[Transcriber's Note: A table of contents has been provided for the reader'sconvenience. ]

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, ONE OF THE DELEGATES. 

NEW YORK:D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 443 & 445 BROADWAY. 1864. 

ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, byD. APPLETON & CO. , In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

CONTENTS. 

INTRODUCTION. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE. SECOND DAY. THIRD DAY. FOURTH DAY. FIFTH DAY. SIXTH DAY. SEVENTH DAY. EIGHTH DAY. NINTH DAY. TENTH DAY. ELEVENTH DAY. TWELFTH DAY. THIRTEENTH DAY. FOURTEENTH DAY. FIFTEENTH DAY. SIXTEENTH DAY. SEVENTEENTH DAY. EIGHTEENTH DAY. NINETEENTH DAY. APPENDIX. INDEX. INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. 

INTRODUCTION. 

If I had been guided by my judgment alone it is not probable thatthese notes of the debates in the Conference, held upon the invitationof Virginia, at Washington, in the month of February, 1861, would havebeen made public. From the commencement of its sessions, a portion ofthe members were in favor of the daily publication of the proceedings. I was disposed to go farther and have the sessions open to the public;but this proposition was opposed by a large majority. Strong reasonswere urged for excluding the multitude which in the excitement of thetime would have thronged the hall wherein the Conference held itssessions. But these reasons did not apply to the publication of thedebates, and a considerable minority were strongly of opinion that thepeople should be informed daily, of the votes and remarks of theirrepresentatives in that body. 

I commenced taking notes on the first day of the session. For thefirst few days, and until the reports were presented from the generalcommittee, there was but little discussion, and that related toquestions incidental to the general subject. On the 15th of February, and before the committee reported, Mr. ORTH offered a resolutionauthorizing the admission of reporters, which, after some discussion, by a close vote was laid upon the table. On the 18th, finding thelabor of taking notes greater than I had anticipated, and desiringthat a complete record should be preserved; I introduced a resolutionproviding for the appointment of an official stenographer, who shouldreport the proceedings and hold them subject to the order of theConference. I urged the adoption of this resolution as strenuously aswas proper, but the feeling of the majority appeared to be stilladverse to its passage, and it shared the fate of its predecessor. Ithen revised the notes already taken, and finding them more completethan I had anticipated, determined to make as accurate a report as Iwas able of the general discussion. I could not then anticipatewhether such a report would be useful to the country or not; but Ithought if the Conference should propose amendments to theConstitution, and these should be ultimately submitted to the Statesfor adoption, a knowledge of the motives and reasons which influencedthe action of the Conference as well as the construction which themembers gave to the propositions themselves, might become of as greatimportance as the same subjects were in the convention which framedthe present Constitution. I attended every session of the Conference, and, so far as my strength would permit, made as full and accuratenotes as I could, both of the action of the Conference and theobservations of its members. 

These notes were carefully examined and revised immediately after theclose of each daily session. After the passage of the resolutionintroduced by Mr. BARRINGER, removing the injunction of secrecy andauthorizing their publication, I determined to write them out for thepress. I was engaged in this work when the rebellion commenced, andwas shortly after called to the performance of the duties of anofficial position, which for many months left me no leisure for otheremployments. 

My notes were then laid aside. As it was known by every member of theConference that I had taken them, I was often pressed to permitselections from them to be made. These requests I invariably declined, as I desired the publication, if made at all, to be entire, as well asaccurate. As time passed, these appeals became more frequent andpressing, and claims were made in relation to the course of several ofthe members which could only be sustained or refuted by a publicationof their remarks. At length I was earnestly requested to write out oneof these speeches, and after some weeks of delay consented to do so. 

After the publication of this speech, which took place about the timeof the fall elections of 1863, previous to which the action of theConference had been much discussed, the desire to see a full report ofthe proceedings of that body appeared to be excited anew. Letters andpersonal interviews upon this subject became very numerous. I finallydetermined to take the advice of a number of gentlemen who wereprominent in the convention and the country, as to the propriety ofyielding to this desire, and to be guided by it. I did so, and foundamong them a remarkable unanimity of expression in favor of making thehistory of the Conference public. 

When this question was settled, I desired to avail myself of everyopportunity to secure the highest degree of accuracy and fidelity. Iaddressed notes to such of the members as were accessible, asking themto transmit to me such memoranda of the proceedings of the Conferenceas they had preserved. The response to these letters was verygratifying; not because the materials furnished were very full, butbecause so general a purpose was shown by all the members thusaddressed, to furnish me every facility and aid in their power. 

I have found much difficulty in determining what control each memberought to be permitted to exercise over his own remarks. The mostagreeable course to me would have been, to have written out eachspeech and submitted it to its author for correction or revision; butto this there was a decisive objection. It would have depreciated, ifnot destroyed, the accuracy of the report. Although I do not believethat any gentleman would have been tempted to change the tenor of hisremarks by subsequent events, the view of the public might not havebeen so charitable. 

I have therefore made my own notes the standard of authority, and haveadmitted nothing into the report which has not been justified by themaided by my own recollection. The manuscript has not been changed oradded to, except by my own hands. The few instances in which I haveavailed myself of the materials furnished by others, are distinctlystated either in the notes or the appendix. 

During the sessions of the Conference I was able to secure but littlepractical assistance from the members. Although many of them desiredthat my purpose should be accomplished, and some were taking brief andgeneral notes, I soon discovered that an accurate report of a speechrequired an amount of labor and a degree of attention to the subject, which few gentlemen were inclined to give. The work, therefore, wasthrown almost exclusively upon myself. Some idea of its amount andseverity may be formed when it is stated, that the sessions usuallycommenced at about ten o'clock in the morning, and with a briefintermission were continued late in the evening, in one instance aslate as the hour of two o'clock, A. M. The necessity of these longdaily sessions, arose from the fact, that the Congress then inexistence terminated on the fourth of March, and but few daysremained in which to discuss and perfect the report, and to submit itto that body for its action. 

I do not claim to have furnished a _verbatim_ report of the speechesdelivered in the Conference of 1861, but I insist that I have given anaccurate account of all its official proceedings, and the substance ofthe remarks made in the course of those proceedings. I think, also, that I have preserved nearly all the propositions made in the courseof the debate, and generally have presented the ideas in the verylanguage used. The gentlemen who have critically examined the report, all concur upon the question of its general accuracy, and I am contentin this respect to rely upon their testimony. 

I have suggested these considerations simply by way of explanation, and not for the purpose of avoiding criticism. I have endeavored tofollow, so far as was in my power, the example of the illustriousReporter of the Constitutional Convention of 1787; and while my noteslack the beauty and felicity which characterize his, I trust they arenot less full and accurate. I submit them to the country as the bestcontribution which I can make to its history, at a most important andinteresting period of our national existence. 

The three short years which have passed since the Conference of 1861, have witnessed singular vicissitudes among its members. Many of themhave entered into the military or civil service of the country, or ofthe rebellion which it was the avowed purpose of some members of thatConference to nourish into vigorous life. Death, also, has been busywith the roll. BALDWIN, BRONSON, SMITH, WOLCOTT, TYLER, and CLAY, areno more. ZOLLICOFFER fell at the head of a rebel army. HACKLEMANsealed with his blood his devotion to the principles he advocatedupon the field of Corinth, and now, while I am writing these pages ina morning of beautiful spring, when tree, and shrub, and grass, andflower, are bursting into life and beauty; from the roar of cannon, the rattle of musketry, and the deadly storm of lead and iron, whichbearing destruction upon its wings is waking the echoes of the"Wilderness, " comes the mournful tidings that WADSWORTH has fallen. Inthat Conference or in the world, there was never a purer or a moreardent patriot. Those of us who were associated with him politically, had learned to love and respect him. His opponents admired hisunflinching devotion to his country, and his manly frankness andcandor. He was the type of a true American, able, unselfish, prudent, unambitious, and good. Other pens will do justice to his memory, but Ithought as I heard the last account of him alive, as he lay within therebel lines, his face wearing that calm serenity which grew morebeautiful the nearer death approached, after having given soabundantly of his goods, now yielding his life to his country in thehour of her trial, that hereafter the good and true men of the nationwould emulate the illustrious example of his patriotism, and wouldprize the blessings of a free government the more highly, as theyremembered that it could only be maintained and perpetuated by suchexpensive sacrifices. 

L. E. C. 

_May_, 1864. 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE, Washington, D. C. 

MONDAY, _February 4th, 1861. _

Commissioners representing a number of the States, assembled atWillard's Hall, in the City of Washington, D. C. , on the fourth day ofFebruary, A. D. 1861, at 12 o'clock M. , in pursuance of the followingpreamble and resolutions, adopted by the General Assembly of the Stateof Virginia, on the nineteenth day of January, A. D. 1861:

 _Whereas_, It is the deliberate opinion of the General Assembly of Virginia, that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this confederacy, shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of 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, _Resolved_, That on behalf of the commonwealth of Virginia, an invitation is hereby extended to all such States, whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies, in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights, to appoint commissioners to meet on the fourth day of February next, in the City of Washington, similar commissioners appointed by Virginia, to consider, and if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment. 

 _Resolved_, That ex-President JOHN TYLER, WILLIAM C. RIVES, Judge JOHN W. BROCKENBROUGH, GEORGE W. SUMMERS, and JAMES A. SEDDON are hereby appointed commissioners, whose duty it shall be to repair to the City of Washington, on the day designated in the foregoing resolution, to meet such commissioners as may be appointed by any of said States, in accordance with the foregoing resolution. 

 _Resolved_, That if said commissioners, after full and free conference, shall agree upon any plan of adjustment requiring amendments to the Federal Constitution, for the further security of the rights of the people of the slaveholding States, they be requested to communicate the proposed amendments to Congress, for the purpose of having the same submitted by that body, according to the forms of the Constitution, to the several States for ratification. 

 _Resolved_, That if said commissioners cannot agree on such adjustment, or if agreeing, Congress shall refuse to submit for ratification, such amendments as may be proposed, then the commissioners of this State shall immediately communicate the result to the executive of this commonwealth, to be by him laid before the convention of the people of Virginia and the General Assembly: _Provided_, That the said commissioners be subject at all times to the control of the General Assembly, or if in session, to that of the State convention. 

 _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 the 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 thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, 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. 

 _Resolved_, That ex-President JOHN TYLER is hereby appointed, by the concurrent vote of each branch of the General Assembly, a commissioner to the President of the United States, and Judge JOHN ROBERTSON is hereby appointed, by a like vote, a commissioner to the State of South Carolina, and the other States that have seceded or shall secede, with instructions respectfully to request the President of the United States and authorities of such States to agree to abstain, pending the proceedings contemplated by the action of this General Assembly, from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms between the States and the Government of the United States. 

 _Resolved_, That copies of the foregoing resolutions be forthwith telegraphed to the executives of the several States, and also to the President of the United States, and the Governor be requested to inform, without delay, the commissioners of their appointment by the foregoing resolutions. 

 [A copy from the rolls. ]

 WM. F. GORDON, JR. , _C. H. D. And K. R. Of Va. _

The Conference was called to order by Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky, whoproposed the name of the honorable JOHN C. WRIGHT, of Ohio, astemporary Chairman. 

The motion of Mr. MOREHEAD was unanimously adopted. 

Mr. WRIGHT was conducted to the Chair by Mr. MEREDITH, ofPennsylvania, and Mr. CHASE, of Ohio, and proceeded to address theConference as follows:

My warmest thanks are due to you, Gentlemen, for the undeserved honorwhich you have conferred upon me, in selecting me for the purpose oftemporarily presiding over your deliberations. We have come togetherto secure a common and at the same time a most important object--toagree if we can upon some plan for adjusting the unhappy differenceswhich distract the country, which will be satisfactory to ourselvesand those we represent. We have assembled as friends, as brothers, each, I doubt not, animated by the most friendly sentiments. 

If we enter upon, and with these sentiments carry through, a patientexamination of the difficulties which now surround the Government, theresult will be, it must be, a success, earnestly hoped for by everylover of his country; a result which will establish the Unionaccording to the spirit of the Constitution. 

For myself, I may say that I have come here with the earnest purposeof doing justice to all sections of the Union. I will hear with apatient and impartial mind all that may be said in favor of, oragainst such amendments of the Constitution as may be proposed. Suchof them as will give to the Government permanence, strength, andstability, as will tend to secure to any State, or any number ofStates, the quiet and unmolested enjoyment of their rights under it, shall receive my cordial support. My confidence in republicaninstitutions, in the capacity of the people for self-government, hasbeen increased with every year of a life which has been protractedbeyond the term usually allotted to man. That life is now drawing to aclose, and I hope, when it ends, I may leave the Government morefirmly established in the affections of my countrymen than it ever wasbefore. To this end I have always labored, and shall continue to laborwhile I live. I pray GOD that He will be with us during ourdeliberations, and that He may guide them to a happy and wiseconclusion. 

Mr. BENJAMIN C. HOWARD, a commissioner from the State of Maryland, wasunanimously appointed temporary Secretary. 

The Roll of the States was then called over, and commissionersrepresenting the following were found to be present:

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana. 

Mr. PRICE, of New Jersey:--I am informed that a number of Reportersfor the press are at the door of the hall, desiring admittance to thisConference, for the purpose of reporting our proceedings. Whatever maybe the ultimate action of the Conference in this respect, I can see noobjection to the admission of reporters to-day, for our business willrelate wholly to organization. I hope we shall admit them, and I makethat motion. 

Mr. SEDDON, of Virginia:--I hope this motion will not prevail. I donot see that any good can possibly come of giving publicity now, toour proceedings. On the contrary, in the present excited condition ofthe country, I can see how much harm might result from that publicity. It is not unlikely that wide differences of opinion will be found toexist among us at the outset. These we shall attempt to harmonize, andif we succeed, it will only be by mutual concessions and compromises. Every one should be left free to make these concessions, and notsubject himself to unfavorable public criticism by doing so. If ourdeliberations are to attain the successful conclusion we so muchdesire, it certainly is the course of wisdom that we should follow theillustrious example of the framers of the present Constitution, andsit with closed doors. 

The motion was thereupon, by _viva voce_ vote, decided in thenegative. 

Mr. MEREDITH:--I move the appointment of a committee to consist of onemember from each delegation present, to be named by the delegation andappointed by the President, who shall recommend permanent officers ofthis, body, and also report rules for its government. 

Which motion was agreed to. 

The following gentlemen were then appointed such Committee on Rulesand Organization:

Kentucky, Charles A. Wickliffe, _Chairman_; New Hampshire, Amos Tuck;Rhode Island, William W. Hoppin; New Jersey, Joseph F. Randolph;Pennsylvania, Thomas E. Franklin; Delaware, George B. Rodney;Maryland, John W. Crisfield; Virginia, William C. Rives; NorthCarolina, Thomas Ruffin; Ohio, Reuben Hitchcock; Indiana, Godlove S. Orth. 

The Conference then adjourned to meet at 12 o'clock M. To-morrow. 

SECOND DAY. 

WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, _February 5th, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order by the Chairman _pro tem. _, pursuant to adjournment, and the journal of the proceedings of thefirst day was read and approved. 

Mr. FRANKLIN, of Pennsylvania:--It is usual in bodies of thisdescription to take measures to ascertain who are and who are not dulyaccredited members. We should have the names of all the Commissionerspresent brought on to our records. I therefore move that a Committeeof five be appointed by the Chairman, to whom all credentials ofmembers shall be referred for examination and report. 

The motion of Mr. FRANKLIN was adopted unanimously, and the Chairmanannounced as such Committee Mr. Summers, of Virginia; Mr. Franklin, ofPennsylvania; Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky; Mr. Morehead, of NorthCarolina, and Mr. Smith, of Indiana. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE, of Kentucky:--I rise at this time for the purpose ofmaking the report of the Committee on Organization. I am instructed toreport that we recommend that the permanent officers of the Conventionbe a President and Secretary, and that the Secretary have leave toappoint assistants, not exceeding two in number, to assist him in thedischarge of his duties; and that the President of this Convention beJOHN TYLER, of Virginia, and that CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, of Ohio, be itsSecretary. The committee also report a series of rules for thegovernment of the Convention. 

Mr. CLAY, of Kentucky:--I move that the question upon accepting thereport be divided, and that it be first taken on that part of thereport which relates to the officers of the Convention. 

Which was agreed to without objection. 

It was then moved, and unanimously voted, that the part of the reportrelating to officers, be accepted, and the officers designated beappointed. 

The President _pro tem. _ then appointed Mr. EWING, of Ohio, and Mr. MEREDITH, of Pennsylvania, to conduct the President elect to thechair. 

President TYLER upon taking his seat proceeded to address theConvention as follows:

Gentlemen, I fear you have committed a great error in appointing me tothe honorable position you have assigned me. A long separation fromall deliberative bodies has rendered the rules of their proceedingsunfamiliar to me, while I should find, in my own state of health, variable and fickle as it is, sufficient reason to decline the honorof being your presiding officer. But, in times like these, one has butlittle option left him. Personal considerations should weigh butlightly in the balance. The country is in danger; it is enough; onemust take the place assigned him in the great work of reconciliationand adjustment. The voice of Virginia has invited her co-States tomeet her in council. In the initiation of this Government, that samevoice was heard and complied with, and the results of seventy-oddyears have fully attested the wisdom of the decisions then adopted. Isthe urgency of her call now less great than it was then? Our godlikefathers created, we have to preserve. They built up, through theirwisdom and patriotism, monuments which have eternized their names. Youhave before you, gentlemen, a task equally grand, equally sublime, quite as full of glory and immortality. You have to snatch from ruin agreat and glorious Confederation, to preserve the Government, and torenew and invigorate the Constitution. If you reach the height of thisgreat occasion, your children's children will rise up and call youblessed. I confess myself to be ambitious of sharing in the glory ofaccomplishing this grand and magnificent result. To have our namesenrolled in the Capitol, to be repeated by future generations withgrateful applause--this is an honor higher than the mountains, moreenduring than the monumental alabaster. Yes, Virginia's voice, as inthe olden time, has been heard. Her sister States meet her this day atthe council board. Vermont is here, bringing with her the memories ofthe past, and reviving in the memories of all, her Ethan Allen and hisdemand for the surrender of Ticonderoga, in the name of the GreatJehovah and the American Congress. New Hampshire is here, her fameillustrated by memorable annals, and still more lately as thebirthplace of him who won for himself the name of defender of theConstitution, and who wrote that letter to John Taylor which has beenenshrined in the hearts of his countrymen. Massachusetts is not here. (Some member said "She is coming. ") I hope so, said Mr. TYLER, andthat she will bring with her her daughter Maine. I did not believe itcould well be that the voice which in other times was so familiar toher ears had been addressed to her in vain. Connecticut is here, andshe comes, I doubt not, in the spirit of ROGER SHERMAN, whose namewith our very children has become a household word, and who was inlife the embodiment of that sound practical sense which befits thegreat lawgiver and constructer of governments. Rhode Island, the landof ROGER WILLIAMS, is here, one of the two last States, in herjealousy of the public liberty, to give in her adhesion to theConstitution, and among the earliest to hasten to its rescue. Thegreat Empire State of New York, represented thus far but by onedelegate, is expected daily in fuller force to join in the great workof healing the discontents of the times and restoring the reign offraternal feeling. New Jersey is also here, with the memories of thepast covering her all over. Trenton and Princeton live immortal instory, the plains of the last incrimsoned with the hearts blood ofVirginia's sons. Among her delegation I rejoice to recognize a gallantson of a signer of the immortal Declaration which announced to theworld that thirteen Provinces had become thirteen independent andsovereign States. And here, too, is Delaware, the land of the BAYARDSand the RODNEYS, whose soil at Brandywine was moistened by the bloodof Virginia's youthful MONROE. Here is Maryland, whose massive columnswheeled into line with those of Virginia in the contest for glory, and whose state house at Annapolis was the theatre of the spectacle ofa successful Commander, who, after liberating his country, gladlyungirthed his sword, and laid it down upon the altar of that country. Then comes Pennsylvania, rich in revolutionary lore, bringing with herthe deathless names of FRANKLIN and MORRIS, and, I trust, ready torenew from the belfry of Independence Hall the chimes of the old bell, which announced _Freedom_ and _Independence_ in former days. All hailto North Carolina! with her Mecklenberg Declaration in her hand, standing erect on the ground of her own probity and firmness in thecause of public liberty, and represented in her attributes by herMACON, and in this assembly by her distinguished son at no greatdistance from me. Four daughters of Virginia also cluster around thecouncil board on the invitation of their ancient mother--the eldest, Kentucky, whose sons, under the intrepid warrior ANTHONY WAYNE, gavefreedom of settlement to the territory of her sister, Ohio. Sheextends her hand daily and hourly across _la belle riviere_, to graspthe hand of some one of kindred blood of the noble states of Indiana, and Illinois, and Ohio, who have grown up into powerful States, already grand, potent, and almost imperial. Tennessee is not here, butis coming--prevented only from being here by the floods which haveswollen her rivers. When she arrives, she will wear the badges on herwarrior crest of victories won in company with the Great West on manyan ensanguined plain, and standards torn from the hands of theconquerors at Waterloo. Missouri, and Iowa, and Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, still linger behind, but it may be hoped that theirhearts are with us in the great work we have to do. 

Gentlemen, the eyes of the whole country are turned to this assembly, in expectation and hope. I trust that you may prove yourselves worthyof the great occasion. Our ancestors, probably, committed a blunder innot having fixed upon every fifth decade for a call of a generalconvention to amend and reform the Constitution. On the contrary, theyhave made the difficulties next to insurmountable to accomplishamendments to an instrument which was perfect for five millions ofpeople, but not wholly so as to thirty millions. Your patriotism willsurmount the difficulties, however great, if you will but accomplishone triumph in advance, and that is, a triumph over _party_. And whatis party, when compared to the work of rescuing one's country fromdanger? Do that, and one long, loud shout of joy and gladness willresound throughout the land. 

Mr. EWING:--I move that the remaining portion of the report of theCommittee on Organization be postponed until to-morrow. 

The motion of Mr. EWING was agreed to. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE. I offer the following resolution:

 _Resolved_, That the Conference shall be opened with prayer, and that the clergymen of the city of Washington be requested to perform that service. 

The resolution offered by Mr. WICKLIFFE was adopted, and prayer wasthen offered by the Rev. Dr. P. D. GURLEY, of Washington. 

The PRESIDENT:--I have received a communication from the Messrs. Willard, placing the Hall in which the Conference is now sitting atthe service of the Conference, while its sessions may continue; also, a communication from the Mayor and Common Council of the City ofWashington, offering police officers to attend our sittings. 

It was moved, and agreed to, that these offers be severally accepted. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:--I move that the President of the Conferencebe requested to furnish a copy of his address to the Conference upontaking the Chair, that it be entered upon the journal as a part ofthis day's proceedings, and that the same be published. 

Which motion was unanimously agreed to. 

Mr. GRIMES, of Iowa:--I have received from the Governor of the Stateof Iowa a communication, requesting myself and my colleague in theSenate of the United States, and also the members representing thatState in the House of Representatives, to represent the State of Iowahere. I desire to present his communication, that it may be referredto the Committee on Credentials. 

The communication was so referred, and on motion of Mr. WRIGHT, ofOhio, the Conference adjourned. 

THIRD DAY. 

WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, _February 6th, 1861. _

The Conference met at twelve o'clock, at noon, and was called to orderby the PRESIDENT. 

The Journal of yesterday was read, and after amendment, was approved. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I am instructed by the Committee on Credentials to makea report. That committee has examined the credentials which have beensubmitted to it, and finds the following-named gentlemen dulyaccredited as members of this Conference:

_New Hampshire. _--Amos Tuck, Levi Chamberlain, Asa Fowler. 

_Vermont. _--Hiland Hall, Lucius E. Chittenden, Levi Underwood, H. Henry Baxter, B. D. Harris. 

_Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. _--Samuel Ames, AlexanderDuncan, William W. Hoppin, George H. Browne, Samuel G. Arnold. 

_Connecticut. _--Roger S. Baldwin, Chauncey F. Cleveland, Charles J. McCurdy, James T. Pratt, Robbins Battell, Amos S. Treat. 

_New Jersey. _--Charles S. Olden, Peter D. Vroom, Robert F. Stockton, Benjamin Williamson, Joseph F. Randolph, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Rodman M. Price, William C. Alexander, Thomas J. Stryker. 

_Pennsylvania. _--Thomas White, James Pollock, William M. Meredith, David Wilmot, A. W. Loomis, Thomas E. Franklin, William McKennan. 

_Delaware. _--George B. Rodney, Daniel M. Bates, Henry Ridgely, John W. Houston, William Cannon. 

_Maryland. _--John F. Dent, Reverdy Johnson, John W. Crisfield, Augustus W. Bradford, William T. Goldsborough, J. Dixon Roman, Benjamin C. Howard. 

_Virginia. _--John Tyler, William C. Rives, John W. Brockenbrough, George W. Summers, James A. Seddon. 

_North Carolina. _--George Davis, Thomas Ruffin, David S. Reid, DanielM. Barringer, J. M. Morehead. 

_Kentucky. _--William O. Butler, James B. Clay, Joshua F. Bell, CharlesS. Morehead, James Guthrie, Charles A. Wickliffe. 

_Ohio. _--John C. Wright, Salmon P. Chase, William S. Groesbeck, Franklin C. Backus, Reuben Hitchcock, Thomas Ewing, Valentine B. Horton. 

_Indiana. _--Caleb B. Smith, Pleasant A. Hackleman, Godlove S. Orth, E. W. H. Ellis, Thomas C. Slaughter. 

_Iowa. _--James W. Grimes, Samuel H. Curtis, William Vandever. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I move that the Secretary be authorized to employ oneor more assistants. I am advised that the Secretary cannot perform hisduties without assistance, and I see no objection to giving him thisauthority. 

The motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE was agreed to. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I now desire to call up the remaining portion of thereport of the Committee on Rules and Organization, and to move itsadoption at the present time. These Rules are substantially the sameas those which were adopted by the convention which proposed ourpresent Constitution. The rule which we have reported securingsecrecy, so far as our proceedings are concerned, has been made thesubject of much discussion in the committee; and it was at firstthought best to recommend a modification of it. But upon reflectionand consideration, and in view of the fact that, while the rulereported requires that secrecy should be preserved in regard to allthat is said or done in this Conference, it does not prevent anymember from expressing his own hopes or predictions upon the finalresult of our deliberations, we have thought best to let it remain asit is. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I desire to offer an amendment to this portion of thereport of the committee, which I will read for the information of theConference. It is as follows:

 "_Resolved_, That no part of the Journal be published without the order or leave of the Conference, and that no copies of the whole or any part be furnished or allowed, except to members, who shall be privileged to communicate the same to the authorities or deliberative assemblies of their respective States, when deemed judicious or appropriate, under their instructions, and that nothing spoken in the House be printed or otherwise published; but private communications respecting the proceedings and debates, while recommended to be with caution and reserve, are allowed at the discretion of each member. "

It may be thought, that in offering this resolution, I am seeking adifferent end from the one I proposed yesterday, when I advocated theproposition of excluding reporters from our sessions, and insistedthat our proceedings should be at all times under the seal of secrecy. Such, however, is not my purpose. But some discretion must be allowedus, in order that we may conform to and carry out the spirit of theresolutions under which we respectively act. This is especially truein relation to myself and my colleagues. The resolutions under whichwe are acting, require that we should from time to time communicate tothe legislature of Virginia the proceedings of this body, and toexpress our own opinions of the prospect which may exist of thesettlement of existing difficulties. The Commissioners from Virginiawould be placed in a delicate, not to say an awkward position, by theadoption of a rule here which would absolutely prohibit suchcommunications. I hope my amendment may be adopted. 

Mr. TUCK:--Would not the purpose of the gentleman from Virginia beanswered by giving any delegation leave to communicate any actionactually taken by the Conference, with their own opinions as to theprobable result of our deliberations?

Mr. SEDDON:--Those opinions would possess no value, unless the factsand circumstances are communicated upon which they are founded. It isvery clear to me, that the best course will be to entrust to thediscretion of each member the privilege of making thesecommunications, trusting that he will not abuse the confidence thusgiven. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I hope we have all come here with an earnest desire toharmonize our conflicting opinions, and to unite upon some plan whichwill settle our troubles and save the union of the States. The Southhas spoken of the North in very severe terms, and the North has notbeen slow in returning the compliment. If we come finally, to anydefinite result satisfactory to either side, it must be by mutualconcessions, by confessing our sins to each other, and endeavoring tolive harmoniously together in future. In my judgment, secrecy isabsolutely indispensable to successful action here. I do not wish tobe precluded from abandoning a position to-morrow, if I see cause forit, which I have taken to-day. If the proceedings, and especially thedebates of this Conference, are made public from day to day, they willgo into the newspapers and be made the subject of comment, favorableor otherwise. The necessary result will be, that when a member isunderstood to have committed himself to a particular proposition, orany special course of policy, that pride of opinion, which we allpossess, will render any change of policy on his part difficult, ifnot impossible. I should sincerely regret the adoption of theresolution of the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move that the portion of the committee's report underconsideration, together with the resolution of Mr. SEDDON, berecommitted to the Committee on Rules and Organization. 

The motion of Mr. RANDOLPH was agreed to. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I have an idea relating to the plan which should beadopted to carry into effect the purpose of this Conference. I wish topropose it. We have come together upon the invitation of the gloriousold commonwealth of Virginia, the mother of States and Statesmen. Wehave come from the North and the South, from the East and the West, tosee whether our wisdom can devise some means to avert the dangerswhich threaten to destroy this noble Republic, founded by the wisdomand patriotism of our ancestors. I hope we are animated by a commonpurpose. The storm is threatening. The horizon is covered with darkand portentous clouds. Section is arrayed against section, and already_seven_ of our sister States have separated from us and are proceedingto establish an independent Confederation. War! Civil War! isimpending over us. It must be averted! Who does not know that such awar, among such a people, must be, if it comes, a war ofextermination. 

Mr. PRESIDENT, I move the adoption of the resolution which I now sendto the chair. 

The resolution of Mr. GUTHRIE was read as follows:

 _Resolved_, That a committee of one from each State be appointed by the Commissioners thereof, to be nominated to the President, and to be appointed by him, to whom shall be referred the resolutions of the State of Virginia, and the other States represented, and all propositions for the adjustment of existing difficulties between States, with authority to report what they may deem right, necessary, and proper to restore harmony and preserve the Union, and that they report on or before Friday next. 

Mr. SEDDON:--It appears to me that the mode pointed out by theresolution introduced by the gentleman from Kentucky, is neither theone most appropriate nor expeditious for accomplishing the resultdesired. We are convened under the invitation of the State ofVirginia; and the same invitation that brings us here, proposes thebasis for our deliberation and action. Virginia has stated what willbe satisfactory to her; not as an _ultimatum_, but as a basis ofadjustment. It appears to me that the proper course would be, to takeup the propositions of Virginia--propose amendments to them--discussthem, and in the end determine how far they shall be adopted. Theadoption of the resolution proposed, transfers the labors of thisConference, not in itself too large for convenient deliberation, to acommittee. That committee is to discuss the various propositionsoffered and report the result. What, in the mean time, is thisConference to do? Nothing whatever! We are to meet here from day today and adjourn, no one knows how long, until this committee reports, and then the discussion will commence which ought to commence now. Mr. PRESIDENT, if any thing is accomplished, it must be accomplishedspeedily. Events are on the wing. Already in my State the delegatesare elected to a Convention, which is to meet next week, to considerthe subject which now engrosses the minds of the American people. Ihope my suggestion may meet with favor in the Conference. 

Mr. EWING:--I cannot agree with the gentleman from Virginia, forreasons which must be obvious to all. I do not think Virginia intendedto dictate the terms upon which we were to act. I am in favor of theresolution, but would make one suggestion in relation to it. By itsterms the committee is to report on Friday, if it can properly do so. I suggest that the committee should have leave to sit during thesessions of the Conference. In this way our business may be greatlyexpedited. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--It gives me pleasure to accept the modification proposedby the gentleman from Ohio. I should have incorporated it into myresolution. 

The resolution as modified was then adopted by the Conference withouta division. 

The PRESIDENT:--I will take this occasion to announce a committee tocarry into effect the determination of the Conference relating to theobtaining of the services of clergymen to open the proceedings of theConference daily with prayer. The Chair appoints as such committee, Mr. RANDOLPH, of New Jersey, Mr. WICKLIFFE, of Kentucky, and Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland. 

Mr. JOHNSON:--It appears to me very appropriate, in view of theoccasion which has brought us together, that the members of thisConference should pay their respects in a body to the President of theUnited States. I therefore move that we call upon him in a body atsuch a time as will be most agreeable to him; such time to beascertained by the President of this Conference. 

Which motion was unanimously agreed to. 

Mr. CLAY:--I move the reconsideration of the vote by which the portionof the report of the Committee on Rules and Organization not yetadopted was recommitted to that committee. I do this in order that theConference may now proceed to the consideration of those rules whichmay be adopted without much difference of opinion. 

The vote was thereupon reconsidered, and the following rules wereseverally read and adopted. The remaining rules recommended wererecommitted to the committee:

RULES. 

I. A Convention to do business, shall consist of the Commissioners ofnot less than seven States; and all questions shall be decided by thegreater number of those which be fully represented. But a less numberthan seven may adjourn from day to day. 

II. Immediately after the President shall have taken the chair, andthe members their seats, the minutes of the preceding day shall beread by the Secretary. 

III. Every member, rising to speak, shall address the President; andwhile he shall be speaking none shall pass between them, or holddiscourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet, or paper, printed ormanuscript; and of two members rising to speak at the same time, thePresident shall name him who shall first be heard. 

IV. A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without specialleave upon the same question; and not a second time before every otherwho had been silent shall have been heard, if he choose to speak uponthe subject. 

V. A motion made and seconded, shall be repeated; and if written, asit shall be when any member shall so require, read aloud by theSecretary before it shall be debated; and may be withdrawn at any timebefore the vote upon it shall have been declared. 

VI. Orders of the day shall be read next after the minutes, and eitherdiscussed or postponed, before any other business shall be introduced. 

VII. When a debate shall arise upon a question, no motion, other thanto amend the question, to commit it, or to postpone the debate, shallbe received. 

VIII. A question which is complicated, shall, at the request of anymember, be divided and put separately upon the propositions of whichit is compounded. 

IX. A writing which contains any matter brought on to be considered, shall be read once, throughout, for information; then by paragraphs, to be debated, and again with the amendments, if any, made on thesecond reading, and afterwards the question shall be put upon thewhole, as amended or approved in the original form, as the case maybe. 

X. Committees shall be appointed by the President, unless otherwiseordered by the Convention. 

XI. A member may be called to order by another member, as well as bythe President, and may be allowed to explain his conduct orexpressions supposed to be reprehensible. And all questions of ordershall be decided by the President, without appeal or debate. 

XII. Upon a question to adjourn for the day, which may be made at anytime, if it be seconded, the question shall be put without debate. 

XIII. When the Convention shall adjourn, every member shall stand inhis place until the President pass him. 

XIV. That no member be absent from the Convention, so as to interruptthe representation of the State, without leave. 

XV. That Committees do not sit while the Convention shall be, or oughtto be sitting, without leave of the Convention. 

XVI. That no copy be taken of any entry on the Journal, during thesitting of the Convention, without leave of the Convention. 

XVII. That members only be permitted to inspect the Journal. 

XVIII. _Mode of Voting. _ All votes shall be taken by States, and eachState to give one vote. The yeas and nays of the members shall not begiven or published--only the decision by States. 

After the adoption of the foregoing Rules, the Conference adjourneduntil 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. 

FOURTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, _February 7th, 1861. _

The Conference convened, pursuant to the adjournment yesterday, at 10o'clock A. M. 

It was called to order by President TYLER, and prayer was offered byRev. Dr. PYNE, of Washington. 

The Journal of yesterday was read, and after sundry amendments, wasapproved. 

Messrs. J. H. PULESTON, JOHN STRYKER, W. W. HOPPIN, Jr. , and ----Olcott, took their places as Assistant Secretaries. 

President TYLER:--Gentlemen of the Conference, as directed by theresolution which you adopted yesterday, I addressed a note to thePresident of the United States, asking at what hour it would beagreeable to him that this Conference should call on him in a body. Tothis note I have received a reply which will be read by the Secretary. 

The Secretary then read the following note from the President:

 EXECUTIVE MANSION, _February 6th, 1861. _

 My DEAR SIR:--I shall feel greatly honored to receive the gentlemen composing the Convention of Commissioners from the several States, on any day and at any hour most convenient to themselves. I shall name to-morrow (Thursday) at 11 or 3 o'clock, though any other time would be equally agreeable to me. I shall at all times be prepared to give them a cordial welcome. 

 Yours, very respectfully, JAMES BUCHANAN. 

 His Excellency, JOHN TYLER. 

The PRESIDENT:--What order will the Conference take upon the subject?

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move that the members of this Conference call in abody upon the President of the United States this morning, at 11o'clock. 

Mr. GUTHRIE'S motion was adopted unanimously. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I am instructed by the Committee on Credentials furtherto report, that the committee have examined the credentials of thefollowing gentlemen, and find them duly accredited as members of thisbody:

_New York. _--William E. Dodge. 

_Tennessee. _--Samuel Milligan, Josiah M. Anderson, Robert L. Carruthers, Thomas Martin, Isaac R. Hawkins, R. J. McKinney, AlvinCullom, William P. Hickerson, George W. Jones, F. K. Zollicoffer, William H. Stephens, A. W. O. Totten. 

_Illinois. _--John Wood, Stephen T. Logan, John M. Palmer, Burton C. Cook, Thomas J. Turner. 

Which report was accepted, and the names of the Commissioners wereentered upon the record. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Certain printing has been ordered, but no provisionhas been made for paying for it. The Committee on Rules have thereforerequested me to report the following resolution:

 _Resolved_, That the Secretary procure for the use of the Convention the necessary stationery, and also provide for such printing as may be ordered. That the Journal, up to and including this day's proceeding, as well as the Rules, be printed for the use of the members. 

The resolution of Mr. WICKLIFFE was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT:--The respective delegations have recommended, and theChair announces the names of the following gentlemen to compose thecommittee ordered to be raised under the resolution of Mr. GUTHRIE, which was adopted yesterday:--New Hampshire, Asa Fowler; Vermont, Hiland Hall; Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Samuel Ames;Connecticut, Roger S. Baldwin; New Jersey, Joseph F. Randolph;Pennsylvania, Thomas White; Delaware, Daniel M. Bates; North Carolina, Thomas Ruffin; Kentucky, James Guthrie; Ohio, Thomas Ewing; Indiana, Caleb B. Smith; Illinois, Stephen T. Logan; Iowa, James Harlan;Maryland, Reverdy Johnson; Virginia, James A. Seddon. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--The Committee on Rules have further considered therule relating to the secrecy of the debates and proceedings of thisbody, and their convictions as to the necessity and propriety of itsadoption remain unchanged. The prospect of an ultimate agreement amongthe Commissioners composing this body, in the opinion of thecommittee, would be materially lessened if all or any of its debatesshould be made public, for reasons which have already been stated. Ifany gentleman should desire to communicate with the Executive orLegislative authorities of his State any facts, during the progress ofour business, I apprehend little difficulty would be experienced inobtaining the leave of the Convention. We therefore recommend thefollowing Rule:

 XIX. That nothing spoken in the Convention be printed, or otherwise published or communicated, without leave. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I do not desire to discuss the adoption of the rule underconsideration any further than I have already. The Commissioners fromthe State of Virginia are appointed under resolutions which make ittheir duty to communicate from time to time with her deliberativeassemblies. We do not wish to have our right to do so subject to theaction of this or any other body. It is no answer to this to say, thatthere is no doubt that the leave to make the necessary communicationswill be accorded to us when we ask it. We do not wish to ask it. Weinsist upon our rights in this respect, as it is our duty to the Statethat sent us here to do. 

The rule was adopted upon a count of the members voting. 

On motion, the Convention adjourned. 

After the adjournment, the Convention in a body called upon thePRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES, when the several delegations wereintroduced by President TYLER, and the several Commissioners werepresented by the chairmen of the several delegations. 

FIFTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, _February 8th, 1861. _

The Convention was called to order at 12 o'clock by President TYLER. Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. BUTLER. After sundry amendments, theJournal was approved. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I am directed by the Committee on Credentials to reportthat they find the following gentlemen duly accredited as members ofthe Convention:

_New York. _--David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. Wadsworth, Erastus Corning, Amaziah B. James, James C. Smith, AddisonGardner, Greene C. Bronson, John A. King, John E. Wool. 

_Massachusetts. _--John Z. Goodrich, John M. Forbes, Richard P. Waters, Theophilus P. Chandler, Francis B. Crowninshield, George S. Boutwell, Charles Allen. 

_Missouri. _--John D. Coalter, Alexander W. Doniphan, Waldo P. Johnson, Aylett H. Buckner, Harrison Hough. 

On motion of the respective delegations the following gentlemen wereadded to the committee raised on the resolution of Mr. GUTHRIE:

_New York. _--Mr. Field. _Missouri. _--Mr. Doniphan. _Tennessee. _--Mr. Zollicoffer. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am instructed by the committee raised upon theresolution introduced by myself, to inform the Convention that thatbody is not able to report to-day, agreeable to the suggestion made atthe time they were appointed. Several States are yet unrepresented onthe committee, and delegations from some of them have only arrivedthis morning. I am therefore directed to ask for further time to makea report, assuring the Convention, at the same time, that a reportwill be made at soon as a proper regard to the interests of allsections will permit it to be done. 

Mr. CLAY:--I move that the time for the report of the committee beextended until Monday next. As in the mean time there will be littlebusiness for the Convention to do, and that of a formal character, itmight be as well to adjourn from this time until Monday; and I movefurther, that if delegates arrive from States now unrepresented, theymay present their credentials to the committee, and if no questionarises on them, they may then select a member of the committee on Mr. GUTHRIE'S resolution, and report his name to the Secretary of thatcommittee. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I object to an adjournment until Monday. We can meet hereto-morrow and do any business which may come before us. 

The several motions of Mr. CLAY, with the alteration suggested by Mr. SEDDON, were then agreed to without a division. 

Mr. ELLIS:--I move that the President be requested to issue cards ofadmission to the members and officers of this Convention. 

Which motion was adopted. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I would like to understand whether we all construe therule referring to the secrecy of our transactions alike. I am toldthat different constructions are placed upon it by different members, and would suggest the propriety of the PRESIDENT'S giving his views ofthe meaning of the rule. 

The PRESIDENT:--I understand, by the correct interpretation of therule, that nothing which is said or done in the Convention havingreference to any subject of business in it, can be spoken of ordisclosed to any but members. 

The Convention then adjourned. 

SIXTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, SATURDAY, _February 9th, 1861. _

The Convention was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer wasoffered by Rev. Dr. BULLOCK. The Journal was read, corrected, andapproved. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I am directed by the Committee on Credentials to reportas members of this Convention the names of the following gentlemenfrom the State of Maine:--William P. Fessenden, Lot M. Morrill, DanielE. Somes, John J. Perry, Ezra B. French, Freeman H. Morse, StephenCoburn, Stephen C. Foster. 

Mr. MORRILL, of Maine, and Mr. CROWNINSHIELD, of Massachusetts, wereannounced as members of the committee under the resolution of Mr. GUTHRIE. 

Mr. TUCK:--I offer certain resolutions, which I desire to have printedand referred to the Committee on Resolutions. 

The resolutions of Mr. TUCK were read, ordered to be printed, andreferred. (These resolutions will be found on a subsequent page. )

Mr. CLAY:--I hold in my hand the proceedings of a very largeDemocratic meeting recently held at New Haven, in the State ofConnecticut. Among them are certain resolutions, breathing a spirit offervent devotion to the Union, and expressing an anxious desire forthe settlement of the difficult questions now before the country. Theyhave been sent to me with a request that I should lay them before thisConvention. Why I was selected by them for the performance of thisduty, I do not know, unless it was because, from my name andassociations, they thought an assurance might be found that Iparticipated in the sentiments expressed in the resolutions. I presentthem with great pleasure, and ask that they may be referred to theCommittee on Resolutions. 

The motion of Mr. CLAY was agreed to. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move that the Secretary be requested to furnish forthe use of the members a printed list of the delegates to and officersof this Convention. 

Which motion was adopted, and the Convention adjourned. 

SEVENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _February 11th, 1861. _

The Convention was called to order by the PRESIDENT. Prayer wasoffered by Rev. Dr. GURLEY. 

After the reading and amendment of the Journal, Mr. GUTHRIE, from theCommittee on Resolutions, asked for further time to make a generalreport of the matters submitted to them, which was given; andthereupon Mr. GUTHRIE, from the same Committee, made the followingreport upon the resolutions of a meeting in the State of Connecticut, which were referred to that committee on motion of Mr. CLAY:

 The committee to whom were referred certain resolutions of the Democratic party of the State of Connecticut, report that in the opinion of the committee it is inexpedient for this Convention to act upon any resolution purporting to emanate from any political party whatever; and that the member of the Convention by whom they were presented have leave to withdraw the same. 

The PRESIDENT:--I take this opportunity to announce to the Conventionthat the Door-keeper of the House of Representatives has transmittedto the Chair cards admitting members of this body on to the floor ofthe House. These cards will be delivered by the Secretary to suchmembers as call for them. 

Mr. CHASE:--I move that any propositions or resolutions which membersof this Convention desire to have considered by the Committee onResolutions and Propositions, may be presented to the committeethrough the Secretary, without being presented in Convention. 

The motion was agreed to, and on motion the Convention adjourned untilWednesday the 13th instant, at 12 o'clock M. 

EIGHTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, _February 13th, 1861. _

The Convention was called to order by the PRESIDENT, and prayer wasoffered by Rev. Dr. EDWARDS. The Journal, after sundry amendments, wasapproved. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The Committee on Resolutions, &c. , have laboreddiligently, and held protracted sessions, in the hope of being able tomake their report to-day. This they find themselves unable to do. Theyare fully impressed with the necessity of immediate action, in view ofthe short time that will remain for Congress to consider the action ofthis Convention, if it shall become necessary to submit anyproposition of this body to be acted upon by that. I have no doubt weshall be able to report on Friday, and I ask that we may have untilthat time to make a report. 

The request of Mr. GUTHRIE was acceded to. 

Mr. SEDDON:--The time has now arrived when, as one of theCommissioners from the State of Virginia, I find it necessary to askthe leave of the Convention to communicate to the Legislativeauthorities of Virginia, and to her Convention now in session, thestate of the proceedings before this body, and the committee. I askfor liberty to do so, and believe that a proper regard to theinstructions of the Legislature of the State under which myappointment is made, requires that my request should be granted. 

Mr. BARRINGER offered the following resolution:

 _Resolved_, That the Commissioners of any State represented in this Convention, upon their joint application, have leave to communicate to the Legislature, Governor, or Convention of said State, the proceedings of this body, or so much thereof as they may deem expedient. 

Mr. SEDDON:--The passage of this resolution is all I ask. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I move to amend the resolution by adding thereto:"But not to communicate what has transpired in the committee, beforesaid committee has reported to the Convention. "

Mr. SEDDON:--I do not deem the passage of the resolution at thismoment as very important. At the suggestion of several gentlemen, Iwill move to lay it on the table, subject to be called up afterFriday. 

The Convention then adjourned to Friday at 12 o'clock. 

On the evening of February 13th, the members of the Conference wereinformed of the death of Hon. JOHN C. WRIGHT, of Ohio, who officiatedas temporary chairman previous to the permanent organization. In viewof the anxious desire of all the members to recognize theirappreciation of this act of Divine Providence, in removing from thesphere of his earthly labors one of the most valued Commissioners inattendance, President TYLER was requested to summon a special meetingof the Conference. In pursuance of his invitation, all the membersattended on the morning of February 14th, when the followingproceedings were had:

THURSDAY, WASHINGTON CITY, _February 14th, 1861. _

The Convention met in special session, pursuant to the call of thePresident. 

The proceedings were opened with prayer by the Rev. Dr. HALL. 

The following letter from the Secretary, CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, was read, and ordered to be entered upon the minutes:

 WILLARD'S HOTEL, } WASHINGTON CITY, _February 13th, 1861. _ }

 _Hon. _ JOHN TYLER, _President of Conference Convention. _

 DEAR SIR:--I grieve to communicate to you the fact, that the delegate from Ohio to this Conference Convention, the Hon. JOHN C. WRIGHT, departed this life this day, the 13th February, at half-past one o'clock. 

 Judge WRIGHT came to this Convention with a heart filled with fear for the safety of the Union. Though at an advanced age and nearly blind, he was filled with an earnest desire to add his efforts to that of others of the Convention called by the State of Virginia, and seek to agree on some measures honorable to each and all, to effect the object. Since the arrival of my father in Washington, he has been constant in his efforts to effect the end in view, and he has had his heart cheered with the belief that the object would be accomplished. Almost the last words that he uttered were, that he believed the Union would be preserved. He desired me to say, if the Union were preserved, he would die content. He called me to read to him, at 12 o'clock, the sections in the Constitution in regard to counting the votes, and this request, and this reading, terminated his knowledge on earth. In this desire of my father to do what he could, he pressed me to accompany him on account of his blindness. Since the Convention honored me with the appointment of Secretary, he required of me a promise that I would not leave the position. When I read the section of the Constitution to him, he required me then to leave him for the Convention. Whatever my personal feelings may be, I deem the pledge made sacred. I therefore ask that I may have leave of absence, until I carry the remains home to Ohio, and return to my duty. 

 Respectfully, CRAFTS J. WRIGHT. 

 P. S. --J. HENRY PULESTON will act for me in my absence. 

The PRESIDENT informed the Convention that the request of theSecretary had been complied with. The PRESIDENT asked what action theConvention proposed to take on the subject for which they had beenspecially assembled. 

The Hon. SALMON P. CHASE, of Ohio, then said:--Mr. PRESIDENT, since weassembled yesterday in this Hall, it has pleased God to remove one ofour number from all participation in the concerns of earth. It is mypainful duty to announce to the Convention that JOHN C. WRIGHT, one ofthe Commissioners from Ohio, is no more. Full of years, honored by theconfidence of the people, rich in large experience and ripened wisdom, and devoted in all his affections and all his powers to his country, and his whole country, he has been called from our midst at the verymoment when the prudence and patriotism of his counsels seemed mostneeded. Such are the mysterious ways of Divine Providence. JudgeWRIGHT was born in Wethersfield, Connecticut, on the 10th of August, 1784. The death of his parents made him an orphan in infancy; and hehad little to depend upon in youth and early manhood, save his ownenergies and God's blessing. He was married, while young, to adaughter of Thomas Collier, of Litchfield, and for several years afterresided at Troy, New York. When about twenty-six years old he removedto Steubenville, in Ohio, where he commenced the practice of the law, and rapidly rose to distinction in the profession. In 1822 he waselected a representative in Congress, where he became the associateand friend of Clay and Webster, and proved himself, on many occasions, worthy of their association and friendship. 

After serving several terms in Congress, he was elected a Judge of theSupreme Court of Ohio, and, in 1834, removed from Steubenville to thecity of Cincinnati. Resigning his seat soon afterwards, he resumedthe labors of the bar, and, ever zealous for the improvement andelevation of the profession, established, in association with others, the Cincinnati law school. 

In 1840, upon the dying request of CHARLES HAMMOND, the veteran editorof the "Cincinnati Gazette, " Judge WRIGHT assumed the editorialcontrol of that Journal, and retained that position until impairedvision, in 1853, admonished him of the necessity of withdrawing fromlabors too severe. 

Thenceforward engaged in moderate labors, surrounded by affectionaterelatives, enjoying the respect and confidence of his fellow-citizens, and manifesting always the liveliest concern in whatever related tothe welfare and honor of his State and his country, he lived intranquil retirement, until called by the Governor of Ohio, with theapprobation of the Senate, to take part in the deliberations of thisConference Convention. 

It was but a just tribute, sir, to his honored age, illustrated byabilities, by virtues, and by services, that he was unanimouslyselected as its temporary President. His interest in the great purposeof our assembling was profound and earnest. His labors to promote anauspicious result of its deliberations were active and constant. Andwhen fatal disease assailed his life, and his enfeebled powers yieldedto its virulence, his last utterances were of the Constitution and theUnion. 

