothing in the Constitution about State equality, and especially nothing that affirms the equality of the new with the original States, even after 1808. And yet this is true. The only passages which refer to the new States, except impliedly in the importation clause, are these: "New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State." There is nothing, certainly, in this language to show that the new States were to be admitted on an equality, or an equal footing with the original States.

And yet provision was made, when the Constitution was framed, for the admission of all the new States to be formed in United States Territory then possessed, "on an equal footing with the original States." But it was a footing of equality which was in nowise inconsistent with an absolute denial of the right to establish the inequality of slavery. And this is proved by the only compact in the English language contemporaneous with the Constitution which touches the subject, namely, that part of the fifth article of compact in the ordinance of 1787 which I have already quoted. There can be no shadow of claim that any thing else secured, or pretended to secure, the right of new States to admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. That, I admit, did. It is, to repeat it, in these words:

"Whenever any of said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent Constitution and State Government; provided the Constitution and Government so to be formed, shall be republican in conformity to the principles of these articles," the 6th, which prohibited slavery, included.

And this is all there is, contemporaneous with the Constitution, on the subject of the equality of the States. The very instrument, then, which secured the admission of new States, on an equal footing with the original States, itself provided that they were never to tolerate slavery.

The new States, then, neither were to have, nor have they, any political equality which the prohibition violates, as Southern gentlemen contend. Certainly those formed and admitted under the plan of Government devised by the fathers, have not. In this sense they are not political equals. The original States were, from the beginning, and have ever been, political equals in this and every sense. Not, however, because the Constitution says they are, for it says nothing on the subject; but because they were independent sovereignties, and as such, made a compact which united them under one Federal Government, with discriminating restrictions upon the subject of slavery, or upon any other subject. But the fact that the evil and inequality of slavery existed in the original States, and was tolerated from necessity, was no reason why it should be allowed in the Territories and new States, where it did not and need never exist. So the power of the Territories and new States was sufficiently restricted to secure equality in personal rights and freedom to all the "inhabitants." Of course it cannot be pretended that the mere fact that one or more States had established, and had power to perpetuate slavery, secured to new States the right to establish and perpetuate the same enormity, as a necessary result of State equality. That would make the right or power of one State, resulting from State equality, necessarily coextensive with tolerated evil in another. Manifestly "the fathers" had no such idea as this. Theirs was the common sense and rational idea that a moral and political evil which existed in the old States, and could not be removed, need not for that reason be tolerated in new States.

The Constitution guarantees to each State a republican form of Government merely; but the ordinance of 1787 provides that the "Constitution and Government of each new State shall be republican." Why this difference? In the original States slavery existed, or in most of them; and so far they were anti-republican in fact and practice, though republican in form. The framers of the Constitution, having no power to abolish this anti-republican institution of slavery in those States, did nothing more than guarantee them Governments republican in form. But having the power to exclude it from the new States, they did exclude it, and provided that their constitutions and governments should be republican. That this was the reason for the difference may be inferred from the remark of Luther Martin, a distinguished member of the Federal Convention, that "slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism," and of General Heath in the Massachusetts Convention, that "Congress has declared that the new States shall be republican and have no slavery." No other reason can be given. Thus republicanism in fact, and not in form merely, was made a condition of admitting new States. This is part of the unalterable compact to which validity was given by the Constitution. The Constitution, therefore, while it guarantees a republican form of government, does in fact, by giving validity to the ordinance, guarantee republican governments to the new States. This is another very significant fact harmonizing perfectly with all the other facts in the original plan for extending the Union by admitting States from Territories.

The States are all equals, or not, according to the terms of their admission. The original States became members of the Union upon the single condition of ratifying the Constitution, which left them at liberty to tolerate slavery or not. But the States formed in the only Territory which belonged to the United States at the time the Constitution was framed, were admitted on condition that slavery should be perpetually interdicted within their limits, and as parties to an unalterable compact to that effect.

Slavery was regarded, South as well as North, when the Constitution was adopted, as a moral and political evil. This had been the general sentiment of the country many years before, and continued to be long after that period. The representatives of the extensive district of Darien in Georgia, on the 12th of January, 1775, spoke of slavery as "founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties." Jefferson pronounced it "an injustice and enormity." The present Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. Taney, who acted many years ago as counsel of Rev. Mr. Gruber, who was indicted in the State of Maryland for preaching a sermon on the evils of slavery, spoke as follows in his defence:

"Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of National Independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the call of humanity, and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak in abhorrence of those who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife, the infant from the bosom of the mother, and this was the head and front of his offending. So far is he from being the object of punishment in any form of proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same language here in the Temple of Justice, and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law."

