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. King's statement of what occurred in my absence is as follows:

"The vote on the amendment soon followed, and before New York was called I asked my colleagues what vote should be given, and the reply was that in the absence of Mr. Field the vote was divided. Nevertheless, I stated the case to the Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before. This was objected to by one of the Commissioners of the minority, and permission having been refused by the Convention, by direction of my colleagues when the State was called I answered that the vote was divided."

The other statements are subjoined, and numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

From a comparison of these statements it appears.

First: That the direction given to Mr. King, when the whole delegation were together, regularly convened, in contemplation of my absence, was to "declare that New York voted No."

Second: That instead of confining himself to that duty, he began immediately upon my departure, and before the vote was demanded, to ask anew, "what vote should be given?" and when the vote was demanded, instead of voting No, "stated the case to the Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before."

Third: That Mr. King's colleagues, though they had just resolved, in expectation of my absence, that he should "declare that New York voted No," yet "before New York was called," and of course before any intimation from the Convention or its President, in answer to his question, "What vote shall be given?" replied, "that in Mr. Field's absence, the vote was divided," and directed him so to declare.

Fourth: That the Convention never "decided that no person could vote who was not present." Whatever was done, was done between the delegation and Mr. Tyler. No order was taken by the Convention, but, on the contrary, the objection on the part of the minority of the delegation was that "the Convention had no control or authority in the matter."

What caused this departure from the course of proceedings prescribed by the resolution does not clearly appear. The delegation did not rescind the resolution; the Convention did not reverse it. I do not understand that my associates consider it a nullity—certainly they could not have so considered it when it was passed. I have not sufficient evidence that they changed their minds within ten minutes, or that they have changed them yet. That the resolution was not a nullity, but an authoritative act, binding upon every member of the delegation, until duly reconsidered, I believed then, and believe still.

I submit, therefore, that my reason for attending court, at its opening, was not only sufficient but imperative; and if I had not yielded to it, I should have incurred the reproach of my clients, and the censure of all right-thinking men; that before I left the Convention, I did not only all that could have been done, but all that was necessary, to make the vote of New York certain against the proposed amendments of the Constitution; and that the omission to record the vote of New York as it was ordered, was owing not to any act or omission of mine, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some of them, to prevent an expression of the opinion of the majority, and to the failure of my associates of the majority to execute in my absence what had been resolved when I was present.