Mr. PRESIDENT, Judge WRIGHT was my friend. His approval cheered andencouraged my own humble labors in the service of the State. Pardon meif I mingle private with public grief. He has gone from his last greatlabor. He was not permitted to witness upon earth the result of themission upon which he and his associates, who here mourn his loss, were sent. God grant that the clouds which now darken over us mayspeedily disperse, and that through generous counsels and patrioticlabors, guided by that good Providence which directed our fathers inits original formation, the Union of our States may be more than everfirmly cemented and established. 

Mr. PRESIDENT, I offer the following resolutions:

 _Resolved_, That in the death of our late venerable colleague, the Hon. JOHN C. WRIGHT, we mourn the loss to the State of Ohio, and to the nation at large, of one of our most sagacious statesmen and distinguished patriots; and to the cause of Union and conciliation, one of its most illustrious supporters. 

 _Resolved_, That while we deplore with saddened hearts the affliction with which an All-wise Providence has visited us, we know that no transition from life to immortality could have been more grateful to him who has fallen than this, in which his life has been offered a willing sacrifice in an effort to restore harmony to his distracted country. 

 _Resolved_, That the members of this Convention tender their heartfelt sympathies to the family of the deceased in this their great affliction. 

 _Resolved_, That these resolutions be spread upon the records of this body, and a copy of the same be transmitted to the family of the deceased. 

Mr. CHARLES A. WICKLIFFE, of Kentucky, moved the adoption of theresolutions, and said:

Mr. PRESIDENT, I rise to tender my most cordial sanction and second tothe resolutions which have just been read. 

Mr. WRIGHT and myself entered the councils of this nation thirty-sevenyears ago. We served together during a period when party excitementran high upon questions more of a personal than a constitutionalcharacter. I can bear witness not only to his ability, but to hispersonal integrity, and his purity of political action through ourterm of service in the House of Representatives. I have seldom met himsince we separated at the termination of his service and mine in thatbody, which occurred at pretty near the same period; but whenever Ihave met him, I have found him the same stern advocate of the Unionand of constitutional liberty. I rejoiced, therefore, when I found himin this hall on the day we first assembled here. I knew hisconservative disposition and principles, and I promised myself thatwith his aid I could be more useful to my country and to my State thanwithout him. In conversing with him upon the difficulties which nowdivide and distract our common country, I found him ready and willing, conscientiously and patriotically, to do that which I thought thatportion of the country which I represent has a right to demand andexpect of those who represent a different portion of our Union. And ifmy friend from Ohio (Mr. CHASE) and his colleagues will permit me tomingle my sorrow at the public loss, I will say nothing of the privatebereavement of the family of our deceased colleague. I leave him tohis country, and to you, with this testimony which I leave to hismemory, his honesty of purpose and his patriotic love of country. 

The Hon. A. W. LOOMIS, of Pennsylvania, said:

Mr. PRESIDENT, I desire to mingle my sincere regrets with those of themembers of this assemblage at the sad and unexpected occurrence whichdeprived us of an able, experienced, and patriotic associate. Myrelations with the deceased were, for many years, probably moreintimate than those which existed between him and any other member ofthis Convention. Forty years have elapsed since I first made hisacquaintance. He was then in full, active, and extensive practice; alearned lawyer, an accomplished, skilful, and successful advocate. During the succeeding year I came to the bar, and resided andpracticed in the same judicial circuit with our departed friend. Formany years the most kind and intimate relations existed betweenus--sometimes colleagues, but usually opponents. So kind and genialwas his nature, so fair and liberal his practice, that during ourentire intercourse not an unkind word was uttered, and, so far as Iknow or believe, not an unpleasant feeling existed in the bosom ofeither. 

Though not gifted with the highest order of eloquence, he was clear, distinct, and persuasive. His style of speaking resembled not thebabbling brook or the dashing cataract, but usually the limpid stream, gliding gracefully amid fields and fruits and flowers, thoughsometimes assuming the power and proportions of the majestic river, cutting its sure and certain way to the mighty ocean. 

His professional position, his kindness of heart, and genial humor, made him an object of high respect and warm regard among hisprofessional brethren. And now, sir, as memory passes in review thepleasant incidents which marked our social and professionalintercourse, the smitten heart shrinks in sadness and sorrow from thecontemplation of our bereavement. He adorned, sir, the bar, the bench, and the halls of Legislation. He discharged, in all the relations oflife, his obligations with fidelity. Of him it might be truly said:

 His life hath flowed a sacred stream, in whose calm depths The beautiful and pure alone are mirrored; Which, though shapes of ill may hover o'er the surface, Glides in light, and takes no shadows from them. 

But, sir, the great crowning virtue and glory of his life was hisacceptance of the mission which brought him here. Though whitened bythe frosts of nearly eighty winters, neither lofty mountains norintervening space could restrain his patriotic heart from a promptresponse to the call of his country to mingle his influence in asincere and sacred effort to save the Constitution and perpetuate theUnion. He accepted the great trust; he mingled in our deliberations, and has fallen in the discharge of his duty. He has justly earned atitle to the gratitude and respect of his country. May we not, sir, fondly hope that he, who was called from the discharge of such dutiesto the presence of his God, has passed from the sorrows of earth tothe happiness of Heaven, and to the full fruition of joys pure, perfect, and eternal?

The Hon. THOMAS EWING, of Ohio, said:--I rise to bear my tribute ofrespect to the memory of the deceased. I have known him long. On myfirst entrance into active life, at the bar, I found him an able anddistinguished member. Since that time down to the present day, he hasbeen largely associated, in mind and person, with all the acts andprogress, professional and political, of my life. I feel his lossintensely; and I feel it with more regret, because I know that on thisoccasion his voice would have been potential in our counsels, andwould have been united with all of us who labor most earnestly for thepreservation of the Union. 

I tender my sympathies to the family of the deceased. I unite withthem in their regrets and in their hopes of the happy future to whichhe may have attained. 

The Hon. WILLIAM C. RIVES, of Virginia, said:--Though whollyunprepared to say any thing worthy of the solemnity of this occasion, I feel that I should be wanting, sir, in that sentiment of respectwhich is due to the character of a distinguished citizen, if I werenot to add to what has been so eloquently spoken by others, a fewwords of personal recollection in regard to our deceased friend JudgeWRIGHT. It so happened that we entered the public councils of thecountry at the same moment, and continued in them for the same periodof time. It is now just thirty-seven years since I had the pleasure ofmeeting Judge WRIGHT, for the first time, in the House ofRepresentatives of the United States. I may be permitted to say, thatthere were giants in those days. My honorable friend from Kentucky(Governor WICKLIFFE), who has already so feelingly addressed theConvention, will recollect that on the roll of the House ofRepresentatives at that time stood the names of WEBSTER and EVERETT, of OAKLEY and STORRS, of SARGEANT and of HEMPHILL, of LEWIS McLANE, ofthe immortal CLAY, and BARBOUR and RANDALL, and other gentlemen knownto fame from the State which I have the honor to represent in thisbody, and LIVINGSTON of Louisiana, McDUFFIE and HAMILTON of SouthCarolina, and other gentlemen who, on the spur of the occasion, I amnot now able to recall, but whose names will forever shine upon therolls of their country's glory. And yet in that body Judge WRIGHT, then in the maturity of his powers, though not previously known to thenation, vindicated an equal rank in debate with those gentlemen whosenames I have mentioned. Sir, I shall never forget with whatearnestness, with what manliness, with what integrity, with whatability, he ever uttered his convictions of public duty, whatever theywere, in that consecrated hall. 

After remaining here, I think, for six years, he retired to his ownState for the purpose of assuming the duties of a highly-important anddignified office, which was soon followed by his retirement into thebosom of private life, where he met a rich and ample solace for thestorms of his public career. He was followed there by the respect ofhis fellow-citizens throughout the country, and the confidence of hisown State, as we have recently seen, by his being called from thathonorable retirement to take part in the grave and solemn duties ofthis assembly. Sir, he came among us in obedience to the solemn callof patriotic duty, at a most exigent and distressing period in ournational annals. He came here on an errand of peace, in the spirit ofpeace and conciliation. Such was the feeling entertained toward him bythe whole of this assembly, that without the slightest preconcert, sofar as I know, he was invited by general consent to preside during thepreliminary stages of the organization of this Convention. I had anopportunity, from time to time, of private conversation with the agedstatesman. I found no member of the assembly I met here, and, indeed, I have found nowhere any citizen of this wide Republic of ours, whoseheart was more deeply imbued with the spirit of conciliation and ofpeace--of that spirit which was so solemnly and impressively utteredin his last prayer, "May the Union be preserved. " Sir, it is notgiven to mortal man to choose the manner of his death; but if suchwere the privilege accorded to any human being, what more glorious endcould he, appreciating a true fame, covet, than that which has beenthe lot of our departed friend? Sir, I speak what I feel, and I daresay I express a sentiment which has impressed itself upon many otherbosoms in this assembly, when I say that his sudden death in the midstof our deliberations, seems to me to exalt--in some degree tocanonize--our labors. This manifestation of the visible hand of Godamong us, brings us in the immediate presence of those solemnresponsibilities which attach themselves to the discharge of ourduties here. I doubt not that every member of this assembly is alreadydeeply impressed with the solemnity of those duties, and I feelconvinced that there are few, if any, in this assembly, who would notlay down their fleeting and feverish existence, and follow ourdeceased brother to his final account, if by doing so they couldrestore peace and harmony to this glorious Republic of ours. 

It does not become me to make any professions of devotion to mycountry--to my whole country--but this I will say, in the spirit ofthe last prayer of my friend, that I should regard my poor life, suchas it is, a cheap purchase--the cheapest imaginable purchase--for thatgreat boon to our country, the restoration of its peace, of itsharmony, of its unity, of its ancient confederated strength and glory. 

The question was taken, and the resolutions were unanimously adopted. 

The body of Judge WRIGHT was then brought into the hall, preceded byRev. Dr. HALL, who read the impressive service of the EpiscopalChurch. A number of the members of the family, and of the friends ofthe deceased, were present during the services. 

The funeral cortege proceeded from the hall to the depot of theBaltimore and Ohio Railroad. 

The following gentlemen were designated to act as pall-bearers on theoccasion:

Mr. Ewing, Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Chase, Mr. Loomis, Mr. Backus, Mr. Wolcott, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Vinton, Mr. Groesbeck, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Harlan, Mr. Gurley. 

The proceedings upon the death of Judge WRIGHT were, by theConference, ordered to be published, and the special session closed. 

NINTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, _February 15th, 1861. _

The Convention was called to order by President TYLER, and prayer wasoffered by Rev. Mr. RENNER. The Journals of the 13th and 14th wereread and approved. 

The PRESIDENT:--I have this morning received several communicationsfrom different persons, which will be laid before the Convention. Oneis an invitation from HORATIO STONE, inviting the members of theConvention to visit his studio; also, a resolution of the House ofRepresentatives, authorizing the admission of members of thisConvention to the floor of the House. Also, a letter from J. E. SANDS, offering to the Convention certain flags which possess historicalinterest, from the fact that they were used in the convention whichadopted the present Constitution of the United States. Also, acommunication from HORATIO G. WARNER. 

The communications were severally read and laid upon the table. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I am instructed by the Committee on Credentials toinform the Convention that the committee has received satisfactoryevidence of the appointment by the Executive of Ohio of C. P. WOLCOTT, as a delegate to this Convention, in the place of JOHN C. WRIGHT, deceased. 

Mr. ORTH:--I desire to offer the following resolutions, which I ask tohave read for the information of the Convention. I have no purpose toadmit spectators to seats on this floor, but in my judgment it is theright of the country to know what we are doing here. My constituentswill not be satisfied with my course, unless I take means to give thepublic knowledge of all our transactions. I am aware that this is aninvasion of the rule already adopted, requiring secrecy, but in myopinion no possible harm can come from the daily publication of ourdebates. It is far better that true reports of these debates should bemade, than that the distorted and perverted accounts which we seedaily in the New York papers should be continued. 

The resolutions were read, and are as follows:

 _Resolved_, That Rules Sixteen (16) and Eighteen (18) of this Convention be, and the same hereby are, rescinded. 

 _Resolved_, That the President is hereby authorized to grant cards of admission to reporters of the press, not exceeding ---- in number, which shall entitle them to seats on the floor of the Convention, for the purpose of reporting its proceedings. 

 _Resolved_, That no person be admitted to the floor of the Convention, except the members, officers, or reporters. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not wish to prolong this discussion myself, norto cause it to be prolonged by others. I am sure that if we permit ourdebates to be reported, we shall never reach a conclusion which willin the slightest degree benefit the country. Every member will in thatevent wish to make a set speech, some of them three or four. I wish tohave our time used in consultation and in action, not consumed inpolitical speech-making. I do not care what the newspapers say of us. I know their accounts are distorted; but they would be distorted if weadmitted reporters. Some of them assail us as a convention ofcompromisers--as belonging to the sandstone stratum of politics. 

Mr. CHASE:--That is the formation which supports all others. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I know it, and I hope this Convention will prove to bethe stratum which supports and preserves the Union and the country. Let us go on as we have begun, preserving secrecy; keeping our owncounsels; making no speeches for outside consumption or personalreputation. Let us all keep steadily in mind the accomplishment of thegreat and good purpose which brought us here, and nothing else. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--New Jersey does not wish to have time consumed inmaking speeches. I think we should proceed at once to hear the reportof the committee. I move that the resolutions offered be laid upon thetable. 

Mr. ORTH:--I suppose this motion cuts off debate. I should much havepreferred to discuss the resolutions. I hope the motion will notprevail. 

The motion to lay on the table passed in the affirmative by a _vivavoce_ vote. 

The PRESIDENT:--Is the General Committee upon Propositions prepared toreport? If it is, their report is now in order. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--That committee has given earnest and carefulconsideration to the subjects and propositions which have from time totime been presented to it. It has held numerous and protractedsessions, and the differences of opinion naturally existing betweenthe members have been discussed in a spirit of candor andconciliation. The committee have not been so fortunate as to arrive atan unanimous conclusion. A majority of its members, however, haveagreed upon a report which we think ought to be satisfactory to allsections of the Union, one which if adopted will, we believe, accomplish the purpose so much desired by every patriotic citizen. Wethink it will give peace to the country. In their behalf I have nowthe honor to submit, for the consideration of the Conference, thefollowing:

 PROPOSALS OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

 ARTICLE 1. In all the 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 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited whilst it shall be under a Territorial government; and in all the 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. 

 ARTICLE 2. Territory shall not be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty; nor, except for naval and commercial stations and depots, unless such treaty shall be ratified by four-fifths of all members of the Senate. 

 ARTICLE 3. Neither the Constitution, nor any amendment thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control within any State or Territory of the United States, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons bound to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing with them to the City of Washington, retaining, and taking away, persons so bound to labor; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation, by land, sea, or river, of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage; and the right during transportation of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons bound to labor than on land. 

 ARTICLE 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due. 

 ARTICLE 5. The foreign slave-trade and the importation of slaves into the United States and their Territories, from places beyond the present limits thereof, are forever prohibited. 

 ARTICLE 6. The first, second, third, and fifth articles, together with this article of these amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States. 

 ARTICLE 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of such fugitive. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--I have not been able to concur in opinion with thosemembers of the committee who have presented the propositions justsubmitted. I do not deem them fair or equitable to the Free States, nor do I think they are likely to secure approval in those States. Asone member of the minority, I have drawn up a report embodying my ownviews and perhaps those of some of my colleagues, which I now presentfor the consideration of the Conference:

 MR. BALDWIN'S MINORITY REPORT. 

 The undersigned, one of the minority of the committee of one from each State, to whom was referred the consideration of the resolutions of the State of Virginia, and the other States represented, and all propositions for the adjustment of existing differences between the States, with authority to report what they deem right, necessary, and proper to restore harmony and preserve the Union, and report thereon, entered upon the duties of the committee with an anxious desire that they might be able to unite in the recommendation of some plan which, on due deliberation, should seem best adapted to maintain the dignity and authority of the Government of the United States, and at the same time secure to the people of every section that perfect equality of right to which they are entitled. 

 Convened, as we are, on the invitation of the Governor of Virginia, in pursuance of the resolutions of the General Assembly of that State, with an accompanying expression of the deliberate opinion of that body that, unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable; and, being earnestly desirous of an adjustment thereof, in concurrence with Virginia, in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to afford to the people of all the States adequate security for all their rights, the attention of the undersigned was necessarily led to the consideration of the extent and equality of our powers, and to the propriety and expediency, under existing circumstances, of a recommendation by this Conference Convention of any specific action by Congress, whether of ordinary legislation, or in reference to constitutional amendments to be proposed by Congress on its own responsibility to the States. 

 A portion of the members of this Convention are delegated by the Legislatures of their respective States, and are required to act under their supervision and control, while others are the representatives only of the Executives of their States, and, having no opportunity of consulting the immediate representatives of the people, can only act on their individual responsibility. 

 Among the resolutions and propositions suggesting modes of adjustment appropriate to this occasion which were brought to the notice of the committee, were the resolutions of the State of Kentucky recommending to her sister States to unite with her in an application to Congress for the calling of a Convention in the mode prescribed by the Constitution for proposing amendments thereto. 

 The undersigned, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying resolution, and others which have been herein indicated, is of opinion that the mode of adjustment by a General Convention, as proposed by Kentucky, is the one which affords the best assurance of an adjustment acceptable to the people of every section, as it will afford to all the States which may desire amendments, an opportunity of preparing them with care and deliberation, and in such form as they may deem it expedient to prescribe, to be submitted to the consideration and deliberate action of delegates duly chosen and invested with equal powers from all the States. 

 The undersigned did not, therefore, deem it expedient that any of the measures of adjustment proposed by the majority of the committee, should be reported to this body to be discussed or acted upon by them, and he respectfully submits as a substitute for the articles of amendment to the Constitution, reported by the majority of the committee, the following preamble and resolution, and respectfully recommends the adoption thereof. 

 ROGER S. BALDWIN. 

 _Whereas_, unhappy differences exist which have alienated from each other portions of the people of the United States to such an extent as seriously to disturb the peace of the nation, and impair the regular and efficient action of the Government within the sphere of its constitutional powers and duties;

 _And whereas_, the Legislature of the State of Kentucky has made application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States;

 _And whereas_, it is believed to be the opinion of the people of other States that amendments to the Constitution are or may become necessary to secure to the people of the United States, of every section, the full and equal enjoyment of their rights and liberties, so far as the same may depend for their security and protection on the powers granted to or withheld from the General Government, in pursuance of the national purposes for which it was ordained and established;

 _And whereas_, it may be expedient that such amendments as any of the States may desire to have proposed, should be presented to the Convention in such form as the respective States desiring the same may deem proper;

 This Convention does, therefore, recommend to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her application to Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, or to conventions therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with the provision in the fifth article of the Constitution. 

Mr. FIELD:--I do not concur in the conclusions to which the majorityof the committee have arrived. I may say that I wholly dissent fromthem. I have not deemed it necessary to make a separate report. At asuitable time I shall endeavor to make known to the Conference myviews upon the topics which have occupied the attention of thecommittee. 

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I occupy substantially the same position as Mr. FIELD, and shall make my views known at a proper time. 

Mr. SEDDON:--The report presented by the majority, I think, is a widedeparture from the course we should have adopted. Virginia hasprepared and presented a plan, and has invited this Conference toconsider it. I think we ought to take up her propositions, amend andperfect them, if need be, and then adopt or reject them. To avoid allmisconstruction as to my individual opinions or position, I havereduced my views to writing, which, with the leave of the Conference, I will now read. 

No objection being made, Mr. SEDDON proceeded to read the following:

 REPORT OF MR. SEDDON. 

 The undersigned, acting on the recommendation of the Commissioners from the State of Virginia, as a member of the committee appointed by this Convention to consider and recommend propositions of adjustment, has not been so happy as to accord with the report submitted by the majority; and as he more widely dissents from the opinions entertained by the other dissenting members, he feels constrained, in vindication of his position and opinions, to present on his part this brief report, recommending, as a substitute for the report of the majority, a proposition subjoined. To this course he feels the more impelled, by deference to the resolutions of the General Assembly of his State, inviting the assemblage of this Convention, and suggesting a basis of adjustment. 

 These resolutions declare, 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 the 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 provided 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 or 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. "

 From this resolution, it is clear that the General Assembly, in its declared opinion of what would be acceptable to the people of Virginia, not only required the Crittenden propositions as a basis, but also held the modifications suggested in addition essential. In this the undersigned fully concurs. But, in his opinion, the propositions reported by the majority do not give, but materially weaken the Crittenden propositions themselves, and fail to accord the modifications suggested. The undersigned therefore, feels it his duty to submit and recommend, as a substitute, the resolutions referred to, as proposed by the Hon. JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, with the incorporation of the modifications suggested by Virginia explicitly expressed, and with some alterations on points which, he is assured, would make them more acceptable to that State, and, as he hopes, to the whole Union. The propositions submitted are appended, marked No. 1. 

 The undersigned, while contenting himself, in the spirit of the action taken by the General Assembly of his State, with the proposal of that substitute for the majority report, would be untrue to his own convictions, shared, as he believes, by the majority of the commissioners from Virginia, and to his sense of duty, if he did not emphatically declare, as his settled and deliberate judgment, that for permanent safety in this Union, to the slaveholding States, and the restoration of integrity to the Union and harmony and peace to the country, a guarantee of actual power in the Constitution and in the working of the Government to the slaveholding and minority section is _indispensable_. How such guarantee might be most wisely contrived and judiciously adjusted to the frame of the Government, the undersigned forbears now to inquire. He is not exclusively addicted to any special plan, but believing that such guarantee might be adequately afforded by a partition of power in the Senate between the two sections, and by a recognition that _ours_ is a Union of freedom and consent, not constraint and force, he respectfully submits, for consideration by members of the Convention, the plan hereto appended, marked No. 2. 

 Whether he shall feel bound to invoke the action of the Convention upon it, may depend on the future manifestations of sentiment in this body. 

 All which is respectfully submitted, JAMES A. SEDDON. _Commissioner from Virginia. _

 _February 15th, 1861. _

 No. 1. 

 _Joint Resolutions proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States. _

 _Whereas_, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and _whereas_, it is eminently desirable and proper that those dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: Therefore, _Resolved_, by this Convention, that the following articles are hereby approved and submitted to the Congress of the United States, with the request that they may, by the requisite constitutional majority of two-thirds, be recommended to the respective States of the Union, to be, when ratified by Conventions of three-fourths of the States, valid and operative as amendments of the Constitution of the Union. 

 ARTICLE 1. In all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance; and, when any territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, 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 slavery, as the Constitution of such new State may provide. 

 ARTICLE 2. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves. 

 ARTICLE 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the free white inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal Government, or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves, and holding them as such during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District. 

 ARTICLE 4. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by the sea. And if such transportation be by sea, the slaves shall be protected as property by the Federal Government. And the right of transit by the owners with their slaves, in passing to or from one slaveholding State or Territory to another, between and through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, shall be protected. And in imposing direct taxes pursuant to the Constitution, Congress shall have no power to impose on slaves a higher rate of tax than on land, according to their just value. 

 ARTICLE 5. That, in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall provide by law, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in all cases, when the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall reimburse themselves by imposing and collecting a tax on the county or city in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, equal in amount to the sum paid by them, with the addition of interest and the costs of collection; and the said county or city, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers, or rescuers, by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himself might have sued and recovered. 

 ARTICLE 6. No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution, and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States, by whose laws it is or may be allowed or permitted. 

 ARTICLE 7, Sec. 1. The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether federal, State, territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African race. 

 And _whereas_, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legislative power: and _whereas_ it is the desire of this Convention, as far its influence may extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore, 1. _Resolved_, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed, or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution of said laws. 

 2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which in their operation impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practices, and led to consequences which have obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing. This Convention, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper, respectfully and earnestly to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corrections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes. 

 3. That the act of the 18th of September, 1850, commonly called the Fugitive Slave Law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the Commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount, in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstructions, the last clause of the fifth section, of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave, to summon to his aid the _posse comitatus_, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue. 

 4. That the laws for the suppression of the African slave-trade, and especially those prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States, ought to be made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed, and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made. 

 No. 2. 

 _Proposed Amendments by Mr. Seddon. _

 To secure concert and promote harmony between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding sections of the Union, the assent of the majority of the Senators from the slaveholding States, and of the majority of the Senators from the non-slaveholding States, shall be requisite to the validity of all action of the Senate, on which the ayes and noes may be called by five Senators. 

 And on a written declaration, signed and presented for record on the Journal of the Senate by a majority of Senators from either the non-slaveholding or slaveholding States, of their want of confidence in any officer or appointee of the Executive, exercising functions exclusively or continuously within the class of States, or any of them, which the signers represent, then such officer shall be removed by the Executive; and if not removed at the expiration of ten days from the presentation of such declaration, the office shall be deemed vacant and open to new appointment. 

 The connection of every State with the Union is recognized as depending on the continuing assent of its people, and compulsion shall in no case, nor under any form, be attempted by the Government of the Union against a State acting in its collective or organic capacity. Any State, by the action of a convention of its people, assembled pursuant to a law of its Legislature, is held entitled to dissolve its relation to the Federal Government, and withdraw from the Union; and, on due notice given of such withdrawal to the Executive of the Union, he shall appoint two Commissioners, to meet two Commissioners to be appointed by the Governor of the State, who, with the aid, if needed from the disagreement of the Commissioners, of an umpire, to be selected by a majority of them, shall equitably adjudicate and determine finally a partition of the rights and obligations of the withdrawing State; and such adjudication and partition being accomplished, the withdrawal of such State shall be recognized by the Executive, and announced by public proclamation to the world. 

 But such withdrawing State shall not afterwards be readmitted into the Union without the assent of two-thirds of the States constituting the Union at the time of the proposed readmission. 

Mr. COALTER:--It is proper that I should say a word in relation to theposition of Missouri in this Conference. It is expressly referred toin the resolution under which we hold our appointment, passed by theSenate and House of Representatives. It is believed by the people ofMissouri that the rights and privileges of the slaveholding States arein danger, and that the time has arrived when they should be securedby additional guarantees. Those guarantees must be such as will securethe honor and equal rights of the slaveholding States. 

I wish to say, further, that we, as Commissioners, must act at alltimes under the control of the General Assembly or the StateConvention of our State. Before we can act definitely upon either ofthe propositions submitted, I think it will be our duty to transmitthem to the General Assembly for instructions. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--The several reports are now before the Conference. Ipresume it will be the desire of every member to give them a carefulexamination. In order to prevent all unnecessary delay, I move thatthe several reports be laid upon the table, that they be printed atonce and distributed to the members, and made the special order of theConference for 12 o'clock to-morrow. 

The motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE was agreed to. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I have drawn up a preamble and a resolution which Iwish to offer for the consideration of the Conference. I shall notpress action upon them to-day, but desire to have them laid on thetable and printed. I shall call them up after the report of theGeneral Committee is disposed of. It would gratify me much, and Ithink greatly tend to the peace and harmony of the country, if theycould be adopted at once, and published. It is well known to most ofyou that there is nothing in all the legislation or action of the FreeStates, which has created so much excitement and alarm among thepeople of the slaveholding States, as the passage of the so called"personal liberty" acts. They are regarded as deliberate infractionsand breaches of the Constitution, and as attempts to nullify theoperation of a constitutional enactment of Congress. But I do not wishto invite discussion upon the subject now; I hope my motion will notmeet with objection. 

The motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE was adopted, and the preamble andresolution were presented as follows:

 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, underwhich Commissioners have been appointed, or relating to subjects tocome before this Conference, be printed. I think this courseconvenient and necessary, and one reason that I may assign is this:The opinion of the Legislature of the State of Ohio, as expressed inone of the resolutions adopted by that body, is, that it would havebeen wiser and better if the time for holding this Conference had beendeferred until a later period. Ohio has expressly said in herresolutions that she is not prepared to assent to the terms ofsettlement proposed by Virginia, and has expressed the opinion thatthe Constitution as it now stands, if fairly interpreted and obeyed, contains ample provision for the correction of all the evils which areclaimed to exist. Nevertheless she is willing to meet in a friendlyspirit and consult with her sister States. But the opinion extensivelyprevails that this Conference ought not to have been called upon soshort a notice and before the inauguration of the incomingadministration. We, the Commissioners from that State, are instructedin the resolutions, to which I have referred, to use our influence toprocure an adjournment of this Conference, before final action istaken, to the 4th of April next. I shall feel it my duty, at somefuture time, to make a motion to that effect. The extent to which Ishall urge its adoption will depend in some measure upon the course ofevents and the opinions of my colleagues. In the mean time I wish tosee all the resolutions printed. 

The motion of Mr. CHASE was agreed to. The resolutions as printed willbe found in the appendix. 

Mr. ALLEN, of Massachusetts:--Before the adjournment to-day I desireto know what will be the order of business when these various reportscome up for discussion. By the general rules governing parliamentaryproceedings, to which I suppose we are subject, I understand the firstquestion will be upon the substitution of the minority reportpresented by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. BALDWIN) for thereport of the majority; and that, upon that question, amendments maybe offered, and either accepted or rejected, both to the reports ofthe majority and the minority. I think it would be well to have thismatter understood. Am I right in this?

The PRESIDENT:--The Chair understands that the gentleman fromMassachusetts has correctly pointed out the manner of proceeding. 

On motion of Mr. HACKLEMAN, the Conference then adjourned until 12o'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 memberdesire to have it read, it will be presented upon motion. I am notinclined to occupy the time of the Conference by reading it, unlesssome 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 andOrganization, to propose an amendment to the Eleventh Rule which hasbeen adopted. As the Rule now stands, no appeal is allowed from thedecision of the Chair upon questions of order. It is not probable thateither the Chair or the Conference would wish to be bound in that way. The purpose of the resolution is to assimilate the Rule in thisrespect to the practice in parliamentary bodies, and to allow anappeal from the decision of the Chair to the Conference itself. Ioffer 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 upona 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 thebody with any purpose unnecessarily to consume the time of theConvention in making speeches. I have no reason to believe that anysuch purpose exists. But the present Congress is rapidly drawing to aclose. If any plan is adopted it will be nugatory, unless recommendedby Congress. If we are to sit here until each member of the Conferencehas spoken upon each question presented, as many times and as long ashe pleases, I fear the Congress will close its labors before we doours. 

Mr. DAVIS:--I think thirty minutes quite too long. Our opinions areformed. Before this time probably every member has determined hiscourse of action, and it will not be changed by debate. I move tostrike out the word "thirty, " and insert the word "ten. "

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

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

Mr. SEDDON:--We have one rule already which prohibits any member fromspeaking more than twice upon any question without special leave, anda member cannot speak a second time until every other, who desires tospeak, has spoken. This was the rule, I believe, in the Conventionthat formed our present Constitution, and no one complained of itsoperation there. I am as much impressed with the necessity ofexpediting our action as any one can be, and should be among the lastto protract our sessions. But this resolution looks too much likesuppressing discussion--like cutting off debate. I desire at theproper time to be heard upon the report which I have submitted. Itwill be impossible to discuss the grave questions involved in it inthe space of a brief half hour. 

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

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I have no wish to press this resolution upon theConvention, and it may be as well to postpone it for the present. Iwill 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 teno'clock in the morning. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:--I am sure that we shall all agree that thishour is quite too early. I wish to make all reasonable progress, but Ithink we shall find it difficult to secure a quorum at that hour. Imove to amend by inserting _eleven_ o'clock. 

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

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

The motion of Mr. CRISFIELD as amended was agreed to without adivision. 

Mr. CHASE:--I have a motion which I desire to make, and as I do notwish to press it to a vote at the present time, I will move to lay iton the table. But I wish to have it before the Conference. It isapparent to me that we ought to pass it at some time, in order to givemembers who may belong to delegations in which differences of opinionexist, an opportunity of appearing on the record as they personallywish to vote. I move to amend the first rule by inserting after theword "representing, " the words, "The yeas and nays of the delegatesfrom each State, on any question, shall be entered on the Journal whenit 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 theday, the question being upon the several reports presented by theGeneral 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 forthe report of the majority of the Committee. I will consent to strikeout that part of it which relates to--

Mr. TURNER:--Before the gentleman from Connecticut proceeds with hisargument I trust he will give way for the introduction of aresolution. I am sure the time has come when we ought to pass such aresolution as I now offer. I am unwilling to sit here longer unlesssome 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 informationof the Conference, and also ask the leave of the Conference for itsintroduction. 

The resolution was read. It provided for the appointment of astenographer. 

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

Mr. BALDWIN:--I rise for the purpose of supporting my motion tosubstitute the report presented by myself for that presented by themajority of the committee. As I was about to remark, when theresolution just disposed of was introduced, I will consent to strikeout all that portion of my report which precedes the words "whereasunhappy differences, " &c. , in order that the substitute offered mayconform more nearly in substance to the proposition of the majority. It seems desirable on all hands that whatever we adopt here should bepresented to Congress; and if it receives the sanction of that body, should be by it presented to the States for their approval. My reportwhen 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 theLegislature of Kentucky. I have adopted those resolutions of Kentuckyas the basis of my recommendation, on account of the short time whichremains for any action at all, and because it appears to me that thekind of proceeding indicated in them is best calculated to meet withfavor in the States which must approve any action taken here before itcan be made effectual. 

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

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

It is conceded on all hands that our action here will amount tonothing, unless it meets the approval of Congress, and such proposalsof amendment as we shall agree upon are recommended by that body tothe States for adoption. The session of the present Congress isdrawing to a close. There remain only fifteen or sixteen days duringwhich it can transact business. Can any one suppose that in thepresent state of the country, with the large number of importantmeasures before Congress and awaiting its action, any proposition ofreal importance emanating from this Conference could be properlyconsidered by either House in this short time? I am assuming just nowthat this is a Convention which has the right, under the Constitutionor by precedent, to make such propositions. But if we do not remember, most certainly Congress will, that however respectable this body maybe, however large may be the constituency which it represents, it is, after all, one which has no existence under, and is not recognized bythe Constitution. In a recent speech in the Senate, Judge COLLAMER, ofVermont, one of the ablest lawyers in that body, has more thanintimated a doubt whether Congress could, under the Constitution, entertain proposals of amendment presented to it by such a body asthis. But, waiving all technicalities, the substantial objection whichinfluences my mind is, that the course of action proposed by themajority of the committee is contrary to the spirit of theConstitution. When the people adopted that instrument and subjectedthemselves to its operation, they intended and had a right tounderstand that it should be amended only in the manner provided bythe Constitution itself. They did not intend that amendments should beproposed under, or the existence of the Constitution endangered by anyextraneous pressure whatever. They wisely provided a way in whichamendments might be proposed, or rather two ways. Under either ofthem, due examination and consideration was secured. They would nothave consented to any other way of proposing amendments. The GeneralGovernment, on the adoption of the Constitution, for all nationalpurposes, took the place of the State Governments. The people of theUnited States from that time, in the language of a distinguishedSenator from Kentucky, owed a paramount allegiance to the GeneralGovernment, and a subordinate allegiance only to the StateGovernments. Changes in the Constitution, then, can only be _properly_made in the manner provided by the Constitution. Propositions forchanges in it must come from the people, or their representatives inCongress. Any attempt to coerce Congress, or to influence its actionin a manner not provided by the Constitution, is a disregard of therights of the people. 

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

The members of the House of Representatives were elected by thepeople. They were selected to perform, and they do perform, theirduties and functions under the obligations of their official oaths. There is no question about their agency, or their right to act in thepremises. The Constitution makes them the agents of the people. TheLegislature of the State of Kentucky, well understanding andappreciating the only true method in which constitutional amendmentsshould be proposed, with all the formality of a legislative actapproved by the Executive of that State, has applied to Congress forthe call of a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitutionof the United States, and has requested the President to lay thoseresolutions immediately before Congress. She wishes other States tounite with her in the preparing and proposing of amendments to theConstitution. This is the correct, the legal, the patriotic course. This was what Kentucky had the right to ask, and this is all she hasasked. 

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 majorityof the committee? It is not to unite with Kentucky or to accede to herwishes for a convention of the States, under the Constitution, but tothwart the wishes of Kentucky, and to induce Congress itself tooriginate and propose amendments, or to propose those which we mayoriginate. Kentucky asks that the people of the States themselvesmight elect delegates to a convention, who should carefully considerthe whole subject. The Kentucky resolutions were transmitted to thePresident, who sent them to Congress, as he said, with great pleasure. Kentucky stated that she was in favor of the so-called Crittendenresolutions, but she did not request Congress to propose them asamendments to the Constitution. 

How is this body constituted? Do we, its members, represent the peopleof the several States? Have they had an opportunity to electdelegates, to select those in whom they had confidence and whom theycould trust? Not at all. Why should we assemble here and express ourwishes to Congress in reference to the Constitution without permittingCalifornia, Oregon, or many other States not here represented, tounite in our deliberations? I cannot assent to such an unfairproceeding toward other States. 

Suppose one-half the States should request Congress to proposeamendments, will Congress agree to it? No, sir. The Constitutionprovides that Congress shall not propose amendments without theconsent of two-thirds of the States. Congress has not deemed anyamendments necessary, so far as we know, and yet a majority of thecommittee of this body ask Congress to propose the amendments on ourresponsibility alone. It appears to me, then, that this proceedingmust be regarded not as one known to the Constitution, but as arevolutionary proceeding. All the States are not represented here, norhave all had an opportunity to be so represented. Some of us areacting under the appointment of the Legislatures of our States; otherdelegates are simply appointed by the Executives of their States andare acting without any legal authority. We are not standing upon equalground; some are only acting upon their own judgment; others areacting under instructions from their several Legislatures. If theVirginia Legislature itself were here, its action would differmaterially from the present views of the delegates from that State. 

But how is this? The Resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia makethe statement that unless these questions are settled, and settledsoon, there is danger of the disruption of the Union. Admit this to beso, and it furnishes no reason for changing the mode of proposingconstitutional amendments. The Constitution knows no such danger. Itis a self-sustaining Constitution, and was supposed to contain withinitself the power to secure its own preservation. The Constitutionought not to be amended without the deliberate action of the peoplethemselves. I cannot and I will not disregard their rights. I cannotrecognize the claim that the secession of a State, by an ordinance ofits Convention, can carry either the State or its people out of theUnion. There is no such thing as _legal_ secession, for there is nopower anywhere to take the people out of the protecting care of theGovernment, or to relieve them from their obligations to it. 

And where is the clause in the Constitution that authorizes the callupon Congress to do what Congress is asked to do here? TheConstitution was adopted "to form a more perfect Union. " The peoplewere not to be allowed to alter it, except in the two modes prescribedin it. The Convention which adopted it did not propose that changesshould be made in it without ample time for deliberation anddiscussion. We are here, then, simply as conferees from Statesexpressing our individual opinions. We are now asked to recommend toCongress amendments to our fundamental law; we have no more right todo so than members of the so-called Southern Confederacy. We, a merefraction of the people, propose to unite in bringing a pressure uponCongress, which shall induce it to propose these amendments. This wasnot one of the modes contemplated or provided by the framers of thatsacred instrument. 

General WASHINGTON presided over the Convention which prepared ourConstitution. None knew better than he the reasons which made itsadoption necessary to the preservation of the Government--none knewbetter the dangers which would probably surround it in after years. Inthat last counsel of his to the American people--his FarewellAddress--a paper drawn up with the greatest deliberation, embodyingopinions which he entertained as the result of a long life of activestudy and reflection, he warns us against all such proceedings asthose contemplated by the majority of the committee. I am sure thedelegates from Virginia will not now refuse to listen to the words ofthat illustrious man, uttered upon the most solemn and momentousoccasion 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 ofour attention? And with them before us, can we invoke the action ofCongress for the alteration of the fundamental law of the Governmentin any other ways than those provided in the Constitution? I earnestlyhope not. If we act at all, let us act in that regular method whichgives time for consultation, for consideration, and for action amongthe people of all the States. It appears to me, that in adopting theline of policy proposed by the majority of the committee, we are doingthe 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 theConstitution by an amendment in a way which, the Constitution does_not_ designate. WASHINGTON says if there is any thing wrong, let itbe corrected in a constitutional way; and that, sir, is just whatKentucky has said, and that is what every loyal State will say. Kentucky has inaugurated this proceeding, and it is one eminentlyworthy of her--true as she has always been to the Union. I cannotdisregard this action of her Legislature. I do not think any exigencyexists which requires us to disregard it. I am ready, and my State isready, to confer with other States in reference to the Constitution, when asked to do so in any of the modes pointed out by thatinstrument. 

Entertaining these opinions, and with these convictions, I should beuntrue to my sense of duty to the Government and the State Irepresent, and to the people of the United States, if I should consentto disregard the Constitution and my obligations to it. 

I have stated these considerations because they are powerful enough toinfluence and control my course. Others must act upon their ownconvictions. I have come to the conclusion that I ought to submit thisminority report with distrust, and with distrust only, because so manyof the able statesmen composing the majority of the committee haveseen fit to adopt different views. My report leaves every thing to thepeople, where I think every such question should be left. When theyconsult together and decide in the constitutional way I shall bow totheir 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 theConstitution my study for many years, and I have looked at the causeswhich give it strength and the causes which give it weakness. Ibelieve that our fathers organized this Government in great wisdom. Its strength was in the affections of the people. It never had anyother strength, and it was never intended it should have. It was notintended to be sustained by standing armies. Its strength was intendedto be placed in the affections of the people, and I had hoped it wouldendure forever. Without the affections of the people it is the weakestGovernment ever established. The people! What a spectacle do wewitness now! One portion of the people has lost confidence in theGovernment, and now seven States have left it. The Government cannotrealize that they are gone. We have established the right ofrevolution, and that right gave to the world this splendid Government. This was the first precedent; it will stand for all time. It willalways be acted upon when the people have lost confidence in theGovernment. I _hate_ that word secession, because it is a cheat! Callthings by their right names! The Southern States have framed anotherGovernment; they have originated a _revolution_. There is no warrantfor it in the Constitution, but it is like the right of self-defence, which every man may exercise. The gentleman from Connecticut hasforgotten that the Government made Congress the recipient ofpetitions. Why was this? It was that Congress might be influenced bythe wishes of the people and act upon them. 

We are twenty States assembled here. Congress has been in session morethan two months. The Government is falling to pieces. Congress has nothad the sagacity to give the necessary guarantees, the properassurances to the slaveholding States. This session will make ashameful chapter in the history of this Government, to be hereafterwritten. Why should this Congress refuse to give the peopleguarantees? The proudest Governments in the world have been compelledto give their people guarantees. 

We are assembled here to consult, and see what can be done; to consultas representatives of the States. Is there any impropriety in ourstating what would restore confidence, to our putting this in writing, and to our proposing the plan of restoration we think should beadopted to Congress, and asking Congress to submit that plan to thepeople? Are we not the representatives of the people, sent here to dowhat we think ought to be done, and to ask Congress by way of petitionto 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 directlyfrom the people. We ask Congress to submit a plan which we think willsave the Government, to the people. Is this taking any advantage ofthe 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 greatperil and trouble, we ask Congress, backed by the moral force of theStates we represent, to act and save the country. 

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

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

I, sir, will answer to Kentucky; I don't want the gentleman to comebetween me and the people of Kentucky. He has no right to speak forthe people of that State--her representatives here have that right andwill exercise it. Why were these resolutions passed? Because Congresshad failed to provide the means needful to our safety. The resolutionsunder which the Kentucky delegation came here were passed on the 29th, not the 25th of January. They were passed after the resolutions towhich the gentleman refers. They ought to be regarded, as they are infact, as the deliberate expression of the Legislature of Kentucky infavor of this Conference. In them it is stated that Kentucky heartilyaccepts the invitation of her old mother Virginia. She acts in nounwilling spirit, she hastens to avail herself of any opportunity tosave the Government. She believes a favorable opportunity is offeredby this Conference. I repeat again: Adopt the report of the majorityof the committee and I will answer to Kentucky. I will go farther. Iwill answer that Kentucky herself will adopt the very proposals ofamendment to the Constitution contained in the committee's report. 

But the gentleman insists that the action proposed is not onlyimproper but that it is _revolutionary_. I deny that it isrevolutionary. It is no more revolutionary than any other form ofpetition. It is a petition sustained by the moral force of twentyStates--a petition which Congress will not disregard. 

But if the report of the majority is revolutionary, what of thegentleman's report? Is that provided for by the Constitution? Is thataccording to the forms of the Constitution? No, sir. Every argument hehas brought against the report of the majority, applies with equalforce to his own. His views will answer for those who are willing tostand by and see this Government drift toward destruction--to see thiscountry involved in civil war. It will answer for those who willoppose all action, and who wish to do nothing at all. His report is anew excuse for inaction. It will not answer for us. 

Sir, we are acting under a fearful responsibility. The eyes of everytrue patriot in the nation are turned toward this body. The people areawaiting our action, with anxious and painful solicitude. They knowand we know that, unless the wisdom of this Conference shall devisesome plan to satisfy the people of the slaveholding States--to quiettheir apprehensions, a disruption of the Government is inevitable. Ifwe adopt the gentleman's views, go home and do nothing, we take theresponsibility of breaking up the Government. 

I do not propose to discuss the merits of the majority report at thepresent time. I have only sought to answer the arguments of thegentleman against our acting at all. But I claim that this way ofproceeding is entirely irregular. The report of the gentleman is notin order. The report of the majority was first presented, and shouldbe first acted upon. I move to lay the report of the gentleman fromConnecticut upon the table. 

Mr. LOGAN:--I would ask Mr. GUTHRIE to withdraw his motion. If themotion were adopted it would prevent discussion. It was expected thatwe were to discuss the subject to-day. It is not of much consequencewhich 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 faithfullyattended its deliberations, and have anxiously watched its course. Mr. GUTHRIE will find that there are other and different objections to theline of policy he proposes, to which he has not alluded, and which hedoes not understand. But they are objections which have determined, and will determine, the action of Congress. I would ask Mr. GUTHRIE ifthe adoption of his propositions, previous to their action, would haveprevented the States which have already seceded from going out. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I think it would have prevented them; all but SouthCarolina. 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 thegentleman knows, that there has been for a long time a purpose, agreat conspiracy in this country, to begin and carry out a revolution. That has been avowed over and over again in the halls of Congress. Canyou expect a member of Congress to do more than reflect the will ofhis constituents, the will of his people? Would you have him do anything different? There were forty or fifty different propositionsbefore the Congressional Committee of Thirty-three. There are manyhere. There are many difficulties attending the solution of thisquestion in every respect. But we may as well speak plainly. I cannotgo for the majority report of the committee, and among other reasons, for this reason: Their proposition makes all territory we mayhereafter 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 thesouth; we have extended as far as we can to the north and thenorthwest. 

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

Mr. CURTIS:--I will do almost any thing to save the Union. I willreflect the will of my constituents. I think it ought not to bedivided equally, but the South ought to have its share. There isanother trouble. Look at the difficulty of getting any propositionthrough Congress. Congress has only fifteen days of life. I ask you, even with general unanimity, if you can hope to pass at this sessionany new proposals of amendments? If you do, you will get along fasterthan is generally the case. There is one proposition before Congressthat I believe can pass. It is the Adams proposition, to admit all theterritories south at once. It is already slave territory. It is nowapplying for admission. If this is acceptable to the South, I will gofor it. We are bound to admit it under the ordinance of 1789. 

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

Mr. CURTIS:--I understand that in connection with the subsequentlegislation it does. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--The concession of territory from North Carolinacontains a prohibition from acting on the subject of slavery in theterritory ceded. 

Mr. CURTIS:--I agree entirely with the gentleman. I am opposed toslavery, but we must divide the territory. Let us leave slavery whereit is, and admit the territory for the purpose of settling thequestion. I do not agree with Mr. GUTHRIE that this Government dependson the will of the people. It is a self-supporting government; it willsupport itself. There is no justification for the action of theseceded States, and I cannot agree that Congress is responsible fortheir action. The secession plot was formed before Congress assembled. There _was_ a power to check it. If our President had acted as Jacksondid, there would have been an end of it. The day for hanging fortreason has gone by. We must look at things as they are. Even inbattle the white flag must be respected. Let this subject be franklydiscussed in a conciliatory manner. If any State has the right to goout of the Union at its own volition, then this Government, in myopinion, is not worth the trouble of preserving. The President issworn to protect and uphold the Government. So long as there is anavy, an army, and a militia, it is his sworn duty to uphold it--touphold it as well against an attack from States as from individuals. The Government is one of love and affection, it is true, but it isalso one of strength, and power. Where was there ever a more indulgentpeople than ours? Our forts have been taken, our flag has been firedupon, our property seized, and as yet nothing has been done. But theywill not be indulgent forever. Beware, gentlemen, how you force themfurther. Gentlemen talk about the inefficiency of Congress; I wishthere 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 isapplicable 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 maybe placed on the report. I think if it had been understood to apply tofuture territory, it could not have received the support of a majorityof the committee. Mr. CRITTENDEN'S proposition applies to futureterritory. I submitted a proposition to the committee also intended toapply to future territory. A majority of the committee was opposed toit. Mr. EWING drew this part of the amendment, and there is somedifference of opinion about it. In my opinion the amendment would notapply to future territory, and I intended at the proper time to offeran amendment which should make it plain, and not leave it open toconstruction. Personally, I should be glad to apply it to futureterritory, but I shall yield. I think if we can settle the questionnow, there will be no further trouble. I do not believe any territorywill be acquired hereafter without great unanimity. It is not quitetrue, although it may be probable, that the future territory will besouth of the line proposed. 

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

Mr. JOHNSON:--I move to amend by inserting the word _present_ beforethe word _territory_ in the first line of Section I. , with such otherverbal amendments as may make the sense conform, and to adopt thatamendment now. This covers the whole ground. I wish to discuss theseamendments, but am physically unable to speak to-day, and wouldprefer to have the discussion deferred. 

Mr. JOHNSON then moved an adjournment, which was carried on adivision, and the Convention adjourned at two o'clock and fiftyminutes. 

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 thisresolution, much less to waste it in a fruitless attempt to opposewhat seems to be the settled purpose of a majority of this Convention. But if this body will consider the purpose which the resolution seeksto attain, it may, perhaps, be found less objectionable than othersimilar ones which have been defeated. The objection heretofore madeis, that a publication of what transpires here would lead to anexcited criticism in the country, which would be unfavorable to thecalmness and ultimate success which should attend our deliberations. While I entertain no such apprehensions, permit me to observe thatthis resolution contemplates no present publication of our debates, but a publication at such a time, and in such a manner, as will beunobjectionable. That time may not come till after our adjournment. Iam free to say, that when we are dealing with the important issues nowbefore 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 criticismwhen 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 dailyrecord of each of us be made up now: let it be full and perfect. Whena question comes up hereafter which concerns the sentiments or theaction of a member, let its decision depend upon no uncertainrecollection, a recollection which must fade and grow dim with eachone of us, as the time of this Convention recedes into the past. Sucha record can injure no one; it may be of infinite service hereafter. Icould not justify myself to my conscience, or to those who have aright to hold me responsible for my acts here, if I failed to do allthat lays in my power to have the true history of this Convention laidbefore the country. A naked journal amounts to nothing. It is askeleton. Our discussions alone will give it form and comeliness. Ihave prepared this resolution upon consultation with many members, whose ideas of what should be done here agree with mine. They concurwith me in the propriety of offering it. If it fails, theresponsibility of keeping our discussions from the people will notrest 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 theaffirmative: Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Virginia, andPennsylvania--11. 

The following States voted in the negative: Maine, Vermont, NewHampshire, 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 statedthat it was equally divided. 

Mr. TUCK:--I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to introducea proposition in the form of an address to the people of the UnitedStates. I do so after having consulted a considerable number ofmembers; and having found that it meets their approval, I desire toread 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 nocurt objection would be made to the reading of _any_ proposition whichany member might deem it his duty to offer. As gentlemen differ fromme in this respect, I will hand the paper to the Chair. I hope atleast it may be permitted to lay on the table. 

The PRESIDENT:--I hold it the gentleman's undoubted right to read thepaper 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 theConvention agrees to any result, I shall favor its submission to thepeople with an address. I will pledge myself to suggest thegentleman's name as one of a committee to prepare the address at theproper 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 istaken, 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 thetable, and printed. 