"A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evils of slavery for a time. While it continues it is a blot on our national character; and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away, and earnestly looks for the means by which the necessary object may be best obtained. And until it shall be accomplished, until the time shall come when we can point, without a blush, to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every part of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave."

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:—Where did you get that?

Mr. GOODRICH:—I got it from a printed sermon recently preached by Dr. Orville Dewey, of Boston.

And Mr. Calhoun, in the United States Senate, in 1838, said that "many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil;" and Mr. Butler, late a United States Senator from South Carolina, said in the Senate in 1850, that he "remembered the time when slavery was regarded as a moral evil, even in South Carolina."

In such a state of public sentiment, it is certainly no marvel that slavery was not allowed to extend into the Territories and new States. It was not prohibited in the northwest territory, because it was supposed to be, or would become, an evil in that territory particularly, or a greater evil there than anywhere else; but because it was regarded as an evil everywhere, and therefore wrong to permit its extension anywhere, when there was power to prevent it. There can be no doubt it would have been prohibited in the Territories and new States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, if Georgia and North Carolina, previous to the Federal Convention, had ceded them to the United States upon the same conditions Virginia had ceded the northwest territory. Proof of this is found in the fact that the plan of territorial governments interdicting slavery forever after 1800, embraced all territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual States; and still further proof is in the fact, that the cessions by Georgia and North Carolina, after the adoption of the Constitution, were upon the express condition that slavery should not be prohibited; thereby showing that the policy of the Federal Government, as they understood it, was restrictive of slavery in the far southern latitudes as well as in the more northern, and that they expected the power to restrict would be exercised, if not withheld in the deeds of cession. A proposition was, in fact, made to apply the anti-slavery clause of 1787, to all the southern part of the Mississippi territory, now the southern parts of Alabama and Mississippi, by the act of April 7th, 1798, it being supposed at one time that it belonged to the United States; but the debate shows that the proposition was withdrawn because the jurisdiction was in Georgia, or because not five members of Congress, after the question was examined, believed otherwise. Georgia claimed absolute title and right of jurisdiction, and denied all right on the part of the United States to interfere with slavery. Congress did, however, prohibit the importation of slaves into the territory, and declare every slave so imported to be entitled to his freedom. This was probably wholly unauthorized, as it was six years before Georgia ceded it to the United States, and ten years before Congress had power to prohibit the importation of slaves into that State. But these facts show a strong disposition on the part of "the fathers" to curtail and circumscribe slavery, even in the far south, and at the hazard, too, of exercising doubtful power.

Nothing can be clearer than that the original States had a right to form a Federal Government on such terms as to themselves as they could mutually agree upon, and to fix the terms upon which they would permit new members to be admitted. The Northern States were under no obligation to protect slavery at all, not even by permitting fugitives to be reclaimed within their limits. If, then, they were willing to concede that right to the original States, only upon condition that slavery should not be allowed to extend, who will say they had not a right to make that condition, or that, if agreed to, it would not be valid and binding? With their views of slavery, believing it to be a moral and political evil, it was certainly their first and highest duty to make effectual provision against its extension, before undertaking, for any reason, to give the least protection to it. Such provision they supposed they had made, and it was this that justified them, if any thing could, in conceding the right of reclamation.

The free, or northern States, in the exercise of their admitted right in deciding upon the terms of Union, insisted on making it a fundamental and ever-binding condition that no obligation to protect slavery in Illinois should ever exist; and this was done for reasons which render it morally certain that they would have insisted on the same condition in reference to Missouri, if Missouri had been part of the original territory. It would be preposterous to suppose that while they would not consent to guarantee slavery in any manner in Illinois, because they believed it to be a moral and political evil, they meant at the same time to make a Government that could obligate them to guarantee it in the adjoining Territory or State of Missouri, either by the return of fugitive slaves, or in any other manner. They meant no such thing, nor can an honest interpretation of the terms of union bind them to such guarantee now. The right to recapture fugitive slaves could not exist without the consent of the free States; and as that consent was given upon conditions and with limitations, by necessary implication and every sound principle of construction, they reserved the right to say whether it should exist upon other conditions and with other limitations, or without either condition or limitation.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—No one from Kentucky or Virginia wishes to alter the ordinance of 1787. For God's sake spare us the argument.