The PRESIDENT:--There were three motions involved in one. Now thequestion 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 thetable. 

Mr. TUCK:--Are we not entitled to have the question taken on themotion to print? I supposed all these questions would be taken in aspirit of conciliation. But if not, I will withdraw the motion to layon 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 entirelywith Mr. TUCK and his proposition, but I am in favor of receivingevery proposition that is offered, of printing them all, and at theproper time of considering them all. I trust that unanimous consentwill be given to printing this paper. 

The PRESIDENT then put the motion upon printing the address, and itwas carried upon a division. 

Mr. GUTHRIE offered the following resolution, which was adoptedunanimously:

 _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 presentit may lie on the table, and be considered hereafter. I do not desireto move it as an amendment to the report of the committee, but thinkit better to present it as a direct and independent proposition. Ipresent it now only for the purpose of having it before theConvention. 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 withoutobjection. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--There appears to be a misunderstanding between theSecretary and myself upon the question of printing the Journal. Toavoid question, I move that the Journal be printed up to and includingto-day. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--I move to amend by adding "and from day to day duringthe 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 theday--the consideration of the report of the committee. 

Mr. REID, of North Carolina:--I wish to move an amendment to theamendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON. It is to add to his the words "andfuture. " If adopted, the language will be "present and futureterritory. "

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

Mr. REID:--I am instructed by the Legislature of North Carolina tooffer 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. Isuggest that if adopted, with Mr. JOHNSON'S amendment, the sense ofthe proposition as it now stands will not be changed. 

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

Mr. REID:--I came here not to deceive the North or the South. I intendto be plain and unambiguous. Why should we send forth a propositionthat is uncertain, vague, and, as gentlemen admit, open to differentconstructions? If we are to pour oil upon the troubled waters, let usdo so to some purpose; above all, let us be definite, plain, andcertain. I cannot consent to withdraw my motion. I must insist uponits consideration. 

Mr. LOGAN:--I had hoped the question on Mr. JOHNSON'S amendments wouldhave been taken on Saturday. It is an important one, and one whichmust be met. I would suggest that it would be best to let the questionbe taken on Mr. JOHNSON'S amendments now. The subject presents itselfto my mind in this way: The proposition of the majority, as it nowstands, is uncertain. The friends of the proposition ought to beallowed to perfect it, to make it satisfactory to themselves. If thereis a doubt about it, let us make it clear that it applies only to thepresent 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 itwill be more in order if the vote is not taken till we know what thatsubstance is. I shall not object to its application to futureterritory. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina will withdraw hisamendment, and let the question be taken on that of Mr. JOHNSON. 

Mr. SEDDON:--One word only. I fear we are being placed in an awkwardposition. I am desirous to have the language of the proposition clearand not delusive. The amendment of Mr. JOHNSON embarrasses me; Ihardly know how to vote upon it. If I vote for Mr. JOHNSON'S motion, Ishall have the semblance of favoring the limitation of the propositionto 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 againstthe proposition in committee because, as it now stands, it appliesonly to existing territory. I wish to carry this proposition, but notby the vote of the South alone. I want Northern votes, and assurancesthat the people of the North will vote for the proposition and adoptit. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I shall feel disposed to vote against Mr. JOHNSON'Smotion. 

The question was here stated by the President as follows:

The vote will be taken upon the motion of Mr. REID to amend theamendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON. 

Mr. REID:--It strikes me that the question is this: My proposition isto add the words "and future, " but Mr. JOHNSON'S amendment is to addthe 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 votingfor the proposition as he proposes to limit it. 

Mr. COALTER:--I think the committee ought to be permitted to amend andcomplete their report. Let us, by general consent, agree to have theword "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 upanother day. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope it will not be recommitted. We can settle thequestion 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 resultedas 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 gentlemanfrom Maryland. 

Mr. JOHNSON:--I trust that I shall not trespass upon the time of theConference, but the subject now before it is one of great importance, and it involves the consideration of many important questions. Theamendment which I offer is for the purpose of making the propositionof the committee clear and plain. I was aware that a constructionmight be placed upon it different from that which the committeeintended; and it is due to the frankness which is manifested here, that the purposes of the committee should be made plain. There oughtto be no ambiguity in a constitutional provision. Some of the mostimportant constitutional questions decided by the Supreme Court havebeen questions of construction. Lawyers would differ about theconstruction to be given the committee's proposition. I think theSupreme Court has placed a construction upon the terms used here, which would be conclusive. A similar question arose in the Dred Scottcase. There the question was upon that article in the Constitutionwhich confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and to make allneedful rules and regulations respecting the _territories_ or otherproperty belonging to the United States. " The Court in that casedecided that the provision had no bearing on the controversy in thatcase, 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 bythe United States, and was within their boundaries, as settled by thetreaty with Great Britain. With this clause in the Constitution, therefore, it could have no influence upon the territory afterwardacquired from a foreign government. I think this decision conclusive, and that the proposition, if incorporated into the Constitution, wouldrefer only to the territory now owned by the United States. 

It was the wish of the representatives of some States in the committeethat the word "future" should be inserted in the report. I was opposedto it: it was so odious to me to put words into the Constitution, orto propose to do so, which should go forth to the world as anindication that this Government proposes to acquire new territory inany way. I have said that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott casedecided that the words "the territories" in the Constitution onlyapplied to the then existing territory. I think they decided wrong inthis respect, though I agree to the correctness of the decision inthat case in the main; but such as it is, the decision is bindingupon this Conference and the people. 

Mr. JOHNSON here read a portion of the opinion of Judge TANEYdelivered in the Dred Scott case, and continued:

You perceive that Judge TANEY turns the question upon the constructionof the word "the. " Had the word "any" been used in its place, he musthave held that the provision applied to future, as well as the thenexisting territory. 

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

In discussing the merits of this report, in its application to theexisting condition of the country, I have to say a word to my Southernfriends. You have sought to extend this provision to territory whichshall be hereafter acquired. You have had a decisive vote and havebeen beaten in this Conference. The fight has been a fair one; thequestion has been thoroughly understood. We ought to acquiesce in thedecision of the majority. We cannot change this decision if we would;and if we could change it, the proposition amended as you would preferto have it, would never pass Congress. The repeated action of thatbody, during its present session, shows this conclusively. Acceptingthis decision then, as definitive, can we not settle the question withreference to existing territory? Shall we settle it? Settle itfairly--recognizing and acknowledging the rights of all, and remainbrethren forever with the Free States! From my very heart, I say yes. (Applause. ) The proposition as it now stands covers all the territorywe have. The whole ground, the whole trouble, which has brought thiscountry into its present lamentable condition--has arisen over thisquestion. I believe if it had been disposed of or settled in some waybefore, many States would have been kept in the Union that have nowgone out. And why should we not settle it?

We have now a territory extensive enough to sustain two hundredmillions of people--embracing almost every climate, fruitful in almostevery species of production--rich in all the elements of nationalwealth, and governed by a Constitution that has raised us to anelevation of grandeur that the world has never before witnessed. Thatwe should separate to the destruction of such a Government, on accountof territory we have not got, and territory that we do not want, isnot, 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 acquisitionof future territory. The second section of the committee's propositionprovides that territory shall not be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty, nor, with unimportant exceptions, unless such treatyshall be ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate. Isnot that guaranty enough for us? Should we not act unreasonably if werequired further guaranty in this respect? For myself, I should havepreferred that the consent of two-thirds of the Senate only should berequired, and that that two-thirds should comprise a majority bothfrom 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. Iknow there will be objections raised to it, but they will be faroutweighed by the advantages it will give to the South. 

But the objection of Mr. BALDWIN is opposed here, and it is one whichmust be answered. He says this is the wrong way to propose amendmentsto the Constitution--that our action is inconsistent with thatinstrument. He does not claim that it is prohibited by the letter, butby the spirit of the Constitution. Where does he get the spirit butfrom the letter? There are two methods of proposing amendments to theConstitution provided by that instrument. Let us see what they are. 

Mr. JOHNSON here read the article of the Constitution providing foramendments, and continued:

One is where two-thirds of Congress deem it advisable to proposeamendments; the other is where the States themselves propose them. Mylearned brother would have us believe that the members of Congress, acting under their official oaths, must each be satisfied that eachamendment proposed is proper to be incorporated in the instrument, before they should propose them; and he maintains that there is adifference, in fact, in the two methods prescribed. What right hasthis body, if there is any force in this objection, to submit _his_proposition to the States? If what we propose is revolutionary, thenwhat he proposes is revolutionary. I reply to him, with all respectfor his legal ability, and with all the humility which becomes me, andinsist that he is wrong. He refers to the opinion of Judge COLLAMER. Ihold Judge COLLAMER in much respect, and his opinion in great honorhere, but his statements are at war with the objections made by thegentleman from Connecticut. Judge COLLAMER maintains that it is theduty of Congress _to propose_ amendments, not to _recommend_ them. Itwould be entirely proper, according to his opinion, for Congress topropose amendments which they would not adopt themselves. I gosomewhat farther, and insist that it is the duty of Congress topropose amendments whenever desired by any State or any considerablesection of the Union. If we have no right to suggest a line of actionto Congress, no right to petition Congress, no right to ask Congressto propose amendments, as the gentleman insists, we had better gohome, or rather, I should say, we should never have come here. 

There are twenty States represented in this Conference. I have nodoubt other States would have been here, but for the shortness of thetime. But how and why are we here? We have come here on the invitationof Virginia; her resolutions are our constitution. We have come hereat her instance. For what purpose did she ask us to come here? underwhat circumstances did she pass these resolutions? Virginia saw thatthe country was going to ruin--that one State had already seceded, andseveral others were about to follow. She saw there were circumstancesaffecting the condition of the South which aroused her to frenzy--notmadness, but the frenzy which falls on every patriotic mind when itwitnesses a country going to destruction. She saw the country wasgoing to ruin with rapid steps, and that its ruin must be accomplishedunless her friends in the free States would come forward, and consentto put into the Constitution additional guarantees which would satisfythe people of the slave States that their rights were secure. See whatshe did--what she said. She expresses it as her deliberate opinion, "that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States ofthis Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanentdissolution of the Union is inevitable; and the General Assembly, representing the wishes of the people of the Commonwealth, is desirousof employing every reasonable means to avert so dire a calamity, anddetermined to make a final effort to restore the Union and theConstitution, in the spirit in which they were established by thefathers of the Republic. "

Therefore she invites all States, whether slaveholding ornon-slaveholding, who were willing to unite with her in an earnesteffort to adjust the unhappy controversies in the spirit of theConstitution, to come together to secure that adjustment. She asks usto agree to some suitable adjustment. She does not leave us to suggestwhat that adjustment shall be. She tells us herself. She requests usto adopt it, and to submit it to Congress. She does not ask thatCongress should call a convention, for Congress could not. Try, if wecan, says Virginia, to come to some settlement of these unhappycontroversies, and send that settlement to Congress, that Congress maysubmit it to the country. 

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

This matter of amending the Constitution is not as intricate anddifficult a work as gentlemen imagine. Are there not twelve amendmentsto the Constitution already? Were they submitted to the people by eachmember of Congress acting under his official oath? Or were theysubmitted in the very way the gentleman would avoid? Were they notbrought into the Constitution by outside pressure?

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

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

Our last loan was negotiated at twelve per cent. Discount. The presentloan is not to be taken at any rate, unless the Government descends tothe humiliating alternative of securing State endorsements. Our creditis going lower and lower every day, and it will soon come to the pointwhere 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 lovefor this Union?--have you no care for the preservation of thisGovernment? God forbid that I should say you have none! I know you toowell. My relations have been too intimate with you, and have existedtoo long, for me to suppose it. You do love the Union. I speak for theSouth and to the South. I know that we can still labor to keep thisGovernment 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 conventionit is! Disguise as we may, deceive ourselves as we will, it is aconvention which proposes to consider the question of withdrawing theState from the Union. Kentucky and Missouri, if we do nothing, willsoon follow. If there ever was a time in the history of the Governmentfor conciliation, for patriotic concession, that time is now. The timehas come when parties must be forgotten. Let not the word party bementioned here. It is not worthy of us. Representatives of the States, you are above party--high above. The cords that bind you together area hundred times as strong as those which ever bound any party. Unlesswe do something, and something very quickly, before the incomingPresident is inaugurated, in all human probability he will have onlythe States north of Mason and Dixon to govern--that is, if he is togovern 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 ofself-defence, the right of revolution. It is recognized by theConstitution itself. The Constitution was adopted by nine of theStates only. What right had those nine States to separate from theother 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 certainlyentitled to value. He had more to do with making it than any otherstatesman of the time. I desire to read an opinion of his, which willbe 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 ifone section of the Union refuses to recognize and protect the rightsof another--in other words, if the free States now refuse to guaranteethe rights of the South, that there is a right of self-preservation, alaw of nature and nature's God, which is above all Constitutions. I amnot here to inquire whether the South has a right to go out if theseguarantees 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 factestablished. 

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 richcountry. No threat or intimidation shall ever come from me to such apeople. I ask you in all sadness whether, in the light of all ourglory, of all our happiness and prosperity, whether you will, bywithholding 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 manof Virginia, in anticipation of the existence of the present state ofthings:

 "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 standupon--what we will try to stand upon, and what we believe we can. Atleast, 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 ourpresent territory. To settle it--how? By dividing it. And how bydividing it? By the line of 36° 30´. Apparently, you think we areasking the North to yield something. I tell you it is we who areyielding. By the decision of the Supreme Court we have the right to goNorth of this line with our slaves. Now, all we ask you to give ushere is the territory south of that line; and even as to that, we giveyou the right to destroy slavery there whenever a State organized outof it chooses to do so. We are, in fact, yielding to you. We abandonour 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 slaveterritory? Those who repealed the Missouri Compromise, believed thatKansas 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 hasbeen left by the decision of the Supreme Court. We freely yield youall the rest. 

I do not propose to discuss all the amendments proposed. I confinemyself to the single one which, if satisfactorily disposed of, willsettle all our troubles. 

In conclusion, I ask, oppressed by a consciousness which almostovermasters me--which renders me unfit to do any thing but feel--willyou not settle this question here? I feel, and I cannot escape thefeeling, that on your decision hangs the question, whether we shall bepreserved an united people, or be broken to atoms. The States nowremaining in the Union may possibly get on for a few years withsomething like prosperity; but if this question is not settled in someway, 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 familyat the South which has not its associations with the North--not aNorthern family which has not its Southern ties! War in the midst ofsuch a people! God grant that the future, that the events which mustinevitably follow dissension here, may at least spare this agony toourselves, our families, and our posterity. 

Mr. SEDDON:--It is very clear to me that I ought not to make aprolonged address upon a question which I favor. The only question nowbefore us is: Shall this amendment be made plain? We should dealhonestly among ourselves; there should be no cheat--no uncertainty--nodelusion here. Our language should be so clear that it will breed nonew nests of trouble. 

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

I appeal not to forbearance--I ask not for pity. I feel proud torepresent the grand old commonwealth of Virginia here, and prouderstill 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 suchguarantees only as Virginia needs, and as she has the right to demand. It is far more complimentary to you to appeal to your sense ofjustice, to your sense of right, than to your forbearance or pity. 

Virginia comes forward in a great national crisis. When support aftersupport of this glorious temple of our Government has been torn away, she comes--proud of her memories of the past--happy in the part shehad in the construction of this great system--she comes to present toyou, calmly and plainly, the question, whether new and additionalguarantees are not needed for her rights; and she tells you what thoseguarantees 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 madeby a patriot of the olden time, a time near to that of the foundationof our Government. They were such as he thought suited to theexigencies of his time. They have since then received a larger meed ofapproval, north and south, than any other plan of arrangement. 

My State offers these resolutions of her Legislature as a basis forour action here, with certain modifications acceptable to her people. One of these modifications has since been accepted by the mover ofthese resolutions himself. Most important among them is the provisionas to future territory. The gentleman seems to think that Virginiawould not insist on this provision as applicable to territory we maynever have. It behooves not me to answer such a momentous question. Iam only the mouthpiece of Virginia. She insists on the provision forfuture 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 bethrown aside and disregarded? I do not propose to give my reasons, though they would not be troublesome to give. It was an element in theMissouri Compromise that it should apply to future as well as toexisting 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 Courtwe are entitled to participate in _all_ the territory of the UnitedStates. We are offering to give up the great part and the best part ofit, and in payment we are to take the naked chance of getting a littlepiece of the worthless territory south of the proposed line! Such anidea was never entertained by those who made the Compromise. The ideawhich governed their action was, beyond all doubt, not that presentterritory alone should be thus divided, but that the question shouldbe removed from doubt and difficulty for all time, and to give us atthe South a chance whatever change might come. 

Shall we be rewarded for all we give up, and find full compensation ina 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 Legislatureof Virginia. That, was security against the principles of the North, and her great and now dominant party; it was intended to put an end tothe discussions that have convulsed the country and jeopardized ourinstitutions. 

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

There is another thing. A great and mighty party has arisen at theNorth that is determined to exclude the institution of slavery, notonly from all future, but from all _present_ territory. We know thatin all ways this party has declared that it would not consent to letslavery go where it does not now exist. More heated zealots, alsoanimated and sustained by this same party, have determined that thisnatural and patriarchal institution of the South should be surroundedby 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 ofsurrounding the South with free States should be guarded against--mosteffectually guarded against now and in time to come, and so preserveher dignity and power?

This amendment adopted, and the proposition to Virginia will be afarce. Gentlemen, we hold that as the soul is to man, so is honor to anation. Honor is the soul of nations. Without it, no nation can have aplace in history or among the nations. We of Virginia must have inthis Confederation the position of an equal. Equal in dignity--equalin right. In the Congress of the States of this Union, we insist onthis as our right. We must have the same protection as the States ofthe North. Otherwise we are a dishonored people. We might live for atime otherwise, but we should be unworthy a place among the nations. We hold _property_, yes, _our property in slaves_, as rightful and ashonorable as any property to be found in the broad expanse betweenocean and ocean. 

We feel that in the existence, the perpetuity, the protection of theAfrican 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. Weof the South are earnest in what we say. This is a question which weanswer to ourselves. We hold that these colored barbarians have beenwithdrawn from a country of native barbarism, and under the benignantinfluence of a Christian rule, of a Christian civilization, have beenelevated, yes, _elevated_ to a standing and position which they couldnever have otherwise secured. In respect to the colored race wechallenge comparison with San Domingo, with the freed regions ofJamaica, with those who have been transferred to the coast of Africa. Ask the travellers who have visited those distant shores to contrastthe condition of the colored people there with that of those on ourSouthern plantations, and they will give you but one answer--they willsay, we have redeemed and kept well our high and our holy trust. 

But this is a matter with our own consciences, not with yours. Weappeal to you to leave it where it is, to leave the colored peoplewhere they are. Why should you undertake to interfere with the policyof a neighboring State concerning a people about which you knownothing? We feel, we know that we have done that race no wrong. Deepinto the Southern heart has this feeling penetrated. For scores ofyears we have been laboring earnestly in our mission. In all this timewe have contributed far more to the greatness of the North than to ourown. Yet all this time we have been assailed, attacked, vilified anddefamed, by the people of the North, from the cradle to the grave, andyou have educated your children to believe us monsters of brutality, lust and iniquity. 

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

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

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

Openly among your people, in the very light of day, these efforts werecarried on for the destruction of your sister States. There has notbeen an effort of the law nor an exertion of public opinion to putthem down. 

These efforts culminated in the actual invasion of my own old honoredState, and your people thought they were doing GOD service in signinga petition to our authorities for mercy to John Brown and his ruffianinvaders of our soil. And when these men met the just reward of theircrime, there was, throughout the North, in your meetings and yourpublic prints, expressions of sympathy for these robbers andmurderers. They were looked upon as the victims of oppression, asmartyrs to a holy and righteous cause. Gentlemen, consider thesethings, and tell me, is there not to-day reason for suspicion; on thepart of the South for grave apprehension?

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

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 onsecuring 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, itthrust upon the arena of politics this question of slavery in theterritories. 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 ofthe northern States. 

The people of the North and Northwest have long been noted for theiracquisitive disposition, especially for the acquisition of lands. Thishas been manifested in every form. Carried into effect it has madethem powerful, until, not long since, they thought they might getentire dominion at no distant day. Then arose in their hearts a desiregreater than the greed of land--the greed of office and power. Theythen saw that perhaps the North alone might control the nationalgovernment, and with it the South. Then, too, the great class ofprotected interests at the North--always greater at the North than atthe South--joined with them. All these protected classes, whoseadvantages had been diverted from other classes to which theybelonged, joined with landseekers to secure power. Influence afterinfluence of this sort combined, until it produced your greatRepublican party; in other words, your great Sectional party, whichhas at length come to majority and power. 

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

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

This, now, is the ruling idea of your great sectional party. It issimply the rule of one portion of the country over another. There isno difference between attacking slavery in the States and keeping itout of the territories. It is only drawing a parallel around thecitadel at a more remote point. 

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

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

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

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

The State to which I refer, Virginia, is now met in solemn convocationto consider whether she shall remain in the Union or go out of it; andwith the most earnest desire to secure to herself a longer connectionwith the American Union, a Union of so much honor and pride, and withan equally earnest desire to bring back the wandering States of theSouth which have already left us, she, my own, my native State, comeshere to ask for these guarantees. In my deliberate judgment, the Unionand the Constitution, as they now stand, are unsafe for the people ofthe South, unsafe without other guarantees which will give them actualpower instead of mere paper rights. Her stake in this controversy istoo deep. In my judgment she has asked too little; I think fuller andgreater guarantees ought to be required, and that this Conventionshould not stand upon ceremony, but in a free and liberal spirit ofconcession should yield to us all that we ask. Be assured we shall asknone but adequate guarantees. 

But I am told that Virginia is content with the CrittendenResolutions--I say this because I am instructed to say so--that is, ifwe are to treat these resolutions, not as the principles of the manwho offers them, but as the principles of the great party just comeinto power. 

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

How can you expect now to retain Virginia, to retain the borderStates, when they stand in the face of such a great, such an immenseparty? How can you expect Virginia to remain in the Union withoutthese added guarantees?

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

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 thisConvention. She heard the voice of Virginia, expressed through herresolutions in this crisis of our country's history. Massachusettshesitated, not because she was unwilling to respond to the call ofVirginia, but because she thought her honor touched by the manner ofthat call and the circumstances attending it. She had taken part inthe election of the sixth of November. She knew the result. Itaccorded well with her wishes. She knew that the Government whosepolitical head for the next four years was then chosen, was based upona Constitution which she supposed still had an existence. She saw thatState after State had left that Government--seceded is the word used;had gone out from this great Confederacy, and were defying theConstitution and the Union. 

Charge after charge has been vaguely made against the North. It isattempted here to put the North on trial. I have listened with graveattention to the gentleman from Virginia to-day, but I have heard nospecification of these charges. Massachusetts hesitated I say; she hasher own opinions of the Government and the Union. I knowMassachusetts; I have been into every one of her more than threehundred 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-daygladly lay down his life for the preservation of the Union. 

Massachusetts has made war upon slavery wherever she had the right todo it; but much as she _abhors_ the institution, she would sacrificeeverything rather than assail it where she has not the right to assailit. 

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

Massachusetts hesitated, not because her blood was not stirred, butbecause she insisted that the Government and the inauguration shouldgo on, in the same manner they would have done had Mr. Lincoln beendefeated. She felt that she was touched in a tender point when invitedhere under such circumstances. 

It is true, and I confess it frankly, that there are a few men at theNorth who have not yielded that support to the grand idea upon whichthis confederated Union stands, that they should have done; who havebeen disposed to infringe upon, to attack certain rights which theentire North, with these exceptions, accords to you. But are you ofthe South free from the like imputations? The John Brown invasion wasnever justified at the North. If, in the excitement of the time, therewere those to be found who did not denounce it as gentlemen think theyshould, it was because they knew it was a matter wholly outside theConstitution--that it was a crime to which Virginia would giveadequate punishment. 

Gentlemen, I believe, yes, I know, that the people of the North are astrue to the Government and the Union of the States now, as ourfathers were when they stood shoulder to shoulder upon the field, fighting for the principles upon which that Union rests. If I thoughtthe time had come when it would be fit or proper to consideramendments to the Constitution at all, I should believe that we wouldhave no trouble with you except upon this question of slavery in theterritories. You cannot demand of us at the North any thing that wewill not grant, unless it involves a sacrifice of our principles. These we shall not sacrifice--these you must not ask us to abandon. Ibelieve further, and I speak in all frankness, for I wish to delude noone, that if the Constitution and the Union cannot be preserved andeffectually maintained without these new guarantees for slavery, thatthe Union is not worth preserving. 

The people of the North have always submitted to the decisions of theproper constituted powers. This obedience has been unpleasant enoughwhen they thought these powers were exercised for sectional purposes;but it has always been implicitly yielded. I am ready, even now, to gohome and say that, by the decision of the Supreme Court, slaveryexists in all the territories of the United States. We submit to thedecision and accept its consequences. But in view of all thecircumstances attending that decision, was it quite fair--was it quitegenerous for the gentleman from Maryland to say that, under it, by theadoption of these propositions, the South was giving up every thing, the North giving up nothing? Does he suppose the South is yielding thepoint in relation to any territory, which by any probability wouldbecome slave territory? Something more than the decision of theSupreme Court is necessary to establish slavery anywhere. The decisionmay give the _right_ to establish it, other influences must controlthe question of its actual establishment. 

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

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

The North will consider well before she consents to this--before sheeven permits it. Ever since 1820 we have pursued, in this respect, auniform policy. The North will hesitate long before, by accepting thecondition you propose, she deprives the nation of the valuableprivilege, the unquestionable right, of acquiring new territory in anhonorable way. 

I have tried to look upon these propositions of the majority of thecommittee, as true measures of pacification. I have listened patientlyto 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. Theywill prove totally inadequate; may, perhaps, be positivelymischievous. The North, the free States, will not adopt them--will notconsent to these new endorsements of an institution which they do notlike, which they believe to be injurious to the best interests of theRepublic; and if they did adopt them, as they could only do by asacrifice of principles which you should not expect, the South wouldnot be satisfied; she would not fail to find pretexts for a course ofaction upon which I think she has already determined. I see in thesepropositions any thing but true measures of pacification. 

But the North will never consent to the separation of the States. Ifthe South persists in the course on which she has entered we shallmarch our armies to the Gulf of Mexico, or you will march yours to theGreat Lakes. There can be no peaceful separation. There is one way bywhich war may be avoided and the Union preserved. It is a plain and aconstitutional way. If the slave States will abandon the design, whichwe must infer from the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia theyhave already formed, will faithfully abide by their constitutionalobligations, and remain in the Union until their rights are in _fact_invaded, all will be well. But if they take the responsibility ofinvolving the country in a civil war; of breaking up the Governmentwhich our fathers founded and our people love, but one course remainsto those who are true to that Government. They must and will defend itat every sacrifice--if necessary, to the sacrifice of their lives. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I came here with my colleagues representing a SouthernState. I have had full and free communication with the people of allportions of the South, before, during, and since the election of thesixth of November, and I state here, that I have never dreamed thatthere 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--nota suitable time to consider the questions now before us. Is there anyreason why we should not consider the rights of any section of thecountry, whether a President is going out or coming in? As onedelegate I will not consent to postpone the action necessary to secureour rights for any such reason as this. 

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

When territory has been acquired by the blood and treasure of thecommon Union, you cannot exclude one portion of the _cestuis quetrust_ from its rights. The Supreme Court so decided, and its decisionwas 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. Thegentleman from Massachusetts says he will not give them up, that hisState will not yield. Well, if this is so, let us go to the ballotbox. If the question is decided in the gentleman's favor there, _weknow how to take care of ourselves_. 

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

Suppose some event should in some way strike down the value of yourproperty at the North. Would you not wish to have its securityrestored? Would you not call for guarantees? If you would not, you arenot men. This is all we want; all we ask for, is security. There isnothing in the territorial question that we may not settle by a faircompromise. 

The commonwealth of Virginia called this Conference in highpatriotism. I have an earnest faith in her sincerity and her purity indoing so. She hoped to meet her sisters animated by the samepatriotism--that they would join with her in granting the assurances, in giving the securities we need. Gentlemen, you can give us thesesecurities--these assurances. We shall then go home and tell ourpeople that we can still live on together, in security. Will it do tosay 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--nosuch answer will satisfy them. Give us the guarantees _here_. We willsatisfy the people of the whole nation as to the appropriateness ofthe time. 

There is no truth in the assertions of the gentleman fromMassachusetts. We are willing to go before the old commonwealth ofMassachusetts with all her glorious memories, willing to go before NewYork with her half million of voters, confident that both will do usjustice. Why stand between us and the people? At least, let us asktheir judgment upon our propositions. 

We come here to confer, to propitiate, not to awaken old troubles anddifferences. If there are such existing and which must be settled, whyshould we not settle them here? We all wish to bring back the sevenStates which have left us; we have a common interest in them. I thinkthey should not have deserted us; that they should have consulted usfirst, and then there would have been no necessity. If they were here, their presence surely would not have weakened us, nor would theirpresence have disturbed the North. We come not here to widen ourseparation--to drive them further off. We come to consult together, togive and receive justice. 

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

And now I hope, and hope most earnestly, that without crimination orrecrimination we shall vote in good temper and in good time, so thatour proposals may in due time go before Congress and before thepeople. 

Do not let us give up to revolution anywhere, in any section of theUnion! Do not you of the North impose upon us the necessity of fleeingour country! God knows this same necessity may come to you of theNorth, 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 orSouth, but must suffer if the sad conclusion comes. Our products willdepreciate. Next year not one-half the fields now whitened by the richgrowth of cotton will be cultivated if this unhappy contest goes on. 

The people of my section, the people of the South, are restless andimpatient. They are already in the way of revolution--all theseinfluences are leading them on. Can they remain quiet when thefortunes of one-half of them are struck down? Can you at the Northremain quiet under like provocations? And yet harmony may even yet berestored. All these differences may be settled harmoniously. Webelieve they may be settled now. 

Mr. TUCK:--If we should agree to all your propositions, and Congressstill should not act upon them, would not these difficulties be stillmore complicated?

Mr. GUTHRIE:--No, sir! No! We would then tell our people that thisConference would, but Congress would not do any thing to save thecountry. In such an event we would wait for the ballot box and a newCongress. 

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 dividedDemocracy--not the existence of a Whig party, but it is the union ofall discordant elements combined, which have brought the abolitionistsinto power, which has produced this sense of insecurity in the South. It is their combined power which the people of the South feel, andwhich they wish to guard against. 

Mr. CLEVELAND:--I feel bound to say to all here present, that unlessthis debate stops now, we might as well go home. I have pondered muchupon the remark of my worthy friend from Kentucky, that if we couldnot do good here, at least we ought not to do harm. Why should we doany thing to aggravate these unhappy circumstances? Let us not widenour dissensions; let us do nothing to postpone or destroy the onlyhope we have for the settlement of our troubles. 

Let us be gentle and pleasant. Let us love one another. Let us not tryto find out who is the smartest or the keenest. Let us vote soon, andwithout any feeling or any quarrelling. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I fear from some remarks that have been made during thisdiscussion, that not only my motives, but the terms in which I haveexpressed them, have been misapprehended. I have been untrue to everypurpose 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 temperatethough emphatic. I thought I had been so. Nothing is farther from mypurpose than the irritation of any section, much less of any memberhere. Most assuredly I did not intend to create dissension or to givethe slightest occasion for personal feeling or recrimination. 

The PRESIDENT finding it necessary to leave the Conference, now calledMr. ALEXANDER to the chair. 

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

It is too late to bring charges against either section now--too lateto bring charges against individuals. The question now before usis, --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 ofamendment submitted. These we can stand upon throughout the land. Thepeople will adopt them. In the name of all that is good and holy letus settle these differences here. 

Why talk about territory to be acquired hereafter? We have just thesame title to it that the devil had to the territory he offered ourSaviour on a certain remarkable occasion--just the same title, at allevents, no better. For Heaven's sake, gentlemen, let us act for thegood of the country! let us give to every section its rights--to everyman his rights, and let this be remembered through all time as theConvention of Patriots which sacrificed every selfish and personalconsideration to save the country!

Mr. GOODRICH:--I wish to make one remark to the Conference, andespecially to the gentleman from Kentucky. Much is said here aboutequal rights. We have always believed in that doctrine. We believethis to be a country of equals. We went into the last Presidentialcontest as equals--and as such we elected Mr. LINCOLN. Now, when wehave the right to do so, we wish to come into power as equals--withthat superiority only which our majority gives us. When we are inpower and disturb or threaten to disturb the rights of any portion ofthe Union, then ask us for security, for guarantees, and if need beyou shall have both. How would you have treated us if we had come toyou with such a request at the commencement of any Democraticadministration?

Mr. LOGAN:--I want to refer the report of the majority, and thesubstitute proposed by the minority, back to the committee. I believethat it is better to have action upon all these questions at theearliest possible moment. The question now is, not which section ofthe Union is suffering most--all sections are suffering; all arefeeling the influence of this agitation; all look with fear andtrembling to the future; all desire a speedy and a peaceful conclusionof our differences. If we cannot settle them here--if we cannot induceCongress to submit our propositions of amendment to the people, then Ipray from my heart, I hope and believe, that our friends in everysection will wait patiently until these propositions can go before theState Legislatures and receive proper consideration there. 

The PRESIDENT here stated the proposition, to refer the reports of themajority and the minority of the committee back to the committee, withinstructions. 

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 thegentleman from Maryland, to insert the word "present" before the wordterritories, in the first line and the fifth line of the propositionsof the amendment to the Constitution submitted by the majority of thecommittee. 

The amendment was adopted without a count of the yeas and nays, andthe first section of the majority report, after the adoption of theamendment, 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 tomeet 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 fromVermont. 

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, aftersundry amendments, was approved. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--The Committee on Credentials have received andconsidered 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 aresatisfactory, and if no objection is made, the list of delegates fromNew York will be altered accordingly. 

No objection was made, and Mr. GRANGER'S name was added to the list ofdelegates from New York. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I ask now that the resolution limiting the time to beoccupied by each member in debate be taken up. I have become satisfiedthat unless we place some restrictions, in this respect, upon thediscussions, we shall occupy much more time than we wish to haveexpended in that way. The session of the present Congress will soonterminate. Our labors will be useless, unless we submit the result ofthem to Congress in time to secure the approval of that body. Thepropositions will be debated there, and that debate must necessarilyoccupy time. I am sure no gentleman wishes to defeat the main purposeof 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_ minutesinstead of _thirty_ minutes. 

Mr. FIELD:--Is it seriously contemplated now, after gentlemen upon oneside have spoken two or three times, and at great length--after thequestions involved in the committee's reports have been thoroughly andexhaustively discussed on the part of the South--and when only onegentleman from the North has been heard upon the general subject, tocut us off from all opportunity of expressing our views? Such a coursewill not help your propositions. 

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

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

Mr. FIELD:--New York has not occupied the time of the Conference forthree minutes. Kentucky has been heard twice, her representativespeaking as long as he wished. I insist upon the same right for NewYork. I insist upon the discussion of these questions withoutrestriction or limitation. 

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

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

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--We have come here for the purpose of _acting_; not tohear speeches. There is no use in talking over these things; our mindsare all made up, and talking will not change them. I want to make anend of these discussions. I move that all debate shall close at threeo'clock to-day, and that the Conference then proceed to vote upon thepropositions before it. 

Mr. ALLEN:--The object which brought us together I presume we shallnot disagree about. We came here for the purpose of consultation overthe condition of the country. If this is true, nothing but harm cancome from these limitations upon the liberty of speech. The questionsbefore us are the most important that could possibly arise. Before ourpresent Constitution was adopted it was discussed and examined inConvention for more than three months. We are now practically making anew Constitution. Though we as members differed widely when we camehere, I think progress has been made toward our ultimate agreement. Ithink the general effect of our discussions is to bring us nearertogether. I think our acquaintance and our association as members leadto the same end. 

The gentleman from Kentucky says that we have come here to healdisease. I don't quite agree with him as to the disease. I differwidely from him as to the proper method of treating it. He seemsdisposed to apply a plaster to the foot, to cure a disease in thehead. If these debates should continue for a week, the time would notbe lost, the effect would be favorable. We should have more faith ineach other, a more kindly feeling would be produced. Do not let ushurry. You may _force_ a vote to-day, but the result will satisfynone. Such a course will give good ground for dissatisfaction. You mayeven carry your propositions by a majority, but what weight will sucha vote have in Congress or with the people?

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--We who represent smaller States intend to be verymodest here, but you will need our votes when you seek to place newand important limitations upon a Constitution with which we are nowsatisfied. I will answer for one State, and tell you that she will notlisten to a proposition that comes to her with a taint of suspicionabout it. If you will not allow her representatives to participate inthe examination and discussion of these propositions here, her peoplewill reject them without discussion, if they are ever called to act onthem. She has not occupied the time of this Conference for one minuteupon the general subject. She may not wish to do so. I submit whetherit is wise for you to cut off her right to be heard here, if shechooses to exercise it. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee, that we camehere to act and not to talk. We have had talking enough, perhaps toomuch already. I have drawn up a resolution which I think covers thewhole subject, I move its adoption. The resolution was read asfollows:

 _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 propositionsrelating to the subject now pending, when Mr. ALEXANDER moved to laythe whole subject on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was negatived by the followingvote:--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 somewhatdifficult to decide, by the rules of Parliamentary law, which is inorder. 

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 decidedaffirmatively. 

Mr. CHASE:--It appears to me that we can arrange this whole subjectwithout serious difficulty. If Mr. WICKLIFFE will adhere to hisresolution, and the other proposals are withdrawn, we can thenproceed. If any gentleman finds it necessary to ask for an extensionof his time, it will no doubt be granted to him. Mr. RANDOLPH'Sproposition exacts too much labor. I think the Conference had betterlimit the time of each member. I am opposed to fixing a time forterminating the discussion. It will not be agreeable to many who maybe cut off. It is contrary to the spirit of the rules we have alreadyadopted. I hope we shall not be compelled to vote on the questions oneby one, and I will suggest to Mr. RANDOLPH whether it would not bebetter that his resolution should be withdrawn. 

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

Mr. MOREHEAD:--If the proposition had emanated from another quarter, Ishould feel at liberty to urge its adoption. As it is, I would pay thehighest respect to it. I regret extremely to hear the talk about_sides_ in this Conference. I came here to act for the Union--thewhole Union. I recognize no sides--no party. If any come here for adifferent purpose I do not wish to act with them; they are wrong. Ihope from my heart that we can all yet live together in peace; but ifwe 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 onstriking out the latter clause of the resolution, so as to perfect itand 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 themotion to adjourn is in order?

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

Mr. STOCKTON:--If the Conference felt as I do, it would at onceestablish such peremptory orders as would bring a speedy terminationto this whole business. Upon what, let me ask gentlemen, does thesalvation of the Union depend at this moment? What is it alone thatprevents civil war now? I answer, it is the session of thisConvention--this august Convention! We stand in the presence of anawful danger! We feel the throes of an earthquake which threatens tobring down ruin on the whole magnificent fabric of our Government! Isit possible that we should suffer this ruin to take place? Would itnot impeach the wisdom and good sense of our day and generation topermit the edifice which our fathers constructed--to crumble topieces? No! fellow countrymen, it is necessary that we, by trusting inGod, who guided our ancestors through the stormy vicissitudes of theRevolution, should this day resolve that the Union shall be preserved!

In the execution of that resolve let us unfold a new leaf in ournational history, and write thereon words of peace. Peace or war isin our hands--an awful alternative! Peace alone is the object of ourmission; to restore peace to a distracted country. I have spent mywhole life in the service of my country. I love the people of everyState in it. They have been under my command and I have been undertheirs. I know them, and I know that this Union can never be dissolvedwithout a struggle. Will you hasten the time when we shall begin toshed each other's blood? No! gentlemen, no!

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

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

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

The Roman Curtius offered himself as a sacrifice to save Rome, wheninformed by the oracle that the loss of his life would save hiscountry. We are now in greater danger than Rome was then; but is thereno Curtius for our salvation? We are not called upon to give up life, property, or honor, but to concede justice and equal rights to ourSouthern brethren. We only want the courage to yield extreme opinions. What power, after victory, refuses to lower the lofty terms which wereasserted on the eve of the battle for the sake of peace? But theRepublicans say, shall we surrender the fruits of victory to thevanquished? I answer, how are you to enjoy your fruits withoutpacification? You expected to govern the whole country. You aspired tothe control of the whole empire. Without peace you will not succeed inestablishing possession of that magnificent country which yourpredecessors governed, but you will govern a little more than half ofit, and with that you have to provide for war. 

It is easy to dispose of the threatening attitude of the South bydenouncing it as a rebellion--as treason. It is idle to disguise thedanger. The revolt of a whole people, covering a territory equal tohalf of Europe, is a revolution. You cannot dwarf the movement bystigmatizing it as treason. Its magnitude and proportions make thesword, and not the law, its arbiter. Is it possible that people can beso infatuated as to contemplate the use of the sword to conquersecession? Will you hasten the time when we shall begin to shed eachother's blood? Coerce! force fifteen States! Why, you cannot force NewJersey alone! Force the South? They won't stop to countforces--neither side can be frightened. Don't think of it. You cannotfrighten either, no more than the hero could be frightened whom theRoman poet has immortalized. Suppose after the expenditure of athousand millions you shall have stopped dismemberment and subjugatedthe South, what is to become of the country then? what is to become ofthe army and its chiefs who have conquered? When the Long Parliamenthad murdered Charles, subdued Ireland and Scotland, and compelled thedeference of all Europe, they supposed they would enjoy the fruits oftheir victories. They began to discuss the expenses of the army, andthe expediency of its reduction. They had hardly commenced whenCromwell entered Westminster Hall and turned out the Republican partyof that day. The whole country, tired of war, crouched under the ironheel of the Puritan soldier. The Republican party of Englandsuccumbed; Cromwell died; his son resigned the Protectorate, and theRepublican party of England rose to the surface and made its laststruggle for its power. General Monk and his army approached London, and Parliament with servility waited the pleasure of the army. Thearmy declared for the King, and the King was restored. 

When men meet to save the country, they must be prepared to give upevery thing--to give their lives if necessary. How can men stop forparty platforms when their country is in danger? But will the countryconsent 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. Myfriends, peace or war is in your hands. You hold the keys of peace orwar. You tell us not to hasten in this matter. But you do not realizethe facts--no one does. It is said that the South challenges andinvites war. No such thing. The mad action of South Carolina does nottruly represent the South. There are disunionists South as well asNorth. It is the duty of patriotic men to checkmate the disunionistsof both sections. By a proclamation of war, we shall effectually playinto the hands and gratify the disunionists of both extremes. Civilwar consolidates the South as a unit for disunion. The gallantsouthern men who have so nobly battled for the Union against greatodds, will then be overpowered and forced into the ranks of thedefenders of the South. While the South will thus be undivided andstand in solid phalanx, what will be our condition here at the North?

Can it be supposed that the Union men of the Democracy of the Northwill stand by and see the country plunged into civil war to maintainthe Chicago Platform? Will they acquiesce in the demolition of thisUnion by these means, when it can be preserved by peace? No, sir! Doyou talk here about regiments for invasion, for coercion--you, gentlemen of the North? You know better; I know better. For everyregiment raised there for coercion, there will be another raised forresistance to coercion. If no other State will raise them, rememberNew Jersey. The Republican leaders of the North, with hot haste, haveworked through the Legislatures of the several States resolutions of abelligerent character, offering the military power of those States tothe Government to subdue the South. Did the people of the Northauthorize those Legislatures to make any such tenders? Would thepeople of the North sanction any such nefarious policy? I know wellthe enormous bribe with which the Republican leaders would seduce theNorth into fratricidal war. The expenditure of uncounted millions, thedistribution of epaulets and military commissions for an army of halfa million of men, the immense patronage involved in the letting ofarmy contracts, the inflation of prices and the rise of property whichwould follow the excessive issue of paper money, made necessary by thelavish expenditure;--these, indeed, are the enormous bribes which theRepublican party offers. 

How arrogant it is for the Republican leaders to tender the militarypower of their States! Who gave them or their States authority toraise armies? For national purposes the whole militia of the Union issubject to Congress. Congress alone has power to declare war and tocall out the militia, and Congress can only call upon the militia tosuppress insurrection or repel invasion. Pause, gentlemen! Stop whereyou are! You will bring strife to your own doors, to your veryhearthstones--bloody, disheartening strife. War will be in your ownhomes, among your own families. Under ordinary circumstances you wouldhesitate. If the question was about tariff, you would hesitate andlook at the awful consequences. That there is a diversity between usis very true. What of it? It lies in a nutshell. We can fix it in aminute, if you will be calm and act like brothers. 

The only question, as I understand it, for I have thought and studiedupon it, is this: You of the North will not yield to the South thesmall privilege of taking their slaves into the territories of thecommon Union. You will not give them a fair chance with you, even inthe Government property--the territories. When the territories becomeStates they will have to take care of themselves. You cannot theorizeslave soil into free soil, nor _vice versâ_. Am I not right? Does theSouth ask any control or power over these territories after they havebecome States? No, gentlemen; the South demands no such thing. It isnot demanded by her, and never will be. All I ask for the South, andall she asks for herself, is this: Let us be free to come with ourslaves into all your territories, and hold them there until theterritory is made up into States. 

I have shown that if peace be not secured, the uprising of the Southwould be a revolution, and cannot be treated as mere insurrection. Thebravado, therefore, of offering armies to the Government, can onlyhave 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. TheSouth asks no more than the North will concede, if the people of theNorth can express their sentiments. The South only asks for equalrights, and to be let alone. For thirty years she has asked no more. The South will soon present its cause in an authoritative shape. Theirconventions will soon declare their propositions. Let the North beprepared to consider them in conventions representing their peoplefairly. If this is done, there is no doubt the present crisis willpass without danger. Until time for these results can be taken, letwarlike demonstrations be resisted. Let the Government abstain fromcollision, even with South Carolina. There is as much of loyalty tothe Union at the South as anywhere. It has only disappeared in thepresence of danger which threatened their domestic tranquillity, theirsafety, and their honor. Let the hostile attitude which the Northassumed at Chicago give place to the recognition of the rights of theSouth, and we shall see an outburst of loyalty to the Union throughoutthe entire South, like that which welcomed to old England itsconstitutional sovereign after a long and bloody civil war, forcedupon the English people by the Puritans. It is the spirit of the samefanatic 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 ourcountry to its present condition of power and prosperity. Do not letus sacrifice peace, and suffer violence and discord to usurp itsreign. We have a magnificent future if we can only preserve the Unionas our fathers constructed it. While it lasts there is a great lightin the firmament in which all may walk in security, hope, andhappiness. It is a light reaching far down the depths of futuritycheering and guiding the steps of our children. It is a light shiningto the remotest corner of the earth--raising up the down-trodden andilluminating the homes of the victims of oppression. But let thatlight be now eclipsed, go out in blood and darkness, and the hopes ofmankind are forever blasted. 

Gentlemen, will you not consider? Shall we not settle the questionhere, and not trouble the rest of the Union with it? We will settle itfairly and squarely. It is too small a matter to get mad about--to setabout destroying the Union. Why quarrel over such a simple question?No, gentlemen, you shall not do it. I am going to talk to you asindividuals--as men--as patriots. I know too many of you and too muchabout you. You love your country too well to destroy her for such acause. You are too patriotic. The North will never dissolve this Unionon any such pretexts. You cannot destroy your country for that. Youlove it too much. I call on you, WADSWORTH and KING, FIELD and CHASEand MORRILL--as able men, as brothers--as good patriots--to give upevery thing else if it is necessary, to save your country. But wedon'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 goodthings in it. But it must not control this question. You can keep thatplatform and save your country: but you must save your country. Shallwe go into war upon this little question about the Territories. No!No!!

Under the most favorable circumstances possible for the experiment ofself-government, with every possible inducement to preserve ourcountry, we must not give it up. The years of civil war which willsucceed dismemberment of the Union will cause true men to seek refugeand security, from military despotism, in some other country. SomeCæsar or Napoleon will spring from the vortex of revolution and war, and with his sword cleave his way to supreme command. If all historyis 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 theevent of war. Shall we bring such a catastrophe upon us to vindicatethe Chicago Platform? No! the American people will rise in theiromnipotence and trample into dust the man who dared to put in jeopardythis Union, in order to maintain such demagogism. Away with partiesand platforms and every thing else which would obstruct the free andpatriotic efforts now making for the salvation of the Union. It shallnot be destroyed. I tell you, friends, I am going to stand right inthe way. You shall not go home; you shall never see your wives andfamilies again, until you have settled these matters, and saved yourgood old country, if I can help it. Spread aloft the banner of stripesand 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 supposedthe delegation from that State to be united in its opinions, and itsaction. Let me set the gentleman himself and the Conference right onthat point at the commencement. The members composing that delegationdo not agree; very far from it. The vote of that delegation hithertohas been determined by a majority only; a majority reduced to the verysmallest point possible now, since the delegation is full. It may besaid that New York voted at the last Presidential election against usby a majority of fifty thousand; but let me assure you that if thenoble propositions of the majority of your committee, which I read forthe first time yesterday, could be submitted to them, the people ofNew York would adopt them by even a larger majority. 

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

I wish to say a few words about the last election in New York, for ithas been widely misrepresented and misunderstood. How did we go intothat canvass? Upon what principles was it conducted? Whatrepresentations were made? I am one of the men who have struggled tomeet and oppose this Republican party from the outset--to avert, ifpossible, the adoption of its pernicious principles by the people ofNew York. I took my stand upon the Compromise of 1850, and separatedmyself politically from all men who could not stand with me on thatplatform. We struggled on until that Compromise was adopted by theBaltimore Convention. 

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

What next? Next came the Chicago Convention. It may have beenconducted with dignity, and it nominated a candidate. I differ widelyfrom that candidate in my principles and my policy. And yet I believein him although I opposed his election. I would trust his Kentuckyblood to the end, if all else failed. I think he is honest. I have noidea that he will permit the policy of his administration to becontrolled by the hotheaded zealots who have been so conspicuous inthe last canvass. I expect to see him call to his council board, cool, dispassionate, and conservative men; not men who are driven to theverge of insanity upon this question of slavery. 

What next? The Baltimore Convention was held. The tragedy wasconsummated; the contest was ended. The mere scuffle to secure thecontrol of the Convention which ended in its division, has brought thecountry into all its present difficulties. If that Convention hadpresented to the people a good conservative Democrat, there wereseventy-five thousand good old line Whigs who would have buckled ontheir armor and would have won the battle for him. 

When the Southern papers began to threaten disunion because LINCOLNdid not suit the South, I was not one who abused or denounced them. Iknew the temper of some of the politicians in the free States. I knewthe action of the South was not impulsive. I knew there was a reasonfor it. They said their capital was to be rendered worthless--theirproperty to be destroyed, and their country made desolate. God forbidthat I should chide them for thinking so!

The Northern mind is in some respects very different from theSouthern. It is not started by slight scratches, but strike the roweldeep, and there is a purpose in it that nothing can conquer orrestrain. The people of the North will carry that purpose intoexecution, with a power as fierce as that of the maddest chivalry ofSouth Carolina. The rowel _was_ struck deep and the consequences werenot considered. 

Subjects have been introduced into this discussion which I should havebeen glad to have avoided, which it would have been better every wayto have avoided. The gentleman from Virginia has referred to the JOHNBROWN invasion. That is one of those subjects. He spoke of the feelingat the North regarding insurrections. I assure you that the Northregarded the invader in that case as a foe in your homes--uncurbed andunrestrained--a terrible enemy. I would say to the gentleman fromVirginia, that although too many instances among extreme men may havebeen found of attempts to justify that invasion, such was not thegeneral feeling at the North. Those instances were rare exceptions;and because they were so few and so exceptional, acquired a degree ofnotoriety and received a degree of attention to which they were neverentitled. Such instances as these have always served to prejudice theSouth improperly against the North. Men are too much given to formingopinions 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 afew men among us, even now, rash enough to say, "Let these Southernslaveholders go. The 'nigger' will rise upon them and cut theirthroats!" The action of such men, I admit, gives some color andjustification to your charges and prejudices against the wholeNorthern people. 