Mr. GOODRICH:—I understand no alteration is proposed in the ordinance; nor am I arguing against any such proposition. I am showing what the policy of 1787 was, and what the compact of the fathers was. And I am doing this because it is in the spirit of that policy and compact that Kentucky and Virginia tell us they wish to have this controversy adjusted. Massachusetts and the other Northern States meant to fix, and supposed they had fixed, a limit to their connection with, and responsibility for slavery. By consenting to the clause which secured the right of reclamation, they did become responsible for it to a certain extent. So far as it was supposed, when that clause was agreed to, that its effect would be the recapture of fugitive slaves, and their return to bondage, and so far as the purpose was to make such recapture and return lawful, so far the responsibility of adding to the security of slavery was voluntarily assumed. But this was limited to the existing States by excluding slavery from all United States territory. If any part of such territory had been left for slavery—enough for a single slave State—it might be said that its extension from a part was for reasons applicable only to a part, and so could not be considered as establishing the principle of non-extension. But now this cannot be said. Not a foot was left for slavery.

We thus see what the state of things would have been to-day if foreign territory had not been acquired. Such acquisitions were not originally contemplated, and of course not provided for. The first—Louisiana—was deemed unconstitutional by Mr. Jefferson, and yet it was made while he was President; but with no right, "according to the spirit of the compact of the fathers," to place the Federal Government or the States under any other relation to slavery in subsequently acquired territory than that which they sustained to it—the only one they would consent to sustain—in the Territories possessed at the time that compact was made.

A great deal is said about State rights. But the doctrine of State rights proves too much. Massachusetts had a clear and undoubted right originally to limit her obligations upon this subject. And she did limit them. The original compromise was "better security" to slavery in the original States, with no extension of it to the Territories and new States. This better security was the accepted consideration for waiving the right to extend, and Massachusetts may rightfully insist on this waived right to extend, so long as this "better security" is demanded of her.

Southern gentlemen in this Convention propose to be governed by the principles of the founders of the Government, and by the Constitution, or compact of union, as those founders understood it. By that they say they are willing to do as the fathers did, and adjust the present unhappy controversy by applying to new territory the same principles which the fathers applied to the old. Let me assure gentlemen from the slave States that if they are really in earnest in offering these terms of adjustment, this unhappy controversy can be settled in less than an hour's time. Having always claimed the right to recapture fugitive slaves in territory acquired since, as well as in that acquired before the adoption of the Constitution, the slave States have ever been bound, upon every principle of honor and fair dealing, to concede the original consideration for it, that is, prohibition. A purpose secretly entertained when that compromise was made, to use the Government in the manner it has actually been used, to enlarge the area of slavery and the obligation to guarantee it, would have been dishonest and fraudulent; but the fact that this purpose was conceived afterward, as it doubtless was, does not alter the case a whit. No man possessed of the facts can honestly claim that the bargain between the North and South, interpreted according to the true interest and meaning of both parties at the time of making it, can justify the extension of slavery a rod beyond the original States, or a particle of protection to it beyond the right to recover fugitives from such States.

Having thus shown, as I think I have, that an essential element in the basis of the "more perfect Union" on the question of slavery, was the principle of non-extension, we find the first failure to assert this principle was in the omission to apply it to the Louisiana purchase. The importation of slaves into that territory was immediately prohibited. That probably cut off the only source of supply from which danger of extension was then apprehended. The policy of the Government was well understood, and no apprehension of a practical departure from it existed. There was nothing in the circumstance of the purchase, or the reasons for making it, to excite such apprehension. But it was seen on the application of Missouri for admission, that the ordinance of 1787 should have been applied to it at the time of the purchase. If it had been, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas would never have become slave States (the few slaves in New Orleans and vicinity being emancipated, as they should have been, upon some equitable principle), and the Missouri Compromise, which was the second departure from the original policy, would never have been made. The third was the annexation of Texas as a slave State, and the argument to divide it into three or four more. Annexation led to the war with Mexico, and the acquisition of a large part of her territory, and to the compromise of 1850, by which it was Congressionally agreed that the States formed in that territory might be admitted with slavery, if their Constitutions should so prescribe. This was the fourth departure from the original policy of prohibition. The fifth was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1850, and the attempts to subjugate and enslave Kansas. That repeal made the change from the original policy radical and total. Certainly it is high time "to restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers."

And now, sir, I propose to begin the work of "restoring the policy of 1787," by applying the ordinance of 1787 to every foot of organized and unorganized territory, wherever situated, which now belongs to the United States, precisely as the fathers applied it to every foot of such territory at the time the Constitution was made; and I ask, in all earnestness and seriousness, what any member of the Convention can have to say against this, who sincerely desires to "restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic," and is "ready to adjust the present unhappy controversy" in the same spirit? What, I beg to know, can be said against this mode of adjustment by those who are in favor of a "restoration of the Constitution to the principles and landmarks of our fathers," and of a "return to the policy of 1787"? Can any man doubt that that ordinance would have been extended over all these territories in 1787, if they had belonged to the United States at that time? Let slavery, then, be prohibited now precisely as the fathers prohibited it then. Copy that old ordinance word for word, and give it legal force and effect, and make it the basis of all laws, and all constitutions, and all governments in these Territories forever, because the fathers gave it such force and effect, and made it the basis of all laws, and all constitutions and all governments forever in all the Territories of the Union, in 1787. If that would not be a return to the "principles and landmarks of the fathers," and to the "policy of 1787," then I beg to know what would be? How is it possible—I put it to you, gentlemen of the South—how is it possible to persuade yourselves that the principles and policy of 1787 can be restored by adopting the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia? By what process is it that the gentleman (Mr. Seddon) from Virginia, has come to believe that the South is entitled, according to the spirit of the compact of the fathers, "to the added guarantees" of which he speaks? According to the spirit of that compact it is manifest the slave States are entitled to no added guarantees.

But another of the Virginia Commissioners (Mr. Rives) tells us that this question of slavery in nowise concerns the free States. On this point I will quote from a very high authority, which Virginia, certainly, will respect. Mr. Madison was a member of the first Congress under the Constitution. A colleague of his, Mr. Parker, proposed a duty on the importation of slaves, and said he "hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and, if possible, wipe off the stigma under which America labors." Mr. Madison, in remarking on that proposition, among other things said:

"Every addition the States receive to their number of slaves tends to weaken and render them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of inviting attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the General Government to protect every part of their confines against danger, as well internal as external. Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase danger, though it be a local affair, yet, if it involve national expense and safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general administration of the Government."

And we hear, too, a great deal about war, civil war, if this unhappy controversy is not satisfactorily adjusted, which means upon the terms proposed by the slave States. But do gentlemen mean that an appeal will be made to the sword, unless the Constitution shall be so amended as to "provide that slavery of the African race shall be effectually protected as property in all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36° 30´"?—which is the proposition of Virginia. If that is what is meant, then let me, before I close, read an extract from one of the last speeches made by Henry Clay in the Senate of the United States. It is as follows:

"If, unhappily, we should be involved in war, civil war, between the two portions of this Confederacy, in which the effort upon the one side should be to restrain the introduction of slavery into the new Territories, and upon the other side to force its introduction there, what a spectacle should we present to the astonishment of mankind, in an effort, not to propagate rights, but—I must say it, though I trust it will be understood to be said with no design to excite feeling—a war to propagate wrongs!"

Mr. Howard moved an adjournment.

Mr. Bronson objected, raising the question of order. He claimed that the Conference, by adopting the resolutions of Mr. Randolph, had fixed the limits of the sessions, from 10 o'clock a.m., to 4 o'clock p.m.

The motion of Mr. Howard was not concurred in.

Mr. LOOMIS:—I feel that this is an important crisis in the affairs of the country. Perhaps it is the most important that ever occurred in American history. The first Convention of thirteen scattered States was earnestly engaged in protecting the liberties which had been won in the Revolution. It gave us a Constitution under which, for more than seventy years, we have lived prosperously and happily. Now political contests have taken place. New questions have arisen, and one portion of the Union believes the Constitution inadequate to protect its interests. The question which we are obliged to consider is: How shall we save the country? Disguise it as we may, deceive ourselves as we may, the country is in danger—in great and imminent danger. A solemn duty is imposed upon each one of us. How shall we save the country?

Virginia has invited this conference of her sister States. Pennsylvania responded to her call with all activity. Pennsylvania has responded because she understood and appreciated Virginia. There is great misapprehension in the North concerning this venerated State, as well in regard to her motives as in regard to the principles and feelings that influence her people in their intercourse with and their action toward other States of the Union. I know Virginia well. I have associated with her people. I have practiced before her judicial tribunals.