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

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

But I am here to answer for the State of New York; the Empire Stateand the people of the Empire State. I have never been classed with therash men of that State who have aided in bringing about this conditionof things. I will not be classed with those who now thrust themselvesbetween the Empire State and those glorious propositions of yourcommittee. They are in the smallest possible majority even in ourdelegation. All I ask is, that we may have the judgment of the peopleupon these propositions, and I will be answerable for the rest; andthese gentlemen who rely upon the fifty thousand (50, 000) majority oflast November, will have a fearful waiting for of judgment. Fiftythousand majority! Who does not know how that majority was made up? Itwas not a majority upon the question of slavery at all. It came inthis wise: The opposite party was divided and distracted. TheRepublican party united all sorts of discordant elements; men votedfor Mr. LINCOLN from a great variety of motives. Some, because theywanted the Homestead law; some because they wanted a change in theTariff; and, gentlemen, let me assure you, there were more men whovoted for Mr. LINCOLN--solely on account of the Tariff--than wouldhave made up this fifty thousand majority. I know the people of NewYork, and I know I can answer for them when I say, Give us these fairand noble propositions and we will accept them with an unanimity thatwill gratefully surprise the nation. 

How does the nation stand to-day? Look at Kansas! She is a State andyet in beggary. She is stretching out her hands to us for relief. Wehave relieved her for the time, but she will need more aid again. Thewhole country is excited and agitated. The press, North and South, isfull of misrepresentation and vituperation. Sections are arrayedagainst each other. Men fear to trust each other. The very air is fullof anxiety and apprehension. Such, gentlemen, is the miserablecondition 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 weargue about causes. The effect is upon us. Business is stagnated. Those who have capital do not dare to move it. But we here must dosomething. Mr. LINCOLN is coming, and all along the route the peopleare doing him honor. But that triumphal march is insignificantcompared with the anxiety felt throughout the country that thisConvention should agree upon some plan that will save the Governmentand the Union. 

In one thing, under other circumstances, I would agree with thegentleman (Mr. BOUTWELL) from Massachusetts. Had the border Stateselected their members of Congress, I would wait. But the elections inthe border States are yet to be held. And upon what idea? Why, sir, upon the idea that their whole interests and their whole property arein danger. Aspiring and dangerous men will go before an excited peoplefull of anxiety and uncertainty for the future, and by them be electedinstead of the sound, wise, and conservative gentlemen usuallyselected to represent those States. Those elections would be a madscene 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 withthe dominant party in the old Empire State at the last election. Istruck every other name from the ticket, except those who voted forBell and Everett. Glorious names! which received the triumphantendorsement of the mother of Presidents--the grand old commonwealth ofVirginia. 

Sometimes I meet with men who tell me what is going to be done. Theytalk of retaking forts now held by seceded States by force, ofrestoring things to their former condition, as they would aboutsending a vessel for a cargo of oranges to Havana. But they forgetthat the next administration, like the philosopher who would move theworld with a lever, has no holding spot--no place whereon to stand. Itis one thing to hold a fort where you have it, but quite another thingto 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 keyof peace or war. The eyes of the whole people are turned hopefullyupon it. By every consideration that should move a patriot, let usagree. Let us act for the salvation of our common country. I came herevery 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 myappointment as a delegate to this Conference, I felt it my duty tocome here and say these few things to you. 

And now let me close by again assuring you, that if all you ask of NewYork is the adoption of the propositions which I heard here yesterdayas the propositions of a majority of your committee, New York will doyou justice. She will answer "YES" by a most triumphant majority--amajority compared with which any heretofore given will seeminsignificant! I will occupy time no farther. There is much which Iwould add, but this is a time for action and not for words. 

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

Now, I do not care what motives influence others. It is of noconsequence to me what their designs or purposes may be, I have noconcealment and no deception. I came here for a purpose which I openlyand distinctly avow. I proclaim it here and everywhere. I will laborto carry it into execution with all the strength and ability which myadvanced years and enfeebled health have left me. _I came to maintainand preserve this glorious Government! I came here for Union andpeace!_ (Applause. )

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

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

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

We ask you for new constitutional guarantees; and what are thepropositions we make? Is there any thing in them which you cannotgrant? Is there any thing which it would be dishonorable for you toyield? You reply to us, that you will consent to call a convention todiscuss and adjust matters. That will not do. We must act on theexisting state of facts. Seven States are already in rebellion--inrevolution! I don't care which you call it; either word is bad enough. Tennessee and North Carolina already form fourteen hundred miles ofwhat is virtually a frontier. We are now the border States; we are tobe the theatre of war, if it comes. The slave property we speak ofwill be in still greater peril than it is now. Now think of thesethings, and tell us whether we can wait for all this complicatedmachinery of a convention to be put into operation. At the veryshortest, it will take three or four years to accomplish any thing. 

But my friend from Massachusetts says he does not wish to do any thingat all; that the North is under duress, and her people would despisethemselves if they acted under duress. No! no! This is not true in anysense. We respect the people of the North too much to attempt to drivethem, or to secure what we need by threats or intimidation. We wantthe aid of the people of Massachusetts, and we will appeal to theirsense of right and justice. 

I believe that these propositions, if adopted, will not only satisfyand quiet the loyal States of the South, but that they will bring backthe seven States which have gone out. I must be frank and outspokenhere. We cannot answer for these States. We cannot say whether theywill be satisfied. But we can even stand their absence. We can get onwithout them, if you will give us what will quiet our people, and whatat the same time will not injure you. 

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

As for me, I am an old man. My heart is very full when I look upon thepresent unhappy and distracted condition of our affairs. I was bornbefore the present Constitution was adopted. May God grant that I donot outlive it. I cannot address you on this subject withoutmanifesting a feeling which fills my heart. Let me assure you, interms 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 drawninto that mad career of open defiance, which is now opening so widelyagainst the Government. All I ask of you is to let these propositionsgo to the people--to submit them at once to their conventions, and notwait the action of the Legislatures of all the States. We want thepopular voice--the decision of the people, and the whole people; andif 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 theConference at this stage of the debate. But statements have been madeupon this floor to-day which I cannot permit for a single hour toremain unanswered. I should be recreant to my conscience, andespecially 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 ofthe Union which would secure peace--prepared to go to the farthestlimit which propriety and principle, and my obligations to theConstitution, would permit me, to satisfy our southern friends. I didnot wish to commit myself to any thing, until I had patiently seen andheard all that was to be said and proposed. Even now I regret thatthis incidental discussion upon a subject entirely collateral hasarisen. How thoroughly it shows the idleness and folly of attemptingto limit, or trammel, or hamper discussion upon the general questionswhich are presented for our action!

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

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

In the name of the popular voice of that State, recently uttered intones that I supposed any one could understand, I tell you, gentlemenof this Convention, beware of false prophets. _This day_, theScripture is fulfilled among you. [Pointing to Mr. GRANGER. ] "Aprophet is not without honor save in his own country, and in his ownhouse!"

New York must stand upon this floor, and upon every other floor, asthe peer of every other State. Her representatives must have the samerights as any other--and they must be treated like any other. If, inher judgment, New York ought not to give her assent to thesepropositions, that assent shall not be given; it can never be securedby threats or intimidations. She must have the same rights as anyother State, certainly the same rights as New Jersey. 

Mr. STOCKTON:--I am sure the gentleman is mistaken; I said nothingintended as a threat or an intimidation. 

Mr. NOYES:--Well, let me say it once for all, New York will yieldnothing to intimidation. 

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

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

She asks us to consider new and important amendments to theConstitution, alterations of our fundamental law; and in the samebreath we are told that we must not discuss them--that we must takethem as they are offered to us, without change or alteration. 

We take time to make treaties. We do not even enter into privatecontracts without taking time for consideration and reflection. Wehave been here a little more than a week. The greater part of thattime has been occupied by the committee in preparing thesepropositions. The discussion has scarcely commenced. I submit to theConference, is it kind, is it generous, is it proper to stop here? Isit _best_ to do so?

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--The gentleman seems to think my resolution was aimedat the delegation from New York. That is not true in any sense. I didnot wish to cut off debate at all. I thought we might economize timeand 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 adhereto my agreement. 

Mr. NOYES:--Personally I might be in favor of the adoption of thehalf-hour rule, for I think I could say all I desire to say inrelation to these propositions within that time. I have certainly nodesire that this discussion should be unreasonably protracted. Butsuch limitations are always embarrassing. Other gentlemen do not wishto have them imposed. Mr. FIELD objects to them; and if gentlemenreally think they need more time, I think it ungenerous not to yieldto their wishes. And I insist that such a course is least calculatedto promote conciliation. The more free and full you make thisdiscussion, the more will your results find favor elsewhere. It hasbeen my belief from the beginning, that by careful comparison of ourviews, by a discussion of all our points of difference, we should, inthe end, come to an agreement. I had hoped that such sentiments wouldhave universally prevailed, and that no desire would be shown to forcethe action of any delegation. I am willing to say for myself that ifthe thirty minute rule be adopted I will give way at once. 

But I must proceed to notice some statements which have been urgedhere as reasons why we must adopt--

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

Missouri has just elected delegates to a convention to consider thequestions 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 Conferencethat the telegram be read. 

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

Mr. NOYES:--This news is indeed cheering. It is an additional evidenceof the depth to which love for our country has struck into the heartsof its people--another inducement to make us agree--another reason whywe should not be led off upon false issues. 

The Constitution has provided the only proper way in which amendmentsmay be made to it. If these methods are followed, amendments will bethoroughly discussed and considered, and they will not be adoptedunless the interests of the nation shall be found to require theiradoption. 

The State of Virginia seeks to precipitate action; to secure thesevital changes in our fundamental law in a manner unknown to it, and ina manner which, in my judgment, it is not advisable to adopt. I makeno complaint of Virginia. It is the right and privilege of any Stateto make such a request, but it is none the less unconstitutional. 

Shall we be told that Virginia cannot wait, that her people are soimpatient that they will not give the country time to consider theseimportant changes in its form of Government? Why should there be suchindecent haste? Why not wait a week--month, and even six months, ifthat time is necessary? Be assured, gentlemen, that no substantialalteration of the fundamental law of this Government will ever be madeuntil it has been discussed and considered by the Press and the peoplein all its details. The thing is impossible!

I have a few words to say for New York, as I said in thecommencement--for the New York of the present day. Where, I ask, isthe gentleman's (Mr. GRANGER) warrant of attorney to speak for thepeople of that State? Where is the evidence upon which he founds theassertion which he makes on this floor that New York will adopt thepropositions to which he refers? Let me assure you, gentlemen, thatthe political principles of the people of New York do not sit thuslightly upon their consciences. They gave a heavy republican majorityat the last Presidential election, not because they were carried awayupon collateral issues, but because the principles of the ChicagoPlatform met their approval--because they thought the time had comewhen the destinies of this nation should no longer be left in thehands of men who would use them only to promote the interests of onesection of the Union. Do not mistake, sir, the effect of that greatdemonstration! The people of New York were in earnest; they went intothe election with a strong, determined purpose, and it is too late nowto misconstrue or misunderstand that purpose. They were not influencedby collateral issues. Their action was upon the great principlesinvolved. They believed that the platform of the Republican partyembodied the true principles upon which the Government should beconducted, and they said so. You will find that their minds are to-dayunchanged. 

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

And, sir, these threats of dissolution will all react against you. They operated in the Presidential election only in one way. I have nodoubt that these threats gave Mr. LINCOLN five thousand votes in NewYork City alone. The people are sick of them. They know that if theyonce yielded to them, they would be forced to do so again. They do notlike these insinuations against the Government involved in thepropositions made here. If you wish them to be considered favorably bythe people of New York, you must send them out free from all suspicionof duress or intimidation; you must permit them to be examined, discussed, and dissected here, by the representatives of New York andof every other State. I am opposed decidedly to cutting off orlimiting these discussions. Let all parties be heard; give them time, and time enough, to deliberate, and the result will be peace andharmony to the country. 

Mr. RIVES:--I rise for the purpose of answering some of theobservations of the gentleman from New York; and first of all I wishto say a word about the motives and purposes of Virginia in callingthis Convention. She has called this Convention together because shebelieved it would exert a powerful influence for the safety and honorof the country, and the perpetuity of its institutions. She is met _inlimine_ with the reproach that her action is unconstitutional. Howunconstitutional?

Is not our Government based upon the sovereignty of the people? Is notthat the idea upon which this Government rests? And when the peopleact, are they to be told that their action is unconstitutional orimproper? Cannot Virginia and her people, acting through theirrepresentatives, suggest the means of amendment or improvement in ourConstitution to Congress?--the Congress which represents the people, and whose members are servants only of the people? Can she not calltogether a convention of this kind and suggest measures to beconsidered 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 presenttheir views, to compare and discuss them, to devise measures for thebenefit of the country, in the same way that any assemblage of thepeople may lawfully do. Has the gentleman looked into the history ofour present Constitution? Virginia did the same thing previous to theadoption of that Constitution, which she is doing now. 

Some State must invite a Conference, if one is to be had. If it wasproper that Virginia should do it before the adoption of our presentConstitution, it is eminently proper that she should do it now. Thereare occasions, sir, in the history of nations, when men should risefar above the rules of special pleading. This is one of them. Let thegentleman look into the history of the old articles of Confederation;let him read the debates which arose upon their adoption. Virginiaoriginated measures then, far more important than any before us now;and there were gentlemen then, who took the same ground that gentlemendo now, who sought by the use of dilatory pleas, by interposingobjections, temporary in their nature, to prevent and delay actionupon the great national questions then under consideration. Now, in atime of great peril, when the whole country is convulsed, when theexistence and perpetuity of the Government is in danger, Virginia hasinvoked her sister States to come here and see whether they cannotdevise some method to avoid the danger and save the country. 

In the preamble to the first ten articles of Confederation, there isto be found an express reference to the action of the StateLegislatures in initiating proposals of amendment. Every amendmentthat has hitherto been made to our Constitution originated with thepeople, and directly or indirectly through the action of StateLegislatures. What purpose can gentlemen have in interposing thesedilatory pleas, objections merely for delay, when we all know thatCongress is now waiting for--actually inviting the action of thisConference?

Senator COLLAMER, in his speech already referred to, makes thedistinct proposition, that when any considerable portion of the people(certainly a much smaller portion than is here represented) desire tohave 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 thecommittee desire to consider the propositions which may here beadopted. 

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

Mr. NOYES:--Are we to understand that Virginia then asked for aGeneral Convention to consider amendments to the Constitution?

Mr. RIVES:--No! The Annapolis Convention met. The invitation underwhich that body was convened was addressed to all the States. Fiveonly responded, and they proposed a General Convention of all theStates, to meet at Philadelphia. Virginia was the first to act and toappoint her delegates. I repeat, that the same objection was thenurged, that Congress _or_ the States should propose the amendments. The first Convention was just as unconstitutional as this. The twocases were perfectly alike. The crisis is infinitely more importantnow than it was then. Then, there was no disintegration of the States. They still held firmly together. How are we now? Seven States are outof the Union. _The Union is dissolved!_ Virginia loves the Union. Shecherishes all its glorious memories. She is proud of its history andof her own connection with it. But Virginia has no apprehension as toher future destiny. She can live in the Union or out of it. She canstand in her own strength and power if necessary. Her delegates comehere in no spirit of supplication, nor do they propose to offer anyintimidation. She has called you here as brothers, as friends, aspatriots. If the future has suffering in store for Virginia, beassured all her sister States must suffer equally. 

Mr. PRESIDENT, the position of Virginia must be understood andappreciated. She is just now the neutral ground between two embattledlegions, between two angry, excited, and hostile portions of theUnion. To expect that her people are not to participate in theexcitement by which they are surrounded; to expect that they shouldnot share in the apprehensions which pervade the country; to expectthat they should not begin to look after the safety of their interestsand their institutions, were to expect something superhuman. Somethingmust be done to save the country, to allay these apprehensions, torestore a broken confidence. Virginia steps in to arrest the progressof 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; intimidationwould be unworthy of Virginia, but if I perform my duty I must speakfreely. The danger is imminent, _very_ imminent. 

Our national affairs cannot longer remain in their present condition;it is impossible, absolutely impossible that they should. MyRepublican friends, will you not take warning? Were there notpretended prophets of old, who cried, "Peace! Peace! when there was nopeace"? Political prophets to-day say there is no danger. Have theircounsels 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. Bythe secession of these States we are reduced to an utterly helplessminority; a minority of seven or eight States to stand in yournational councils against an united North! It is not in the nature ofthe Anglo-Saxon race thus to stand in the face of a dominant andopposition party. Were the case reversed, you would not do ityourselves. We cannot hold our rights by mere sufferance, and we willnot; we do not ask you to hold yours in that way. If the other Stateshad kept on with us--had remained in the Union--we might have securedour rights in a fair contest. Now other paths are open to us, and oneof these we must follow. 

I desire to say a word in answer to the propositions of my honorablefriend from Connecticut. What did he tell us? He said that this was aself-sustaining Government; a Government that possessed the power ofsecuring its own perpetuity, and one that must not yield or makeconcessions. Sir, let me say that ideas, that principles, thatstatements of that kind have led to the downfall of every Governmenton earth which has ever fallen. What but ideas and language of thiskind, forced our colonies into rebellion, and lost America to theBritish crown?

Sir, I have had some experience in revolutions in anotherhemisphere--in revolutions produced by the same causes that are nowoperating among us. What causes but these led to the two revolutionsin France? One of them I saw myself, where interest was arrayedagainst interest, friend against friend, brother against brother. Ihave seen the pavements of Paris covered, and her gutters running withfraternal blood! God forbid that I should see this horrid picturerepeated in my own country; and yet it will be, sir, if we listen tothe counsels urged here!

It is too late to theorize, too late to differ theoretically. I do notbelieve in the constitutional right of secession. I proclaimed _that_, thirty years ago in Congress. I have always adhered to my opinionssince. But we are not now discussing theories; we are in the presenceof a great fact. The South is in danger; her institutions are indanger. If other excuses were necessary, she might justify her actionin 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. Idetest it. But the great fact is still before us. Seven States havegone out from among us, and a President is actually inaugurated togovern the new Confederation. 

With this fact the nation must deal. Right or wrong, it exists. Thecountry is divided. Wide dissensions exist. A people have separatedfrom another people. Force will never bring them together. Coercion isnot a word to be used in this connection. There must be negotiation. Virginia presents herself as a mediator to bring back those who haveleft us. 

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

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

Mr. BOUTWELL:--I said that Massachusetts thought her action had thatappearance. 

Mr. RIVES:--Let me say to you, Republican gentlemen, we wish to makeyour victory worthy of you. We wish to inaugurate your power and youradministration over the _whole_ Union. We wish to give you a nationworth governing. Do us at least the justice of supposing we are inearnest in this. We are laboring to relieve you from the difficultiesthat hang over you. War is impending. Do you wish to govern a countryconvulsed by civil war? The country is divided. Do you wish to governa fraction of the country? Behold the difficulties that you mustencounter. You cannot carry on your Government without money. Where isthe capitalist who will advance you money under existingcircumstances?

Gentlemen, believe me, as one who has given no small amount of timeand careful reflection to this subject, when I tell you that youcannot coerce sovereign States. It is impossible. Mr. HAMILTON'S greatforesight made him assert that our strength lay in the Government ofthe States--of the undivided States. Look at New York. She herself isa match for the whole army of the United States. Look at the South. She stands now almost upon an equality with you. You may spendmillions of treasure, you may shed oceans of blood, but you cannotconquer any five or seven States of this Union. The proposition is anutter absurdity. You must find some other way to deal with them. Inthe wisdom of the country some other way must be found. 

Several gentlemen have referred to our army and our navy. As a citizenof the United States, I am proud of both. I am proud of the countrythey serve. I have enjoyed at times her honors, at others endured herchastisements. I respect the power which our army and our navy giveto our nation, but our army and navy are impotent in such a crisis asthis. 

Mr. PRESIDENT, even England herself has been shaken to her centre byrebellions in her North with which she has been forced to contend. InParis, too, I have myself seen regiment after regiment throw downtheir arms and rush into the arms of the people, of theirfellow-citizens, and thus oppose, by military strength, the governmentunder which their organization was formed. Will you repeat suchoccurrences here? Will you 'destroy the imperishable renown of thisnation'? 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 usfrom a repetition of the scenes of blood which some of us havewitnessed. 

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

Mr. PRESIDENT, I know Massachusetts well. She is a powerfulCommonwealth. She has added largely to the wealth, the power, andglory of this Union. I respect the gentleman who has addressed thisConvention in her behalf; but when he went out of his way and statedthat he abhorred slavery, the statement grated harshly on my ears. Weof the South, we of Virginia, may not and do not like many of theinstitutions of Massachusetts, but we cannot and we will not say thatwe abhor them. 

Let me recall to the gentleman from Massachusetts who has addressedus, a fact from history. Let me show him that his own State waspowerful in colonial times in extending the time for the importationof slaves! Let me tell him that his State has helped to fasten theinstitution of slavery upon a portion of this nation. Is it for a sonof Massachusetts now to complain of the result of the acts of his ownState? Is it for him to use these reproaches, which, if notungrateful, are at least wanting in charity? It was a representativeof Massachusetts, Mr. GORHAM, through whose motion and influence thetime for the importation of slaves was extended in that period of ourcolonial history. Virginia ever, in every period of her colonialexistence, exerted herself to close her ports against the importationof slaves. It was the veto of her Royal Master alone that rendered herefforts nugatory. It was New England that fastened this institutionupon 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 enterthe Union without slavery. The only question then was, should slaveryhave 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 toimport slaves. Mr. ELLSWORTH declared that it would be an infractionof _State rights_ to prohibit this importation. New England, engagedin commerce, found an advantage in the right of importation, and sheendeavored to force it upon the South. 

I regard the present course of New England as very unfair. She isherself responsible for the existence of slavery--she is now ourfiercest opponent; and yet New Jersey and Pennsylvania, who have notthis responsibility, have always stood by the South, and I believethey always will. 

It is not by _abhorring_ slavery that you can put an end to theinstitution. You must let it alone. We are responsible for it now, andwe are willing to stand responsible for it before the world. Weunderstand the subject better than you do. It has occupied theattention of the wisest men of our time. In fact, it is not a questionof slavery at all. It is a question of race. We know that the verybest position for the African race to occupy is one of unmitigatedlegal subjection. We have the negroes with us; you have not. We mustdeal with them as our experience and wisdom dictate; with that youhave nothing to do. The gentleman from Massachusetts may congratulatehimself that there are no negroes in that Commonwealth. I ask him whathe would do, if he had the race to deal with in Massachusetts as wehave it in Virginia?

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

And to the people of New England I have this to say: Your ancestorswere most powerful and influential in fastening slavery upon us. Youare the very last who ought to reproach us for its existence now. Wedo not indulge reproaches toward you. It is unpleasant for us toreceive them from you. Their use by either can only serve to widen theunhappy differences existing between us. Let us all drop them, and, sofar as we can, let us close up every avenue through which dissensionsmay come. We call upon you to make no sacrifices for us. It will costyou nothing to yield what we ask. Say, and let it be said in theConstitution, that you will not interfere with slavery in theDistrict, or in the States, or in the Territories. Permit the freetransit of our slaves from one State to another, and in the languageof the patriarch, "let there be peace between you and me. "

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

Mr. RIVES here read an extract from a letter written by Mr. MADISONafter his retirement from public life. I have not a copy of thisletter, but the substance of the portion read by Mr. RIVES was astatement by Mr. MADISON, that upon the passage of the MissouriCompromise, President MONROE was much embarrassed with the question ofthe constitutionality of the prohibition clause; that he took counselwith Mr. MARTIN, who declared that, in his judgment, Congress had nopower over the subject of slavery in the territories. 

Mr. JAMES:--Will you leave that question just where the Constitutionleaves it, upon your construction of that instrument? If so, we willagree to give you all necessary guarantees against interference. 

Mr. RIVES:--No! I will not leave it there, for it would always remaina question of construction. I prefer to put the prohibition into theConstitution. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts speaks for the North. Massachusettsdoes not constitute the North. I venerate the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts. I have many friends there. I look with pride upon herconnection 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 peopleand obtain their judgment upon our propositions. But Massachusetts isnot all the North. Rhode Island constitutes a part of it. She hasalways spoken for us. She will speak for us to-day. What does NewJersey say? What does the great State of Pennsylvania and the greaterNorthwest say? Surely they do not echo the sentiments of the gentlemanfrom Massachusetts. They are with us, and we will trust to them. 

I dislike this way of answering for sections of the country. I haveheard similar language from Mr. CALHOUN. He was fond of saying, "TheSouth says--The South thinks--The South will do, " this or that. I didnot like it then. It stirred up all the rebellious sentiments of mynature; for I knew the statement was not true. I do not like suchlanguage better now. Let the _people_ of Massachusetts speak. I knowthey will not refuse to fulfil the compact of their fathers. 

We are brothers. I feel we can settle this important question whichportends over us like an eclipse; we can leave this glorious countryto our posterity. Once more let me refer to the noble and eloquentcounsels of MADISON, and I am done. As children of the same family, asfellow-citizens of a great, glorious, and proud Republic, he invokedthe kindred blood of our people to consecrate our common Union, and tobanish forever the thought of our becoming aliens. 

Mr. EWING:--I have never in any manner countenanced the discussions ofslavery and the questions connected with it, at the North. I havealways, so far as possible, discouraged those discussions. No good canpossibly come from them. Is the North the _censor morum_ of theSouth? We have faults enough ourselves; let us consider and try tocorrect them, before we interest ourselves so much in those of ourneighbors. 

If there was any danger that slavery would be extended at the North, Iwould oppose its extension there, and I would teach my sons to opposeit. But this danger has never existed. Does any one fear that slaverywill go into New York or Massachusetts? No sane man thinks or everthought 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 havegot enough of them now. I have watched the operation of thisemigration of slaves to the North. Ten negroes will commit more pettythefts than one thousand white men. We cannot permit them to come intoOhio. Wherever they have been permitted to come, it has almost cost usa rebellion. Before we begin to preach abolition I think we had bettersee what is to be done with the negroes. 

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

The North has taken the business of abolition into its own hands, andfrom 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 coercethe Southern States into abolitionism. It is not the way to convertthem to our views by saying that we _abhor_ their institutions. Butthese northern men will not listen to reason. They keep on makingeloquent speeches--their pulpits thunder against the sin ofslaveholding. All grades of speech and thought are made use of, andthe sickening sentimentalism of some of them is disgusting. Theyrepeat 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 wholescheme is full of falsehood. It would be far better for each man tolook for the beam in his own eyes before he troubles himself about themote in his neighbor's. 

England, also, has been very fierce in denouncing slavery in thiscountry, and yet we have no slavery or misery to be compared with thatexisting in the India provinces. It is said that in a single seasontwo hundred thousand of her subjects were starved to death in oneprovince of Hindostan. 

I might say the same thing almost of Ireland. Two millions have diedthere from famine, and God knows how many more would have perished butfor the relief sent from this country. I say, and I have abundantreason for saying, that I never have, and I never will, favor any ofthese denunciations of southern slaveholders and slavery. 

Let us rather look at this subject as members of a common family--letus acknowledge our mutual faults. The slave trade was once fostered bythe North. That was when it was profitable, and when large fortuneswere made in that trade by northern men. When it became unprofitablethe North began to denounce it, and to call it sinful. Now, wefastened this institution upon the South, cannot we permit her to dealwith it as she chooses?

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

Suppose there were two sons who succeeded to a joint inheritance oflands. 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 rightor honest? Would any one attempt to justify it? And yet this is whatextreme men of the North are practically saying to the citizens of theSouth. 

The Missouri Compromise was intended to settle the rights of therespective sections in the territories. The line adopted was notunfair to the North. The same line will answer now. I am for adoptingit and arranging this difficult subject finally. 

But one and another says, "Don't let us extend slavery. " To that Ianswer, that our action will not make one slave more or less. There isno question of humanity involved in our propositions. I cannot seewhat question is involved so far as the North is concerned. We need nomore territory. We do not want New Mexico. We have territory enoughnow for one hundred and fifty millions of people, and enough for theexpansion of our people for one hundred and fifty years. 

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

I was surprised to hear the assertion of the gentleman fromConnecticut, that this was an unconstitutional assembly. I hear to-daythe statement made that it is a revolutionary assembly. If theseassertions were true I would not be a member of it for one moment. Ifrevolutionary, it is either treasonable or seditious. But it isneither. These gentlemen forget the constitutional right of petition. We have the right to meet here. We have the right to do just what weare 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 tolimit or cut off debate--that this resolution would cut off New York. Would it not cut off Ohio? I have no intention of depriving anygentleman or any State of any right. I do not believe such anintention 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 fromOhio and to some gentlemen who have preceded him. They have allreferred, in terms which I do not choose to characterize, to theaction and the opinions of the North. 

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

Now, once for all, let me ask those gentlemen who are proposingvarious methods of settling our differences: Do you propose to makewar upon the _sentiments_, the _principles_ of the North? If you do, we may as well drop the discussion here. Our people, and we, theirrepresentatives, cannot meet you upon that ground. Our principlescannot be interfered with; we carry them with us always. Ourconsciences approve them. We can negotiate with you, and treat withyou upon subjects which do not involve their sacrifice. If it is yourpurpose to attack them, you may abandon all other purposes so far asthis body is concerned. The people of the North will never sacrificetheir principles. It is useless for you to ask them to do so. It isentirely useless for you to urge war upon the sentiments or opinionsof the North. 

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

Strong appeals are made here to the free States. You call them by thegeneral name of the Northern States. Gentlemen undertake to pledgedifferent sections to this or that policy. We are told that NewYork--that Massachusetts--that Pennsylvania will adopt or will notadopt various propositions that are made here. 

Sir, in my judgment all such questions are unworthy of ourconsideration. We spend time to little purpose upon them. The truequestion here is, "What will Virginia do? How does Virginia stand?"She to-day holds the keys of peace or war. She stands in the gatewaythreatening the progress of the Government in its attempts to assertits legal authority. Evade it as you may--cover it as you will--thetrue question is, "What will Virginia do?" She undertakes to dictatethe terms upon which the Union is to be preserved. What will satisfyher?

Mr. CLAY:--Has not Virginia spoken? Has she not already told us whatshe wants?

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

The peril of the time is _Secession_. Six States are already inrevolution. A distinct confederacy, a new government, has beenorganized within the limits of the United States. 

Does Virginia to-day, frown upon this atrocious proceeding? No! so farfrom that she affirms that these States have a right to do what theyhave done. She boasts that she has armed her people, that she hasraised five millions of money, and that she will use both to preventthe interference of the National Government with these States, now inrevolution. Whether her course will conciliate the freeStates--whether under such circumstances the free States willnegotiate with Virginia or others in her position, I leave for othersto consider. It is my opinion that the people of this country willfirst of all _demand the recognition of the supremacy of theGovernment_. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--No! I do not understand such to be the position ofVirginia. She appeals to both sides to refrain from violence whilethese negotiations are pending. 

Mr. SEDDON:--No! A little farther than that. Virginia _will not permitcoercion_. She has plainly declared she will not. But in the veryhighest spirit of patriotism, she has asked for this Convention, andshe proposes to exhaust the very last means of restoring peace to theUnion. This is exactly her position. She hopes, and I hope, that thisConvention will interpose to preserve the peace and to save thiscountry from war. 

Mr. MORRILL:--I thought I did not misunderstand the position ofVirginia. She is armed to the teeth, and she now proposes to step inbetween the Government and the States. I understand her attitude. Itis an attitude of menace. It gives aid and comfort to those whotrample upon the laws and defy the authority of this Government. 

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

And now I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SEDDON) a plainquestion, and I wish to receive a frank answer. If this Conferenceagrees to the amendments proposed by the majority of the committee, will Virginia sustain the Government and maintain its integrity, whilethe people are considering and acting on the new proposals ofamendment to the Constitution? If she will not do this, if thisproposition does not meet the heart of Virginia, there is no use--

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

Now, if the gentleman wants my private opinion, I will tell him thatwhether the propositions of the majority of the committee or her ownbe adopted here, or by the people, the purpose of Virginia to resistcoercion is _unchanged_ and _unchangeable_. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I rise to a point of order. It appears to me that thisdiscussion is very foreign to the subject before the Conference. It isso long since that subject has been named, that many have doubtlessforgotten it. The question is upon the adoption of the resolutionlimiting the debate. I think we had better keep to the question. 

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman is undoubtedly correct in his statementof the question, but the discussion of the general subject has beenpermitted to go on without objection by the Convention, and I do notthink it would be right to stop it now. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I said the position of Virginia was unchanged. Sheconsiders this a Government of love and not of force. She thinks thereshould be no force or coercion used toward any sovereign State actingin its collective capacity. She does not propose to permit suchcoercion to be used. 

And now, having answered the gentleman frankly, as he desired, I wishto 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 theincoming administration to attempt to execute the laws of the UnitedStates in the seceded States by an armed force? The answer to thisquestion involves information of the utmost importance to my State andothers whose interests are involved with hers. It should be at oncecommunicated, and especially to my part of the country. I now ask thegentleman, if he knows what the purpose of the incoming administrationis in this respect, to state it here, and now. His relations to someof the officers elected will entitle his opinions to graveconsideration. I invite a full and frank answer to my question. 

Mr. MORRILL:--There is a point in the gentleman's answer which may aswell be met, but I will not be diverted from the question I wasdiscussing. I will show him in a moment why I cannot answer hisinquiry from any personal knowledge of my own. 

Sir, I was endeavoring to ascertain what was the present position ofVirginia; to find out what she would accept and be contented. I wantedher to speak emphatically. She has done so. I now understand from Mr. SEDDON, that he has no assurances to give that Virginia will acceptthe propositions of the committee, and that while any propositions arepending she will resist the enforcement of the laws in the secededStates. 

Then let it be understood that Virginia _has_ spoken. That she makesthe Crittenden resolutions her _ultimatum_, that she must have themand all of them, that nothing less will satisfy her. As I said at thebeginning of my remarks, it is idle for us to stay here, useless forus to discuss the various propositions which are made here, unless weexpect to satisfy Virginia. 

It is important for us to understand her position. I do notunder-estimate her influence. When the propositions of this Conferenceare presented to the people of the free States, the first questionthey will ask is, "Will Virginia adopt them? Will she be satisfiedwith them?" If she will not, there will be no action upon them. If shewill, her position will exercise a powerful influence upon the peopleof the North in favor of their adoption. 

But if Virginia puts her ancient Commonwealth across the path of theGovernment, if she stands between the administration and theenforcement of the laws, the execution of its official duty, itspositive obligations--if this is the manner in which she proposes tomediate, her mediation will be accepted nowhere. Such I understand tobe the position she assumes. It is a position of menace. 

Mr. STOCKTON:--If the gentleman from Maine wants to get up a row, weare ready for him. He shall have enough of it right here! I shouldlike to know why he makes such charges against Virginia? They areunfounded; 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 haveaccomplished my object. I know now what to expect from Virginia; theNorth will know what the course of Virginia is to be, and we can allact understandingly. I do not propose to waste valuable time in idlediscussions 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 ormislead the Conference. Other gentlemen may think differently, but Inow understand Virginia to say, that the Federal authority shall notbe reëstablished by the ordinary means, (where it is resisted) incertain of the States comprised in the Federal Union. 

I will now answer the question of the gentleman from Virginia, inrelation to the proposed policy of the incoming administration. I haveno personal knowledge upon this subject. Mr. LINCOLN I never saw in mylife. I know nothing of his opinions, except from his speeches; but Iwill say, that if he and his administration do not use every meanswhich the Constitution has given them to assert the authority of theGovernment in all the States--to preserve the Union, and the Union inall its integrity, the people will be disappointed. I have felt andnow feel the importance of the action of Virginia, and I have donewhat I could to learn here what we may expect from her. 

In conclusion, let me say, that unless we can have the earnestconcurrence of the slave States in whatever we do, and especiallyunless we have the heart of Virginia with us, our action will give nopeace to the country. 

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER moved that the Conference adjourn. The motion was lostby a _viva voce_ vote. 

Mr. BROWNE:--I think we have debated these matters long enough. Let uscome back to the question before us. Personally I am in favor oflimiting debate to the shortest time, for I feel the necessity forprompt action. I think if Mr. RANDOLPH would strike out the latterclause of his resolution, requiring the final vote to be taken onThursday next, we should have no difficulty in agreeing to it. Itsadoption in its present form might cut off some delegation or somegentlemen from speaking at all. I would not do this. Let every onespeak, but let the speeches be short. I move to strike out the lastclause of the resolution. 

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

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--The gentleman cannot do that, asseveral motions are involved. I object to his proposal to withdraw theresolution. I move to lay the whole subject on the table, and to makeit 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 Conferenceadjourn, 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 issueswith which we are dealing with becoming coolness and deliberation!Sir, I love this Union. The man does not live who entertains a higherrespect for this Government than I do. I know its history--I know howit was established. There is not an incident in its history that isnot precious to me. I do not wish to survive its dissolution. My handor voice was never raised against it. They never will be. The Union isas 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, asthe minds of other gentlemen appear to be. But, Sir, I cannot shut myeyes to events which are daily transpiring among a people who areexcited and anxious, who are apprehensive that their rights are indanger--who are solicitous for--who will do as much to preserve theirrights as any people. They must be calmed and quieted. It is uselessnow to tell them they have no cause for fear. They are looking to thisConference. This Conference must act. If it does not, I almost fear tocontemplate the prospect that will open before us. 

Sir! this Conference has now been in session fifteen days. While Ihave felt reluctant to do any thing which should have the appearanceof precipitating our action, of cutting off or limiting debate, I haveall the time been pressed with this conviction; that if we are to savethis country we must act speedily. I have been in constantcommunication with the people of Virginia since I have been here. Iknow that this feeling of apprehension which existed when I came away, has been constantly increasing in my State since; and even last nightI received letters from members of the Convention now in session inRichmond; gentlemen who are as true to this Union as the needle to thepole, informing me that every hour of _delay_ in this Conference wasan hour of _danger_. 

I do not agree with some of my colleagues in their construction of theresolutions of the Virginia Legislature inviting this Conference. Iunderstand that she suggests the resolutions of Mr. CRITTENDEN as_one_ acceptable way of settling our present difficulties. She saysthat she will be satisfied with a settlement on the basis of thoseresolutions. But she has not made them her _ultimatum_. She has notsaid she will not consent to any other plan of arrangement. Herpurpose was not to draw up certain articles of pacification; to callher sister States together, and say to them, "These or nothing! Wehave dictated the terms upon which the matter between us may bearranged. We will have these or we will not arrange at all!" Iunderstand her as offering no restrictions whatever. She invites aconference--she asks the States to _confer_ together. She expectsreasonable concessions, reasonable guarantees, and with these she willbe satisfied. 

Nor do I know why the gentleman from Maine places Virginia in theposition he described, nor upon what authority. I reply to him that hemakes a grave assumption when he attributes to Virginia a dictatorialposition. 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 nottake them if they were offered. 

Let me say here, that it is my purpose to carry out the wishes of thepeople of Virginia; that exercising the best judgment I have I shalltry to ascertain what that purpose is, and shall do all I can toaccomplish it. When the proper time comes I shall cast my vote for theproposals of amendment offered by my colleague (Mr. SEDDON); I shalldo so for several reasons. The first and most important of them all isthis: The Union is our inheritance--it is our pride. To preserve it, what sacrifice should we not make? Its preservation is the one singledesire that animates me. Can I not be understood by my Northernfriends? Will you not yield something to our necessities--to ourcondition? Will you not do something which will enable us to go backto our excited people and say to them, "The North is treating usfairly. See what she will do to make our Union perpetual!"

Again; I shall vote cheerfully for Mr. SEDDON'S propositions, becausethe Legislature of my State has said that such amendments will satisfythe people of Virginia. I think the Legislature is right. I think inthis respect it reflects the will of the people of Virginia. Remember, sir, that these propositions have been for some time before thecountry, that they have been discussed and commented upon by thepublic Press--that they will probably settle our difficulties, now andforever. They were introduced into Congress by a distinguished and anable man--a statesman, whose integrity and fidelity no one has everquestioned, and no one will question. It is my firm belief that theStates can adopt them without any material sacrifice, and that theywill adopt them if they have the opportunity. 

But if the CRITTENDEN resolutions--if the propositions of my colleaguecannot be recommended by this Conference--do not find favor with themajority 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 willnot be impracticable. You, representatives of the free States, willnot be impracticable. Therefore, I tell you that it is my firm beliefthat the people of Virginia WILL accept the proposals of amendment tothe Constitution as reported by the majority of the committee. Ibelieve these propositions would be acceptable to our people. Ibelieve if we should pass them here, that the Convention now insession in Richmond would at once adopt them and recommend them to thepeople of that honored member of the Federal Union. Can you not? Willyou not give us one chance to satisfy our people, and to save us fromthat other alternative which I almost fear to contemplate?

I feared when the result was announced, that the late election inVirginia of the delegates to the Convention now in session, would bemisapprehended and misunderstood at the North: that the North wouldregard it as a triumph of the Union sentiment in Virginia. In onesense it was such a triumph. The advocates of immediate andunconditional secession were defeated, were defeated by a heavymajority. 

But the members comprising that Convention represent the true feelingof the people who elected them, and they represent the present feelingof Virginia. The people of that State are full of anxiety. They fearthat the new administration has designs which it will carry intoexecution, fatal to their rights and interests. They are for theUnion, _provided_ their rights can be secured; provided, they can haveproper and honorable guarantees. It is useless to discuss now whetherthey are right or wrong. Such is the condition of affairs now, and itis too late to enter into the causes which produced it. We must dealwith things as they are. 

I have known many gentlemen who have represented the interests of NewEngland long and well. I know what sentiments filled their heartsyears ago, and I do not believe those sentiments are changed now. Iappeal to Vermont. Among her representatives here, I see a gentlemanwith whom, for a long time, I was upon terms of peculiar intimacy. Inthe whole course of that intimacy I cannot recall a single occurrencewhich did not impress me with his integrity, his ability, his justice. I appeal to him. I appeal to him by every consideration which can movea friend, which can influence a patriot, which can govern the actionof a statesman. I appeal to Massachusetts, to all New England, which Iknow possesses many like himself; and I ask you to consider ourcircumstances, to consider our dangers, and not to refuse us thelittle boon we ask, when the consequences of that refusal must be soawful. Can you not afford to make a little sacrifice, when we make oneso great? Can you not yield to us what is a mere matter of opinionwith you, but what is so vital with us? Will you not put us in aposition where we can stand with our people, and let us and you standtogether in the Union? I have no delicacy here. The importance of ouraction with me, transcends all other considerations. I do not hesitateto appeal to New England for help in this crisis. 

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

When the dark days come over this Republic, and there is nothing inthe future but gloom and despondency, I will do as WASHINGTON oncesaid he would do in similar circumstances: I will gather the lasthandful of faithful men, carry them to the mountains of WesternVirginia, and there set up the flag of the Union. It shall be defendedthere against all assailants until the friends of freedom and libertyfrom all parts of the civilized world shall rally around it, andagain establish it in triumph and glory over every portion of arestored and united country. 

Sir, the questions which now agitate and alarm the country do notaffect the interests of all sections of the Union, or if they doaffect all sections, certainly not in the same proportion. The farthersections are removed from each other, the less do the interests andthe principles of their people assimilate. Maine and Louisiana, fardistant from each other, differ widely. Approaching the line betweenthe slave and free States all these differences grow less. This isshown by the action of this Conference. The border States can settlethese questions. They will settle them if you will let them alone. Pennsylvania and Virginia, Maryland and New Jersey, States along theline, whose people are most vitally interested, can have no difficultyin coming to an agreement. With all the possible political interestswhich you may have, not only are the relations of society, ofbusiness, and commerce, to be interrupted, but these States are toform the long frontier between two foreign nations, if that fearfulcontingency is to happen, so often and so confidently referred tohere. 

Why, then, should remote sections interfere to prevent thisadjustment? If they cannot aid us, why not let us alone? Let them lookalong the valley of the Ohio River, one of the most fertile sectionsof the continent, in itself great enough and fruitful enough tosupport a nation. It has already a large population, and thatpopulation is increasing every day. The people are attached to eachother by every tie that binds society together. They now live inharmony and friendship; their property is secure. They are prosperousand happy. Such a people _cannot be, must not be divided_. 

And therefore, I say, that if we are driven to that alternative; ifthe representatives of the two extremes will not give us the benefitof their counsel and assistance, the Central States, and the greatNorthwest, must take the matter into their own hands. North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, with Pennsylvania, New Jersey, andother States near them, must unite with Ohio and the Northwest to savethe 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 isone to which I hope and pray we may never be driven. I cannot yetgive up the hope, that all we need here is patient and thoroughdiscussion and examination of the subject; that when the truecondition is understood, we shall unite together to restore confidenceto the country. It must be so. The consequences of fartherdisagreement are too great, the crisis is too important to permit meresectional differences, mere pride of opinion, party shackles or partyplatforms to control the action of any gentleman here. The Republicshall not be divided. The nation shall not be destroyed. Thepatriotism of the people will yet save the country against all itsenemies. 

Mr. RUFFIN gave notice, that at the proper time he wished to offer twoamendments to the second section of the propositions reported by thecommittee. [1]

[Footnote 1: Mr. RUFFIN stated the substance of the amendments heproposed in a voice so low, as not to be audible to the greater partof the Conference. They are not to be found in the Journal, nor in thedocuments printed by order of the Conference, nor were they heard byme. ]

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 Conferenceadjourn, 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 confusionarose, which was suppressed. 

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--We all, no doubt, wish to economize time as much aspossible. The prevailing wish seems to be to meet about eleven o'clockto-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 seveno'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 wasread and approved. 

Mr. HARRIS:--I desire to call the attention of the Conference to thefact, that the time has not yet arrived when the Conference, by itsrules, should commence business. The rule is, that the daily sessionshall 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 commencementof the present session. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I wish to call attention to the 9th rule in theprinted list. It has not been adopted by the Conference. It is in hereby mistake. The Committee on Rules did not intend to recommend it. Iask 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 wouldlike to have them read for the information of the Conference. I ask tohave them printed and laid upon the table, so that I can move them asan 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, offeredyesterday, considered. Congress is about adjourning, and, if we do notclose our labors to-day, we cannot have our propositions acted uponunder the rules of the Senate and House of Representatives. They canbe kept out on the objection of any member. I do not wish to debatethe resolution, and I hope the debate will not be continued in thegeneral manner it was yesterday. 

Mr. FIELD:--There seems to be a disposition to stop debate now, afternearly the whole time has been occupied by the other side. Yesterdaythe whole session was occupied by a general discussion of thisquestion. It is my right to debate it as generally as other gentlemenhave done. I shall avail myself of that right. I may not speak thirtyminutes, but I will not submit to the imposition of a different ruleupon me, if I can avoid it, from that which has been imposed uponothers. The first question is on striking out the last clause of theresolution. On that I have nothing to say except that I ask for a voteby 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 isuseless 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 engagethe attention of this Conference. All others may be settled in half anhour. This question is a great one, and assumes a variety of forms. Iwish to vote upon it understandingly, and I want some information fromthe committee which has had it in charge. 

I ask that committee whether they are not proposing a change in theConstitution, which, if adopted, will operate as a direct andeffectual protection of slavery in all the territories of the UnitedStates? This appears to me to be the true question for ourconsideration. I wish to know what meaning is attached by its friendsto one part of the proposed article. 

It states that "the _status_ of persons owing service or labor as itnow exists shall not be changed by law, " &c. ; and again, "that therights arising out of said relations shall be subject to judicialcognizance in the Federal courts according to the _common law_. " The_status_, then, shall not be changed. By that term I suppose conditionis intended. I understand that perfectly. There shall be no law tochange the condition, to _impair_ the rights of the slaveholder; butshall there be no law to _protect_ these rights? Now, what is intendedby this? Why not make this provision plain, and not leave it open toany question of construction? The ghost of the old trouble rises here, and will not down at the bidding of any man. I believe under thisarticle the institution of slavery is to be protected by a mostingenious contrivance. The _common law_, administered according to thepro-slavery view, is to be called in for its protection. 

Now I ask the chairman of the committee reporting these propositionswhat he means by the _common law_? The common law, as we understandit, is the law of freedom--not of slavery. But I do not here proposeto discuss that question. I wish to know how the truth really is. Howdoes the committee, how do the friends of this proposition understandit?

By the _common law_ a slave is still a man: a person, and not apersonal chattel. He may owe service, as a child to its parent, anapprentice to his master, but he is still a _person_ owing service. Heis all the time recognized as a _man_. As such he may own and holdproperty, take it by inheritance and dispose of it at pleasure, bywill or by contract. All these rights, all the principles on whichthey are founded, are in direct antagonism to slavery. The argumentmay be carried much farther, but this is far enough for my purpose. Bythe slave law, all this is reversed. The master owns the _body_ of theslave, may sell or otherwise dispose of him, may make him the subjectof inheritance. The slave loses all the attributes of a person, andbecomes property as much as the horse or the ox that feeds at hismaster's crib. These, in a condition of slavery are the rights of themaster over the slave. These rights the common law, under thisproposition, is to recognize, protect, and enforce. I believe I am notmistaken in this. What other construction can you give the article? Itis a distinct proposal to engraft slavery upon the common law: todeclare in the Constitution that slavery is recognized and protectedby the common law. 

Now, the North has always protested against this. She will neverconsent to it. She understands all the consequences as well as you. Nodoubt it would be a great point gained for you, to have theConstitution recognize the institution of slavery as part of thecommon law. For then slavery goes wherever the common law goes. Itsrights under this provision are not confined to the territories. Onceestablished, these may be enforced in a free State just as well. It isthe old proposition over again, which has come before the Americanpeople so many times under so many different guises. It makes slaverynational, freedom sectional. If this is so, if such is theconstruction which it is intended this section shall receive, why notstate it openly? why leave it as a question of construction?

This construction involves other considerations. This new kind ofcommon law is to be substituted for the old. The latter has beenunderstood for centuries almost. Its principles have been discussedand settled. It is a system founded by experience, and adapted to thewants of the people subject to it. Its very name implies that it wasnot created by legislative authority. A strange common law indeed thatwould be which is _created by the Constitution_. 

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

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

Mr. EWING:--The proposition contained in the first article of theproposed amendment, is copied from the CRITTENDEN resolutions insubstance. It is true that the language is somewhat changed, but thelegal effect is identical in both the propositions. The term"_status_" &c. , as there used is not applicable to all the territoryof the United States. It only extends to that portion of the territorysouth of 36° 30´. It crushes out liberty nowhere. It changesnothing--no rights whatever. Again, whatever may be the _status_ ofthe person in the State from which he comes, _that_ is preserved inthe territory, and that alone. It is precisely similar to the case ofa 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 thisterm here. It was a good system when not as perfect as it is now. Thecommon law of England even tolerated slavery until it was abolished. The colliers of the North of England were once, to all intents andpurposes, as much slaves as any negro on the Southern plantations, except in the matter of separation of families. I can refer you to aprecedent on this subject, which you will find in a book of no veryhigh authority. I mean the novel, _Red Gauntlet_. 

The general principle applicable here is this: Whenever you establishthe right--no matter how, if you _establish_ it--the common lawasserts the remedy. There is no crushing out about it. The simpleproposition is this: Slavery exists already in that little worthlessterritory we own below the proposed line. Will we agree that it shallremain there just as it is now, so long as the territorial conditioncontinues? That is all. There is no mystery or question ofconstruction about it. 

Mr. FIELD:--The questions now before the Conference I suppose ariseupon the report presented by the majority of the committee, and uponthe motion to substitute for that report the propositions of theminority of the same committee. 

I propose to add to this report the three following propositions; andI 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 acceptableto the northern people than it is in its present shape, though eventhen, I am bound to declare, I could not support it. I prefer thesubstitute. In what I have now to say, I shall not confine myself to adiscussion of these propositions, but availing myself of the latitudeof debate hitherto allowed to gentlemen who have addressed theConference in favor of the report of the majority of the committee, Ishall endeavor to bring to the notice of this body, more fully than Ihave yet done, my views upon the general question presented for ourconsideration. 