Some years ago I was greatly pressed by an abolitionist who was indicted in Virginia, to undertake his defence. He was very fearful that he would not receive an impartial trial, that the court and jury would participate in the public excitement. I told him that he need indulge in no such misapprehensions. I knew Virginia too well for that. I told him, however, that if he desired it, I would go; but it was simply to defend him, and secure him a fair trial—to act as his counsel. I could not represent his sentiments, for I am not and never was an abolitionist. I assumed his defence. I told him I would go, and I went. I did find great excitement there, but it did not surprise me. Many valuable slaves had shortly before escaped, some of them through the assistance and instrumentality of my client. Judge Fry was the presiding judge of the court. His liberality, and that of all his officers, was great—as great as I ever enjoyed in my own State. The sheriff of the county drew thirty-six jurymen. Of these, twelve were slaveholders, twelve were abolitionists, and twelve were non-slaveholders. When the jury was finally empannelled it consisted of nine abolitionists and three non-slaveholders.

I never saw in my whole professional life a trial conducted with greater fairness or justice. The whole of it was entirely satisfactory to myself, and I believe to my client.

I have ever since entertained a feeling of the highest respect for Virginia. Her abstractions I confess I could never understand, nor did I ever wish to. They are her exclusive property, and she never uses them to the injury of her neighbors. If she chooses to make the resolutions of '98 a matter of importance, I do not know that anybody is injured.

I regretted to hear the imputations upon Virginia which some gentlemen have seen fit to make. Menace is not the habit of that ancient commonwealth. She does not indulge in it, and it would not become her. The gentleman from New York intimated that if a State came to him with a menace he would meet it with a menace. In this I agree with him. If Virginia came here with a menace I should meet her with defiance. But happily for us we have no occasion to consider the question in this light. If ever a State came to meet her sisters, to consult for the common good in a proper spirit, Virginia does so now.

A military chieftain once, when approaching his death, lamented that he had no children to transmit his name and his qualities to posterity. Virginia will never need to take up such a lamentation. She has children enough. She is the mother of Washington and Jefferson, of Madison, Marshall, and Clay. Rightly and justly she has been called the mother of States. She is the mother of States, and of millions of freemen.

I honor and respect Virginia, for she deserves it. She was among the foremost in the Revolutionary struggle; and since it was terminated, she has exhibited a continued example of patriotism and loyalty. Her sons have been among the ablest in our legislative councils, and even to-day she sets a noble example before the country, for the emulation of her sister States. Our interests are inseparably connected with her own. We will acknowledge the fact, and act in view of it. Let her remember, also, that she has a common interest with us. She will do so because she will be faithful to her old traditions as well as to her present duty.

I cannot believe that the time has come when it is necessary for us to contemplate a dissolution of the Union. The people are not prepared for such an awful event. We do not yet know how heavy sacrifices they will make to avoid it. Some States have left us I know, but I believe their absence is but temporary. We must have them back, and we will. As for the Border States leaving us in the present condition of affairs, with the present feeling of friendship for them, that I regard as an impossibility. Why should the Border States go out of the Union when three-fourths of the present Congress are ready to give them all the guarantees they ask?

But let not Pennsylvania be misunderstood in her position. She will yield a vast deal for peace. She will examine and recognize the rights of every section of the country. She believes that when this is done, it is the duty of all to stand by the Union. She believes that the Border States cannot connect themselves with a so-called Southern Confederacy without involving themselves in a vortex of ruin. The President of the Southern Confederacy already talks about the smell of gunpowder, and about battles at the North. Well! he is a brave man no doubt, but if he will invade Pennsylvania we will resist him. Pennsylvania has gold enough to calm her friends; she has iron enough to cool her enemies.

But Pennsylvania desires no war. She will do all that an honorable State can do to avoid war. In that temper she sends her delegates here, and they will do all that honorable men can do to carry out her wishes. She has no desire to be a frontier State with her four hundred miles of border, which she must guard and protect if disunion takes place on the terms suggested. She will do all she can to avoid disunion. She is now a central State—the keystone of the arch. She wants no imaginary line drawn along her border, with herself on one side of it and enemies upon the other.