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

To found an empire, or to make a constitution for a people, on whichso much of their happiness depends, requires the sublimest effort ofthe human intellect, the greatest impartiality in weighing opposinginterests, the utmost calmness in judgment, the highest prudence indecision. It is proposed that we shall proceed to amend in essentialparticulars a Constitution which, since its adoption by the people ofthis country, has answered all its needs; with a haste which to mymind is unnecessary, not to say indecent. 

Have any defects been discovered in this Constitution? I have listenedmost attentively to hear those defects mentioned, if any such havebeen found to exist. I have heard none. No change in the JudicialDepartment is suggested. The exercise of judicial powers under theConstitution has been satisfactory enough to the South. The JudicialDepartment is to be left untouched, as I think it should be. Youpropose no change in the form of the Executive or LegislativeDepartments. These you leave as they were before. What you do proposeis, to place certain limitations upon the Legislative power, toprohibit legislation upon certain important subjects, to give newguarantees to slavery, and this, as you admit, before any person hasbeen injured, before any right has been infringed. 

There is high authority which ought to be satisfactory to you, that ofthe President of the United States, now in office, for the statementthat Congress never undertook to pass an unconstitutional lawaffecting the interests of slavery except the Missouri Compromise. Well, you have repealed that. You have also every assurance that canbe given, that the administration about coming into power proposes nointerference with your institutions within State limits. Can you notbe satisfied with that? No. You propose these amendments in advance. You insist upon them, and you declare that you must and will have themor certain consequences must follow. But, gentlemen of the South, whatreasons do you give for entering upon this hasty, this precipitateaction? You say it is the prevailing sense of insecurity, the anxiety, the apprehension you feel lest something unlawful, somethingunconstitutional, may be done. Yet the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SEDDON) tells us that Virginia is able to protect all who residewithin her limits, and that she will do so at all hazards. Why nottell us the truth outright? It is not action under the Constitution orin Congress that you would prevent. What is it, then? You aredetermined to prevent the agitation of the subject. Let us understandeach other. You have called us here to prevent future discussion ofthe subject of slavery. It is _that_ you fear--it is _that_ you wouldavoid--discussion in Congress--in the State Legislatures--in thenewspapers--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 inthe slightest degree? Can you not profit by the experience of thepast? Can you prevent an agitation of this subject, or any other, byany constitutional provisions? No! Look at the details of your scheme. You propose through the Constitution to require payment for fugitiveslaves: to make the North pay for them. You are thus throwing alighted firebrand not only into Congress, but into every StateLegislature, into every county, city, and village in the land. 

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

You propose to stop the discussion of these questions by the press. Doyou really believe that in this age of the world you can accomplishthat? You know little of history if such is your belief. Free speechis stronger than constitutions or dynasties. You might as well putyour hands over the crater of a burning volcano, and seek thus toextinguish its flames, as to attempt to stop discussion by such anamendment of the Constitution. Stop discussion of the great questionsaffecting the policy, strength, and prosperity of the Government! Youcannot do it! You ought not to attempt to do it!

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

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

If the condition of affairs among you is as you represent it, have youno duties to perform; is there nothing for you to do? Should you nottell your people what we have assured you upon every proper occasion, that the Republican Party has always repudiated all intention ofinterfering with slavery, or any other Southern institution within theStates? This you all know. Have you told your people this? If youwould explain it to them now, would they not be quieted? Do not replythat they _believe_ we have such a purpose. Who is responsible forthat 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 theresponsibility rests with you. 

Although such is my conviction, supported, as I think, by all theevidence, I am still for peace. Show me now any proposition that willsecure peace, and I will go for it if I can. We came here to takeeach other by the hand, to compare views, explain, consult. We meetyou 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 MissouriCompromise of 1820. You certainly can complain of nothing previous tothat time. If, since then, there has been any law of Congress passedwhich is unjust toward you, which infringes upon your rights, whichoperates unfairly upon your interests, we will join you in securingits repeal. We will go farther. If you will point out any act of theRepublican Party which has given you just cause for apprehension, wewill give you all security against it. We will do any thing but amendthe fundamental law of Government. Before we do that we must beconvinced of its necessity. 

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

1st. For what they _do_ contain. 

2nd. For what they _do not_ contain. 

I do not propose to criticize the language used in your propositionsof amendment. That would be trifling. I think the language veryinfelicitous, and if I supposed those propositions were to become partof 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 theConstitution new expressions relating to slavery, which weresedulously kept out of it by the framers of that instrument; left outof it, not accidentally, but because, as MADISON said, they did notwish posterity to know from the Constitution that the institutionexisted. 

But I object further, because the propositions contain guarantees forslavery which our fathers did not and would not give. In 1787 theconvention was held at Philadelphia to establish our form ofGovernment. WASHINGTON was its presiding officer, whose name was initself a bond of union. It was soon after the close of a long andbloody war. Shoulder to shoulder--through winter snows and beneathsummer suns--through such sufferings and sacrifices as the world hadscarcely 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 theliberties they had achieved, the people sent their delegates into theconvention to frame a Constitution which would preserve to theirposterity the blessings they had won. 

These delegates, under the presidence of WASHINGTON, aided by thecounsels of MADISON and FRANKLIN, considered the very questions withwhich we are now dealing, and they refused to put into theConstitution which they were making, such guarantees to slavery as younow ask from their descendants. That is my interpretation of theiraction. Either these guarantees are in the Constitution, or they arenot. If they are there, let them remain there. If they are not there, I can conceive of no possible state of circumstances under which Iwould 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 slaveryabolished in all the Russias. 

Mr. ROMAN:--Do you think it better to have the free and slave Statesseparated, and to have the Union dissolved?

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

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

What is to be done by the Government of the United States while youare trying this experiment? The seceded States are organizing aGovernment with all its departments. They are levying taxes, raisingmilitary forces, and engaging in commerce with foreign nations, inplain violation of the provisions of the Constitution. If thiscondition of affairs lasts six months longer, France and England willrecognize theirs as a Government _de facto_. Do you suppose we willsubmit to this, that we can submit to it?

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

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

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

I do not propose to use harsh language. I will not stigmatize thisConvention as a political body, or assert that this is a movementtoward a revolution counter to a political revolution justaccomplished by the elections. Nor will I speak of personal libertybills, or of northern State legislation, about which so much complainthas been made. If I went into those questions, much might be said onboth sides. We might ask you whether you had not thrown stones at us?

Did not the Governor of Louisiana, in his message to the Legislatureof his State, recommend special legislation against the supporters ofMr. LINCOLN? Is there not on the statute books of Maryland a law whichprohibits a "black Republican" from holding certain offices in thatState?

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

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

Mr. HOWARD:--Will Mr. FIELD permit me a single question? I ask it forinformation, and because I am unable to answer it myself. I thereforerely upon his superior judgment and better means of knowledge. Itappears to me that Massachusetts, Maine, and New York have gone muchfarther. The charge is a serious one. Maryland has never refused tosubmit to the decisions of the proper judicial tribunals. TheConstitution has provided for the erection of a tribunal which shouldfinally decide all questions of constitutional law. That tribunal hasdecided that the people of the slave States have a legal right to gointo the territories with their property. The gentleman from New Yorktells 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 toappeal from the decision of the Supreme Court to the popular voice? Inwhat clause of the Constitution is this power lodged? Where does hefind this right of appeal to the people, a right which he insists theNorth will not give up?

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

I was about to state, when I was first interrupted, that the majorityreport altogether omits those guarantees, which, if the Constitutionis to be amended, ought to be there before any others that have beensuggested. I mean those which will secure protection in the South tothe citizens of the free States, and those which will protect theUnion against future attempts at secession; guarantees which arecontained in the propositions that I have submitted as proper to beadded to the report of the majority. 

But, sir, I must insist, that if amendments to the Constitution arerequired at all, it is better that they should be proposed andconsidered in a General Convention. Although I do not regard thisConference as exactly unconstitutional, it is certainly a badprecedent. It is a body nominally composed of representatives of theStates, and is called to urge upon Congress propositions of amendmentto the Constitution. Its recommendations will have something of forcein them; it will undoubtedly be claimed for them in Congress that theypossess such force. I do not like to see an irregular body sitting bythe side of a legislative body and attempting to influence itsaction. 

Again, all the States are not here. Oregon and California--the greatPacific dominions with all their wealth and power, present andprospective--have not been consulted at all. Will it be replied thatall the States can vote upon the amendments? That is a very differentthing from proposing them. California and Oregon may have interests oftheir own to protect, propositions of their own to make. Is it rightfor 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 willyou propose?

Mr. FIELD:--I have already said that I have none to propose. I amsatisfied with the Constitution as it is. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Then, for God's sake, let us have no GeneralConvention. 

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

And I say farther, that this is the quickest way to secure them. If aGeneral Convention is to be called, let it be held at once, just assoon as possible. If gentlemen from eight of the States in thisConference represent truly the public sentiment of their people, as Iwill assume they do, there is no other alternative. We must haveeither the arbitrament of reason or the arbitrament of the sword. Thegloomy future alone can tell whether the latter is to be the oneadopted. I greatly fear it is. The conviction presses upon me in mywaking and my sleeping hours. Only last night I dreamed of marchingarmies and news from the seat of war. [A laugh from the Kentucky andVirginia benches. ]

The gentlemen laugh. I thought they, too, had fears of war. I thoughttheir threats and prophecies were sincere. God grant that I may nothereafter 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 Itrust there has been no expression that will be taken in ill part. Ihave spoken what I sincerely felt. If there has been an unkind word inmy 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 aredevoted to the Union. We have been reminded of HAMILTON'S opinion, that the States are stronger than the Union, and that when thecollision comes the Union must fall. This is a mistake. In the Norththe love for the Union is the strongest of political affections. NewYork will stand by the flag of the country while there is a star leftin its folds. If the Union should be reduced to thirteen States--if itshould be reduced to three States--if all should fall away butherself, she will stand alone to bear and uphold that honored flag, and recover the Union of which it is the pledge and symbol. God grantthat time may never come, but that New York may stand side by sidewith Kentucky and Virginia to the end. That we may all stand by theUnion, negotiate for it, fight for it, if the necessity comes, is mywish, my hope, my prayer. The Constitution made for us by WASHINGTON, FRANKLIN, MADISON, and HAMILTON, and the wise and patriotic men wholabored 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 "TheGoverning Race. " It contains a sublime passage from LONGFELLOW'S poemof "The Ship, " which, as it closes the pamphlet, shall also close myobservations:

 "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. Allthe speeches that have been made, and all the declamation that hasbeen uttered on this floor, have not made a single convert. Last ofall would I wish to follow the gentleman who has just taken his seat. He proposes to postpone action, asserts that we are acting withoutconsideration, in haste, and without due deliberation. I look uponthis subject from a different point of view. I believe the motive ofPennsylvania in first responding to the invitation of Virginia was toinduce the States to meet here in council, and remove that peril whichnow threatens our common country. 

Pennsylvania had another reason. She is a border State; she has adeeper and more vital interest in the present unhappy differences thanNew York or the North. If there is to be war; civil, unnatural war, whose country is to be devastated, whose fields laid waste andtrampled down? They are those of the border States--of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, and possibly New Jersey. These arethe States that are to suffer. Gentlemen from New York and the NorthEast, in the bosom of their families, their towns and cities not inthe least danger, may be as impassive as the granite rocks that bindtheir shores. We have a deeper, a more vital interest; therefore wefeel and speak. When Pennsylvania received the invitation of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, and other States had seceded. Dangers wereaccumulating. Then it was that the old conservative Keystone Statethrew herself into the breach. She sent her delegation here to savethe country and not to change the Constitution--not to alter it, butto explain it and to give our Southern sisters the guarantees theyonce did not ask and did not need. We believed that the great majorityof the people of the Southern States were Union loving men, who chooseto sail under the flag of the Union, rather than under any piraticaland treasonable banner. We knew there were rebels within those States, as there is a faction at the North composed of men as much rebels asthey are. We knew, also, that there was a large body of men at theSouth, who, though loyal at heart, were in a state of great anxietyand apprehension, and who might be stirred up by demagogues, throughappeals to their State pride and other influences, to take a standagainst the Union. 

The Republicans denied that they wished to interfere in any mannerwith the institution of slavery. We have come here to give the slaveStates a declaratory exposition of our views. We have come bearing theolive branch. We are met by the South in a spirit of conciliation. Thedelegates tell us that they hope to be able to bring back their erringsister States into the fold of the Union, if they can go to thembearing satisfactory guarantees from us. Pennsylvania is willing thatwe should give them that opportunity. We have lived in harmony withthem: we wish to live in peace with them. If the seceded States willnot 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 toplace ourselves right before the world. Then, if some States will notstay in the Union, on their heads be the responsibility. Then, if anywrong has been done, if any right has been violated, Pennsylvania willnot be responsible. We shall have done our duty, on them will theresponsibility rest. They must answer for it before the world andbefore the judgment-seat. 

What will be the consequence of postponing action on this subject? Weare 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 aconvention now in session in Richmond. If we send her commissionershome to say to that convention, "The North will wait two years andthen consider your propositions, " what will the convention say tothat? The seceded States have at this moment commissioners at Richmondentreating Virginia to join their Confederacy, and to detach herselffrom the free States. If we fail to act, who can fail to foresee theconsequences? Maryland is about calling a convention. She, too, willact, and she will go where her associations and her interests carryher. 

From this you can infer some of the reasons why Pennsylvania has senther commissioners here. Her object was not delay. Her wish was foraction--speedy action. She wishes to do all she can to accelerateaction. She wishes to have some plan laid before the country atonce--something fair to all sections--and then, with, thealternatives before them, let the people decide. She wishes to pouroil on the troubled waters. 

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

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

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

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

Another proposition is to put a barrier into the Constitution, whichwill prevent the acquisition of territory in future by jointresolution. To this I am sure the gentleman from New York will notobject. 

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

Now, if we can adopt them--if we can make them a part of our organiclaw, and thus settle these differences, who will not be glad? There isstill a deep and abiding love of the Union in the hearts of all thepeople. They will hail with joy any action of yours which tends tostrengthen it. 

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

I well understand the appeals of the border slave States. They thinkthat one-half their number are already out of the Union. They deemthemselves weakened by their defection. I well understand the inquiryof the eloquent gentleman from Virginia, when he asked, on the secondday of the session, "Can't you understand our position?"

I have listened to appeals stronger and more eloquent than I everexpect to hear again. The representatives from the South on this floorare skilful in debate and eloquent in speech. Were there no view ofthe 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 rightclaimed by the South, undertake to go out of the Union. If they lovethe States they represent, and the Union of all the States, theyshould be filled with apprehension and alarm. The venerable gentlemanfrom North Carolina (Judge RUFFIN) has appealed to us with an ardor, patriotism, and eloquence which has produced an indelible impressionupon my mind, while the gentleman (Mr. SEDDON) from Virginia, indescribing parallels of attack which the North, as he said, wereconstructing, in the course of events, about the institution ofslavery, commanded my undivided attention. Yet gentlemen greatly errin assuming that we of the North are acting under some wizardinfluence, and, out of pure malignity, are plotting the overthrow ofslavery. There is no plot or general concert in the action of theNorth on this subject. We are, like the South, subject to general lawsaffecting mind and morals, as well as pecuniary concerns, which lawscannot be disregarded. We cannot act otherwise than we do. Ideas andprinciples control, and we and those whom we represent will act inaccordance with them, whatever be the consequences. 

Much is said here about saving to the Union the slave States not yetgone. All I have to say on this point is, I wish to save them, and Itrust 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 ofinterest and morality. There is no disposition at the North to destroyslavery. Let these accusations and criminations be heard no more. WhatI am about to say may weigh but little, but I know something of theNorth, and a little of the South. I fully believe that the institutionof slavery within the States should be left with them exclusively--thatsuch is the prevailing sentiment of the North. I say so because thereis no disposition at the North to interfere with it. Do we believethat we can manage slavery better than you? No, sir! I believe that wecould not manage it so well. If we had been reared on your soil in themidst of slavery, we could manage it just as well. It is a mistake anda pernicious error, for the South to believe that either party at theNorth proposes to raise any question relating to slavery within Statelimits. There is not a man at the North who could stand up long enoughto fall down, if he should take such a position. 

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

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

Will you leave the Union because the Constitution has not been rightlyconstrued? No; for it has been construed to your entire satisfaction. It has been made to speak your views. The judges of our Supreme Courtsrepresent your opinions. There has never been a construction of theConstitution adverse to your interests. The Dred Scott decisionprotects slavery in all the territories according to your desire, though against our strong conviction of law and right. Will you leavethe Union because you have not had the Government your share of thetime? You have had possession and control of it for fifty years outof seventy-two; and during a large portion of the twenty-two years, when we have had the President from the free States, theadministration has been under the control of southern sentiments, andsouthern interests have been in the ascendency, through the servilityof northern men. Do you leave the Union in order to secure theprotection of a better Constitution? No; for they who have left ushave said that the Constitution was well enough, if the people weresufficiently enlightened to live under it. Why is it, then, with allthese facts before you, that you propose to turn away from theGovernment of our fathers, from all the glories of the past, theblessings of the present, and the hopes of the future, to hunt for newand better things under a new Government?

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

This Conference presents some singular scenes. Although made up, sofar as the North is concerned, of members of both political parties, yet, by a majority, it supports southern views of southern interestsas earnestly and emphatically as any southern man has done. In allconflicts of the past and present you have carried your points, andyou have reason to think you may do so in future. Yet you insist uponseparation. Be assured, you will experience as bitter feuds amongyourselves as you do in the fellowship of those you leave. You cannotbe reconciled to even the existence of a minority against you, but youwill find you cannot escape the minorities, and may fall into oneyourselves. You propose to join the fortunes of the SouthernConfederacy, in which, there is a contention already. You turn yourbacks upon the Government of the Father of his Country, whose portraitis before us, and join your fortunes to a mere southern nationality. Beware of the act. Look back over the last two thousand years, andcontrast the stability of governments in southern latitudes with thosemore northern, under latitudes which you leave. Mexico, CentralAmerica, and South America, furnish valuable lessons on thisContinent, while the Eastern Hemisphere is, in this respect, full ofinstruction. Will you leave a people whose character and habits arelike those which have produced the permanence and power of Russia, France, and England, and ally yourselves to those more southern peoplewho have not hitherto enjoyed stability, power, or happiness? Is itnot wiser to stay where you are, to scorn the pernicious doctrines ofnew 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 thattaken place, the Missouri Compromise would not have been repealed. Hadnot that Compromise been repealed, the shadow of our present troubleswould not have arisen. 

You speak of the opposition of the North to slavery. Believe us ornot, it is true, nevertheless, that slavery is regarded at the Northas strictly a State institution; as such, we are content to let itremain; we desire to let it remain such. But let not the North bemisunderstood in its position. The North is willing to let slaveryremain where it is--where our fathers left it; but against itsextension into the territories, the North is inflexibly andunalterably opposed. 

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

I submitted an address and resolutions a few days since for adoptionin this Convention, which I hope may be carefully read before beingrejected. They contemplated a convention, and their design is to giveassurance of justice to the public. I oppose the proposition for anaddress by the committee, to be issued to the public after ouradjournment. We wish to know beforehand what we adopt, and to weighevery word. There is a northern sentiment to be regarded as well as asouthern sentiment. 

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

A Virginian stated only a few days ago, that there was nothing whichthe South could ask or that the North could give, that was not foundin the Constitution. But you say that we do not understand italike--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 willleave the whole subject, amendments and all, to a General Convention. That we now propose. We propose it fairly, not for any purpose ofdelay 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 togo into the convention, and there patiently and fairly consider allyour claims, all your complaints. We would urge them to concede allthey 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 whatyou want, but is it best for you to insist upon breaking up theGovernment on that ground? That is neither sensible nor safe. We arelike two lobes in the same skull; one cannot outlive the other. Destroy one and you destroy the other. I do not believe this Republiccan stand without the Union which our fathers made. But it willstand--it must stand. Wise counsels will yet prevail. You will yetbelieve us sincere in our desires to relieve you. The end of theUnion has not come--it is not coming. The Union will yet outlive usand our posterity. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--In rising to express briefly my views, I feeloppressed and embarrassed in view of the magnitude of the subjects weare discussing, and in the presence of this distinguished auditory. Icannot claim to represent an Empire State with its four millions ofpeople, nor a Bay State, which we are told, with its wealth, itsenterprise, and its commerce, can settle a new State every year. Butwith my colleagues, I represent a State which performed her part inthe dark night of the Revolution--her share in that great struggle forour priceless institutions--a State which has ever since been faithfulin the discharge of all her constitutional obligations. In that bloodyconflict, upon her own soil, New Jersey joined hands with the Northand South. There is scarcely a church spire within her borders beneathwhose shadows does not lay the remains of some of the entombedpatriots in that great conflict from both these sections, commingledwith those of her own sons!

New Jersey was true to the Union in that great struggle--she hasalways since been true; and under the favor of Providence she alwayswill be faithful to the Union and its memories, so inseparablyconnected with the glory and honor of her sons. Other States may havedone as much, may have as good a record, may be entitled to equalcredit with her. But in all her past history, I can point to herfidelity to the Union and her sister States with no blush of shameupon my brow. Other States might be wanting! New Jersey never! She hasalways been true to her constitutional obligations; she has alwayskept--never sought to avoid them. 

With a narrow stream separating her from a slaveholding State, therewere never any underground railroads in New Jersey; she never rescueda fugitive slave from the custody of the law; no _personal liberty_bill ever disgraced the pages of her statutes, nor ever will disgracethem. In 1793 she enacted a statute providing for the prompt return offugitive slaves found within her limits. She subjected any judgerequired to act under it, to imprisonment, if he neglected to performhis duties. That law has ever since been in force. It was reënacted in1836, and again in 1846, when some of its defects were amended. Courteous as just, she provided by another law, passed in 1820, thatany southern gentleman visiting her territory, might bring with himhis household slaves, travel in, through, and out of the State, oreven take up his temporary residence as securely in this respect as athome. This law was reënacted in 1847, and again in 1855; one of myworthy colleagues here was associated, upon the commission whichrevised this act, with that distinguished New Jersey Republican, WILLIAM L. DAYTON. 

In the recent unhappy political contest, New Jersey, ever anxious todo justice to all sections of the Union, and injustice to none, as ifhesitating and doubtful toward which of the two parties in thatstruggle she ought to incline, extended her fraternal hands to Northand South, by giving one-half her electoral vote to each; thus showingthat she still retains her unselfish spirit, which leads her tosacrifice her own preferences to her duty to the Union. 

In the same spirit to-day she bears her full share of the heavy sorrowthat rests, like a pall, over the people of the whole country as theywitness this glorious fabric, which our fathers erected and cementedwith their blood and their prayers--trembling, shattered, anddismembered. In the conciliatory spirit of my State, I, as aJerseyman, proud of the title and every thing connected with it, wishto say a word to the South in all frankness and candor. I freely tellyou that, in my opinion, you have a right to guarantees, and toconstitutional guarantees. It is no answer to say that theConstitution has not been broken. That is not the question now. Reference has been made to the fact that WASHINGTON signed the presentConstitution. Yes, but when he did so we had a population of but threemillions, and now we have a population of upward of thirty millions. Is it surprising that some change should be required in thatinstrument with this great change in the nation? The balance of powerso long fluctuating between the free and the slaveholding States hasat 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, andquiet the apprehensions of its people. 

It is of little use to make patriotic speeches here. The South demandsguarantees, and I feel under obligations to respond to that demand. Iassert as a general principle, that whoever has a right is entitledto 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 theseguarantees at all, they should have them to-day. I do not care whetherVirginia occupies a menacing attitude or not, my moral code is stillthe same; it is not effected by any thing that has been done or can bedone by Virginia or any other State. It is my belief thatnineteen-twentieths of the people of the North to-day are in favor ofgiving to the South all the guarantees it asks against allinterference with slavery in the territories. Some say, "We admitthis, but we will do nothing until the Republican President isinaugurated on the 4th of March. " I am ready to do it now; and myobligations to do right will not be changed by the 4th of Marchrolling over my head. 

Gentlemen have made eloquent and patriotic speeches asserting theirdetermination not to interfere with the rights of the South. That isvery pleasant and very proper. But those speeches are the expressionsof individuals, and they pass away. Where is the man who will consentto hold any political right at the will of any man or class of men, nomatter how kindly disposed? We all require security. The highest andgrandest aim and object of government is not the stability and peaceof society, but a well-grounded confidence in the minds of the peopleof the perpetuity of that stability and peace. 

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

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

A word further on the subject of extending this provision to territoryhereafter acquired. Gentlemen, you do not want that provision; you donot need any provision as to future acquisitions. You are better offwithout it. No present rights are involved in it. You are providingfor a contingency which may never, and probably never will happen. Would it not be inconsistent for a nation to commit suicide because aconstitution is not made to meet an improbable contingency? You haveterritory enough for the next two hundred years. You say you requireit to maintain your honor, to preserve your fair equality, to maintainyour lawful rights. Permit me to say you have no rights in territorywhich we never owned, and I hope never may. This is no question ofhonor or equality. But if we should acquire territory and should thenexclude you from it, will it not then be time enough to resort to theexpedient of national suicide as a remedy for the wrong? Nor do yourequire it for any particular purpose. You have within your Statesroom for all the increase of a century. Your interest is to retainyour sons at home and develop the wealth and advance the prosperity ofyour States, and not to send them to the western wilderness whereone-half die in the process of acclimation. The fact that you are allin favor of placing in the Constitution new _restrictions_ as to the_acquisition_ of territory, proves you do not consider you need moreterritory. I heard it said, the other day, by a gentleman fromVirginia, that the South wanted the provision for a finality, to endforever this dispute about slavery. With all my heart I sympathizewith him in his desire to end this discussion forever. You think youhave suffered from these discussions at the South; so have we at theNorth. It has separated families and neighborhoods; it has broken upand scattered Christian churches; it has severed every benevolentsociety of the land; it has destroyed parties; it broke up the goodold Whig party, and more recently sapped the strength and vigor fromthe Herculean Democracy. It now threatens the dissolution of theUnion. Let us crush the head of the monster forever. Let us do it byrestricting and defining its limits in existing territory. 

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

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

But gentlemen say, they want the amendment for another purpose, inorder that they may induce States that have gone out to return. Here, again, I sympathize with you. I had rather bring back South Carolinathan to secure the annexation of both the Canadas. I would give morefor one American than for a regiment of John Bulls. Ungenerous asSouth Carolina has been, I would receive her home again. I desire theStates to return. Let their place at the Federal Board remain vacantfor them. Let the stars of their sovereignty on our nation's ensignremain unobliterated and without further dishonor. We are ready toreceive them. But this provision as to future territory is notnecessary for their return. The same considerations to which I havealluded, and which, will satisfy you that such provision is notrequisite, will satisfy them. The guarantees which the North are readyto give as to the representation, taxation, and return of property, and the compromise as to the existing territory, will do much tosatisfy them. To effect a compromise, you of the South must demand aslittle as you can render satisfactory to your people, and we of theNorth must give as much as our people will approve, and both partiesmust consent to avoid all objectionable phraseology. 

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

But one asks, Will you strike hands with treason, and enter intocompacts with rebels and traitors? Yes, sir! I will strike hands withjust such rebels and traitors as I see around me; and I would givethem what they ask as cheerfully and as freely as I would give a glassof water to a soldier returning wounded and weary from the field ofbattle. 

But it is said we must first see whether we have a Government. We musttry the strength of the Government. We must know whether theGovernment 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 ofthe Government! and do so at the end of an administration in whichcorruption and treason and every evil principle have been contendingfor the mastery, when our ships are all away beyond sea, when our armsand our fortifications are out of our hands, when our treasury isbankrupt, our people divided, insolvency and ruin threatening ourcountry, and all the Gulf States defying the authority of theGovernment? No, sir! this is no time to try the strength of theGovernment. When we do that, let us select some more auspiciousperiod. 

But another says these proposals of amendment contravene the Chicagoplatform. What if they do? Is the Chicago platform a law to us? Is ita law to any one? It was passed upon ten minutes' consideration in aconvention of five thousand people. If it was a law, the conventionshould have been perpetual and never dissolved, in order that the lawmight have been subject to requisite modifications without a change ofcircumstances. A strange manner in which to enact such a law! Butthings have changed since the Chicago Convention. In fifty days, fiftyyears of history have transpired. This is enough to release us fromthe obligation, if any existed. It is not a law; it is a doctrine, thespirit, the policy of the party that it undertakes to enunciate. It isnot a law, because a majority of the people have never given it theirsanction. Mr. Lincoln was elected by less than a majority. And in hisvote how many old Whigs and Democrats may be counted who did notsupport him _because_ he stood upon the Chicago platform, but becausethey preferred him to either of the opposing candidates. And even ifit is a law, I call upon the North to support the proposals ofamendment here submitted. Let us, as Republicans, be honest, and whenthe opportunity offers are we not bound so to change the Constitutionthat three-fourths of all our present territory, now open to slavery, shall be consecrated to freedom? Yes, we are bound to relieve thatthree-fourths from slavery. All we need to do to secure this, is notto carry slavery where it is not, but to secure it where it is. I cango home to the Republicans of New Jersey with a clear conscience andsay to them, that by our action here we have not carried slavery oneinch 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 callthe attention of my Republican friends. It must not be forgotten. Iread 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 beconstrued together; that due regard and effect must be given to allparts of it, unless they are clearly repugnant. Will any gentlemantell me how the Union can be more effectually preserved than bycontrolling disunion? It is by granting what is asked to those whomight disturb its tranquillity, when they ask nothing unreasonable. This resolution every patriot can subscribe to; and I hold that it canbe as effectually violated by the neglect to do all we can to turnaside disunion, as by affirmative action against the Government. Andlet me say that the party in this country which goes between thepeople and the preservation of the Union, will sink so low, eventually, that a bubble will not return to mark the spot where itwent down. But I cannot understand how any one who is honestly opposedto the extension of slavery, as a political institution, can refusethe compromise proposed. The federal courts, to which we havecommitted the power, have decided that slavery, of right, goes intoall the territories. The distinguished Republican from Massachusettshas told us that the court cannot be so organized, even if we keep thepower, as to change that decision in twenty-five years. In that timethe whole question will be determined. Now we have an opportunity, atonce and forever, by constitutional enactment, to prohibit slaveryfrom going into three-fourths of the territory, by simply agreeingthat as to the other one-fourth, while it remains a territory, the_status_ of slavery shall not be changed. I confess I have not theingenuity to contrive how I should apologize to an audience ofRepublicans for refusing such a contract. 

Now, what can we of the North, we Republicans, do? By a settlementhere we can retain the Border States, and, in my opinion, that isequivalent to saving the Union. Retain the Border States and theseceding States must come back. If the Border States go, I believe waris inevitable. How can two sections exist with only an imaginary linebetween them. I do not believe the South will ever consent to give upthe Capital, claimed to be within her borders, and the North couldnever surrender it. Sir, I shrink from the prospect of civil war. Thepicture of civil war has often been painted, and by abler hands thanmine. Its calamities and miseries, the sufferings that attend it, strike a chill of horror to the soul. But such a picture as a civilwar in this country would be, has never been drawn. History would besearched in vain for its parallel. A civil war between the members ofa family, between brother and brother, father and son, who have allenjoyed the same blessings which their fathers made early and bloodysacrifices to secure! Shall it be said that such a people, for such acause, risked their interests, their country, their all, and rushedblindly into the calamities of a civil war? He has read history tolittle account who has not learned that such a warfare is, in itsnature, not only cruel, but protracted. It is like letting loose thehurricane. Passion and poverty, carnage and crime, desolation anddeath, become the condition of a hitherto happy people. For thirtyyears Germany was ravaged, and millions slain by a contest occasionedby a difference in religious opinions. For more than thirty years thewar of the Roses devastated England. The French Revolution, includingthe "Reign of Terror"--originating in a question of taxation andterminating 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 thisfiendish visitant to our borders, should we anticipate that our fatewould be more favorable? No! war is to be averted, and a nation stillcovered with glory is to be preserved by holding the Border States inthe Union. 

If I am asked what I would do; I answer, Compromise--compromise! Twogentlemen cannot live in a parlor together a single day withoutreciprocal compromises. I would not be "stiff in the back and firm inthe knees. " There is such a thing as too much "backbone. " I say Iwould "back down" to save the country. I am not ashamed of theexpression. Our Government itself was a compromise, and in nothingmore so than as to the slavery question. HENRY CLAY was the greatcompromiser. The Missouri Compromise was his. Resigning his office asSpeaker, on the floor of Congress by irresistible argument, andeloquence unequalled--though twice defeated, he succeeded inestablishing the compromise line of 36° 30´--and thereby erected abarrier which severed the angry currents of opinion on thisdistracting theme, and which was as valuable to this nation as theisthmus at the equator, holding in check the mighty ocean on eitherside. The North has compromised before; let her do it again. Let ourfriends at the South take as little as they can, and let the Northyield as little as she can, but let us come together. The party thatstands between the people and the preservation of the Government willbe crushed to atoms. It will be remembered in history only with cursesand indignation. 

We all love this Union, and we mean to preserve it. There is no onehere who, as he has witnessed the freedom, the comfort, theprosperity, and the pure religion disseminated among the people, hasnot hoped this nation was to accomplish great social and moral goodfor our whole race. Yes, in fond conception we have seen her theLiberator and Equalizer of the world--walking like an angel of lightin the dark portions of the earth. These sacred anticipations may notbe disappointed without a fearful accountability somewhere. And, sir, suffer me to say that this whole people have a strong regard for eachother, notwithstanding the petulant differences which have arisenbetween us. Kindred blood flows in our veins, and that of our fathersmingles on the same field; and even now, in the day of our country'speril, our affections meet at the hallowed grounds of Mt. Vernon, ofMarshfield, and of Ashland. 

We have our history. WASHINGTON and FRANKLIN, and HENRY and SUMTER, aswell as Bunker Hill, and Yorktown, and Trenton, are yours, and theyare all ours. 

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

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I wish to call the attention of the Conference for amoment to another subject, in order that members may give it theirconsideration. I shall call up my motion to terminate the debate uponthe report of the committee early to-morrow, and ask to have thediscussion closed on the 21st instant. I am sure that I shall besustained in this by every member who wishes to have this body come toany agreement. I wish to have the vote taken on the _twenty-second dayof February_, that we may see whether the same day that gave aWASHINGTON to our Fathers, may not give PEACE to their posterity. 

Mr. DODGE:--I have listened with intense interest to the addresseswhich have recently been made to the Conference. I respect the abilitywhich they have exhibited--I honor the patriotism which has producedthem. They have presented the important principles involved in theaction of this Conference in a much more interesting and forciblemanner than I could; and I would not occupy the attention of this bodywith a single observation, if I had the good fortune to be associatedwith a delegation in which unanimity of opinion and feeling prevailed. But I am not so fortunate. In that delegation I find many shades ofopinion. I respect the views of my brother delegates. It is not for meto assume to sit in judgment upon them. I give each one of them creditfor the same honesty and integrity which I claim for myself; and if Ihappen to differ from them, I claim that such difference honestlyarises from the different paths in life which we pursue, which maylead us to take different views of the same subjects as they are herepresented. 

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

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

I came here to visit Congress, as a member of a committee, bearing apetition to that body signed by more than thirty-nine thousand of myfellow-citizens, all interested in the welfare and permanence of thisGovernment. This number included more than twenty thousand businessmen and firms. This petition was earnest and emphatic. In it, we askedand prayed that Congress would adopt some plan that would settle ourpresent sectional troubles; that would relieve the country from theanxiety and apprehension which pervaded it, and permit business andcommerce to resume their accustomed channels, with assurances ofsafety in the future. We knew that the time had arrived when patrioticmen must act; that commercial and financial ruin was impending. Ourpetition set forth, that in the opinion of the signers, the plancontained in what were called the "Border State Resolutions" was bestcalculated to secure the end desired. We thought those resolutionsought to be satisfactory to the reasonable and true Union men of theSouth, and that they ought not to be obnoxious to the prejudices orobjections of the people of the free States. Still we were notstrenuous--we were not committed to any particular plan. All wedesired, was to secure such action on the part of Congress and theExecutive, as would satisfy the country; such action as would give thecountry peace. 

When we came to Washington we met _seventy_ republican members of theSenate and House of Representatives. We had with them a mostsatisfactory and delightful interview. It gave me renewed hope for mycountry and her interests when I heard the expressions of conciliationand good will which these gentlemen used; I felt my confidencerenewed. 

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

Sir, there has not one moment passed since I came here, during which Ihave not felt a deep and overpowering sense of the graveresponsibility which rests upon myself and the other members of thisConference. I am accustomed to the trials, vexations, cares, andresponsibilities of business; I know how to meet and grapple with themcalmly. But I do not feel so here. My days are anxious and excited--mynights are wakeful and sleepless. In all the weary watches of lastnight, I could not close my eyes in slumber. The reason was, because Isaw from a point of view which you do not, the certain and inevitableruin that is threatening the business, commercial interests of thiscountry, and which is sure to fall with crushing force upon thoseinterests, unless we come to some arrangement here. 

I speak to you now as a business man--as a merchant of New York, thecommercial metropolis of the nation. I am no politician, I have nointerest except such as is common to the people. But let me assureyou, that even I can scarcely realize, much less describe, thestagnation which has now settled upon the business and commerce ofthat great city, caused solely by the unsettled and uncertaincondition of the questions which we are endeavoring to arrange andsettle here. 

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

The merchants of our great commercial cities of Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, are not listless or unenterprisingmen. They are accustomed to the interests, the bustle, the excitementof business. They have heretofore seen their stores crowded withbuyers. During the day the interiors of their places of business werelike busy hives. Not unfrequently have their clerks been obliged tolabor all through the night to secure and send off the goods whichthey had sold to reliable customers during the day. When business isgood and driving throughout our commercial cities, wealth and comfortare secured to merchants and agents engaged in commerce in thosecities, and it indicates general prosperity in the country to whichthe goods purchased are transmitted. It shows a healthy condition ofaffairs both in city and country. 

How stands the matter in those cities to-day? Now, just when thespring trade should be commencing, go to the extensive and magnificentestablishments for the sale of goods in any of the cities I havenamed, where goods are sold which in prosperous times found their wayinto almost every family to a greater or less amount in this greatcountry. What will you see in those cities now? The heavy stocks ofgoods imported last autumn, or laid in from our own manufactories, remain undisturbed and untouched upon the shelves. The customers arenot there--they have not made their appearance. The few who have comeat all, come not as buyers, but as debtors who cannot pay, and whosebusiness is not to make purchases but to arrange for extensions. Themerchants, in despair, are poring over their ledgers; checking off thenames of their insolvent debtors, a new list of whom comes by eachday's mail. Their clerks sit around in idleness reading thenewspapers, or thinking mournfully of the wives and children at home, who will go unclad and hungry if they are discharged from theirplaces, as they know they must be, if this condition of things shallcontinue. All alike, employers and employed, with all dependent uponthem, are looking anxiously, and I wish I could say hopefully, to theCongress of the United States, or to this Conference, as the onlysources from which help may come. 

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

And look, too, at New England! She has latterly been the workshop ofthe South and the West. She has furnished their people with hermanufactures--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 shopsare running, but many more are still. The noise of the loom, therattle of the shuttle, have ceased in many of her factories, whileothers are gradually discharging their operatives and closing theirbusiness. But I will pursue this branch of the subject no farther. Noone acquainted with the facts, will deny that the whole country isupon the eve of such a financial crisis as it has never seen--thatthis crisis will come as sure as that the sun will rise, unless we dosomething to avert it!

What is it that has thus stopped the wheels of manufactures andarrested the ordinary movements of commerce? What is it that hasproduced this unusual and uncommon stagnation of business? What is itthat has driven away from the markets of the North those hitherto sowelcome to them? I do not propose to go into the history of thesequestions. I will not attempt to enlarge upon the answers to them. Ican condense the answer into few words. It is because anxiety, distrust, and apprehension, are universally prevailing. Confidence islost. The North misunderstands the South--the South misunderstands theNorth. Neither will trust the other, and the consequences to which Ihave adverted necessarily follow. 

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

We have come here for a grand and lofty purpose. What nobler work canengage the mind of a true patriot than that of devising the means ofsaving his country when it is in peril? That work is ours. Inperforming it, are we not acting under a grave and solemnresponsibility? We are, sir! The _people_ will hold us responsible forthe manner in which we perform this great trust. I know the people ofthis country. They value this Union. They will make great sacrificesto save it. They will disregard politics and parties--they will castplatforms to the winds of heaven, before they will place the Union inperil. 

The delegates from New England in this Conference seem to be the mostobstinate and uncompromising. They aver that they cannot agree tothese propositions because their adoption involves a sacrifice ofprinciples--that New England is opposed to slavery, and will notconsent to put it into the Constitution, nor to its extension. Theysay the people hate slavery, and will not for that reason accept theseproposals. 

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

I am not here to argue or discuss constitutional questions. That dutybelongs to gentlemen of the legal profession. I have lived under theConstitution. 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 thedestruction of the Government rather than see the Constitution amendedor improved. 

I regret that the gentlemen composing the committee did not approachthese questions more in the manner of merchants or commercial men. Wewould not have sacrificed our principles, but we would haveagreed--have brought our minds together as far as we could; we wouldhave left open as few questions as possible. These we would havearranged by mutual concessions. 

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

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

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

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

The work proposed to us is, to be sure, a work of conciliation. Butcall it by whatever name you may, nothing less is proposed than analteration of the Constitution. When we are asked to alter aConstitution that was made by WASHINGTON and MADISON, under which thecountry has grown to wealth and happiness, we certainly ought toapproach the subject with the utmost deliberation. If we were settlingfamily differences only, we would deliberate. How much more should wedo so when we are dealing with the great principles which uphold ourGovernment!

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

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

In the first place, it is agreed that no constitutional rights haveyet been invaded. The occasion for fear is not what _has been_, butwhat _may be_ done. I suppose we are all alike tenacious of ourrights, whether we derive them from the Constitution or from any othersource. The rights of the State are just as important to New York asto Virginia. But it is said that appearances exist that indicate anintention on our part to interfere with some of the institutions ofthe South. We ask for the proof. None is forthcoming--nothing but themost vague and indefinite suspicion. 

We propose to give the most satisfactory and absolute guarantees onthat subject--the subject of interference with Southerninstitutions--even to put those guarantees into the Constitution. Butthat is not satisfactory--we are told that we cannot be trusted. Ishould hope that no Northern State could ever be truthfully requiredto admit that it had given cause for such an apprehension. But it isevident 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 besecured and guaranteed. In that view I desire to call the attention ofthe Conference to two or three points in the plan of the proposedsecurity. 

As I understand the scheme, it is this: It is proposed to divide ourpresent territory by the line of 36° 30´, with a view to haveemigration from the free States go north, and from the slave States gosouth of that line. This is made in connection with a limitationpreventing the acquisition of future territory. Now the first thingthat impresses me is the objection to placing any such restraints uponemigration. 

Mr. CLAY:--I think the gentleman misunderstands the report. I haveseen no proposition that proposes to confine or restrain emigration. 

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

By the third section, Congress is prohibited, forever, frominterfering with the subject of slaves, and the sixth section makesthe others, with certain provisions of the Constitution as it nowstands, irrepealable and unchangeable. No matter how much thecondition of the country may change; no matter if all but the mostinconsiderable fraction of the people may desire to change them; thesepropositions must stand as long as this country stands, a part of itsfundamental law. 

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

I think I am right in saying that when you are making a constitutionyou should consider all the conditions of the people who are to begoverned by it; that you should keep in view all sections andopinions. It is my belief that instead of calming the excitement thesepropositions will aggravate it--will arouse it to a pitch it has neveryet attained. I believe this, because the entire proposition goescounter to the fundamental ideas upon which our Government is based. 

It proposes to _establish_ slavery South. Is not this the first timein the history of the Constitution that it has ever been proposed, byaffixing an article to that instrument, to _establish_--to _plant_slavery in territory which was free when it was acquired? Theordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery from going into the territorywhich was acquired by it. 

In similar language the article proposes to abolish slavery in theterritory north of the line. It is well to consider what is the legalcondition of that territory now. New Mexico and Arizona were free whenwe 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 freewhen it was acquired, without the aid of affirmative legislation. Previous and up to the year 1850, there was no difference of opinionamong 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 berecognized, constitutionalized by these articles. I am aware thatthere is a law of the territory that authorizes slavery, but slaverywent 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 theterritory south of the line of 36° 30´ into slave territory, and tomake that conversion irrevocable. Suppose these propositions had beenapplied at the moment the territory was acquired. Then certainlyslavery would have been carried there by force of these articlesalone. The principle would have been the same; one case being nostronger than the other. 

Mr. PRESIDENT, I shall not enter into any discussion of the merits ordemerits of the question in any other than its political aspects. Ihave nothing to say respecting the morals of slavery. If there isvirtue 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 moralaspect of slavery much more than we do. We hold it to be strictly aState institution. So long as it is kept there, we have nothing to dowith it. It is only when it thrusts itself outside of State limits, and seeks to acquire power and strength by spreading itself over newground, that we insist upon our objections. 

Whatever the consequences may be, we should not conceal from eachother the true condition of public opinion in our respective sections. A correct knowledge of this is essential and indispensable. It is inview of this opinion that our proposals should be framed, if they areever to be adopted. The settled convictions of a people formed uponmature examination and experience, cannot be easily changed. Thisshould be understood at the outset. 

Now, I respectfully submit that no sentiment, no opinion ever took afirmer hold of the Northern mind--ever struck more deeply intoit--ever became more pervading, or was ever adopted after maturerconsideration, than this: That it is impolitic and wrong to convertfree territory into slave territory. With such convictions the Northwill never consent to such conversion. Never! never!

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

We are told by the gentleman from Maryland, that all the South wantsis to have the force of the decision of the Supreme Court acknowledgedas to that part of the territory south of the line, in considerationof which the South will yield what she gains by that decision in theterritory north; and also that we must do this, or the slave Stateswill be driven to join those States that have seceded. Now, it is dueto frankness to say, that the North does not acquiesce in thatstatement; that the point as made by the gentleman from Maryland, hasbeen _decided_ by the Supreme Court. We know that the Chief Justice ofthat court has expressed his own opinion that way; but we don't knowthat it has been _decided_ by that court. But if it has been sodecided, the very ground of the decision is a misapprehension. If Irightly understand the language of Chief Justice TANEY, he insiststhat the Constitution expressly affirms the right of property inslaves. 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 Scottcase. One was, the authority of Scott to sue; the other was, upon theconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. Both these were decidedin that case, and both were decided by the Supreme Court years ago. 

Mr. SMITH:--I am aware of the views taken by the gentleman fromKentucky. I am stating as a matter of fact how this decision isregarded by a large portion of the people of the North. I am awarethat the Southern construction of the decision is different, and someat the North concur in it. I am trying to see how the majoritypropositions will suit the people who agree with the Northern view. 

I understand it is claimed that the court decided that slaves wereproperty, and that the Constitution did not permit any restraint to belaid upon the owners of that property in the Territories. Yes, thecourt did decide that the owner had the right to take his slaves intothe Territory and hold them there; and to that extent they wereproperty. It is a prevalent idea at the North that the Southernconstruction of this decision is not fair, and that it would bedangerous to adopt it. 

We do not subscribe to the doctrine that the Constitution expresslyaffirms the right of property in slaves. We may be wrong; it may be amere misapprehension. But with their present opinions, the people ofthe North will hesitate long before they make this express affirmationa part of the organic _law_. 

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

These are some of the opinions that are entertained at the North. Theymay be right or they may be wrong, but they have been deliberatelyadopted, and they prevail extensively. They cannot be changed by ouraction here. In all we do they must be respected. They are_constitutionally_ entertained. 

This proposition to carry slavery into the Territories, opens thediscussion of the merits of that institution. Gentlemen say they wishto stop the discussion; that there has been too much of it already;that such a discussion would be especially unfortunate now. I do notpropose to enter upon it here. But I desire to know in what manner youcould more effectually invite discussion than by placing your proposedamendments before the people?

You must not forget that the people of the North believe slavery isboth a moral and a political evil. They recognize the right of theStates to have it, to regulate it as they please, withoutinterference, direct or indirect; but when it is proposed to extend itinto territory where it did not before exist, it becomes a politicalquestion, in which they are interested, in which they have a right tointerfere, and in which they will interfere. Such an attempt theyconsider it their duty to resist by all constitutional means. 

The establishing of slavery in the Territories is the practicalexclusion of free labor in them. True, there is no direct provisionfor the exclusion of free labor in your propositions, but such willcertainly be their effect. I appeal to gentlemen from the South to sayfrom their own experience whether free labor _can_ be employed side byside with slave labor. This presents another consideration. You of theSouth ask us to guarantee a right which you say is very important andvery dear to you. You ask that your children may enter into andpossess these new Territories. We know it. But the North asks the sameprivilege. We want our children to go there, and live on the labor oftheir own free hands. They are excluded if slavery goes there beforeus. 

Mr. PRESIDENT, the people of the North do understand, that we are in acontest--a great and important contest. Yet it is one that can becarried on without trampling upon each other's rights--withoutattempting to secure any unfair advantage. That is the way the Northproposes to carry on this contest in relation to the _extension_ ofslavery. 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 arethe property not of the individual States, but of the GeneralGovernment. They are held by the Government in trust, I grant. But intrust for whom? For the whole _people_ of the Union; not in trust forthirty-four distinct States. The idea that these Territories aresubject to partition--that South Carolina has the right to demand herthirty-fourth part of them in severalty, is one that by the Northcannot be entertained. It is this idea which has produced that othermore mischievous one--that an equilibrium must be maintained betweenthe free and the slave States; in other words, between freedom andslavery. Where did this idea creep into the Constitution? It neverhas found, and it never will find, favor with the people of the North. 

We may talk around this question--we may discuss its incidents, itshistory, and its effects, as much and as long as we please. And afterall is said--disguise it as we may--it is a contest between the greatopposing elements of civilization--whether the country shall bepossessed and developed and ruled by the labor of slaves or offreemen. 

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

Mr. SEDDON:--Does the gentleman consider this a nation, or a federalunion of States?

Mr. SMITH:--If I did not consider this a nation I should certainly notbe here. 

Mr. SEDDON:--Is not the whole machinery of the Government federative?Is not its whole action that of a confederation? Is not the recentelection of Mr. LINCOLN a proof of the fact? He was elected by lessthan a majority of the people. 

Mr. SMITH:--In all the action of the Government with othergovernments, we are a nation as much as France or England. In everything pertaining to the acquisition of territory we are a nation. Therights of the States are preserved in the Constitution, I admit, buttheir power is to be exercised subject to the powers reserved by theConstitution to the General Government. In all that respects thesepowers the Government is supreme. 

I have only sought to state some of the opinions which areconscientiously entertained at the North upon subjects connected withthese propositions. They _are_ entertained there, and they must berespected by the Conference. 

This doctrine of the preservation of the balance of power is a newdoctrine. It was unknown to the framers of our Constitution. In myopinion it is a most mischievous doctrine to the country, and can onlyproduce the most pernicious results. It is closely akin to thedoctrine once broached in the Senate of a _duality_ of the Executive, which, extended, would require a President for every sectionalinterest. Such ideas were never popular at the North. I do not thinkthey 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'clockto-morrow. 

FOURTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, _February 21st, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order by the President, at ten o'clockand 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 myresolutions relating to the termination of the debate, and to have avote 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 resolutionspassed by the Legislature of Ohio, under which myself and mycolleagues hold our seats, make it my duty to lay before theConference the resolves I now offer. I ask to have them read, laidupon 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 theseresolutions. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I now offer two resolutions, one providing that debateshall 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 anamendment to explain it, with five minutes to the committee to reply. Upon reflection, I will offer a third: That a motion to strike out andinsert shall not be divided. If desired, a vote may be taken on theresolutions separately, as I wish to have each stand upon its ownmerits. I will not discuss these resolutions, for I think all must beimpressed 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 engagedin taking notes of the discussion, I cannot enter into a contest forthe floor, and I would not if I could. My State has not occupied amoment of time on the general subject, nor are her delegates veryanxious to address the Convention at all. 

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

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

Mr. RANDOLPH:--There is force in the remark of the gentleman fromVermont. No State should be cut off. I suggest that the States whosedelegates have not addressed the Conference, should have thepreference. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--I represent a youthful State. She is notthe daughter of any particular State or section, but of the Union. WeMissourians love the Union, but we have fully arrived at theconclusion that the time has come when something must be done toprevent our entire separation. We have hitherto remained silent. Wecame here to preserve the Union. Not that we love the Union less, butwe love our rights more. We love our rights more than the Union, ourproperty, or our lives. We desire to come to a speedy adjustment. Tendays of Congress only remain. It will be difficult even to introduceour propositions, still more to get them considered. I sustain themotion 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 minutesinstead of five, wherever the word occurs. That time is none too longto state the purpose of an amendment properly. 

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

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--No! Such is not the intention. Any one can speak fiveminutes. I rely on our sense of propriety not to abuse thisconstruction 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 tomeet at half-past seven o'clock this evening. 

Mr. CHASE:--I hope the Conference will not hold night sessions. Ourday sessions are protracted and very laborious. I agree with CommodoreSTOCKTON, that night sessions are dangerous. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I do not agree with Mr. CHASE. I haveparticularly observed the demeanor of all the gentlemen in theConference, and know that they are as well fitted for business at fiveo'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 ofPennsylvania, I offer the following. I wish to have it laid on thetable, and printed, that I may move it as an amendment to thecommittee's report at the proper time. 

The motion of Mr. WILMOT was agreed to, and the amendment is asfollows:

 "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 additionalrule:

 "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 yeasand nays, on the motion of any Commissioner. I have heretoforeintroduced a resolution to that effect, which, with the gentleman'spermission, 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 theresolution. I think it is the best way not to disclose our divisionsany farther than is indispensably necessary. 

Mr. CHASE:--I copied the rule _verbatim_ from the one adopted by theCongress of the Confederation. I think it right and fair. But I haveno objection to modifying it, so as to have the yeas and nays calledon the motion of any entire delegation. 

Mr. DENT:--I did not withdraw my motion. I think it will accomplishall we need. It will be taken, of course, that those who do notdissent 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 delegatescalled? For one, I desire to exercise my rights under the authority ofthe State I represent. I will not consent to waive them. When the voteof my State is cast, I wish to have the record show who is responsiblefor 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 anamendment to the report. I ask that it be laid on the table, andprinted:

 "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 thesame 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 gentlemanfrom New York has the floor. 

Mr. SMITH:--At the adjournment yesterday, I had proceeded to statetwo or three grounds upon which I think the proposals of amendment tothe Constitution reported by the majority of the committee would beunacceptable to the North, and I had also stated some specialobjections to action in this way and at the present time. 

The next consideration to which I would invite attention is this: Isit necessary or wise for the Conference, composed as it is of friendsof the Union, or is it _expedient_ thus to encounter the settledsentiments and convictions of the people of so large a section of thecountry? It is not necessary, for various reasons. This territorialquestion is, after all, a question to be looked at in a prospectiveview. Why is it necessary to disturb the Constitution by insertingsuch a provision as you propose? Why is it necessary for gentlemenfrom the South to have it in, in order to enable them to stand withtheir people at home?

Slavery is now in New Mexico. That must be acknowledged as a fact. TheSouth think it rightfully there--the North believe it is therewrongfully. But its existence in the territories is a factnevertheless. President LINCOLN cannot help it if he would. TheSupreme Court will affirm its rightful existence there, whenever thequestion comes before that body. That Court cannot be changed beforethese territories are admitted as States, if the disposition exists tochange it. You claim that the question is already decided. How, then, can it be important to you to press the adoption of these sections asa part of the Constitution? My judgment is, that it is best to leavethis subject alone--that that is the true way to save the Union. 

Gentlemen of the South, remember that if you must stand at home withyour people, so also must we. There is a _North_ as well as a_South_!--a northern people as well as southern people. You press ushard on these subjects. But can men who are rational ask us to abandonour own people, to go counter to their convictions and sentiments? Wecannot do it! You would not respect us if we did! I am very sure thatif this Conference is to attain any beneficial result, it must abandonall idea of coercion or intimidation as applied to the friends of theUnion. 

It is said we are contending for a party platform--that we are lettingparty stand between us and the Union. I could trample parties andplatforms under foot to preserve the Union, but I cannot understandhow honest men can abandon principles because a party has adopted theminto its platform. Do not tell us that by adhering to the Union andthe Constitution, we are simply adhering to a party platform. Ourprinciples are at least as dear to us, as yours are to you; you mustnot expect us to sacrifice them either to promote our own materialinterests or to promote yours. 

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

But perhaps it may be suggested that such a course would really leaveno plan to be adopted. Perhaps so. Is it, then, not true that we arehaving all this trouble over a contingency that may or may not arise?That the Constitution is sufficient for all purposes but this, youaver; and yet you say in the same breath that the Court has settledthis question entirely and finally in your favor. Why not besatisfied, then, with the settlement? Can you make it more of afinality in the way you propose? No, gentlemen; believe me when I tellyou that the true remedy does not consist in endeavoring to humiliatethe people of one section for the benefit of another. Remember we aredealing with the _American_ people; I would not throw the Constitutioninto the vortex of disunion that is opening before us; I wouldpreserve it rather as a rock on which we can all safely stand. Do notthrow 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, itwould be the one adopted on a similar occasion, when one of the Statesset itself up in opposition to the General Government, with such verybeneficial results; and that would be, to have the Government appealto the people for support--to throw itself into the arms of thepeople. The result then has become historical. It is remembered withpride and pleasure by all. I would have a similar course pursued now. The result would be equally grand, equally gratifying. It would rallyevery patriot, every friend of the Union from every section, to itssupport. You, gentlemen of the South, now friends of the Union, stillgive it the strength of your support, the favor of your countenance, and you shall be supported and sustained as you can be in no otherway. You shall have the support of the power of the Government and ofevery friend of the Union in the country. 

You remember how those patriotic statesmen, CLAY andWEBSTER--differing from the Executive, opposing his election with allthe strength of their gigantic intellects--when the authority of theGovernment was questioned, and South Carolina, under the lead of Mr. CALHOUN, undertook to set herself up in opposition to it--how theywaived all former differences, and instead of encouraging secession bytheir delay and timidity, without asking for new guarantees or foramendments of the Constitution, came voluntarily and earnestly to thesupport of the Executive and the administration, because the Executivewas right, and was the chosen instrument of the people to preserve theintegrity of the Union. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--If the gentleman will excuse me, I will state that thecourse of the Executive against South Carolina was universallyacquiesced in except in that State. And yet the opinion that PresidentJACKSON far exceeded his powers, was equally unanimous. That precedenthas been greatly misinterpreted. 

Mr. SMITH:--I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. He entertainshis opinions, I do mine, as to what then saved the Union. I should notprobably be able to make him think with me; but I feel sure that theidea prevails quite extensively, that South Carolina returned to thepath of duty then, because the power of the Government was wielded byan honest and energetic Executive. She came to the conclusion that anyother course would probably be attended with danger. 

Our present differences had no very remote origin. They belong to ourown generation, and we ought to be compelled to deal with them. Ithink the so-called compromise of 1850 was the cause of all ourtroubles--that instead of saving the country it brought it intogreater 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 afull opportunity to answer me. I am nearly through, and generally nogood comes of interruptions. They only consume time. 

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

Mr. CLAY:--Does the gentleman do justice to Mr. CLAY, when at onemoment he says that Mr. CLAY held up the arms of the administration, strengthened the Executive, and aided the Government in putting downsecession, and in the next, states that the compromise of 1850 was thecause of all our troubles, when it is well known that Mr. CLAYstrongly favored that compromise?

Mr. SMITH:--When I speak of the unhappy effect of the compromisemeasures of 1850, I ascribe no wrong motives to Mr. CLAY or any oneelse. If he approved that compromise, I have no doubt he did it in thefull belief that it would be beneficial to the country. Experience hasshown 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 withwhich the patriots and eminent statesmen of all parties of thiscountry have been accustomed to come forward and sustain theadministration when any necessity existed for doing so. Now let thisConference--let all true friends of the Union everywhere, with onevoice, without attempting to place any section or any man in a falseor disagreeable position, unite in one determined effort in behalf ofthe Union, and in an attempt to bring the rash and dangerous men whowould 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 theUnion, far beyond any considerations of party or self; let us invokethe aid of all true and patriotic men; let us ask them to lay asidefor the time all other considerations, and give themselves for thepresent to the country! The spirit of the old time is yet alive. Wecan call it out in more than its old strength and vigor, and it willsave the country. Our private interests may suffer, but the greatinterests of the Union will be strengthened and preserved, and theConstitution, which has been our pride and strength, will not bedragged down into the great whirlpool of disunion. I appeal to thevenerable and able men around me, who bear historic names--who havebeen themselves long connected with the Union and its Government, tojoin us in our struggle to save the Constitution. 

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

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

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

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

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

In the common affairs of life there are always a great manydifferences of opinion. Some treat these differences one way--someanother. Foolish men go to law, and always come out worse off thanwhen they started. Sensible men get together, and talk matters over;one gives up a little, the other gives up a little, and finally theyget 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. Nobodywants to give up the Union, or hurt Mr. LINCOLN. The South has gotfrightened--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 knowwhat objection there was to that? Who is afraid to do that? If wecould go to work at this thing like sensible men, we could settle thewhole 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 thelawyers. I don't care much about them, nor does the North care aboutthem. If the South will take them and be satisfied--if they will stopthis clamor about slavery and slavery extension, I think she hadbetter have them. For one, I am sick of the whole subject. 

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

Mr. COALTER:--If the vote of Missouri is to be taken as an evidence ofher devotion to the Union, it must also be understood with thisqualification: Her interests and her sympathies unite her closely withthe South. She feels, in common with others, her share of anxiety forthe future. She is devoted to the Union, and at the same time sheinsists that it is fair and right that these guarantees should begiven. 

It has been distinctly avowed on this floor that the people of certainsections of the North _abhor_ slavery. Ought we not to be distrustfulwhen a party entertaining such sentiments comes into supreme power?If Massachusetts abhors _slavery_, how long will it be before she willabhor _slaveholders?_

Ignorance is the source of all our difficulties. The people of theNorth 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 offin all respects than any similar number of laborers anywhere. 

But I rise only to correct a false impression in regard to Missouri. Ihave only besides to express my full conviction that if the North willnot give us these guarantees, we are henceforth a divided people. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--Mr. President, the object of this Convention, assembledon the call or invitation of Virginia, is, as set forth in thepreamble 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 bethat of "restoring the action of the Federal Government to theprinciples of WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON. "

Virginia announces to the other States that she "is desirous ofemploying every reasonable means, " and is "willing to unite" with them"in an earnest effort" for the accomplishment of this common end andobject of that State and the Republican party; and she is moved tomake this her "final effort, " by "the deliberate opinion of herGeneral Assembly, that unless the unhappy controversy which nowdivides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorilyadjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable, " and bya desire to "avert so dire a calamity. "

Massachusetts, equally willing to unite with the other States in anearnest effort to further the same end, accepted the invitation ofVirginia, and sent Commissioners here to represent her. 

The honorable Chairman (Mr. GUTHRIE) of the committee to report a planof adjustment, in his opening speech, advocated with earnestness andeloquence a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of thefathers. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. RIVES) from Virginiademands a "restoration of the Constitution to the landmarks of ourfathers, " and his colleague (Mr. SEDDON) urges a return to the "policyof our fathers in 1787. "

This assumes that we have departed from the principles and landmarksof our fathers, and from the policy of 1787. The call of theConvention assumes this; the platform of the Republican party assumesit, and the gentlemen whose remarks I have quoted assume it, and it istrue. 

The particular object of a return to the principles and landmarks ofthe policy of 1787, as stated in the preamble and resolutions of theGeneral Assembly of Virginia, is, "to afford to the people of theslaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of theirrights. " This implies that such a return will afford these adequateguarantees. I agree that it will; and I am ready, and Massachusetts isready, to adjust this unhappy controversy, and to give the guaranteesdemanded in exactly this way. 

Stated in these general terms, there is a perfect agreement betweenus. But we find a wide difference when we go one step farther, andlearn precisely what Virginia claims would be a restoration of theConstitution to the principles of the fathers, and a return to thepolicy of 1787. This she has told us in one of the resolutions sentout 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 entitledto these added guarantees according to the spirit of the compact ofour fathers?"

The true answer to this question is the pivot on which this wholecontroversy must turn. If the slave States are not entitled to theseadded guarantees, "according to the spirit of the compact of ourfathers, " then Virginia, as I understand her Commissioners, and theresolutions of her General Assembly, does not claim them. She standsupon her rights according to that compact. And all such rightsMassachusetts is ready to accord to her, fairly and fully. 

By the spirit of the compact of our fathers is meant, the Constitutionas 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 admitthat the Federal Government should be administered now, as it wasadministered by its framers. This is what gentlemen from the slaveStates, 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 thequestion we are called to consider. In my remarks I do not mean towander from it. 

So far as the Constitution touches the question out of which thepresent unhappy controversy has arisen, I say it means this: Thatslavery, as it existed or might exist within the limits of theoriginal States, should not be interfered with to the injury of thelawful rights of slaveholders under State authority; on the contrary, that it should have the right of recaption, and a qualifiedprotection; but that outside of those limits, otherwise than in thisright of recaption, it should never exist, neither in the territoriesnor in the new States. 

And let me say here, that when I speak of the original States, I meanthe territory of those States as then bounded. Alabama and Mississippibelonged to Georgia, Tennessee belonged to North Carolina, Kentuckybelonged to Virginia, Vermont belonged to New York, and Maine belongedto Massachusetts, and were parts of the thirteen original States, atthe time the Constitution was adopted. When, therefore, I speak ofterritory outside the original States, I do not refer to territorywithin any of the States named. 

Mr. BOUTWELL:--I trust my colleague does not claim to speak forMassachusetts, when he denies the right of any State of this Union toestablish and maintain slavery within its jurisdiction, or to prohibitit altogether, according to its discretion. This right was reserved tothe States; and States in this Union, whether original or new, standon 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 peopleagrees with my own on this subject. However, what I claim is, thatOhio and the other States of the northwestern territory have noconstitutional power to legalize slavery within their limits; thatthey were admitted into the Union without any such power, and thatevery other new State formed from territory outside the limits of theoriginal States, according to the "spirit of the compact of ourfathers, " should have been admitted without that power, or the rightto acquire it. This I will now proceed to show. 

On the first day of March, 1784, the northwest territory, constitutingthe present States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, andWisconsin, was ceded by Virginia to the United States. Thejurisdiction of the United States was then exclusive and paramount, orsoon became so--such other States as had claimed any right ofjurisdiction having ceded it. The cession of Virginia was made byTHOMAS JEFFERSON, SAMUEL HARDY, ARTHUR LEE, and JAMES MONROE, who weredelegates in Congress from that State, and had been appointedCommissioners for this purpose. On the same day the cession was made, Mr. JEFFERSON, in behalf of a committee, reported a plan for temporarygovernments in the United States territory then and afterwards to beceded, and for forming therein permanent governments. 

That plan provided, "that so much of the territory ceded, or to beceded, by individual States to the United States, shall be dividedinto distinct States. " It is obvious that this plan contemplated thepossession of territory in no other way than by cession from theStates. It was expected that Georgia and North Carolina would cedetheir western lands, now the States of Alabama, Mississippi, andTennessee, as they did some years later; and Mr. JEFFERSON'S plan wasintended to embrace those lands or territories to be ceded. Consequently, the following provisions, which were part of the planreported, were intended by him to apply to Alabama, Mississippi, andTennessee, 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 Statesterritory. 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 onlyfrom the territories which had been, and might afterwards be, ceded, but from the States to be formed in them, and to make it a fundamentalConstitution between the original States and each new State. Itexcited a short discussion, and was postponed from time to time to the19th of April, when Mr. SPEIGHT, of North Carolina, moved to strike itout. The motion was seconded by Mr. REED, of South Carolina. The voteby 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 thevote on all questions should be taken by States, each State castingone vote; that no proposition could be adopted without the vote ofseven States in favor of it, and that the vote of no State could becounted unless two members, at least, were present. As there were butsix 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 thatState was not counted. The member present voted for Mr. JEFFERSON'Sproposition. Another vote from that State would have made the requirednumber, and carried the measure. 

In North Carolina, WILLIAMSON voted for prohibition, and SPEIGHTagainst it. One more vote from that State would have made seven Statesfor the proposition, and it would have been carried. 

JEFFERSON voted for his own proposition to prohibit; and if one of theother 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 anexecutive veto under the present Constitution, and yet it wasdefeated. And this vote was given in favor of absolute andunconditional prohibition, and that alone, without the right ofreclaiming fugitive slaves, or any proposition, or any expectation toconfer it. Under the Confederation, no such right existed, nor was itagreed to till more than three years afterwards, and then with thegreatest reluctance, and as a matter of compromise, as I willpresently show. 

Such was the action of the American Congress in 1784--a unanimous votefrom the North, and two in nine from the South--in favor of excludingslavery forever after 1800, in all new States to be formed, interritory ceded or to be ceded, embracing Tennessee, Alabama, andMississippi, in the extreme South. Nothing can be clearer than thatthe interdiction was to apply to all such States, and to constitute afundamental Constitution between them and the original States, unalterable without the consent of Congress. The new State was to bedeprived of all power to admit slavery. This proposition was made andvoted for by JEFFERSON. But how many votes would such a propositionreceive in this Convention? Not many, I fear, even from the freeStates. My friend and colleague, though strongly anti-slavery, andearnestly devoted to freedom in the Territories, is afraid I shallcommit 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 theTerritories and new States remained open and unsettled. In 1785, RUFUSKING renewed Mr. JEFFERSON'S proposition to prohibit, and it wasreferred to a committee by the vote of eight States; but it neverbecame a law, a few from the South always preventing it. 

The Federal Convention to revise the old, or frame a newConstitution, 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 oldCongress in New York, until the assembling of the ConstitutionalConvention, and took his seat as a member of that body. 

The History of the Ordinance of 1787, by Hon. EDWARD COLES, containsthe 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 betweenthe members of Congress and the Federal Convention, upon the subjectof slavery. I shall quote farther from it on another point, afterturning for a moment to the proceedings of Congress. 

On the 9th July, 1787, the Convention having been in session about twomonths, the ordinance for the government of the Western Territory, which had been reported in a new draft on the 26th of the precedingApril, and ordered to a third reading on the 10th May, and thenpostponed, was referred to a new committee, consisting of Messrs. CARRINGTON, of Virginia; DANE, of Massachusetts; R. H. LEE, ofVirginia; KEAN, of North Carolina; and SMITH, of New York. Two daysafterwards, July 11th, Mr. CARRINGTON reported what has since beenknown as the "Ordinance of 1787, " with the exception of the 6tharticle 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 nextday, 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 sameprohibition--which a large majority of the South had resisted whenpresented alone--was now, when accompanied with the proviso, unanimously agreed to. 

Here was a sudden change. But the proviso giving the right ofreclamation in the said territory, only partially explains it. For afull explanation we must turn again to the Convention. And the firstthing 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 ratificationof 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, fromSouth Carolina, in a debate in the House of Representatives of thatState 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, heremarked 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 amongother 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 havebeen more identical with Mr. MADISON if he had used MADISON'S words. When the Southern members of Congress voted unanimously for the 6thArticle, or anti-slavery clause in the ordinance, with the proviso inrespect to slaves escaping into the Territory, it was with theunderstanding that the Convention would insert a similar provision inthe Constitution respecting slaves escaping from one State to another;and this--its insertion in both--was the compromise upon which theprohibition was inserted in the ordinance. Such is the concurrenttestimony 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 aswell as to the Territories, and is the basis of State as well asTerritorial 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 sixthare 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 amdiscussing. And the Convention, as if for the very purpose of givingthe unequivocal sanction of the Constitution and of the country tothis compromise, and of establishing it as the permanent policy of theGovernment, expressly provided that the "engagements entered intobefore the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against theUnited States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. "

This ordinance, then, which was an unalterable compact, prohibitingslavery, and fixing and establishing freedom as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments in the Territory forever--StateConstitutions and Governments of course included--was made valid bythe Constitution itself. And on this point I refer to the highestSouthern authority, the late Judge BERRIEN, who was thoroughlypro-slavery in his views, and should certainly be ranked among theablest lawyers and statesmen Georgia has ever produced, who spoke tothis precise point during the compromise discussion in the UnitedStates 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 hadbeen written word for word in the Constitution itself. A contract canbe made valid, only by making it binding and obligatory upon theparties to it, according to its terms and meaning. To make anunalterable compact valid is to make it perpetually binding. 

Having shown that the articles of compact in the ordinance wereunalterable; that validity was given to them by the Constitutionitself; that in express terms they applied to States as well as toTerritories, and must, therefore, being made valid by theConstitution, necessarily have been understood and intended byCongress and the Convention to prohibit slavery as effectually in oneas the other, I will now show very briefly that they were also sounderstood in all parts of the country. 

Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, a prominent member of the FederalConvention, and also of the State Convention for ratifying theConstitution, 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 theAfrican slave trade. 

In the Massachusetts Convention to adopt the Constitution, Gen. HEATHsaid:

 "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 "hewas willing to join in any measure that would prevent its extendingfarther. " To allow it in new States would not prevent its extendingfarther, and therefore it was prohibited in such States. 

Doctor RAMSAY, a member of the Convention of South Carolina, in hisHistory 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 Territorialgovernments, and was so understood in all sections of thecountry--northern, central, and southern--when the Constitution wasratified. 

Let me now call attention to the very significant proviso to the sixtharticle. What does the word original mean, and what does the wholearticle 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 involuntaryservitude, except for the purpose of reclaiming such fugitives--and Iadmit that slaves were intended--as are lawfully claimed in any one ofthe original States. The very fact of the proviso implies thatCongress understood that the right of reclamation could not exist, unless it was excepted. 

And of course it could only exist for the purpose excepted. Theintention was to grant the right to the original States, but to limitit to them. It is impossible to conceive of a measure for framing theproviso as it is, if that had not been the intention. As the ordinanceitself made provision for the formation of new States, such Statesmust have been in the minds of members when acting upon it. If theobject had been to authorize the reclamation of slaves escaping tothis territory from other States than original States, it is certainthe word "original" would have been omitted. It was intended for thepurpose of limiting the right. 

Now observe that this article, proviso and all, is part of anunalterable 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 Congresscannot alter has substantially the force and effect of aconstitutional proviso. This, then, is the only law for thereclamation of fugitive slaves in the five States of the northwestterritory; and there can be no other, the Constitution having made itperpetually valid. 

Such obviously is the meaning and legal effect of the fugitive slaveprovision in the ordinance. And the meaning of that, derived as it isnot merely from the consent of the Federal and State conventions, butfrom their concurrent action, necessarily fixes the meaning of theprovision on the same subject in the Constitution, and shows how itmust have been understood. As the two were parts of the samecompromise, of course neither was understood to be inconsistent withthe 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 heldto service or labor as slaves, it necessarily must also have beenunderstood to apply only to the original States. This follows fromwhat has already been shown. And it must have been so understood foranother reason, because it was only "in" and "under" the laws of thoseStates that persons could be held to service or labor as slaves. Underthe laws of the Territories and new States, their being so held wasforever prohibited. Hence, none but those escaped from one of theoriginal States could ever be legally liable to reclamation, accordingto the understanding and intention of the original parties to thiscompact. This manifestly was the meaning of "the fathers, " when theordinance and Constitution were framed and ratified. 

The two provisions must be construed together. That in the ordinancewas intended for the Territories and new States, and that in theConstitution for the original States. If that in the Constitution hadbeen intended for the Territories, it would have read, "escaping intoanother State or into the Territory, " and that in the ordinance wouldhave been entirely omitted. The proviso to the prohibition in theMissouri Compromise in 1820 is a striking confirmation of this. Thatwas copied, word for word, from the ordinance of 1787, or originalcompromise, except substituting for the words "in any one of theStates, " the words "in any State or Territory of the United States, "as follows:

"_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same, from whomlabor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the originalStates, such fugitive, " &c. And in the compromise of 1820:

"_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same from whomlabor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of theUnited 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 rightof recovering fugitive slaves to the original States, and meant by theMissouri bill to extend it to all the States and Territories? They didextend it, but in palpable violation of the "spirit of the compact ofthe fathers, " and of the "policy of 1787. "

Originally the Southern States committed themselves to the policy ofslavery restriction, by a compact in the nature of a contract for aconsideration. By their own votes, they relinquished all pretence ofright to any slaves beyond the jurisdiction of the original States. Slaveholders, as such, voluntarily shut themselves out of the newStates, in consideration of the right of recovering their fugitiveslaves in whatever part of America they might take refuge. The object, as I have clearly shown, was to secure to slavery in the originalStates the right of recovering fugitives, whether their escape shouldbe from one of those States to another, or to the Territories and newStates; but to make that the limit, both of the right of recovery onone 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 thecompact in the ordinance of 1787, which denies this right. 

_Second_: That no person, escaping from those States into any otherState or Territory, can be reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because noperson 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 theoriginal States, into the States of the northwestern territory, nolawful power can touch them. The moment they reach those States theybecome free, because labor or service cannot lawfully be claimed ofthem in an original State. 

_Fifth_: After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slaves escaping fromArkansas and Missouri, for example to Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, andMinnesota, could be reclaimed, but escaping to Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, they could not be. And the Congress of1820 so understood it. The particular in which the Missouri provisowas altered in copying from the ordinance of 1787, is proof enough ofthis. 

But did the framers of the Government intend to distinguish in thismanner between new and original slave States? Certainly not; and thereason is, they did not mean to have any new slave States. Otherwisethey certainly did mean to make this distinction, for nothing can beclearer than that Louisiana and Missouri cannot go to Ohio to recoverfugitive slaves within the meaning of this "compact of the fathers;"while Georgia can. Manifestly we have departed from the system devisedby the fathers in allowing Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, andFlorida to be admitted with slavery, which explains, and nothing elsecan, this anomalous condition of things. 

There can be no escape from these conclusions, but to deny that theordinance has ever had any validity under the Constitution; whichwould be scarcely less than to deny that the Constitution itself hadever been a valid instrument. Having the like unequivocal sanction ofnational 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 byany other line giving part to freedom and part to slavery. It was allsecured, and by consent of the South, to freedom. There is nothing, therefore, in the original compromise, to justify the remark of theEditor 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. Theline established by the compromise, between slavery permitted andslavery prohibited, was the boundary line between the then existingStates and the Territory of the United States; or the line betweenexclusive national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the States. Itis an erroneous assumption, therefore, that the free States, by theintroduction of slavery south of 36° 30´, as well as north of it, would receive more than a fair share or moiety of rights andprivileges, as between States or parties entitled to equal privileges. The idea that the extension of slavery under the Federal Governmentcan be claimed by anybody south or north as a right, is whollyinadmissible. The _Courier_ will hold the following declarations fromMr. 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! Everyoccasion to be used to oppose the extension of the slave power! NewStates to abolish the inequality of slavery, or be excluded! I supposeNorthern conservatives of the class referred to have endorsed thosedoctrines and declarations of Mr. WEBSTER a thousand times, as sound, national, conservative, and constitutional. But no Republican, so faras I know, has ever proposed to go an inch beyond the line of policythey indicated. The Chicago, or Republican Platform, certainly doesnot. 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 newwith the original States. This is said to be a fundamental doctrine ofthe Constitution. 

It is claimed that citizens of the slaveholding States have an equalright in the Territories with the citizens of the non-slaveholdingStates; and I admit they have. But it is also claimed that they havethe same right to the protection of property in slaves as property incotton. This I deny. There is no such doctrine of State equality inthe Constitution, nor was any thing like it contemplated by itsframers. On the contrary, the Constitution denied this doctrine byclear implication, certainly for the first twenty years. It withheldfrom Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves into the"existing" States till 1808, while their importation into theTerritories and new States might be prohibited at once. Ohio wasadmitted in 1802. Congress had power to prohibit the importation ofslaves into that State from that time, and did do it in effect by thevery terms and conditions of her admission, which required that herConstitution and Government should not be repugnant to the ordinanceof the 13th of July, 1787, which interdicted slavery. But Congress hadno power to prohibit the importation of slaves into Georgia till after1808. Georgia and Ohio, therefore, in this respect, were not politicalequals 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 inthe Constitution about State equality, and especially nothing thataffirms the equality of the new with the original States, even after1808. And yet this is true. The only passages which refer to the newStates, except impliedly in the importation clause, are these: "NewStates may be admitted by Congress into the Union; but no new Stateshall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any otherState. " There is nothing, certainly, in this language to show that thenew States were to be admitted on an equality, or an equal footingwith the original States. 

And yet provision was made, when the Constitution was framed, for theadmission of all the new States to be formed in United StatesTerritory then possessed, "on an equal footing with the originalStates. " But it was a footing of equality which was in nowiseinconsistent with an absolute denial of the right to establish theinequality of slavery. And this is proved by the only compact in theEnglish language contemporaneous with the Constitution which touchesthe subject, namely, that part of the fifth article of compact in theordinance of 1787 which I have already quoted. There can be no shadowof claim that any thing else secured, or pretended to secure, theright of new States to admission into the Union on an equal footingwith the original States. That, I admit, did. It is, to repeat it, inthese 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, onthe subject of the equality of the States. The very instrument, then, which secured the admission of new States, on an equal footing withthe original States, itself provided that they were never to tolerateslavery. 

The new States, then, neither were to have, nor have they, anypolitical equality which the prohibition violates, as Southerngentlemen contend. Certainly those formed and admitted under the planof Government devised by the fathers, have not. In this sense they arenot 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 nothingon the subject; but because they were independent sovereignties, andas such, made a compact which united them under one FederalGovernment, with discriminating restrictions upon the subject ofslavery, or upon any other subject. But the fact that the evil andinequality of slavery existed in the original States, and wastolerated from necessity, was no reason why it should be allowed inthe Territories and new States, where it did not and need never exist. So the power of the Territories and new States was sufficientlyrestricted to secure equality in personal rights and freedom to allthe "inhabitants. " Of course it cannot be pretended that the mere factthat one or more States had established, and had power to perpetuateslavery, secured to new States the right to establish and perpetuatethe same enormity, as a necessary result of State equality. That wouldmake 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 senseand rational idea that a moral and political evil which existed in theold States, and could not be removed, need not for that reason betolerated in new States. 

The Constitution guarantees to each State a republican form ofGovernment 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 inmost of them; and so far they were anti-republican in fact andpractice, though republican in form. The framers of the Constitution, having no power to abolish this anti-republican institution of slaveryin those States, did nothing more than guarantee them Governmentsrepublican in form. But having the power to exclude it from the newStates, they did exclude it, and provided that their constitutions andgovernments should be republican. That this was the reason for thedifference may be inferred from the remark of LUTHER MARTIN, adistinguished member of the Federal Convention, that "slavery isinconsistent with the genius of republicanism, " and of General HEATHin the Massachusetts Convention, that "Congress has declared that thenew States shall be republican and have no slavery. " No other reasoncan be given. Thus republicanism in fact, and not in form merely, wasmade a condition of admitting new States. This is part of theunalterable compact to which validity was given by the Constitution. The Constitution, therefore, while it guarantees a republican form ofgovernment, does in fact, by giving validity to the ordinance, guarantee republican governments to the new States. This is anothervery significant fact harmonizing perfectly with all the other factsin the original plan for extending the Union by admitting States fromTerritories. 

The States are all equals, or not, according to the terms of theiradmission. The original States became members of the Union upon thesingle condition of ratifying the Constitution, which left them atliberty to tolerate slavery or not. But the States formed in the onlyTerritory which belonged to the United States at the time theConstitution was framed, were admitted on condition that slaveryshould be perpetually interdicted within their limits, and as partiesto an unalterable compact to that effect. 

Slavery was regarded, South as well as North, when the Constitutionwas adopted, as a moral and political evil. This had been the generalsentiment of the country many years before, and continued to be longafter that period. The representatives of the extensive district ofDarien in Georgia, on the 12th of January, 1775, spoke of slavery as"founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to ourliberties. " JEFFERSON pronounced it "an injustice and enormity. " Thepresent Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. TANEY, who acted manyyears ago as counsel of Rev. Mr. GRUBER, who was indicted in the Stateof Maryland for preaching a sermon on the evils of slavery, spoke asfollows 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 "manyin the South once believed that slavery was a moral and politicalevil;" and Mr. BUTLER, late a United States Senator from SouthCarolina, said in the Senate in 1850, that he "remembered the timewhen slavery was regarded as a moral evil, even in South Carolina. "

In such a state of public sentiment, it is certainly no marvel thatslavery was not allowed to extend into the Territories and new States. It was not prohibited in the northwest territory, because it wassupposed to be, or would become, an evil in that territoryparticularly, or a greater evil there than anywhere else; but becauseit was regarded as an evil everywhere, and therefore wrong to permitits extension anywhere, when there was power to prevent it. There canbe no doubt it would have been prohibited in the Territories and newStates of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, if Georgia and NorthCarolina, previous to the Federal Convention, had ceded them to theUnited States upon the same conditions Virginia had ceded thenorthwest territory. Proof of this is found in the fact that the planof territorial governments interdicting slavery forever after 1800, embraced all territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual States; andstill further proof is in the fact, that the cessions by Georgia andNorth Carolina, after the adoption of the Constitution, were upon theexpress condition that slavery should not be prohibited; therebyshowing that the policy of the Federal Government, as they understoodit, was restrictive of slavery in the far southern latitudes as wellas in the more northern, and that they expected the power to restrictwould be exercised, if not withheld in the deeds of cession. Aproposition was, in fact, made to apply the anti-slavery clause of1787, to all the southern part of the Mississippi territory, now thesouthern parts of Alabama and Mississippi, by the act of April 7th, 1798, it being supposed at one time that it belonged to the UnitedStates; but the debate shows that the proposition was withdrawnbecause the jurisdiction was in Georgia, or because not five membersof Congress, after the question was examined, believed otherwise. Georgia claimed absolute title and right of jurisdiction, and deniedall right on the part of the United States to interfere with slavery. Congress did, however, prohibit the importation of slaves into theterritory, and declare every slave so imported to be entitled to hisfreedom. This was probably wholly unauthorized, as it was six yearsbefore Georgia ceded it to the United States, and ten years beforeCongress had power to prohibit the importation of slaves into thatState. But these facts show a strong disposition on the part of "thefathers" 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 toform a Federal Government on such terms as to themselves as theycould mutually agree upon, and to fix the terms upon which they wouldpermit new members to be admitted. The Northern States were under noobligation to protect slavery at all, not even by permitting fugitivesto be reclaimed within their limits. If, then, they were willing toconcede that right to the original States, only upon condition thatslavery should not be allowed to extend, who will say they had not aright to make that condition, or that, if agreed to, it would not bevalid and binding? With their views of slavery, believing it to be amoral and political evil, it was certainly their first and highestduty to make effectual provision against its extension, beforeundertaking, for any reason, to give the least protection to it. Suchprovision they supposed they had made, and it was this that justifiedthem, if any thing could, in conceding the right of reclamation. 

The free, or northern States, in the exercise of their admitted rightin deciding upon the terms of Union, insisted on making it afundamental and ever-binding condition that no obligation to protectslavery in Illinois should ever exist; and this was done for reasonswhich render it morally certain that they would have insisted on thesame condition in reference to Missouri, if Missouri had been part ofthe original territory. It would be preposterous to suppose that whilethey would not consent to guarantee slavery in any manner in Illinois, because they believed it to be a moral and political evil, they meantat the same time to make a Government that could obligate them toguarantee it in the adjoining Territory or State of Missouri, eitherby the return of fugitive slaves, or in any other manner. They meantno such thing, nor can an honest interpretation of the terms of unionbind them to such guarantee now. The right to recapture fugitiveslaves could not exist without the consent of the free States; and asthat consent was given upon conditions and with limitations, bynecessary implication and every sound principle of construction, theyreserved the right to say whether it should exist upon otherconditions and with other limitations, or without either condition orlimitation. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--No one from Kentucky or Virginia wishes to alter theordinance of 1787. For GOD'S sake spare us the argument. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--I understand no alteration is proposed in theordinance; nor am I arguing against any such proposition. I am showingwhat 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 andcompact that Kentucky and Virginia tell us they wish to have thiscontroversy adjusted. Massachusetts and the other Northern Statesmeant to fix, and supposed they had fixed, a limit to their connectionwith, and responsibility for slavery. By consenting to the clausewhich secured the right of reclamation, they did become responsiblefor it to a certain extent. So far as it was supposed, when thatclause was agreed to, that its effect would be the recapture offugitive slaves, and their return to bondage, and so far as thepurpose was to make such recapture and return lawful, so far theresponsibility of adding to the security of slavery was voluntarilyassumed. But this was limited to the existing States by excludingslavery from all United States territory. If any part of suchterritory had been left for slavery--enough for a single slaveState--it might be said that its extension from a part was for reasonsapplicable only to a part, and so could not be considered asestablishing the principle of non-extension. But now this cannot besaid. Not a foot was left for slavery. 

We thus see what the state of things would have been to-day if foreignterritory had not been acquired. Such acquisitions were not originallycontemplated, and of course not provided for. The first--Louisiana--wasdeemed unconstitutional by Mr. JEFFERSON, and yet it was made while hewas President; but with no right, "according to the spirit of thecompact of the fathers, " to place the Federal Government or the Statesunder any other relation to slavery in subsequently acquired territorythan that which they sustained to it--the only one they would consentto sustain--in the Territories possessed at the time that compact wasmade. 

A great deal is said about State rights. But the doctrine of Staterights proves too much. Massachusetts had a clear and undoubted rightoriginally to limit her obligations upon this subject. And she didlimit them. The original compromise was "better security" to slaveryin the original States, with no extension of it to the Territories andnew States. This better security was the accepted consideration forwaiving the right to extend, and Massachusetts may rightfully insiston this waived right to extend, so long as this "better security" isdemanded of her. 

Southern gentlemen in this Convention propose to be governed by theprinciples of the founders of the Government, and by the Constitution, or compact of union, as those founders understood it. By that they saythey are willing to do as the fathers did, and adjust the presentunhappy controversy by applying to new territory the same principleswhich the fathers applied to the old. Let me assure gentlemen from theslave States that if they are really in earnest in offering theseterms of adjustment, this unhappy controversy can be settled in lessthan an hour's time. Having always claimed the right to recapturefugitive slaves in territory acquired since, as well as in thatacquired before the adoption of the Constitution, the slave Stateshave ever been bound, upon every principle of honor and fair dealing, to concede the original consideration for it, that is, prohibition. Apurpose secretly entertained when that compromise was made, to use theGovernment in the manner it has actually been used, to enlarge thearea of slavery and the obligation to guarantee it, would have beendishonest and fraudulent; but the fact that this purpose was conceivedafterward, as it doubtless was, does not alter the case a whit. No manpossessed of the facts can honestly claim that the bargain between theNorth and South, interpreted according to the true interest andmeaning of both parties at the time of making it, can justify theextension of slavery a rod beyond the original States, or a particleof protection to it beyond the right to recover fugitives from suchStates. 

Having thus shown, as I think I have, that an essential element in thebasis of the "more perfect Union" on the question of slavery, was theprinciple of non-extension, we find the first failure to assert thisprinciple was in the omission to apply it to the Louisiana purchase. The importation of slaves into that territory was immediatelyprohibited. That probably cut off the only source of supply from whichdanger of extension was then apprehended. The policy of the Governmentwas well understood, and no apprehension of a practical departure fromit existed. There was nothing in the circumstance of the purchase, orthe reasons for making it, to excite such apprehension. But it wasseen on the application of Missouri for admission, that the ordinanceof 1787 should have been applied to it at the time of the purchase. Ifit had been, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas would never have becomeslave States (the few slaves in New Orleans and vicinity beingemancipated, as they should have been, upon some equitable principle), and the Missouri Compromise, which was the second departure from theoriginal policy, would never have been made. The third was theannexation of Texas as a slave State, and the argument to divide itinto three or four more. Annexation led to the war with Mexico, andthe acquisition of a large part of her territory, and to thecompromise of 1850, by which it was Congressionally agreed that theStates formed in that territory might be admitted with slavery, iftheir Constitutions should so prescribe. This was the fourth departurefrom the original policy of prohibition. The fifth was the repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise in 1850, and the attempts to subjugate andenslave Kansas. That repeal made the change from the original policyradical and total. Certainly it is high time "to restore the Union andConstitution in the spirit in which they were established by thefathers. "

And now, sir, I propose to begin the work of "restoring the policy of1787, " by applying the ordinance of 1787 to every foot of organizedand unorganized territory, wherever situated, which now belongs to theUnited States, precisely as the fathers applied it to every foot ofsuch territory at the time the Constitution was made; and I ask, inall earnestness and seriousness, what any member of the Convention canhave to say against this, who sincerely desires to "restore the Unionand Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by thefathers of the Republic, " and is "ready to adjust the present unhappycontroversy" in the same spirit? What, I beg to know, can be saidagainst this mode of adjustment by those who are in favor of a"restoration of the Constitution to the principles and landmarks ofour fathers, " and of a "return to the policy of 1787"? Can any mandoubt that that ordinance would have been extended over all theseterritories in 1787, if they had belonged to the United States at thattime? Let slavery, then, be prohibited now precisely as the fathersprohibited it then. Copy that old ordinance word for word, and give itlegal force and effect, and make it the basis of all laws, and allconstitutions, and all governments in these Territories forever, because the fathers gave it such force and effect, and made it thebasis of all laws, and all constitutions and all governments foreverin all the Territories of the Union, in 1787. If that would not be areturn to the "principles and landmarks of the fathers, " and to the"policy of 1787, " then I beg to know what would be? How is itpossible--I put it to you, gentlemen of the South--how is it possibleto persuade yourselves that the principles and policy of 1787 can berestored by adopting the resolutions of the General Assembly ofVirginia? By what process is it that the gentleman (Mr. SEDDON) fromVirginia, has come to believe that the South is entitled, according tothe spirit of the compact of the fathers, "to the added guarantees" ofwhich he speaks? According to the spirit of that compact it ismanifest the slave States are entitled to no added guarantees. 

But another of the Virginia Commissioners (Mr. RIVES) tells us thatthis question of slavery in nowise concerns the free States. On thispoint I will quote from a very high authority, which Virginia, certainly, will respect. Mr. MADISON was a member of the firstCongress under the Constitution. A colleague of his, Mr. PARKER, proposed a duty on the importation of slaves, and said he "hopedCongress would do all that lay in their power to restore to humannature its inherent privileges, and, if possible, wipe off the stigmaunder which America labors. " Mr. MADISON, in remarking on thatproposition, 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 unhappycontroversy is not satisfactorily adjusted, which means upon theterms proposed by the slave States. But do gentlemen mean that anappeal will be made to the sword, unless the Constitution shall be soamended as to "provide that slavery of the African race shall beeffectually protected as property in all the territory of the UnitedStates, 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 lastspeeches made by HENRY CLAY in the Senate of the United States. It isas 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 thatthe Conference, by adopting the resolutions of Mr. RANDOLPH, had fixedthe 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 ofthe country. Perhaps it is the most important that ever occurred inAmerican history. The first Convention of thirteen scattered Stateswas earnestly engaged in protecting the liberties which had been wonin the Revolution. It gave us a Constitution under which, for morethan seventy years, we have lived prosperously and happily. Nowpolitical contests have taken place. New questions have arisen, andone portion of the Union believes the Constitution inadequate toprotect its interests. The question which we are obliged to consideris: How shall we save the country? Disguise it as we may, deceiveourselves as we may, the country is in danger--in great and imminentdanger. A solemn duty is imposed upon each one of us. How shall wesave the country?

Virginia has invited this conference of her sister States. Pennsylvania responded to her call with all activity. Pennsylvania hasresponded because she understood and appreciated Virginia. There isgreat misapprehension in the North concerning this venerated State, as well in regard to her motives as in regard to the principles andfeelings that influence her people in their intercourse with and theiraction toward other States of the Union. I know Virginia well. I haveassociated with her people. I have practiced before her judicialtribunals. 

Some years ago I was greatly pressed by an abolitionist who wasindicted in Virginia, to undertake his defence. He was very fearfulthat he would not receive an impartial trial, that the court and jurywould participate in the public excitement. I told him that he needindulge in no such misapprehensions. I knew Virginia too well forthat. I told him, however, that if he desired it, I would go; but itwas simply to defend him, and secure him a fair trial--to act as hiscounsel. I could not represent his sentiments, for I am not and neverwas an abolitionist. I assumed his defence. I told him I would go, andI went. I did find great excitement there, but it did not surprise me. Many valuable slaves had shortly before escaped, some of them throughthe assistance and instrumentality of my client. Judge Fry was thepresiding judge of the court. His liberality, and that of all hisofficers, was great--as great as I ever enjoyed in my own State. Thesheriff of the county drew thirty-six jurymen. Of these, twelve wereslaveholders, twelve were abolitionists, and twelve werenon-slaveholders. When the jury was finally empannelled it consistedof nine abolitionists and three non-slaveholders. 

I never saw in my whole professional life a trial conducted withgreater fairness or justice. The whole of it was entirely satisfactoryto myself, and I believe to my client. 

I have ever since entertained a feeling of the highest respect forVirginia. Her abstractions I confess I could never understand, nor didI ever wish to. They are her exclusive property, and she never usesthem to the injury of her neighbors. If she chooses to make theresolutions of '98 a matter of importance, I do not know that anybodyis injured. 

I regretted to hear the imputations upon Virginia which some gentlemenhave seen fit to make. Menace is not the habit of that ancientcommonwealth. 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 witha menace he would meet it with a menace. In this I agree with him. IfVirginia came here with a menace I should meet her with defiance. Buthappily for us we have no occasion to consider the question in thislight. If ever a State came to meet her sisters, to consult for thecommon good in a proper spirit, Virginia does so now. 

A military chieftain once, when approaching his death, lamented thathe had no children to transmit his name and his qualities toposterity. Virginia will never need to take up such a lamentation. Shehas children enough. She is the mother of WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON, ofMADISON, MARSHALL, and CLAY. Rightly and justly she has been calledthe mother of States. She is the mother of States, and of millions offreemen. 

I honor and respect Virginia, for she deserves it. She was among theforemost in the Revolutionary struggle; and since it was terminated, she has exhibited a continued example of patriotism and loyalty. Hersons have been among the ablest in our legislative councils, and evento-day she sets a noble example before the country, for the emulationof her sister States. Our interests are inseparably connected with herown. We will acknowledge the fact, and act in view of it. Let herremember, also, that she has a common interest with us. She will do sobecause she will be faithful to her old traditions as well as to herpresent duty. 

I cannot believe that the time has come when it is necessary for us tocontemplate a dissolution of the Union. The people are not preparedfor such an awful event. We do not yet know how heavy sacrifices theywill make to avoid it. Some States have left us I know, but I believetheir absence is but temporary. We must have them back, and we will. As for the Border States leaving us in the present condition ofaffairs, with the present feeling of friendship for them, _that_ Iregard as an impossibility. Why should the Border States go out of theUnion when three-fourths of the present Congress are ready to givethem all the guarantees they ask?

But let not Pennsylvania be misunderstood in her position. She willyield a vast deal for peace. She will examine and recognize the rightsof 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 theBorder States cannot connect themselves with a so-called SouthernConfederacy without involving themselves in a vortex of ruin. ThePresident of the Southern Confederacy already talks about the smell ofgunpowder, and about battles at the North. Well! he is a brave man nodoubt, but if he will invade Pennsylvania we will resist him. Pennsylvania has gold enough to calm her friends; she has iron enoughto cool her enemies. 

But Pennsylvania desires no war. She will do all that an honorableState can do to avoid war. In that temper she sends her delegateshere, and they will do all that honorable men can do to carry out herwishes. She has no desire to be a frontier State with her four hundredmiles of border, which she must guard and protect if disunion takesplace on the terms suggested. She will do all she can to avoiddisunion. She is now a central State--the keystone of the arch. Shewants no imaginary line drawn along her border, with herself on oneside of it and enemies upon the other. 

Pennsylvania has always kept faith with the Union. She has alwaysperformed all her duties toward the Federal Government withcheerfulness and fidelity. Her three millions of people are true toall their obligations now to the Government as well as to her sisterStates. Her voice is for peace. She would at all hazards avoiddisunion. She would make many sacrifices to avoid civil war. Last ofall, she would do all she could to save the Union; she would neverpermit the destruction of the country. My own position is easilydefined. I fully sympathize with and endorse the position ofPennsylvania. 

 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 proposedamendments. I can live under the Constitution as it is, or as it willbe if these amendments are adopted. I shall uphold the Constitution. Ishall commit myself to no opposite course. The whole amendment isconnected with and concerns the question of slavery in theTerritories. 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 mostof the States when the Constitution was adopted. 

The compromise of 1820, it was hoped, settled one question concerningthem--the question of slavery. But upon the repeal of the compromisethe difficulty was opened again. Pennsylvania never took as ultraground respecting this subject as many other States. She thought itsimportance was magnified. It is magnified now. If the South securedthe amendment proposed it would not avail her much. The granting of itwould not injure the North. The territory is unfitted for theprofitable employment of slave labor. That is shown by experience. Inten years scarcely ten slaves had found their way into New Mexico andArizona. 

This is a question of sectional interest, and may be one, to someextent, of political power. Examine, for a moment, the true interestsof both the North and South, in the question as it is now presented. Imean the interest of the extremes, for the Border States certainlycannot have a very deep interest in it. They lay between the twosections, and to some extent sympathize with both. The valuableportion of our present territory is north of the line proposed. It isrich in agricultural and mineral resources. It will be changed in timeinto a number of powerful and wealthy States. Is it not desirable nowto exclude slavery from them forever? Then as to the territory south. It is smaller in extent, and almost infinitely less valuable. Much ofit is barren desert which can never be cultivated. Considered as amaterial interest, the South is asking but little. The North is givingup almost nothing, by agreeing to give the South the control of thissection while it remains a territory. But the South does not ask eventhat. She simply asks to have those rights guaranteed, the existenceof which are already practically conceded. 

As to future territory, I would raise no question about it. We want nomore territory north or south. Its acquisition would only be attendedwith new troubles. New questions would be raised to threaten the quietof the country and the stability of our institutions. Why should wetrouble ourselves about the acquisition of new territory when we havealready enough for one hundred millions of people?

We may form a Constitution which will be entirely satisfactory to thenation now. We may extend our territory in such a way as to render achange indispensable. Considerations of climate and race will beconstantly occurring, which will require new changes. The FederalConstitution may have been well enough adapted to the four millions ofpeople to whom it was first applied, and it is not strange that thegrowth 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, toarranging it to the satisfaction of all parties, if the rights of allcan be regarded and secured? The course which I would follow in such acase, would be that indicated by traditional policy of statesmen inwhom our people have had confidence--the policy of such men asHARRISON and HENRY CLAY. 

I do not regard the provisions relating to slavery in the District ofColumbia as of any practical consequence to the North. Pennsylvaniacares little about it. There would seem to be a propriety incountenancing slavery here so long as it exists in the adjoiningStates. 

The Border States ask us now for these guarantees. They ask themearnestly and in a spirit of loyalty to the Union. My answer to such arequest, urged in such a spirit, is, that I would give them anyguarantees I could within the limits of the Constitution. 

Pennsylvania forms one of the brotherhood of States. She is in theUnion, and she will remain there. She is bound to it by all thememories and associations of the past, and by all the hopes of thefuture. She will discharge, as she always has discharged, all herduties, all her obligations to the Union. No State exceeds her indevotion to it. But, at the same time, she will not be unmindful ofher duties and her obligations to the other States. She woulddischarge these obligations as she can afford to discharge them, in aspirit of generosity and conciliation. In that spirit she will giveher assent to these propositions of amendment. I believe I have fairlyrepresented the opinions of Pennsylvania in what I have said, and Irely upon her people--my constituents--for my justification. 

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I will consult the pleasure of the Conferencewhether I shall proceed with my observations now, or during theevening session?

Mr. MOREHEAD: I think the Conference had better adjourn. I make themotion. 

The motion was adopted, and the Conference adjourned to meet athalf-past seven o'clock this evening. 

 * * * * *

EVENING SESSION--FOURTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, _February 21st, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair. 

Mr. CHITTENDEN: I feel gratified by the kindness which has given me anopportunity of making a few observations to the Conference, and Ishall not abuse it. 