Pennsylvania has always kept faith with the Union. She has always performed all her duties toward the Federal Government with cheerfulness and fidelity. Her three millions of people are true to all their obligations now to the Government as well as to her sister States. Her voice is for peace. She would at all hazards avoid disunion. She would make many sacrifices to avoid civil war. Last of all, she would do all she could to save the Union; she would never permit the destruction of the country. My own position is easily defined. I fully sympathize with and endorse the position of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Loomis referred to the election, installation, and message of the Governor of Pennsylvania, also to various resolutions of political conventions in Pennsylvania, in confirmation of his own views of the sentiments of the people of that State, and continued:

I shall dwell but a short time upon the provisions of the proposed amendments. I can live under the Constitution as it is, or as it will be if these amendments are adopted. I shall uphold the Constitution. I shall commit myself to no opposite course. The whole amendment is connected with and concerns the question of slavery in the Territories. This has always been a fruitful source of trouble.

The character of the relation of the Government to the Territories, and the interests of the States in them, were questions raised in most of the States when the Constitution was adopted.

The compromise of 1820, it was hoped, settled one question concerning them—the question of slavery. But upon the repeal of the compromise the difficulty was opened again. Pennsylvania never took as ultra ground respecting this subject as many other States. She thought its importance was magnified. It is magnified now. If the South secured the amendment proposed it would not avail her much. The granting of it would not injure the North. The territory is unfitted for the profitable employment of slave labor. That is shown by experience. In ten years scarcely ten slaves had found their way into New Mexico and Arizona.

This is a question of sectional interest, and may be one, to some extent, of political power. Examine, for a moment, the true interests of both the North and South, in the question as it is now presented. I mean the interest of the extremes, for the Border States certainly cannot have a very deep interest in it. They lay between the two sections, and to some extent sympathize with both. The valuable portion of our present territory is north of the line proposed. It is rich in agricultural and mineral resources. It will be changed in time into a number of powerful and wealthy States. Is it not desirable now to exclude slavery from them forever? Then as to the territory south. It is smaller in extent, and almost infinitely less valuable. Much of it is barren desert which can never be cultivated. Considered as a material interest, the South is asking but little. The North is giving up almost nothing, by agreeing to give the South the control of this section while it remains a territory. But the South does not ask even that. She simply asks to have those rights guaranteed, the existence of which are already practically conceded.

As to future territory, I would raise no question about it. We want no more territory north or south. Its acquisition would only be attended with new troubles. New questions would be raised to threaten the quiet of the country and the stability of our institutions. Why should we trouble ourselves about the acquisition of new territory when we have already enough for one hundred millions of people?

We may form a Constitution which will be entirely satisfactory to the nation now. We may extend our territory in such a way as to render a change indispensable. Considerations of climate and race will be constantly occurring, which will require new changes. The Federal Constitution may have been well enough adapted to the four millions of people to whom it was first applied, and it is not strange that the growth of the nation, and the new interests which have since arisen, should require some changes now. I say that we need no more territory.

What objection, then, can there be to compromising this matter, to arranging it to the satisfaction of all parties, if the rights of all can be regarded and secured? The course which I would follow in such a case, would be that indicated by traditional policy of statesmen in whom our people have had confidence—the policy of such men as Harrison and Henry Clay.

I do not regard the provisions relating to slavery in the District of Columbia as of any practical consequence to the North. Pennsylvania cares little about it. There would seem to be a propriety in countenancing slavery here so long as it exists in the adjoining States.

The Border States ask us now for these guarantees. They ask them earnestly and in a spirit of loyalty to the Union. My answer to such a request, urged in such a spirit, is, that I would give them any guarantees I could within the limits of the Constitution.

Pennsylvania forms one of the brotherhood of States. She is in the Union, and she will remain there. She is bound to it by all the memories and associations of the past, and by all the hopes of the future. She will discharge, as she always has discharged, all her duties, all her obligations to the Union. No State exceeds her in devotion to it. But, at the same time, she will not be unmindful of her duties and her obligations to the other States. She would discharge these obligations as she can afford to discharge them, in a spirit of generosity and conciliation. In that spirit she will give her assent to these propositions of amendment. I believe I have fairly represented the opinions of Pennsylvania in what I have said, and I rely upon her people—my constituents—for my justification.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:—I will consult the pleasure of the Conference whether I shall proceed with my observations now, or during the evening session?

Mr. MOREHEAD: I think the Conference had better adjourn. I make the motion.

The motion was adopted, and the Conference adjourned to meet at half-past seven o'clock this evening.

---