The delegates from Vermont have acted throughout the session undergreat embarrassment. We hold our appointments from the Executive ofthat State. Her Legislature was not in session when the VirginiaResolutions were adopted, and the day fixed for the meeting of theConference was so early that no time was given to the Governor ofVermont for consultation, or for taking any other means ofascertaining the temper of the State in relation to the Virginia plan. We were summoned by telegraph--myself upon an hour's notice--to comehere, and we obeyed the summons. 

By the rules of the Conference we are prohibited from correspondencewith our constituents upon the subject of its action, and we areentirely without recent information concerning their views and wishes. But one course remains to us, and that we must inflexibly pursue. Thatis, to apply the propositions upon which we are called to vote, to theknown and established opinions of our people upon the principlesinvolved in them; and if these principles coincide with theiropinions, to give our assent; if they do not, to withhold it. We holdit our duty to respect and obey the opinions of our constituents; andin our action here, such obedience is a pleasure. 

First of all, before referring to the merits or demerits of thesepropositions, I wish to be informed distinctly upon one point. Onesection of the Union requires guarantees; the other does not. Here aretwo parties having different interests, proposing to themselvesdifferent courses of action. One of them proposes these guarantees inthe form of what it calls a compromise. There are many subjects which, in the experience of life, we are obliged to compromise. All of usunderstand the meaning of the term. It implies that when two partiesdiffer upon a subject of common interest, each is to yield somethingto the other, until both reach an agreement upon a middle ground, andthe difference is settled. But one consequence always follows, alwaysmust follow, or it is in nowise a compromise: _Both parties are boundby the agreement. _

There is another way in which compromises are effected. When opposingparties cannot come to an understanding, they agree to submit thematters in difference to some tribunal that can decide between them. Alike consequence always follows from such a proceeding. The partiesagree to _submit_ to the decision, to be _bound_ by it, and mutuallyundertake to carry it into effect, whatever the decision may be. 

There is still another way in which a _political_ compromise may bemade. Its terms may be agreed upon, and then it may be submitted tothe people for adoption. When adopted, it becomes the law of theland--equally binding upon all sections of the country. If it isrejected, the party which proposed it has secured its submission tothe proper tribunal--it has been considered, and that party should, upon every principle of law or morality, acquiesce in the result. 

Except in one of these three methods I know of no way in which a_compromise_ can be made. Let us apply these methods to the questionsbefore us. One of them must be adopted if we _compromise_ at all. 

In fact there is one principle which forms the very foundation of ourGovernment, and it should be kept constantly in mind. We cannotnegotiate, we cannot legislate, we cannot _compromise_, unless allparties will acknowledge its binding force. If there is a party thatdoes not acknowledge this, in my judgment that party has no right tobe here. It is not a Republican party. I do not use this term in aparty sense, but in the sense which is used in the fourth article inthe Constitution, where the United States are required to guarantee toevery State a _republican_ form of Government. The principle to whichI refer is this: That the will of the majority, constitutionallyexpressed, must control the Government, and all questions relating toit; and that will must be respected and obeyed by the minority. 

Now, if the members representing the free States will accept thesepropositions of amendment in good faith--will agree to submit themthrough Congress to the people of the States, and to be bound by thedecision of the majority, whatever that decision may be--will you, gentlemen of the slave States, do the same? I do not refer to theStates which have undertaken to withdraw from the Union. I only callupon the members for the States here represented. You have the rightto speak for your respective States. You are sent here for thatpurpose. You ask us to give our votes for proposals which arecertainly unpleasant, not to say offensive to us, and to use suchinfluence as we possess to induce Congress to submit these to thepeople. You express the highest degree of confidence in the result. This is _your_ plan of compromise. If we resist it, you charge us withstanding between the people and your plan--of sacrificing the Union toour platform. Very well. If we will submit your propositions to thepeople, and agree to be bound by and to acquiesce in their decision, will you do the same? If you will, it may be of service to protractthis discussion, to make these propositions as acceptable as possible. If you will not, we are wasting time. We may as well stop here. Believe me, sir, Vermont, as well as every other free State, will havetoo much self-respect to agree to the terms of a compromise which willbind one party and will not bind the other. 

There is one thing farther which we must understand. It has beenfrequently referred to in debate, and I shall not enlarge upon it. Time must elapse before these propositions can be acted upon. The freeStates expect faithfully to observe all their duties to the GeneralGovernment--to keep faith with it as they always have. Will the slaveStates do the same? Will they not only _not obstruct_ the Governmentin the execution of the laws, but will they _aid_ the Government inexecuting the laws? The answer to this inquiry is as important as theother. 

Now, it is useless to tell the people of the free States, that such isthe present condition of the South, such is the apprehension anddistrust prevailing there, that we must give them these guarantees atonce, without any longer delay or discussion--that if we do not theywill secede. Such an argument as that, sir, is an unworthy argument;it is unfit to be used in an assembly of men met to confer upon theConstitution. This is not the way in which good constitutions aremade, for one of the several parties to present its ultimatum, andthen insist upon its adoption, under the threat that if it is notadopted they will go no farther. If such is the true condition ofaffairs in some of the States, and the gentlemen representing them arethe best judges, then before proceeding to amend the Constitution tosatisfy them, I think we had better try to put them into a frame ofmind suitable for negotiation. A Constitution adopted in that waywould be good for nothing. Let it once be understood that such claimswill be recognized, and we shall have amendments to the Constitutionproposed as often as any section can find a pretext for proposingthem. The agreeable course to us all would be to yield to yourpressing appeals. But you ask us to compromise upon most extraordinaryterms. You will not give us the slightest assurance that the people ofthe slave States will acquiesce in the vote of the whole people uponyour propositions. You even say, you will not acquiesce, if thedecision is adverse. You are in doubt if they will be satisfied if thedecision is in their favor; and some gentlemen frankly avow that thesepropositions in themselves are not satisfactory. The gentleman fromVirginia, with an openness and a frankness which seems a part of hisnature, tells us in substance that Virginia will not be satisfied withthese; that Virginia is settled in her determination that slaveproperty shall be respected; that it has as high a right to protectionas any other property, and in some respects higher; that Virginia willhave these rights acknowledged and secured _under_ the Constitution, or she will not be satisfied. The statement that she will _not besatisfied_, has a very peculiar and expressive signification. 

Such being our present condition, I have little hope that good cancome of our deliberations. We have started wrong. We should havesettled the questions first, that the Union must be preserved, thelaws enforced, and the duty of every State toward the Union performed, in every contingency and under all circumstances. Having resolvedthis, we could then go on, carefully consider the wants of everysection, and we could afford to be generous in meeting the views ofour Southern friends. 

I feel more diffidence than I can well express in being obliged todiffer so widely from the opinions of the gentlemen who haveintroduced the proposals contained in the majority report, and whohave advocated them with such signal ability. I have less hesitationin expressing my unqualified dissent from the representatives of thefree States, who pledge the people of those States so unreservedly tothe support of these propositions, if Congress will submit them totheir constituents. I object to these pledges, because I know they aredeceptive, that they are made without authority, and that they willnever be fulfilled. The South may as well understand this now, ashereafter. 

The Union is precious to the people of the free States. They look uponit with a feeling closely approaching to reverence. They have lookedupon its dissolution as the greatest national calamity possible. Theyhave been taught to regard the idea of dissolution as a sin. Now, whenthe subject is forced upon their attention, when Conventions arecalled throughout the South to discuss it, when in some of the Statesthe process has already commenced, I am well aware they will makeheavy sacrifices to preserve the Union. They will sacrifice theirprosperity, political influence, friendship, social relations, yes, their lives, to secure its perpetuity. But they will not sacrificetheir principles which they have conscientiously adopted. No, not evento save the Union. 

But let me not be misunderstood. A Government that cannot bemaintained without the sacrifice of those principles upon which allgood governments are founded, is not worth preserving. Such is not thecase with _ours_. Its preservation requires no such sacrifice; and ifwe made it, the sacrifice would be useless. The habit once commenced, we should be called upon to repeat it over and over again, until atlength we should have a Government destitute of principle. 

The people of the slave States believe that slavery is a desirableinstitution, that a Government founded upon it would be mostdesirable. It has been declared here, that it is even a missionaryinstitution, and that the North, in attempting to overthrow it, interposes between the slaveholder and his Maker, thereby preventinghim from performing a duty toward the African race which his ownershipimposes upon his conscience. Well, that is a question betweenyourselves and your consciences. We do not wish to interfere. Keep theinstitution within your own State limits, and we are content that youshould have all the credit, and honor, and glory that pertains to it. Over and over again the truth has been asserted here, that there neverhas been, and is not now, any party, or any considerable number of menin the free States, who entertain the idea of interfering with slaveryin the States. The opinions of a few rash men who entertain otherviews, are no more respected among us than among yourselves. 

But the growth and extension of slavery outside of State limits, inthe Territories which are our common property, present a verydifferent question. If the North permits it there, to that extent itbecomes responsible for slavery. I do not care what term you use todescribe the feeling of the North in relation to slavery. Onegentleman says that the North _abhors_ it, and the use of the term hasexcited much comment. I may be still more unfortunate, but it is myduty to say that you cannot present an idea more repulsive to thenorthern mind or the northern conscience, than that of making theNorth responsible for the existence, expansion, growth, extension, orany thing else relating to slavery. Right or wrong, this sentiment hastaken a firm hold of the northern mind. There it is, and it must betaken into account in every proposition which depends for its successupon the action of the North. Sneering at it will do no good; abusewill only make it stronger. You cannot legislate it out of existence. From this time forward, as long as the nation has an existence, youmust expect the determined opposition of the North to the extension ofslavery into free territory. If your proposals of amendment involve_that_, we may accept them, Congress may propose them, the South mayadopt them; but the answer of the North to them all will be anemphatic, a determined, _No!_

Mr. GRANGER:--If you Republicans will let us go to the people, wewill show you what they will do. I think I understand the wishes andfeelings of the people of the North. 

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--No doubt. The gentleman says he supported the BELLand EVERETT ticket. The record of his State shows to what extent hisopinions are in sympathy with those of the people of the North. 

Mr. President, for a time I did expect profitable results from thisConference. As I watched it from day to day, it seemed to me thatgenerally the States had been very fortunate in the selection of theirrepresentatives; that few of extreme opinions had been selected; andthat such a body, animated by common love for the Union, and by acommon desire to secure a perpetuity of its blessings, must finallycome to an agreement which would satisfy all; or if not, to anagreement in which all would acquiesce. In that belief I haddetermined to give my assent to the most extreme propositions whichmight be made here, that did not run counter to the position of myState upon the question of slavery extension, if those propositionswould quiet the country and settle our present difficulties. 

But when I heard it announced on this floor that the propositionscontained in the majority report even, which do provide for theextension of slavery into the Territories, which involve a directconstitutional recognition of slavery for the first time, which placeit above and beyond legislation, which take it out of the hands ofposterity, which compel the North to pay for fugitives; and when Iheard it stated that even these were not enough to satisfy the South, that Virginia must have something more, that she was "solemnly pledgedagainst coercion, that she would not agree to abide by the decision ofthe people upon these propositions, " then hope went out from my heart!I have not since had any expectation that much good would come fromour deliberations. 

I have refrained from entering into the merits or demerits of slavery. I have refrained, so far as I could, from repeating what has beenbetter said by others than I could say it. The point which I wish topress upon the Conference is this: Speaking for one State, we franklytell you that she will not enter upon a compromise which is not fairand mutual, which does not bind both parties. 

But, sir, although I have thus expressed myself, I do not at alldespair of the Republic. I do not believe that a dissolution ordestruction of this Government is to take place. Its origin and itsexistence have been characterized by too many signal interpositions ofProvidential favor. We cannot look into the future. I have no desireto do so. If we all conscientiously perform our prescribed duties, ifwe are faithful to ourselves, to our people and our Constitution, HEwho rules the nations will take care of the rest. It may be that theclouds which now cover our horizon will be swept away, carrying withthem all these subjects of difficulty and danger, which alone havetroubled the quiet and the prosperity of the American Union. 

Mr. LOGAN:--Instead of dreaming, like Mr. FIELD, of news from the seatof war, and of marching armies, I have thought of a country throughwhich armies _have_ marched, leaving in their track the desolation ofa desert. I have thought of harvests trampled down--of towns andvillages once the seat of happiness and prosperity, reduced to heapsof smoking ruins--of battle-fields red with blood which has been shedby those who ought to have been brothers--of families broken up, orreduced to poverty; of widowed wives, of orphan children, and all theother misfortunes which are inseparably connected with war. This isthe picture which presents itself to my mind every day and every hour. It is a picture which we are doomed soon to witness in our owncountry, unless we place a restraint upon our passions, forget ourselfish interests, and do something to save our country. 

We feel these things deeply in the Border States. The people of theseStates bear the most intimate relations to each other. They areclosely connected in business. They associate in their recreations andtheir pleasures. The members of a large number of their families haveintermarried. State lines, except for legislative purposes, arescarcely thought of. The people of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, andIllinois, are one people, having an identity of sympathy, of feeling, and of interest. 

We have in the West a section of country known as the dark and bloodyground. The historical incidents connected with it are of the most sadand mournful character. There is buried under it an ancestor of almostevery family descended from the early settlers of the West. But thisground is limited in extent. If we are to plunge this country intocivil war--if we are to go on exasperating the sections until theytake up arms against each other, then shall we make a dark and bloodyground of all the Border States. We shall desolate all their fields, and carry sorrow and mourning into every family within their limits. 

Should we not have a deep interest in avoiding war? Should we notlabor with, and entreat the people of all sections to help us avoidit? If it comes, we are to be the sufferers. Upon _our_ heads the ruinmust fall. We cannot and will not talk about abstractions now. We areimpelled by every consideration to do all we can to settle ourdifferences, and keep off the evil day that brings civil war upon ourhappy and prosperous country, and to prevent the devastation of thatcountry. 

I wish to say a few earnest words to my brother Republicans. Youobject to these propositions because they are pressed just now whenthe new administration is coming into power. You say that there is noneed of them, and that they involve submission on your part, as acondition of your enjoying the fruits of the victory you have won. Letme assure you that no one labored harder for the triumph of Mr. LINCOLN than myself; I exerted what little influence I had; I paid mymoney to secure his election; I now wish to give him an honorableadministration. I believe he will make a good President, and I wish togive him a united country to rule. This can only be done by asettlement of our troubles. No one will rejoice over that settlementmore than Mr. LINCOLN. 

Fellow Republicans, the only way that opens before us now to settlethem is, by adopting the report of the committee; by permitting thepeople to adopt it. Can you, dare you, refuse to let thesepropositions go to the people? Dare you stand between the people andthese propositions?

I would appeal to you on another ground. Remember that it is theminority that is asking for these guarantees. You are just coming intopower. The country has approved of your action in the election of Mr. LINCOLN. You can afford to be liberal. Liberality is a noble trait inany character, whether it be that of an individual or political party. 

There are reasons why the South should be apprehensive now. Theorganizations of the old Whig and Democratic parties had nothingsectional in them. There were no resolutions in their platforms whichcould give the South any cause of alarm. The content between theseparties did not involve any sectional interests whatever. Now, it isundeniable that the organization of the Republican party was broughtabout by the agitation of the slavery question in its various forms. 

It is not strange to me that the success of that party in the lateelection should be misconstrued and misunderstood by the South, andthat the people there should be apprehensive for the result. 

If the Missouri Compromise had not been repealed we should not havefound ourselves in our present condition. It was the repeal of thatcompromise that brought the Republican party into power. The masses ofthe people do not sympathize with extremists on either side. TheRepublican party took the middle ground, and thus rendered itselfacceptable to them. 

After the repeal of the Missouri Compromise came the Kansas agitation. In this the North was right and the South was wrong. Slavery wasattempted to be forced upon an unwilling people. They resisted--theAmerican people always will resist injustice. The excitement pervadedthe whole country. Sympathy was excited for Kansas, and properlyenough. This excitement benefited the Republican party--it injured allothers. It overwhelmed all other considerations. The aspect of theslavery question was remembered in Kansas; elsewhere it was forgotten. 

In this way, was the Republican party brought into power. I say nowthat if the Union is dissolved, that party will be responsible;responsible, as that party has now the power to prevent it. 

The gentleman from Vermont, who has put his argument in a veryingenious way, insists that before the North is called upon to act onthese propositions, that the South ought to declare whether she willbe satisfied with them. I do not think so. I am perfectly aware of thedifficulties under which the Representatives of the slave States arelaboring. They cannot answer this question. Let the gentlemanremember, when he presses this point so hard, and with such apparentcandor, that even he will not undertake to answer for New England. More than that, he denies the authority of those who undertake toanswer for the North. I do not believe the gentleman is very extremein his opinions; but let him remember that the South should be treatedfairly, and that she is placed in circumstances of peculiarembarrassment. It raised the hair upon Republican heads when they weretold that Virginia had presented her ultimatum. Now complaint is madethat she has not done so, and that she will not say what will satisfyher. 

I feel that I have no interest in this question, except the interestof a citizen. I have no special interest in it. I ask nothing ofpolitics, but I do feel for my country. I may be wrong. I do not claiminfallibility; but I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion that weought not to adopt these proposals. I cannot see any practical injuryto the North in them, and I can see much benefit to the South. 

The North is vitally interested in the preservation of peace, in thepreservation of her commerce, and other relations with the South. These relations cannot be broken up without great injury to theNorthern people. My heart would rejoice if we could think alike uponthese propositions, and adopt them with a degree of unanimity thatwould give them weight with the country. 

I would not assail the motives of gentlemen. Doubtless there are menwho honestly believe that such a proposition ought only to beconsidered in a General Convention. In my judgment such a Conventionwould be utterly useless. It would lead to endless discussion, whichwould not be conducted with the decorum that characterizes theseproceedings. It would amount to nothing. 

No, gentlemen, there is a better way than that. Let us have no GeneralConvention, but let us induce Congress to submit our propositions atonce to the people. In no other way, in my judgment, can we avoid thedisunion that threatens us. In no other way can the country be savedin her present peril. 

Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina:--[2]

[Footnote 2: The speech of Mr. DAVIS is, I believe, the only onedelivered in the Conference which I did not hear, and of which I didnot preserve minutes more or less full. The reason for the omissionwas this: The morning session was protracted until a late hour, andthe labor of reporting the remarks of the members had been verysevere. The evening session commenced with some observations of myown; and after reporting the remarks of Mr. LOGAN, which followedmine, I found myself in such a condition of physical exhaustion that Iwas obliged to retire to my room. It was during this temporary absencethat the remarks of Mr. DAVIS were made. I was informed that hisspeech was very animated and in excellent temper--that he took theposition that North Carolina was loyal to the Union, but that he fullyconcurred with the Southern States in the necessity of demandingconstitutional guarantees; and that if these were not given, herrelations were such with South Carolina and the Gulf States that, however much she might regret the necessity, she could not dootherwise than to leave the Union and unite her future with those ofthe seceded States. 

I have been unable to communicate by letter with any of the membersrepresenting the States now in insurrection. As Mr. DAVIS was the onlyrepresentative from North Carolina who entered into a generaldiscussion of the reports of the majority and minority of theCommittee of One from each State, I was the more desirous of securingsome report of his remarks. But in all the material which has beenfurnished me, by the many members with whom I have corresponded, Ifind that none of them preserved notes of his speech. ]

Mr. ORTH:--Mr. President, I have thus far avoided any participation inthe general discussion of questions which have claimed the attentionof this Conference. My purpose has been to give a calm and carefulattention to whatever may be offered for our consideration; to hearwith unbiassed judgment the grievances which are the subject ofcomplaint, and to afford redress, if redress be necessary. 

Virginia, rich in her patriotism of the past, rich in her historictreasures, has called upon her sisters to convene and consult withreference to the condition of the Union, and the matters which aresupposed to threaten our future peace and welfare. Indiana heard andheeded that call. To her it was as the voice of a mother to her child. It was a voice which none of the States of the great Northwest--carvedout of that vast domain which Virginia granted to the United States asthe common property of all--could fail to hear with favor. If dangersthreaten the common welfare, if the future peace of this land is to bedisturbed, it was well for Virginia, as in other days of danger, tosound the alarm, and invite a general council. In pursuance of thatcall, Indiana is here, and here to listen. She feels conscious thatshe has by no act of hers infringed upon the rights of any of hersister States; that she has been faithful to her constitutionalobligations--seeking for nothing but what was right, and ever ready toremedy any wrong. Occupying this position, her representatives on thisfloor would be derelict in their duty if they attempted to assume anyother, or to pursue any course of action inconsistent therewith. 

What, then, in all candor, are the grievances of some of our sisterStates, as presented by their delegated authority to this Conference?Nothing of a tangible nature calling for practical and definiteaction. A deliberative body ought not to act upon the fears orimaginations of those desiring such action. The mere election ofPresident of the United States by the votes of the northern portion ofthis Union, affords no just ground of complaint. That election isvalid, being in strict conformity with all the requirements of theConstitution. The peculiar notions or political opinions of thatPresident cannot be the ground of a just complaint, so long as theseopinions in their practical operations do not interfere with orcontravene the provisions of that Constitution. The opinions andprinciples of the President elect, however obnoxious they may be toany portion of the people of this Union, are harmless so long as hispolitical opponents have in their control the legislative and judicialdepartments of the Government. The question of slavery in theTerritories, if ever any real cause of grievance to any portion of theUnion, is in process of final settlement, and will be settled beforethe close of the present Congress in a manner acceptable to a largemajority of the American people. What, then, is left? "PersonalLiberty bills" in some of the States; and these are being repealed asrapidly as possible; and so far as practical results are concerned, they have been a dead letter on the statute books ever since theirenactment. 

The non-enforcement of the fugitive slave law. The history of thecountry since the year of its enactment clearly shows that no lawamong the national statutes has received more prompt and vigorousexecution, notwithstanding its exceedingly odious features. Here, then, is the list of grievances, or I might more properly say supposedgrievances; and for a failure to redress them, this Government isthreatened with civil war. To justify this unnatural and diabolicalresort to arms, the chimera of "State sovereignty" is invoked. Andwhat is State sovereignty? The gentleman from North Carolina hasendeavored to enforce this doctrine, and deduce from certain premises, the right of a State, when she feels herself aggrieved, to secede fromher sister States, and assume an independent position and a separatenationality. The fallacy of the gentleman's position, in fact thefallacy of the doctrine of "State rights, " and the deductions madetherefrom by the school of politicians and statesmen to which thegentleman belongs, arises from confounding the terms State rights andState sovereignty, and using these as though they were convertibleterms. The several States of this Union possess certain rights clearlydefined, and known and understood by the reader of American politicalhistory. Subject to the restrictions of the national Constitution, they have the right to establish, regulate, and control their internalpolice and entire polity so far as it affects the persons and propertysubject to their jurisdiction; to regulate trade, commerce, contracts, marriage, the acquisition, possession, control, and disposal of realand personal property; also the assessing and collecting of taxes, anddisbursement of the public revenue. 

These are some of the main rights belonging to the States as such, butthese do not in any just sense constitute sovereignty. The severalStates of the Union are not now and never have been sovereign States. They never possessed the right to declare war, to make peace, to coinmoney, to enter into treaty with nations, and none of them everendeavored or attempted to exercise any such rights as these. Theseare attributes of sovereignty, as laid down by writers upon the lawsof nations, and recognized as such by the civilized world. Examine thehistory of your several States, and tell me whether in any one of themany act or fact can be found which would entitle either of them at anytime, past or present, to be recognized as sovereign independentnations?

Mr. RUFFIN:--Will the gentleman from Indiana permit me to inform himthat during the Revolutionary War, the State of North Carolina hadlaid the foundation of a navy, and at the close of hostilities shetransferred her vessels to the United States. 

Mr. ORTH:--I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for theinterruption, and for the allusion to the local history of his State, of which I was not before aware. 

There, then, we have a single instance of one of the States taking onestep toward sovereignty, by the establishing of a navy. I believethis is the only instance now remembered, and this instance affordsthe strongest argument in favor of the position I assume and amendeavoring to enforce. North Carolina, it seems, had taken one steptoward sovereignty; and yet upon the adoption of our nationalConstitution, upon the creation of the only sovereign Government inthis Union, the _Government of the Union_, she transfers to thatsovereign her infant navy; she relinquishes her only attribute ofsovereignty--if such it be--to the United States, and merges herselfwith her sister States into that Union of States which has hithertobeen our boast and pride, as well as the admiration of the world. 

The several propositions now pending before us do not meet myapprobation, and cannot receive my support. They are in the shape ofamendments to the Constitution, and are all in the interest ofslavery, seeking to strengthen that institution, and to give it animportance far beyond what the fathers were willing to concede. Whilethe North is willing to recognize and enforce the requirements of theConstitution touching the various aspects of the slavery question, sonominated in the bond, they feel unwilling to grant new guarantees toa system which the civilized world is beginning to hold indetestation, and which is inimical to free institutions, and the onlysubject of contention that will ever seriously disturb the peace andprosperity of the Union. I am opposed to the proposition before us:First, because the grievances complained of are not of that seriouscharacter requiring any amendment of our fundamental laws. Secondly, because I am in favor of the Constitution as it is, firmly believingthat no good reason exists for its change, and that an honestadherence to its wise provisions is our surest guarantee for real orsupposed grievances, and that the present of all times is the mostunpropitious moment to attempt any change or modification. Partypolitics in all their embittered madness rule the hour, but calm timesand cool heads will be required whenever the American people desire toenter upon so hazardous an experiment. Let the Constitution remain; ithas hitherto been, and will continue to be, the palladium of ourrights, the sheet anchor of our safety. Thirdly, under no state ofcircumstances that can possibly arise among us as a people, will Iever consent, by word, thought, or deed, to do any thing to strengthenthe institution of slavery. I regard it as an evil which all good menshould desire to see totally eradicated; and I hope for the day todawn speedily when, throughout the length and breadth of the land, freedom shall be enjoyed by every human being, without reference tocaste, color, or nationality. While I am willing to tolerate itsexistence where it now is, I am unwilling to extend its boundaries asingle inch, and will not give it any guarantee, protection, orencouragement, save what it can exact by the strict letter of thefundamental law. Beyond that I will never go; beyond that Indiana willnever go; and to this, gentlemen from the other side had as wellbecome reconciled. It is the _ne plus ultra_ of the American people, and to that they will adhere through all coming time. If, inconsequence of this position, the foundations of society are to bebroken up, civil war inaugurated, and the destruction of theGovernment attempted, you must remember we are standing upon theConstitution, in favor of sustaining the laws of the land, denying theexistence of any real grievance; and standing thus with thatconsciousness of strength which integrity imparts, you must strike thefirst blow, cross the Rubicon, commit the foul and damning crime oftreason, and bring upon your people ruin, devastation, anddestruction, and call down upon your guilty heads the curses of yourchildren and the disapprobation of the civilized world!

Mr. BRONSON:--For what purpose was this Conference called? Why have wecome here? I suppose we are here to do something, to accomplishsomething. If we are only here to make speeches, and not to arrive atconclusions, our mission is useless. The greater portion of the debatehitherto has been made up of set speeches, all like the circumlocutionoffice in one of Dickens' novels, showing "how not to do it. " I am notin favor of pursuing this course any longer. Let us talk the subjectover like business men, in a sensible way, and then come to a vote. Ithink we may do something which will prove effectual, and I hope weshall. My political opinions are well known. For more than forty yearsI have belonged to one political party. I did not come here to speak. I did not intend to speak at all, and shall now only submit a fewobservations. 

I hail from the old Democratic party. The most of you are members ofthe opposition. I do not know how or why I was selected as one of thedelegates from New York. I do not even know how the vote of thatdelegation will stand on these proposals of amendment. I suppose thedominant party has taken care to send a majority of its members. If Iwas a mere politician, I do not know but I should be in favor ofbreaking up the Conference, and of doing nothing; but being only aDemocrat, I desire to transmit to posterity the blessings of a goodConstitution and a good Government. 

The country has become disquieted. Its peace has been disturbed by theacts of politicians. Many have become disgusted with the presentcondition of affairs, and are unwilling to act or vote. A largeportion of our people have become alarmed. They think their rightshave been invaded. Some of the States have gone. GOD knows whetherthey will ever come back again. If we act wisely, perhaps they may. But there is occasion enough for alarm. I have felt alarmed for a longtime. One way suggested to get these States back is by conquest. Butwhat are we to do with a conquered State? Shall we establish amilitary despotism over it?

We all have the right to express our opinions, and I will expressmine. There are eight other slave States whose condition is to beconsidered. If we do not act here, will they not leave us and jointheir sisters? I hope they will not. I would not raise my voice inthis Conference, if it were not for the purpose of inducing them tostay. 

Virginia, that noble old Commonwealth, has invited us together. Sheproposes the CRITTENDEN resolutions, and asks us to consider them. Nowshe is charged with standing in the way of the Government. This is nottrue. Blessed are the peacemakers, and the position of Virginia inthis matter is that of a peace-maker. I thank her for bringing ustogether. 

Two-thirds of the speeches here have been made by those of a politicalparty to which I never belonged. I do not understand either theirpurposes or wishes. Perhaps I may be behind the times. I have not beenactually engaged in politics for more than twenty-five years. During alarge part of that time I have been engaged, in my humble way, in theadministration of justice in the State I here in part represent. I donot know but I may be falling into the common fault of making aspeech. If I do, you must check me. Again I say, I thank Virginia forher invitation. Why should we not confer together? Six or sevenStates--no matter which--are gone. If nothing is done, eight or nineothers will follow, and other divisions will come as a matter ofnecessity. Rhode Island--patriotic Rhode Island--will not go with NewEngland in this Conference. She will not separate from her southernsisters. Connecticut, I think, will not stay, and New York, I believe, will stand with the South. 

How is it, or why is it, that we should do nothing? Why should webreak up and go home? Have not all the States asked us to come hereand do this work? Why did their legislatures take the trouble to sendus here? All this circumlocution might have better been done at home. 

Will a Convention answer the purpose, when another Confederacy hasbeen formed in our very midst? It would be two years at least beforeany thing could be accomplished by a Convention, and then it would betoo late. We all know how delegates to such a Convention are elected. We all know how much time would be consumed before the Conventioncould meet. I say we cannot bear the delay. I ask the gentleman (Mr. BALDWIN) of Connecticut whether he thinks it would be safe to delay. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--I think it is always safe to follow the Constitution. Ithink we can follow the example of Kentucky. 

Mr. CLAY:--I would suggest to the gentleman from Connecticut that therepresentatives of Kentucky are here to speak for her. 

Mr. BRONSON:--Kentucky has sent delegates to this Convention since shepassed the resolutions to which the gentleman refers. I think wecannot stand upon the ground taken in these resolutions. I do notbelieve Kentucky herself would be satisfied with them now. 

It is strange to see gentlemen so cool and apathetic under suchcircumstances. Is no one alarmed for the safety of the old flag aboutwhich so much is said? Can the Border States stay with us when theirbrethren are gone? If the action of the North in relation to slaveryis such as to drive out South Carolina, can Delaware and the otherBorder States remain? For one, I do not wish to put this Constitutioninto the hands of a General Convention. Who can tell what such aconvention would do with the Constitution; what it would do with thedecisions of the Supreme Court, under which so many of the vexatiousquestions have been settled? It would be worse than attempting tosettle our differences in a town meeting. I would hesitate long beforeI would submit such questions to a convention. Before they could besettled in that way, the Union would be gone forever. The processwould be too slow. I have nothing to gain in this matter. My only wishis to spend my few remaining days in the United States, and totransmit the blessings of our Government to my children. 

Some of the Republican members here subordinate their platform totheir country. I commend them for it; these are noble sentiments. Menshould abandon platforms when they tend to destroy the country. Iconcur in the sentiments of the gentleman from Illinois, uttered thismorning. They also are noble sentiments. 

I venerate our Constitution. When made, it was equal to any everframed. Nothing short of Almighty Wisdom could have framed a better. But was it given to human wisdom, to WASHINGTON and MADISON, toforesee all the events of the future? The Constitution has held ustogether for three-fourths of a century; that is a wonder in itself;but its makers did not foresee this day--a day when Freedom itself wasin danger of perishing. 

Why this hesitation about amending the Constitution? New York acceptedit reluctantly, and only ratified it upon the assurance that it shouldbe amended as she proposed. It is not so holy a thing now, that it maynot be amended. WASHINGTON, you must remember, signed the FugitiveSlave Law of 1793, as well as the Constitution. 

We are told by gentlemen from New York and Connecticut (Mr. NOYES andMr. BALDWIN), that the action proposed here is unconstitutional. Itdoes not become these gentlemen to raise this objection. There wasnever an amendment of the State Constitutions, in either of the Statesthey represent, adopted, that was not brought before the people insubstantially the same way. 

Much has been said here about modern civilization and the spirit ofthe age. It is said that these are hostile to slavery. Suppose theyare? What have we to do with them? The example of England, also, hasbeen referred to, as well as that of France. True, they have abolishedslavery by name, but they have imported apprentices from Africa, andCoolies from Asia, and have placed them under the worst form ofslavery ever known. England tolerates slavery in her mining districtsto-day in a worse form than that existing in the Southern States. Shehas millions in India worse off than slaves. She has been the greatestland robber on the earth. She has contributed to the support of theJuggernaut, and has forced the Chinese at the point of the bayonet toeat opium. Do you forget that she ruined the capitol in this city, andblew it up, in 1814? I do not deny her virtues, but I do not care tofollow her example. 

Our fathers said slavery was strictly a State institution, and theywould not meddle with it by the Constitution. Their doctrine is truenow. The Union cannot be preserved if we interfere with theinstitutions of the States. 

I will not stop to refer to the Missouri Compromise, or thecompromises of 1850 and 1854. I will only say that the Northunderstood these to settle the slavery question, and professed toagree not to meddle with slavery hereafter in the States. But the cryof freedom was raised, and its new apostles, during the last campaign, went through the land preaching destruction to slavery. What did theymean but that slavery was to be assailed at every possible point? Thisdoctrine was involved in their platforms, and advocated in theirspeeches. They collected all the bad things ever said about slavery, whether true or untrue, and published them. The purpose to assail theinstitution was everywhere owned. 

I wish to say a word about the Territories. What great harm would bedone if all the Territories were thrown open to slavery? By thedecision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, they are openalready. But in the greater part of them slavery cannot exist at all. New Mexico has a slave code. So have the Cherokee and other Indiantribes; and yet slavery does not and cannot flourish among them. Itcannot make head against the obstacles which oppose it, and yet youwill attack it even there. If you do so, civil war is inevitable. 

But what mischief is done if slavery does go into the Territories? Itwill not add another to the degraded race of Africans. It is ablessing to the slave if he may be permitted to go with his masterinto these new Territories. In the old slave States he is compelled towork in gangs under the whip of a driver, with no one to look afterhis health or comfort. Take him into one of these new Territories, andthere are one hundred white men and women to protect each individualof his race, and to see that he suffers no wrong. It is a blessing totake him out of the plantation gangs, and to place him in a newcountry. Then why not let him go there and live in peace? Your zeal toexclude slavery from the Territories only injures the African race. Ifthere is a good substantial reason for this exclusion I shall be gladto hear it. Up to this time I have heard no good reason stated. Although I have declared myself a Democrat, in this Conference I am noparty man. Show me any good reason for not adopting these proposals ofamendment and I will oppose them. But until that reason is shown theywill receive my support. So far as I can judge, no argument has beenproposed here against these propositions which is not of a partisancharacter. 

The rights which the slave States now ask to have us recognize, areguaranteed to them by the Constitution as it now stands. We are givingthem nothing new. Every lawyer is familiar with the rule ofconstitutional construction, that all the rights not expressly grantedto the General Government are reserved to the States. Let us carrythis principle into effect now. It is all that we are asked to do. Letus do something. Let us amend these propositions; make them asunobjectionable as we can, and send them to Congress. Let us urgeCongress and the country to adopt them. In their adoption there issafety; there is great danger in their rejection. 

Mr. POLLOCK obtained the floor, and at twelve o'clock the Conferenceadjourned to ten o'clock to-morrow. 

FIFTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, _February 22d, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order by President TYLER, at 10 o'clockA. M. , and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. SUNDERLAND. 

The Journal of yesterday was read, corrected, and approved. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--It will be necessary that some plan be adopted todefray the expenses of the Conference, and of printing the Journal. Imove the appointment, by the President, of a committee of three totake those subjects into consideration. 

The motion was adopted, and the President appointed Mr. JOHNSON, ofMaryland, Mr. POLLOCK, and Mr. GRANGER as such committee. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I have an amendment in three sections which I shalloffer to the report of the committee. I ask that it may be read, laidon the table, and printed. 

The motion was agreed to, and the amendment read as follows:

 Strike out Section 3, and insert the three following:

 SEC. 3. Congress shall have no power to regulate, abolish, or control within any State the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof, touching persons held to service or labor therein. 

 SEC. 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any person held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, under the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to impair any rights pertaining to that relation under the laws now in force within the said District, while such relation shall exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of said State, and of those to whom the service or labor is due, or making to them just compensation therefor; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit members of Congress, and officers of the Federal Government whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them, retaining, and taking away persons so held to service or labor; nor the power to impair or abolish the relations of persons owing service or labor in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and Territories where such relations are established or recognized by law. 

 SEC. 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor or service in any State or Territory of the United States, to any State or Territory thereof, where the same obligation or liability to labor or service is established or recognized by law; and the right during such transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or labor than on land. 

 Strike out Section 7, and insert:

 SEC. 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases where the marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous assemblage, or where, after arrest, such fugitive shall be rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such service or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the same, the United States shall pay to such party the full value of such service or labor. 

Mr. TURNER:--I offer the following resolution:

 _Resolved_, That the time fixed upon to commence voting upon the questions before this Convention, be postponed until Monday, February 25th, at 12 o'clock M. 

I am as desirous as any member of the Conference can be for action. Illinois is a Border State, and she feels, in common with the BorderStates, a deep interest in the questions we are discussing here. But Ithink a false issue has arisen, and that it ought to be corrected. This issue has been forced upon us, and it will go to the countryunless corrected. Very little time has yet been occupied by Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, but we wish and we ought to be heard. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri, moved to lay the resolution upon the table. 

The vote was taken by States, with the following result:

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio and Vermont--10. 

Mr. TURNER:--I see the resolution does not meet with favor. I willwithdraw it. 

Mr. CHASE:--I offer the resolution again. I wish to appeal to thisConference in the name of peace, not to press this vote to-day. Wehave been discussing general questions. There has been little or nodiscussion touching the merits of the proposed amendments to theConstitution. Do gentlemen suppose that if it is pressed through inthis way, it will meet with favor when it comes before the country?Let me assure you, gentlemen, that you will not give the country peaceby such a course. 

There is a prospect that all sections of the Union may yet be inducedto agree to a General Convention. The floor is so parcelled out thatthe Western States cannot be heard. Why do you force the vote in thismanner? Two-thirds of Congress must concur, or these propositionscannot go to the people. The same two-thirds can suspend the rule atany time. There is no necessity for passing these propositions to-day. I regret that the proposition of Mr. WICKLIFFE, limiting the speechesto thirty minutes, has not prevailed. It was withdrawn. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--No! It was laid on the table by enemies. 

Mr. POLLOCK:--I have the floor. I will occupy it only thirty minutes, with the understanding that those who follow will do the same. Westill have time for six speeches. 

Mr. CHASE:--I have but little more to say. When we have a rule, weknow what it is. A general understanding will amount to nothing. Ihave insisted that it was inexpedient to press these matters to adecision before the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN; but when overruled Ihave cheerfully submitted. I now appeal to gentlemen to yield, and letus take the final vote on Monday. 

One word now as to a General Convention. I have faith in that, andbelieve we can agree to call one. The idea was started by Kentucky, and promptly followed by Illinois. I have seen a copy of the"Louisville Journal, " which strongly advocates it. It is practicable, and the country will assent to it. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--The delegates from Delaware desire that the vote shouldbe taken to-day. We have not discussed these propositions, and do notwish to discuss them. We want action. 

Mr. BACKUS:--I concur in the views of the gentleman from Delaware. Discussion, so far, has tended very little toward harmony orunanimity. I am in favor of closing the general debate to-day. But Ido protest against that part of the resolution we have adopted, whichlimits the discussion of an amendment to five minutes, and confinesthe reply to the committee. We ought not thus to be restricted andchoked down. I will not move to amend the resolution now underdiscussion. It will answer my purpose to give notice that I shall moveto amend the five-minute rule. 

Mr. COOK:--We ought to have an opportunity to present the views ofIllinois. As yet we have had none. We cannot justify ourselves to ourpeople unless we do. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I move to lay the whole subject on the table. I wantto test the question. Debate and discussion change the mind of no one. We have now been here eighteen days, and the country is expecting adecision. 

The vote upon Mr. WICKLIFFE'S motion was called by States, andresulted as follows:

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--9. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont--11. 

Mr. BACKUS:--I now offer my proposition as a substitute for Mr. CHASE'S resolution, as follows:

 _Resolved_, That the resolution heretofore passed, limiting debate on amendments that shall be offered to the report of the Grand Committee, be so amended as to allow the delegates who may desire, to speak not exceeding ten minutes on each amendment. 

Mr. CHASE:--I do not wish to seem unreasonable. As my resolution meetswith objection, I will withdraw it in favor of the one adopted by mycolleague. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Have gentlemen calculated how many hours this willtake? It will amount to a total defeat of all action. We could not getthrough by the middle of next month. 

Mr. EWING:--I favor the resolution. All should have a fair chance. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--I move to amend, giving each delegate ten minutes. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I object to that very strenuously. Many delegations aredivided. I hope the resolution will pass as it is. 

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--I approve of the rule as it now stands. Practically, it gives ten minutes. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move to lay the resolution on the table. We adoptedthe rule unanimously. 

Mr. WILMOT:--The motion is not in order. We have once voted not totable the resolutions. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--I will withdraw my motion, at the instance of thegentlemen around me. 

Mr. CHASE:--The question is upon the adoption of the resolutionoffered by Mr. BACKUS. I have accepted it in place of the one offeredby myself. 

The PRESIDENT:--It is subject, at any time, to a motion to lay on thetable. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--That is my motion. 

The motion to lay the resolution of Mr. BACKUS on the table was lostby the following vote--the vote by States being requested by Mr. CHASE:

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Vermont--10. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I presume we all desire to know the result of ourlabors. I regret to see so much feeling manifested. Perhaps some of ushad better take the benefit of the prayers of the church on Sunday. Some of us wish to get our propositions to Congress at an early hour. Those who oppose us--those determined to defeat action, can speak onuntil the fourth of March. I hope such is not their intention. 

Mr. TUCK:--If the rule is abused, the Convention will stop the abuse. 

At this point there were loud calls of "question, " and the Presidentput the question to vote, _viva voce_. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think the Noes clearly have it. 

Mr. CHASE:--A vote by States was called for by several members. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--Is this resolution intended to give the right ofreply? If so, we shall have a half-hour speech upon every amendment. 

Mr. BACKUS:--If any member wishes to divide his time, he can do so;but he can only occupy ten minutes in all. We are called todeliberate, as well as to act. We are asked if we wish to stave offfinal action? I answer, No. I want speedy action. But at the same timelet us have deliberation. I wish to give a vote that my constituentswill approve. 

The PRESIDENT:--The vote will be taken by States. 

The resolution was adopted by the following vote:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont--11. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--9. 

Mr. HALL offered the following, which was read, laid on the table, andordered to be printed:

 Amendment to Section 3 of the Committee's Report, to come in after the words "retaining and taking away persons so bound to labor:"--"but the bringing into said District of persons held to service for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pass all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor shall Congress have, " &c. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will proceed to the order of the day, and Mr. POLLOCK has the floor:

Mr. POLLOCK:--Brevity is always a virtue. I intend to practice thatvirtue now. I would not make a single observation, if I did not feelthat by keeping silence I should neglect my duty. As it is, I do notintend to occupy the time of the Conference more than twenty minutes. 

When the committee upon the subject invited Pennsylvania to furnish ablock for the Washington Monument in this city, they asked also for amotto, to be inscribed upon it, which should express some ideacharacteristic of Pennsylvania. What was the motto selected in behalfof that great State? Did we go to Germantown and invoke the memoriesof the mighty dead? Did we ask the motto of Valley Forge? No, brothers, no! Pennsylvania stood by the side of the grave of Penn, theman of peace, and in his example she found her motto, and it standsinscribed upon her contribution to that monument to the Father of hisCountry to-day. There may it stand forever. "_Pennsylvania was foundedby deeds of Peace. _" How noble the sentiment! How characteristic ofthat Commonwealth!

Animated by the same sentiment, filled with the same spirit, herselfasking nothing, requiring nothing, Pennsylvania comes into thisConference and says to every delegate here, "_Peace, Brothers, Peace. _" She is not for war. She believes that the power of kindnessis far greater than that of the sword; that in the affection ofbrother toward brother there is greater strength than in all the ironcontained in all her thousand hills and mountains. She comes here atthe instance of a sister. She heard the voice of that sister askingfor consultation, and she obeyed it. She is here, and in the rightspirit. 

A word now as to the motive of Virginia in calling the Statestogether. Some object that Virginia comes bearing the olive branch onthe point of the bayonet. Not so, sir. She is placed in a peculiarposition, and I appreciate it. She does not make use of threats. Theseexist only in the imagination of gentlemen. I am willing to meet herhere upon the very ground she takes, and unite with her in saying, "Our Union as it is, now and forever. " We are here taking counsel, notwith traitors, not with secessionists, but with lovers of the Union. 

The people love the Union; they will not give it up. They are true. Myheart almost leapt from my bosom when that telegraph message was readfrom Missouri a few days ago. Tennessee has taken up the cry, "Unionfor ever, " The nation is troubled. All nations are, at times. But ourtroubles are not insurmountable. We are all here together to settlethem. Why not settle them, and give peace to the Union, and joy to thehearts of the people?

We can settle our difficulties. The right feeling animates gentlemenfrom both sections. Where was the heart in this Conference that didnot start with emotion, when, some days ago, that glorious old patriotfrom North Carolina (Mr. RUFFIN) told us of his devotion to the Union?Who did not honor and respect him? Old men and young men wept as theylistened. Friends! Countrymen! I come here from a Border State. TheseStates have a vital interest in the result, therefore we speakearnestly. Let us say to the angry passions of the country, "Peace, bestill!"

The Border States are united; they have common interests. Beside thehearthstones of each, sit wives, and children, and families, connectedwith each other by ties of blood, of interest, of social intercourse. We are one. Is Maryland or Delaware ready to say that either willpart company from Pennsylvania? No! We are brethren--come weal, comewo, we will stand by each other, and we will stand by the Union. 

Gentlemen say there will not be war, if we do not agree. I wish Icould think so, but I cannot. But if war should come, let me ask thegentlemen from New York who think principles are standing in theirway, will you take the risk? Will you see the soil of Pennsylvaniadrenched with blood? Can you risk all this hereafter, when you canavoid it by accepting a proposition that involves no sacrifice ofprinciples? Never in my whole life have I felt the weight of officialresponsibility as I feel it now. God grant that war may be avertedfrom the country!

Let the lightning this day flash to the extreme limits of the Union, the glad tidings that we have settled these questions. The messagewould be received with gratitude and thanksgiving. Our friends in theBorder States say, "We love the Union, we wish to stay in it; we donot wish to be driven out. " Can you not, will you not, do somethingfor them? Let us trust this matter to the people. I am not afraid totrust the people of Pennsylvania. New York and Massachusetts, trustyours!

We talk calmly of war, but we forget its calamities. Let us rememberthat we should not sacrifice one life for this paltry abstraction. Letus remember how great are the miseries of war. Let us think of therush of angry armies, of the widows and orphans, of the sorrow anddesolation that war always leaves in its path. 

Christian men! remember that our great Saviour was a Prince ofPeace--that he came to conquer with peace, not with the sword. "TheLord God omnipotent reigneth. "

Disunion is a crime against every thing. Above all, it is a crimeagainst GOD. Christians, pause and reflect. Let me entreat you to helpus save this country from disunion. 

I speak earnestly. We Pennsylvanians are upon the border. Our soilmust be the battle ground. Upon us will the heavy trouble fall. Oncemore I say, let us trust the people. They are always right. They willdo something; and honest men, sincere men, tell us that unlesssomething is done, the border slave States cannot be retained in theUnion. 

I am not here as a party man, but as an American citizen, and acitizen of Pennsylvania. I am here to perform my duty to the wholecountry, if I can find out what that duty is. 

Our friends say there is great apprehension at the South that theRepublican party meditates unconditional interference with Southernrights. I do not believe for a moment that there is any ground forsuch an apprehension. But, nevertheless, it exists. Acting upon it, several States have withdrawn from the Union. We must deal with it inthe best way we can. If we can satisfy our southern brethren, in thename of peace let us do it. I labored for the election of Mr. LINCOLN, but I never understood that hostility to slavery was the leading ideain the platform of his party. Pennsylvania had other interests--otherreasons very powerful, for supporting him. There was the repeal of theMissouri Compromise--ruinous discriminations in the Tariff--thecorruption of the Government--the villanous conduct of its highofficers; these and other considerations gave Mr. LINCOLN morestrength in Pennsylvania than the slavery question. 

There are sentiments and opinions at the North that must be respected. There are sentiments and opinions at the South that must be respected;but there are no differences that cannot be honorably adjusted. Theonly practicable way that I can discover is to adopt the plan reportedby the committee, and secure its submission to the people. 

How can we do greater honor to this glorious day, which gave theimmortal WASHINGTON to his country and to the world, than by markingit on the calendar as the day that secured the safety and perpetuityof the American Union?

Mr. SUMMERS:--The Committee on Credentials have examined the case ofMr. J. C. STONE, who is commissioned as a delegate from Kansas, and areof opinion that he is duly accredited. 

Mr. FIELD:--I understand that he was appointed by Mr. BEEBE, theSecretary of the Territorial Government. 

Mr. CLAY:--There is a provision in the Kansas Act authorizing theSecretary to perform all the duties of the Governor in his absence. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I represent an old and honored Commonwealth. Ispeak, remembering the maxing that "a soft answer turneth awaywrath. " But I should disregard my duty if I did not reply to what wassaid a few days ago, in arraignment--in unfair and improperarraignment, of Virginia. 

Virginia occupies no menacing position, no attitude of hostilitytoward the Union or her sister States. Virginia knows that "eternalvigilance is the price of liberty. " She knows, too, that there is goodpolicy in the maxim, "in peace prepare for war. " Her action is onlysuch as is dictated by a prudent foresight. How unkind, then, are suchtaunts against Virginia, the mother of us all. She comes here in apaternal spirit; she desires to preserve the Union; she disdains toemploy a menace; she knows that she never can secure the cooperationof brave men by employing menaces. No! She wishes to use all herefforts to perpetuate the reign of peace. 

Another says we are seeking to secure an amendment of the Constitutionby the employment of unconstitutional means, and that this meeting isa revolutionary mob--that these eminent men of the country assembledhere, constitute a mob. No, sir! No!

Mr. BALDWIN:--If the gentleman from Virginia refers to me, he quitemisunderstood me. I said only that the action proposed here was notcontemplated by the Constitution, and was revolutionary in itstendency. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I cannot for my life so consider it. This ismerely an advisory body. We are here to devise an adjustment, and tolay it before Congress. We are exercising the right of petition, andthat is a sacred right. Is this revolutionary? No, sir! You wouldinsist that Congress should _receive_ a petition, although that bodyhad no right to act upon it. If so, how much more should our petitionbe received, when we seek to preserve the Union, and when theConstitution expressly authorizes Congress to act in such a case. 

The gentleman from Vermont said last evening, that a pledge from theSouth to abide by the result would be a condition precedent to thesubmission of the proposition at all, and yet he says he cannot pledgeVermont. Why, then, does he ask us to pledge Virginia?

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I am not willing to be misunderstood. I thought mylanguage was plain. What I said was, that no one could pledge thefree States for or against these propositions; but I did say we couldpledge them _to abide by the Union, whatever_ the result might be. _That_ is the pledge we ask from the South. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--Well, that is a pledge we have no authority togive. We cannot accept these propositions as a boon from any section. We must have them as a right, or not at all. 

But let me address myself at once to the momentous question. It seemsthat we can agree upon every thing but this question of slavery in theTerritories. So far as that subject is concerned, Virginia hasdeclared that she will accept the Crittenden resolutions. She and hersouthern sisters will stand upon and abide by them. If gentlemen willcome up to this basis of adjustment with manly firmness, the electricwires will flash a thrill of joy to the hearts of the people this veryhour. Why not come up to it like men?

The Supreme Court has already established the rights of the South, sofar as this question is concerned, upon a basis which is satisfactory. Under the Dred Scott decision, the people of the South have the rightto go into any portion of the Territory with their slaves. You, gentlemen of the North, will not abide by that decision. You havedeclared in your platform that it is a miserable dogma. How can we besatisfied with such a guarantee for our rights as that?

But it is said that this part of the Dred Scott decision is only an_obiter dictum_; that the question was not presented by the record. This is not so. As was said by Governor WICKLIFFE, the other day, there were two questions in that case. The judgment of the court wasupon them both, and both were presented by the record. 

We know that the dominant party has elected a President on a purelysectional issue, and in deadly hostility to our institutions. Webelieve, from all the indications of the times, that our institutionsare utterly insecure. Therefore we ask these guarantees. Give them tous, and from that time you will restore peace and quiet to thecountry. You at once attach the Border States firmly to you forever. Ihope you will do so; but I tell you that the Border States cannot beretained unless you will consent to give such guarantees as willbring back the seceded States, and unite us all in a gloriousconfederation. 

Sentiments have been uttered here that grate harshly on the minds ofSouthern gentlemen. It is said that this is a war of ideas. If so, then there is certainly that irrepressible conflict about which wehave heard so much. But it is not true that slaves exclude free labor. Come to the harvest homes of Western Virginia. There you will see theunion of white and black labor--see the two races working harmoniouslytogether. The mechanics are white, the field hands are black. Thoseonly make such assertions who know nothing about it. 

You insist at the North that slavery is a sin. If it is as you claimit to be, a sin, the sum of all villanies, then we may as wellseparate. We cannot live together longer. 

If we cannot have the aid of other sections, the Border States musttake the subject into their own hands, and settle it for themselves. These States, with one exception, have shown a most excellent spirit. Let them all come up to the work to-day; on this natal day ofWASHINGTON, of whom it was said that nature had denied him children, in order that he might be indeed the Father of his Country. New Jerseyhas most nobly responded, through her distinguished sons, butespecially through the voice of that eloquent man, who swept with amaster hand the chords of the human heart, in his remarks here, andtones of heavenly music responded to the touch. 

The whole nation stands on tiptoe awaiting the final result of theaction of this Conference. All sections are ready to make sacrifices, but sacrifices are not required. Let us act, and then go home. Agrateful people will bind the wreath of victory around your brows, for"Peace hath her victories not less than War. "

We make no appeal to the sympathies of gentlemen. We ask you to dojustice, simple justice to the South. Do it, and you will do honor toyourselves. Give us the guarantees we ask, and my word for it, youwill see the seceded States coming back one by one, and we shall seeourselves once more a happy and a united people!

Mr. WILMOT:--It is not my purpose to enter upon the wide field thathas been opened in this debate. I did not intend to speak at all. Iknow well the position I occupy before the country. I am regarded bythose who do not know me as an extreme man. I am, if I know myself, aman of moderation, and, I trust, of firmness. I make these remarksbecause the time has come when I must separate from my delegation. Iconcede every thing to their patriotism, good intentions, andintegrity. But I must separate from them in the votes they are aboutto give. 

We are called here to consider the condition of the country. It issaid that condition requires our interference--that such interferenceis necessary. The country has just passed through one of thoseconflicts which are incidental to our form of Government. It has bornethe trial, and I think it is safe. 

Those who insist that certain things shall be done, place us in adelicate position. You say that you do not object to the inaugurationof Mr. LINCOLN, but you refuse to permit his principles to be carriedinto effect. We say that we have not merely elected Mr. LINCOLN, butwe have decided the principles upon which his administration shall beconducted. You refuse to permit this, and say that you will leave usand revolutionize, unless we consent to a counter resolution. 

The contest in which we are now engaged is not a new one. It is oftwelve or fifteen years' standing. It assumed new proportions when weacquired Texas. Texas, under the laws of Mexico, was then free. Weinsisted that slavery should not be recognized there. You claimed thatit should--that slavery should go into all the common Territories ofthe Union. You succeeded. You procured what you claim is a decision ofthe court in your favor. But the people would not give the questionup. The issue was formed--Slavery or Freedom; and on that issue wewent into the late election. It was well understood in all itsbearings. It was discussed and argued upon both sides and all sides, and the people determined the question against the South. In mysection of the country there was no change. In all the excitement of aPresidential contest, I do not know of twenty votes that were changed. The opinions of the people were formed before; now they have declaredthem. 

My first allegiance is to the principles of truth and justice. Convince me that your propositions are right, that they are just andtrue, and I will accept them. I will sustain them to the end. If theyare wrong--and I now believe them to be--I will never sustain them, and I will show my faith in GOD by leaving the consequences with Him. 

Any substantial change in the fundamental principles of government isrevolutionary. Yours may be a peaceable one, but it is still arevolution. The seceded States are in armed revolution. You are indirect alliance with them. You say the Government shall not retake theforts, collect the revenue, and you ask us to aid you in preventingthe Government from doing its duty. 

Permit this, and the judgment of the world will be that we havesubmitted to the inauguration of your principles as the principles ofthe Government. It would exhibit a weakness from which the countrycould never hope to recover. These are reasons satisfactory enough tome. I cannot vote for the first article. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Do you wish to get the seceded States back?

Mr. WILMOT:--Certainly I do. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--How do you propose to do it?

Mr. WILMOT:--I cannot say that I have any special way. It is theirduty to return. There are better methods of coercing them than tomarch our army on to their soil. Now I understand it is your purposeto intrench slavery behind the Constitution. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--Certainly. That is true--in a certain portion of theTerritories. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I thought I was not mistaken. The Government has longbeen administered in the interest of slavery. The fixed determinationof the North is, that this shall be no longer. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--Will the gentleman hazard the assertion that such hasbeen the policy of Tennessee, Maryland, or Delaware?

Mr. WILMOT:--I did not intend to say more than that such has been thegeneral policy of the Government. Another objection to the proposedamendment is its ambiguity. Its construction is doubtful, when itshould be plain. Don't let us differ when we go home. If we do weshall settle nothing. Some will claim that the first article does notfurnish a slave code. Others will claim that it does, and such I thinkis a fact. I am also opposed to the second article. I do not think itis right thus to bind posterity. I am opposed to the third article, except the first clause. If you think there is really a purpose at theNorth to interfere with slavery in the States, I am willing adeclaratory amendment should be adopted prohibiting such interference. I like that of Mr. FIELD much better. I can go for that with all myheart. 

As to the foreign slave trade we ask nothing. The laws are well enoughas they are, if properly enforced. Besides, you make too much of it. You will claim hereafter that this formed one part of the compromise. It will amount to nothing. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--But the South wants the foreign slave tradeprohibited. 

Mr. WILMOT:--Do not the statutes prohibit it? Why not enforce them?

Mr. BARRINGER:--We had rather have the prohibition in theConstitution. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I am opposed also to abrogating the power of Congressover the District of Columbia. I hope to see slavery abolished in theDistrict. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania abide by thedecision in the Dred Scott case?

Mr. WILMOT:--Certainly, so far as it decides what is in the record. 

Mr. SEDDON:--You will not permit it to settle the principle?

Mr. WILMOT:--I will not, any more than Virginia would accede to thedecision upon the Alien and Sedition Laws. I will be frank and gofarther. If the Court had undertaken to settle the principle, I woulddo all I reasonably could to overthrow the decision. 

Mr. SEDDON:--My voice has failed me to-day, and I do not know that Ican speak in audible tones, but I will try. 

I understand the gentleman who last addressed us to say, that thereare to be incorporated into the administration of the Government twonew principles: one is, that there shall be no slavery in theterritories; the other is, that the action of the Government shall beon the side of freedom. And furthermore, that slavery is to beregarded as a purely local institution, and that slaves are not to beregarded as property anywhere except in the slave States. Now, thatwas just the way in which I interpreted the action of the North in thelast election, and it is precisely this view which has led to thesecession of the States. The gentleman well understands that adifferent view of their rights under the Constitution prevails amongthe Southern people. Will he also understand and recognize the fact, that the Supreme Court has clearly given the sanction of its opinionto the Southern construction?

Mr. WILMOT:--Ought not the action of the Government under WASHINGTONto be a precedent of some weight in our favor?

Mr. SEDDON:--I cannot accede to that. Now the North has inauguratedthis policy. We of the South say it is a subversion of theConstitution. The gentleman must as freely admit that the party justcoming into power must of necessity be a Northern party. It can haveno affiliation with any party at the South. Now I ask, can we, as amatter of policy or justice, whose rights are so vitally involved, sitby and see this done? Slavery is with us a democratic and a socialinterest, a political institution, the grandest item of ourprosperity. Can we in safety or justice sit quietly by and allow theNorth thus to array all the powers of the Government against us?

 The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the PRESIDENT announced that under the resolutions adopted by the Conference, general debate must cease, and the Conference would proceed to vote upon the report of the General Committee, and various amendments proposed thereto. 

Mr. FIELD:--I rise to a question of privilege. What was done by theConference with the credentials of the gentleman from Kansas?

The SECRETARY:--The practice heretofore has been, to consider agentleman a member, when the Committee on Credentials report in hisfavor. 

Mr. FIELD:--Then I move to reconsider the action of the Conference inthis case. 

Mr. PRICE:--I rise to a question of order. The committee have reportedin favor of Mr. STONE, and that is conclusive. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think the Conference has a right to pass upon thecredentials. 

Mr. FIELD:--I have a serious objection to the admission of thegentleman from Kansas. He holds the commission of the Secretary of theTerritory alone, from a man who has never been appointed Governor. Itis very irregular. It looks as though the gentleman was sent here onlyfor the purpose of giving the vote of Kansas to certain propositions. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--The delegate comes here with an appointmentunder the seal of the State of Kansas. The act admitting Kansasprovides that all the territorial officers shall exercise jurisdictionuntil others are elected. I think it is in very bad taste for thegentleman from New York to question the regularity of the appointment. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I make a point of order. We have decided to proceed tothe vote at this time. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think this is a privileged question. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--I respectfully appeal from the decision of thePRESIDENT. 

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I move to lay the whole subject on the table. 

Mr. FIELD:--I ask for a vote by States. 

The PRESIDENT:--It is somewhat difficult to decide what motion hasprecedence. What was the motion of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. FIELD:--I moved a reconsideration of the action of the Conventionadmitting Mr. STONE. Let us have a vote on that motion. It is as gooda test as any. 

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I insist that the question is upon my motion to lay thewhole subject on the table. 

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. MOREHEAD, with thefollowing result:

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia--10. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont--9. 

Mr. CLAY:--I would ask, as a matter of courtesy, not to say of commondecency, that Mr. STONE may be permitted to state how and why he camehere. 

Mr. STONE, of Kansas:--I understand that I was appointed by theSecretary of Kansas, who was at the time the Acting Governor. Iunderstand that the appointment was made in accordance with theEnabling Act of Kansas. I am not inclined to argue my right to a seatin the Conference. 

Mr. FIELD:--I wish to ask the gentleman only one question. Was notGovernor ROBINSON actually in possession of his office before thedelegate received his appointment, and is he not in such possessionnow?

Mr. STONE:--He was, and is. 

Mr. ALEXANDER:--I call for the reading of the fourth Rule. 

The fourth Rule was read by the Secretary, as follows:

 4TH RULE. --A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without special leave, upon the same question; and not a second time, before every other who has been silent shall have been heard, if he chooses to speak upon the subject. 

Mr. FIELD:--In order to bring the subject fairly before theConference, I will put my motion in the form of a resolution, asfollows:

 _Resolved_, That the credentials of Mr. STONE, who desires to act as a Commissioner from Kansas, be referred back to the Committee on Credentials, with instructions to that committee to report the facts concerning his appointment, and whether it proceeded from the Territorial Secretary. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I wish the Committee on Credentials to stand right withthe Conference. We accepted the commission of the Acting Governor as_prima facia_ correct. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--I wish to offer a resolution. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--All resolutions are out of order. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think resolutions under the ruling of the Conferencecannot now be considered. 

Mr. CURTIS:--I ask leave for the State of Iowa to vote on the motionto lay the subject of the admission of the delegate from Kansas on thetable. 

The motion was granted, and Iowa being called, voted No; and the votestood: Ayes, 10; Noes, 10. And so the motion was lost. 

Much discussion here ensued on the subject of the admission of thedelegate from Kansas, which was participated in by Messrs. STOCKTON, CLEVELAND, COALTER, and others, when

Mr. STONE observed that he had no desire to force himself into theConference, and until the question was settled he thought it proper towithdraw. 

The resolution offered by Mr. FIELD was adopted without a division. 

VOTE ON THE PROPOSITIONS AND AMENDMENTS. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the considerationof the report of the General Committee, and the amendments thereto. The question will be taken on the adoption of the first sectionreported by the Committee of One from each State, which the SECRETARYwill now read. 

The SECRETARY read the report as follows:

 SECTION 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. 

 SECTION 2. Territory shall not be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty; nor, except for naval and commercial stations and depots, unless such treaty shall be ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate. 

 SECTION 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State or Territory of the United States, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons bound to labor or involuntary service therein; nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland, and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing with them to the city of Washington, retaining and taking away, persons so bound to labor; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation, by land, sea, or river, of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage; and the right during transportation of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons bound to labor, than on land. 

 SECTION 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due. 

 SECTION 5. The foreign slave trade, and the importation of slaves into the United States and their Territories, from places beyond the present limits thereof, are forever prohibited. 

 SECTION 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section six of these amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States. 

 SECTION 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of such fugitive. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope now the Conference will proceed in the regularway, and that the majority report will be first perfected so far asamendments are concerned, and that then it may be adopted. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I move to amend the first section by inserting, after thewords "in all the present territory south of said line, " the words"including the Cherokee grant, " and I call for a vote by States on theadoption of the amendment I propose. My object is to carry out theinstruction of the committee. A small part of the grant lies north ofthe line. It is better to include the whole. 

Mr. BACKUS:--I move to amend the amendment proposed by the gentlemanfrom Virginia, by substituting the word "excluding" for the word"including, " and on my motion ask a vote by States. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--I think the gentleman does not understand the effect ofhis amendment. 

Mr. BACKUS:--I do not think we ought to regard the Cherokee grant atall. 

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I think both the amendments important. 

Mr. SEDDON:--We must recognize the Cherokee Territory, and not divideit. Upon mature reflection, I think the amendment is important. 

The vote was taken upon the motion of Mr. BACKUS, and resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont--11. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--9. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question is now upon the amendment offered by thegentleman from Virginia, as amended by the Conference. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope the amendment will not be adopted. It is notnecessary to the sense of the article. It is cumulative in its effect. We have expressly excluded the Cherokee grant, lest we might seem tooverrule the Cherokee treaty by a provision of the Constitution. 

The vote was taken by States, on the adoption of the amendmentproposed by Mr. SEDDON, as amended, with the following result:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont--10. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10. 

Thus the amendment was lost. 

Mr. PRATT:--I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Connecticut. 

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I now offer as a substitute for the first section, asreported, the following:

 Strike out after the words "United States, " in the first line, and insert as follows:

 "Not embraced by the Cherokee treaty, north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ of persons held to service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the common law. When any territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, 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 servitude, as the constitution of such State may provide. "

Mr. FOWLER:--Let us first perfect the original. I move to amend byinserting after the word "prevent, " in the first section, the words"or facilitate. "

Mr. REID:--I think we ought to perfect the section before we vote on asubstitute. I move to amend it by inserting after the word "line, "after the words "territory south of said line, " the following words:"involuntary servitude is recognized, and property in those of theAfrican race held to service or labor in any of the States of theUnion, when removed to such territory, shall be protected and"--

I have not expressed my views at large upon the subject of thecommittee's report. I have earnestly wished to settle the perplexingquestions which now distract the country. I do not rise to make aspeech. I have not come here to exact more than the North canhonorably grant, nor to deceive the North in the result, if the rightsof the South are not protected. Our property is involved in youraction. You can afford to be liberal. If you intend to recognizeproperty in slaves, write it down in the bond. If the North wants anyprotection, name it, and we will put it into the bond. If you fearthat slavery may go north of the proposed line, we will give you anyassurance to the contrary. But I tell you that on the other side werequire reciprocal terms. Nothing else will satisfy the publicsentiment. Twelve months hence and we will not take what we now offerto take. 

What are we talking about? Every one knows that the African race isbetter off at the South than it could be elsewhere. We do not wish todisrupt the Union. You are doing it on a mere Northern abstraction. Suppose a foreign power asked you what you were fighting about, whatwould be your answer?

But I was saying that the only way is for the North to be liberal; tobe reciprocal; to make us entirely safe. Our security must be put intothe bond and be faithfully preserved. The present _status_ of theStates in the Union is deceptive. If I am to remain in the Union, itdon't suit me. If I am to go into a southern confederacy, it is justwhat I should want. Beware, gentlemen of the North! You are cuttingyourselves off from future glory and expansion. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--The gentleman from North Carolina wants the distinctrecognition of slavery in the bond. I would like to refer him to thecondition of this question when the Constitution was adopted. The menof that time would not assert such a position. They did not think itproper or necessary. If we adopt his views we attempt to sit injudgment on the men of that day. Mr. CALHOUN understood this matterperfectly, and in one of his speeches refers to the unwillingness ofthe Convention to recognize slavery specifically. The sentiment ofIowa is that no such recognition ought to be made now. I am opposed tothe amendment. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I consider this an important amendment, and a very justone. The principle upon which we are proceeding is that of partition. We, with our property are prohibited from going north of the line. Theexact correlative of that would be, that you should be prohibited fromgoing south with your institutions. That we do not ask. On one sideinvoluntary servitude is prohibited. On the other we simply ask thatit may be recognized. We give up two-thirds of the territoryaltogether. All we ask is protection in the remaining one-third. 

What is the meaning of this proposition as it now stands? Who does notsee that its meaning is ambiguous? It requires us to give upterritorial protection, and leaves us with nothing but the shred of aright protected by the Federal courts. Once more let me tell you, thatin my opinion the South will never consider this a satisfactoryadjustment. You say we are protected by the principles of the commonlaw. Who can tell what this will amount to? Assuming the territorialgovernment to be favorable, it could do nothing. You leave itpowerless. Suppose a citizen of Virginia emigrates to the territorysouth of the line with his property. He would have no earthly rightexcept under the laws of Virginia. The power to enforce those laws isa thousand miles away. If we are to make a partition, let it be apartition. As the provision stands, it is the unfairest bargain evermade. It is all on the side of the North. In common fairness andhonesty, I submit that the North ought to vote for this amendment. 

Mr. ORTH:--There is much that is worthy of consideration in theremarks of the gentleman from Virginia. I hope earnestly that we shallnot adopt a proposal of amendment that admits of two interpretations. If I could vote for the report of the majority at all, I would throwaround it all the protection it needs. This is a new and peculiarspecies of property which we are now making the Constitution recognizeand protect. If the South is entitled to the proposition itself, Ithink they are entitled to this amendment. After all, it is onlymaking the amendment express just what we know its friends claim itimplies. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I would have preferred the direct recognition by expressterms of slavery south of the line proposed, and I voted that way inthe committee. I suppose, however, that the clause as it standsrecognizes the _status_ there, as it now exists--that it prevents allinterference with the _status_. Would you prefer to put into theproposition certain express terms which would destroy all chance ofits adoption by the people? I do not think the world is governed byideas alone. It is governed by ideas and material interests. TheConstitution of 1787 secured the interests of the slaveholder in theStates. This clause does the same in the Territories. No man can becheated by it unless he cheats himself. Gentlemen favoring theamendment must know that at least it will not improve the prospects ofthe proposition with the people. Do you wish to break up theConference? This is an effectual way of doing it. 

We ask for this proposition substantially as it stands. The North cangive it to us if it chooses. If it will not, then we shall go home andtell our constituents. They must decide for themselves what they willdo. This will settle the Territorial question effectually. What moredo we want? The additional guarantees? These are provided for in theother clauses. 

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I call for a vote by States on Mr. REID'S amendment. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--I shall vote for the amendment of my colleague. I haveoccupied no time in the general debate, but now I do desire to say afew words about this amendment, and the proposition to which it isoffered. The amendment brings up the very _gist_ of the matter. Differences of opinion exist as to the effect of the clause. Theamendment settles them. This is no place to talk about devotion to theUnion. To be a Union at all it must be one that recognizes andprotects the rights of all. Any other Union is not worth the name; isnot worth preserving. We came here, it is true, to save the Union. Wecame here to devise the means of saving it. Practically the Union isalready dissolved. If not dissolved it is disintegrated. 

We ask first, additional guarantees for our rights--for Southernrights. They must be such as will satisfy our people, and bring backthe States that have left the Union. Short of this they will amount tonothing. I know the public opinion of the South on these importantquestions. I have closely watched its growth. My own convictions as towhat it will require are decided. Unless you use language and adoptterms in your proposals of amendment which will satisfy the secededStates--which will induce them to return to the Union--your laborswill have been in vain. 

What is our claim? It is this, in short: We claim that every Southernman has the right to go into the Territories with his property, wherever these Territories may be. The Territories belong to both; tothe South as well as to the North. We want equality. We have no wishto propagate slavery, but every man at the South does wish to insistupon his right to enter the Territories upon terms of perfect equalitywith the North, if he chooses to do so. He may not exercise the right, but he will not give it up. 

We want a division of the Territories. We want to set up landmarks sothat neither we nor our posterity shall dispute hereafter about theline. 

North Carolina has instructed us to say to this Conference, that ifthe CRITTENDEN amendment can be adopted here, we can carry it almostwith unanimity. There will be a struggle even with our own people, butwe can induce them to adopt it. 

We have three hundred miles of border in common with South Carolina. Our trade and our associations are in that direction. It is useless todeny that South Carolina has sympathizers among us in her recentmovement. You must consider these things, and give us a chance. Wemust base our argument on principle; we must stand upon terms ofperfect equality. 

The proposition needs this amendment. As it stands it is ambiguous. Itis worse than that, for its construction will depend on the opinion ofa Territorial Judge. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I come from a State that is deeply interested in thesubject of slavery. Nevertheless, I shall vote against the amendmentof the gentleman from North Carolina. 

I belong to that class of politicians which believes that the peopleof every section of the Union have a right to go into all theTerritories of the Union, and take with them their property and holdit in safety. But we ought not, in our proposals of amendment to theConstitution, to insist upon what will be repulsive to any section ofthe Union. I think the amendment is unnecessary--that the right weclaim is sufficiently protected without it. As it stands, neitherCongress nor the Territorial Government has the right to impair the_status_ of the slave. What farther protection do we need? What othercan we have? Why should we insist upon the adoption of a new style oflanguage? We ought not to be unreasonable; we ought to contentourselves with the proposition as it stands, and not put expressionsinto it which will make the whole repulsive to a large section of thecountry, and which, in all probability, will defeat the wholeamendment when it comes before the country. I am not even sure that wecould get it there. I doubt whether it would pass Congress. 

This is a very serious and important question. We wish to stay thehands of extremists on both sides. We wish to stand by the Union. Ifwar comes, our soil is to be the battle ground. I wish to avoid war. Iwill insist upon this, and I will consent to no extreme opinions. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--I do not see why Mr. GUTHRIE cannot accept the proposedamendment. He and the gentleman from North Carolina are both aiming atthe same thing. The amendment is certainly the clearest. Do yousuppose the people are not going to understand the subject thoroughly?Do you suppose that they will be deceived by any such transparentdisguise of words? You do not pay them a very high compliment by sucha supposition. 

I must vote against the amendment, because I am opposed to the_principle_ of protecting slavery in the Territories. Such is thesentiment of the North. If it was not, I should vote for theamendment. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--As I intend to vote against the amendment, it is due to the Convention that I should state the reasons for myvote. I am in favor of a clear recognition of all the rights of theSouth, especially of our rights in the Territories. I voted for theCRITTENDEN amendment in the committee. I thought the North ought, injustice to us, to adopt that amendment. We, in this Conference, haveselected a Committee of One from each State--a committee of able men, and we have placed this subject in their charge. They have consultedtogether. They have ascertained the views and feeling of the differentsections of the country; they have embodied the result of their laborsin this report. The question now presented appears to my mind to bethis: After all the time and ability they have given to their reportin the present distracted and perilous condition of the country, shallI consent to put words into the amendment of the Constitution whichthey recommend, that will ensure its defeat when it comes before thepeople?

I know as certainly as that GOD rules in heaven, that unless we cometo some satisfactory adjustment in this Conference, a convulsion willensue such as the world has never seen. 

I have been travelling for nearly two months in the seceded States. Ibelieve I understand the temper of their people. I have found there anall-pervading dissatisfaction with the existing state of things, but Ihave also found great devotion to the Union. I think we can yet savethe seceded States. But at least let us save Texas and Arkansas. As itis, black ruin sits nursing the earthquake which threatens to levelthis Government to its foundations. Can you not feel it, while thereis yet time to prepare for the shock? If this giant frenzy of disunionraises its crested head--if red battle stamps his foot, the North willfeel the shock as severely as the South. 

Such is the prospect before us, and near to us, and yet gentlemen saythat they will not give _one_ guarantee to avert such dire calamities. Will not the gentleman from New York do one thing to save that Ship ofState of which he spoke so eloquently, when she is already among thebreakers, and driving so rapidly toward that rocky shore against whichher ribs of steel cannot long protect her? We are patriots all--we arebound to act together--to do something--to do our duty, and our wholeduty--to do what will ultimately preserve the Union. 

Mr. PALMER:--A few days ago the Conference listened to a deliberatedefence of the institution of slavery by its friends from the slaveStates, in which at least one gentleman from a free State (Mr. EWING)participated. That defence could have had but one object. That objectwas to place us who do not believe in slavery in such a position thatwe could not agree to a compromise without endorsing the views thenexpressed. Gentlemen expect us to give up our opinions and concur withthem. I have but one remark to make to all such suggestions. Weentertain our opinions on the subject of slavery; we cannot, we willnot surrender them. 

We are told that this contest must cease, or the Union must perish. Iam inclined to think so myself. We stand ready to make any reasonablecompromise to save the Union, short of sacrificing our opinions. You, gentlemen of the South, cannot be satisfied unless our capitulation iscomplete. 

I do not assent to much that is said here about the Border States. Ifthe Union is not dissolved until the Border States go to fighting eachother, it will last forever. 

Mr. REID:--If we all mean the same thing, let us put it into the bond. Then there will be no room for misunderstanding or controversy. If youleave this article open to construction, nothing will be settled. Thegentleman is mistaken if he supposes that I wish him to adopt myarguments. I do not. If this provision, as it stands, protects slaveryin the Territories south of 36° and 30´, why not say so in expressterms? I question whether the article, as reported, recognizesproperty in slaves at all. I wish to settle the question now andforever. I do not wish to have my purpose perverted. I wish to carryhome to North Carolina a reasonable story. We have given up all ourrights in the territory north of the line. Let the North bereciprocal. What shall I tell my people at home? That I have givenaway their rights in more than one-half the territory, and have noteven secured a provision protecting property in slaves in theremainder?

The vote, on the request of Mr. CHITTENDEN, was taken by States, andresulted as follows:--

 AYES. --Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--17. 

So the amendment was lost. 

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--Tennessee approves the sentiment of the amendment, but she thinks the requisite security is already given. 

Messrs. BUTLER and CLAY, of Kentucky, and Mr. DENT, of Maryland, askedto have their dissent recorded from the votes of their respectiveStates. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--I wish to make a suggestion in relation to Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute. I think it is not in order. The Conference hasalready determined to perfect the committee's report, beforesubstitutes are to be considered. 

Mr. CURTIS:--I now move to amend Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute, bystriking out all after the word "prohibit, " in the third line, down toand including the words "common law, " and inserting instead thereofthe words, "but this restriction shall not apply to territory south ofsaid line. "

My proposition is offered in good faith, and to show that Iowa isdisposed to compromise. I do not say that this is as far as she willgo. I have inserted the very words used by our fathers. Theyprohibited slavery north and tolerated it south of the line. This wasthe original proposition of Virginia. If there is any thing in itsethics, they are Virginia ethics. Slavery now exists in theseTerritories. Let it be there. There is slavery in Kansas, Utah, andNebraska. We cannot help it. It appears to me that the South ought toaccept this amendment. It recognizes the opinions of our fathers. Thiswas JEFFERSON'S idea when he drew the ordinance of 1787. 

The Constitution does recognize the relation of master and slave, inmy opinion. I do not like it, I confess. You in the South do notregard your blacks as slaves in the absolute sense of the term. Youhave a right in their services, not in their bodies. You recognizethem as _men_ in various ways. 

Again I say, I do not offer this amendment to embarrass the action ofthe Conference. It secures slavery south of 36° 30´. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--This amendment would not be satisfactory either to theSouth or myself. In my judgment, it ought not to be adopted. We claimthe right under the Constitution as it is, to go into all theTerritories of the Union with our property. This right is confirmed tous by the decision of the Supreme Court. There will be no compromise, if we cannot go home to our people and tell them that you concede thisright south of 36° 30´. Otherwise, they would throw the propositionsin our faces. As it stands, the article gives you security, North. Asit would be when this amendment is adopted, it would give the Southlaw and litigation. We want peace. We cannot take this amendment. 

Pending the consideration of the amendment offered by Mr. CURTIS, onmotion of Mr. JAMES, the Conference adjourned to ten o'clock to-morrowmorning. 

SIXTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, SATURDAY, _February 23d, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order at ten o'clock A. M. , by PresidentTYLER, and its proceedings commenced with prayer from Rev. Dr. BUTLER. 

The Journal of yesterday, in part, was read. The Secretary stated thathe had not found time to complete it. 

Mr. ALEXANDER:--I move to rescind the resolution adopted yesterdayallowing ten minutes to a member proposing an amendment, and tenminutes for the reply. I do not propose to discuss the motion. I thinkall will agree upon the necessity of rescinding the resolution. Thiswill leave the five minutes' rule in full force. 

A vote by States was asked by several members. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I wish to call the attention of the Conference to thissubject for a moment. I hope the present rule will not be changed. Thedebate up to yesterday was upon general questions. We have not yetgone into detail. We tried the operation of the ten minutes' ruleyesterday. I am sure that it will not be claimed that any gentlemanabused it. 

Mr. JAMES:--We have scarcely discussed a question of detail connectedwith an article in the committee's report. 

Mr. ALEXANDER:--I will withdraw my motion. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--I tried to offer a resolution yesterday which I deemedimportant. It was then ruled out of order. I am sure it is in ordernow. It reads as follows:

 _Resolved_, That whatever may be the ultimate determination upon the amendment of the Federal Constitution, or other propositions for adjustment approved by this Convention, we, the members, do recommend our respective States and constituencies to faithfully abide in the Union. 

Mr. BRONSON:--I rise to a question of order. The report of thecommittee and the amendments thereto, are the special order ofbusiness. We ought not to permit collateral questions to be broughtin. We adjourned yesterday with the amendment proposed by Mr. FRANKLINas a substitute for the first article of the committee's report beforeus. To that Mr. CURTIS, of Iowa, had offered an amendment, which wasunder discussion. Let us keep to our rules. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think the resolution of the gentleman from Iowa isin order now. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--I hope the question will be taken upon my resolution atthe present time. All the questions we have been discussing are, in myjudgment, secondary to another which ought to be first decided. Isthis Conference true to the Union--true under all circumstances? Ifso, I regard it as highly important that the Conference should givesome expression to that effect. Even if we should settle this greatcontention about slavery to-day, other questions might afterwardarise. I am quite prepared to see a claim set up, to what is calledthe right of peaceful secession. I would guard against all suchclaims. The passage of this resolution would have a beneficial effectupon the public mind. I think we still have a Government which canprotect itself and the nation. My constituents believe thispreliminary question quite as important as that of protecting slaveryin the Territories. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move to lay the resolution introduced by thegentleman from Iowa, on the table. 

Mr. BUTLER:--I want the resolution read again. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--Let us all go on to the record. I ask a vote by States. 

The resolution was read, and the vote being taken by States, resultedas follows:

 AYES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--11. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--9. 

So the motion to lay the resolution on the table prevailed. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the considerationof the order of the day. The question is upon the amendment offeredby the gentleman from Iowa, to the substitute for the first section ofthe report of the committee, offered by the gentleman fromPennsylvania. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I came into this Conference with the honest and singlepurpose of healing the unfortunate differences which now distract thecountry, having no sinister ends to answer. That purpose has hithertoremained unchanged. To accomplish it, there is nothing I will notsacrifice except principle and honor. I think the amendment of thegentleman from Iowa is, in substance, just the same as Mr. FRANKLIN'Ssubstitute. In the one, a fact is implied; in the other, the same factis expressed. I understand that neither proposition can command thesupport of those gentlemen in the Conference who favor a NationalConvention. Neither can the amendment command the approval of theborder slave States. Certainly not all, if it can any of them. Theadoption, then, of this amendment, will operate as a defeat of thefirst section of the proposed amendment of the Constitution. Neitherparty in this Conference will accept it. While, therefore, I believeit ought to be accepted--while I believe it amounts to nearly the sameas the original proposition, I will not peril the Union upon a merequestion of form. 

I did not come here to inquire into causes. Our differences exist, andI do not think they were occasioned by the success of the Republicanparty in the last Presidential election. The plotters against theUnion have seized upon the occasion to accomplish their designs. 

By no fault of their own, several of the Border States are placed in avery unfortunate position. They wish to remain in the Union, but theirpeople insist that certain of their rights shall be previouslysecured; in other words, guaranteed. 

It is my firm belief that if the inauguration of President LINCOLN wasover, if his administration had been for a few months in operation, weshould all be at peace. Now, we must act upon the facts as they arepresented to us. 

I must vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa in orderto give the original proposition a fair chance. I wish to have itdistinctly understood that this is the reason why I cast my voteagainst his amendment. 

Mr. JAMES:--I do not rise to debate the question at length, nowbefore the Conference. I think that this amendment brings us at onceto the true issue which the case presents. We have hitherto beentalking about abstractions. Now we come directly to the point. As thisis a Conference to settle disputed questions, the sooner we come tothe true points in issue, the better. 

What is the cause of our present differences? It is not found in anyaction of the North. No Northern State proposes to disrupt the Unionor to threaten its stability. But certain of the Southern slave Statescome here and say to us that certain alleged rights of theirs must besecured, or they cannot induce their people to consent to remain inthe Union. 

I have heard a great deal said in this Conference about civil war. Now, civil war is not a pleasant subject to consider; but, gentlemen, I pray you to remember that the North proposes no civil war. Shedeclines to consider the subject at all, now. If civil war is broughtupon the country, it will be your work, not ours. The North will doall she can to stay your hands--to prevent you from plunging thecountry into civil war. She will not enter upon it until you force herto do so. When you begin it, and force her into war in order to defendthe Government and the Union, I have no doubt she will enter the fieldand carry on civil war until the Union is restored and its enemies putdown. Let me ask you, gentlemen, who have so much to say about war, whether you had not better leave that question where it is?

It has been assumed, and very often stated here, that the presentConstitution gives the right to the Southern slave owner to take hisnegroes into any of the Territories of the United States, and holdthem there as slaves. I think it would be well for you not to act soentirely upon that assumption. A different view prevails quiteextensively at the North. It will be a long time before that view ischanged. 

Now, you gentlemen of the South propose to restore the MissouriCompromise line. To induce us to adopt it, you say that the territorysouth of it is a barren, worthless desert--that slavery can neverobtain a substantial foothold there. Why, then, do you make thesubject one of so much importance? Why do you risk all the calamitiesof civil war and a disruption of the Union for such a poor reward? Weshould distrust all your statements, we should disbelieve all yourprofessions of patriotism, if we could for a moment credit theassertion that you would break up the Union on such a worthlesspretext. 

You ring the changes in our ears upon the decision of the SupremeCourt in your favor. Let me tell you plainly that there is no sectionof the Union in which the decisions of that court have been so fullyand fairly respected and observed as in the free States of the North. With that you should be satisfied. 

You are in trouble; that is evident. Your troubles have been caused bythe repeal of the Missouri Compromise. That, again, was your work, notours. We opposed the repeal to the end. You had the power and youcarried it. Now the North is indifferent about the restoration of thatcompromise; but if that will satisfy you, restore the _status quo_, and the North will stand by you. But you must not expect now, that theNorth will do any thing better for you than to extend the provisionsof the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean. 

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--The gentleman from New York who has last addressedthe Conference, appeals to us to accept the amendment now proposed, upon the grounds of justice and equity. What is the present state ofthe case? We claim the right to go into all the Territories with oursouthern property. The Supreme Court has confirmed this right to us. With this advantage in our favor, we have met here to compromise. Whatis the proposition now? It is to give the North all the territorynorth of 36° 30´, and to leave all questions concerning the territorysouth of that line without any adjustment at all! That gentlemanfavors no compromise at all. He proposes that we should go homewithout any adjustment. Shall we go back to our excited people and saythis: "The North will make no adjustment with you"? Is this the way tosettle the important questions that now distract the country?

We have not come here for war; we have come here for peace. We havecome to settle all the questions between us upon a fair and equitablebasis. How are we met? Gentlemen from the North say they will give usnothing. All we ask is right and justice--that right which theConstitution and the Court has given us in _all_ the territory, _secured in one-third of it_. With that we will be content. 

Some gentlemen object to the phraseology of the article. Let themhave all that their own way. They stop here to quarrel about words?Settle those as you like, but we ask all the friends of the Union tostand by, and reject all amendments which affect the substance of thearticle. Such a course will end all contention. 

We read in Sacred History that the Israelites were once soconscientious that they would not fight on Sunday. They were attackedand overthrown. They finally agreed to compromise the question ofconscience so far as to fight in self-defence on Sunday. They wereattacked then, and the enemy was overthrown. 

The report is not such as we could wish it might be, but, such as itis, we will accept it and stand by it. We will adopt it, and we askthe North to adopt it, in the true spirit of compromise. 

Mr. LOGAN:--I am under the necessity of believing that the gentlemanfrom Iowa is in earnest, in offering this amendment; but if I were topresent it, I should not expect any one to believe I was in earnest. What is the compromise which this amendment proposes? It is, insubstance, that the North will take three-fourths of the Territoryunder the Constitution, and the rest by force. If gentlemen entertainsuch views, we might as well come to a direct vote at once, and seewhether any thing can be done. 

The gentleman from Iowa says this is the Missouri Compromise; but itlacks much of it. Besides, circumstances have greatly changed since1820, when the compromise was adopted. Now, seven States have left usand gone out of the Union, and we are acting in view of that fact. There is a contest between the North and the remaining SouthernStates, and the latter have no better chance in that contest alone, than Turkey had in the grasp of the rugged Russian Bear. The gentlemenfrom these States do not threaten. All they say is, "If we cannotagree longer together, let us go in peace. We will fight only inself-defence. "

They ask us further, "If we stay with you, how do you intend to treatus? As equals, or as inferiors?" If as inferiors, we cannot sustainourselves with our people, saying nothing of our own self-respect. Iacknowledge the force of these inquiries. 

A civil revolution terminated at the last election. The power to wieldthe Government came into the hands of the Republicans. Thecircumstances suddenly change. Political power leaves the South. Whatnow shall we give them in place of that? Shall we leave these Statesat our mercy? This is an earnest time. We should act as if the fate ofa great nation depended on our action. If we intend to say we will donothing, let us say so plainly, and not by indirection. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I thank GOD I hear a voice such as Ihave just heard from _that_ section of the country (Iowa)! I have beena member of a recent Legislature of North Carolina, in which there wasa majority of secessionists. I have been jeered at in that body forthe opinions I have expressed, for I have told those gentlemenrepeatedly that if we could once get the ear of the North, the Northwould do us justice. They pointed me to the raid of JOHN BROWN--to themeeting in Boston, where the gallows of JOHN BROWN was carried withsolemn ceremonies into the Cradle of Liberty. They pointed me to theman who presided over that meeting, since elevated to the high andhonorable position of Governor of Massachusetts. Notwithstanding allthis, I have replied that the masses of the northern people would dealfairly by us. I have told these secessionists to their teeth that Mr. LINCOLN was properly elected under the Constitution, and that he oughtto be inaugurated. Their reply was, "Kansas, and the JOHN BROWN raid!"

Now, I ask this Conference to look for one moment at the effect of theamendment which is proposed. It withdraws all constitutionalprotection from us north of 36° 30´. Adopt it, and what hasMassachusetts to do but to import her foreigners into the countrysouth, and take possession of it. New York will back her, and we shallbe swept from the face of the earth. 

If the gentleman from New York means to say that the nation can putits foot on to the neck of the States and crush them into submission, let him go into Virginia and join in another JOHN BROWN raid. Virginiawill treat him as she did JOHN BROWN. No! the gentleman has notstudied the motto of the Union. There is the _E pluribus_ as well asthe _unum_. If the new President proposes to come down to the Southand conquer us, he will find that the whole temple shall fall. We canbe crushed, perhaps, but conquered, _never_!

Mr. BRADFORD:--Maryland has, under the lead of her constitutionalChief Magistrate, determined to preserve her position of neutrality, and not by any action of hers to add to the prevailing excitement oneither side. She has done what she could to allay the existingirritation, and will continue to pursue the same policy she hashitherto adopted. 

Here is a large file of amendments. Almost every delegation has givennotice of an intention to offer one or more. If we begin to adoptthem, I feel sure that we shall destroy all hope of an ultimateagreement. 

Mr. President, I desire to make an emphatic declaration to thisConference. It is this: Give us the report as it came from thecommittee, without substantial alteration, and there is no power onearth that can draw the State of Maryland out of the Union! Marylandhas been called the heart of the Union. The day she leaves the Union, that heart is broken! I am now inclined to set my face against allamendments. I think that is the better course. 

In the populous section of the State where I reside, the universal cryis, "For God's sake, settle these questions!" Why can we not settlethem? The committee inform us that the members of which it iscomposed, were nearly unanimous upon all points except the territorialquestion. Will reasonable men not yield a little to each other inorder to settle that?

Then let us look calmly at the consequences which must follow ourdisagreement. I will enter into no panegyric of the Union. To use anoften repeated expression, it needs none. It is enshrined in thehearts of the people with all the glories of the past, with all theglorious hopes of the future. It has given us a position in the frontrank of the nations. There is every prospect that it will make us inthe end the most powerful among the nations. Who can look unmoved uponthe spectacle of such a Union about to fall into fragments? Whatsacrifice too great to avert such a ruin?

We all understand, we all agree that we can save the Union by settlingthis miserable question of slavery in the Territories. We should beunworthy of ourselves and our trusts, if we set our division uponthis question above the preservation of the Union. How can it bepossible that Union men, or even politicians, can hesitate as to whichpath ought to be taken? One leads to ruin, the other to a haven ofsafety. 

It will be a world-wonder hereafter, if we do not agree. Thepeople--the whole country, will stand aghast at the spectacle of follywe present. I would not, for all the wealth and honors the nationcould bestow, be remembered hereafter as a man who stood between thesemeasures of pacification and the people who should finally decide uponthem. I would not have the priceless blessing of the Union put inperil for a single hour, when its safety can be purchased at so smalla cost. 

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The civilized world is amazed at the present conditionof one of the greatest Governments on the face of the earth. Iparticipate in that amazement myself. What is that condition? In atime of profound peace, of great prosperity, with the Governmentitself in the hands of southern men, State after State has dared toattempt to sever its connection with the Union. Even Florida, whichhas cost us so many millions, which ever since we had her has been aconstant slough of expenditure, says we cannot even have the nationalproperty which happens to be within her territorial limits!

I am not so strong a believer in the effect of legislative action asmany others. I have looked at the main points of our differences inthe light of history, and it is my belief that the laws of soil andclimate will settle this question of slavery in the Territories, muchmore effectually than we can settle it by any legislative orconstitutional provisions. 

The Missouri Compromise once settled this Territorial question in amanner satisfactory to the South. Through the influence of the Southit was repealed. Now the South desires to have its provisionsrestored. As I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, itexactly restores the _status quo_. 

We are told, farther, that the natural allies of the border slaveStates have left them; that, reduced in numbers, they cannot maintaintheir position against the North. This assumes that the North ishostile to the South. I deny it. I say that my state is the naturalally of Kentucky, a more powerful ally than she ever had South. 

Parties are governed by certain natural laws. A party which adopts aprinciple at war with the sentiments of the people may succeed for atime by the force of party drill, but in the end it will go down. TheCALHOUN doctrine destroyed a party. Under the operation of the samelaw the Democratic party has gone down. But you cannot destroy a partybefore its time. The effort of Virginia now is to overthrow theRepublican party. The effort will not succeed. It is equivalent to anattempt to overthrow the country. 

I am not frightened at this idea of giving guarantees. I do not thinkthem of much importance. I am willing to give such as are reasonable. We hold to a certain extent to your doctrine of State sovereignty, andwould protect it. 

Our people North and South are too much alike in many respects. We areall inclined to stand too much upon party abstractions. This is almostthe only reason why we cannot agree. 

We are told that some things stated here grate harshly upon the earsof gentlemen from the South. The converse of this is equally true. Ican take a rebuke, I trust, in a good temper, but I do not like to bestabbed in the house of my friends. I do not like to have doctrinesand opinions imputed to me and my party which are only entertained bya little knot of fanatical abolitionists in the neighborhood ofBoston; a few men who will not vote under the present Constitution, and who are led and controlled by LLOYD GARRISON and WENDELL PHILLIPS. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--I am strongly averse to the introduction of the subjectof party into the deliberations of the Conference. I did not intend toallude to party at all; but since the subject has been referred to insuch impassioned terms, I feel that I must say a word about it. 

Many references have been made in this debate to the opinions ofWASHINGTON. I wish his opinions were better observed and respected. Irefer to his appeal to his countrymen not to form parties withreference to geographical lines, and asking them to frown indignantlyupon every attempt to form such parties. 

What WASHINGTON foresaw, at length has come to pass. Parties have beenformed, and are now in existence, divided by geographical lines, having no interests or opinions in common. But no such parties canlong exist without threatening the stability of the Government. 

So long as parties were national in their character; so long as theyexcluded sectional interests from their platforms, their existence wasa benefit rather than an injury to the Union. Gradually they have alldrifted toward sectionalism, until now we find ourselves in a positionwhich taxes the ability and ingenuity of the ablest men to provide forthe existence even of our Government. 

Now, I see no chance of safety for us until we reëstablish politicalparties upon their old bases, excluding all sectional considerations. When this is accomplished, the country is safe. It can only be done bysettling this territorial question, and removing all inducement to theformation of sectional parties. 

The election of Mr. LINCOLN was a fair election. It afforded no justpretext for secession, much less for the formation of sectionalparties, or for creating sectional issues. 

The time has come when the advice, the counsels of WASHINGTON, becomehis most precious legacy to the country. Shall we not regard thesolemn admonitions of the Father of his Country?

I would ask our friends from the North--for they are our friends andnot our enemies--whether they will not listen to these counsels ofWASHINGTON? He was always ready, always willing to submit to justcompromises, when they were necessary to the peace and happiness ofhis country. Will they not emulate his example now?

Delaware does not feel any special interest in this question ofslavery in the Territories. She would have it settled in that waywhich would promote the interests of the whole Union. Her presentimpression is, that the report of the committee presents the mostpracticable and equitable mode of adjustment. Long ago Delawarefavored the abolition of the slave trade. She has been consistent inher course on that question ever since. It is not unlikely that shemay soon favor the abolition of slavery within her limits. Herprogress has been in that direction. When the present Constitution wasadopted, Delaware had fifteen thousand slaves. Now she has not morethan eighteen hundred. 

Mr. TUCK:--I recognize the reason and propriety of the wishes of thegentleman from Maryland, to try the proposition now before theConference upon its merits. I certainly do not desire to have timetaken up in unnecessary delay. I do not think much of these statementsabout civil war. Nor is there any attempt here to defame or injure anysection. No member here has any such intention. We seem to be dividedinto two parties. Both are willing to act; neither asks for delay. Onedesires action through Congress, the other through the people, actingin General Convention. We all have confidence in the people. What doyou see in this Conference? One-half of the Republicans here, areready to join hands with those who would invoke the action ofCongress, and carry their propositions through, to send them at onceto Congress. I am ready to carry your propositions directly to thepeople. 

A word now to the Democrats in this Conference. You have always beenour superiors in political address and management. You expect in fouryears to bring the Government back under your control. My strong biasis in favor of a General Convention. That bias I got from the oldDemocratic party. The first mention of such an idea I found in anarticle in the "National Intelligencer"--a paper which certainly doesnot advocate radical views. I am aware of the opposition which thisidea will meet with here, and yet I have heard many gentlemen from theSouth say, that this idea carried out--the question fairly submittedto the people, and decided by them, their decision would besatisfactory. And would not many of the Southern slave States besatisfied with a decision upon these questions by a GeneralConvention? Would not Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee bewilling to submit their interests to such a tribunal?

Now, I wish to ask the members representing the Southern States inthis Conference, whether, when we offer you a General Convention, fairly elected, which shall patiently hear and firmly decide all ourpoints of difference, you had not better accept it? I assure you, gentlemen, in the most perfect good faith, that a convention is thebest alternative the North can now offer you. It is a fair and anhonorable alternative; and because it is so, the North will insistthat it ought to be satisfactory to you. If you refuse it, I ask youwhether, in the sight of GOD and Man, you will not have stood betweenthe country and peace? We act in secret here, but in the end all ouractions will be exposed to the world. It will be seen that we wereready to do justice to you, and to submit all your claims to the finalverdict of the people. Should you not at least wait for theirdecision?

Mr. DONIPHAN:--Will the gentleman support these proposals of amendmentin a convention of the people, and will he use his influence to electmembers of such a convention who will do the same? If the North willgive us such pledges as will secure that kind of action, perhaps wewill go for a General Convention. Without such a pledge, a GeneralConvention would be worse than useless. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I am glad I have obtained the floor for a few minutes. I feel that it will be very painful for me to address the Conference, on account of physical debility. 

But I came here with the single purpose of accomplishing thesettlement of one or two important questions. Permit me, once for all, and for the last time, to tell the gentlemen from New Hampshire andConnecticut, that they wholly misunderstand the import of the actionof the Legislature of Kentucky, and the views of the "LouisvilleJournal. " I have said, before, that in view of the fact that Congresscould not settle our difficulties, the Legislature of Kentucky askedfor a National Convention, as our only hope of making an adjustment. After this came the invitation of Virginia, like a bright beam ofhope. Virginia invited you all, New York, New Hampshire, andMassachusetts, and the other States, to meet and consult for thepublic safety. If you did not wish to secure our common safety, youshould not have accepted her invitation. 

Mr. BOUTWELL:--Then we are to understand that if we do not favor theCRITTENDEN resolutions, we should not have come here at all. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I say nothing of the kind. But I insist that youshould tell us now, what the conclusion is to which you have arrived. We want to know what you gentlemen, representing the Northern States, intend to do. Give us your votes. We have had enough of discussion, which amounts to nothing. If you will consent to no arrangement, letus know it now. We have a duty to perform toward our own people. Wewish to relieve them from suspense, so that they may determine whattheir future course shall be, in view of the fact that you will donothing for them. 

Mr. COOK:--If Illinois had understood that she was only to come herefor the purpose of agreeing to the propositions of Virginia asannounced in the resolutions which accompanied her invitation, theConference may be assured that Illinois would not have appeared hereat all. She understood that she was invited to a _Conference_, inwhich all the States were to meet upon a basis of perfect equality. The very resolutions of the Legislature of Illinois, under which wereceived our appointments, assert that their adoption is not to beregarded as an assent to the resolutions of Virginia. 

We think we are not passing the limits of propriety, when we insistthat we should be permitted to state the views and opinions of thepeople of Illinois, on the questions which this Conference proposes todecide. To state what we will and what we will not concede. Thereseems to be an unwillingness to give us this permission. If the peopleare now ready to give their sanction to the propositions contained inthe Virginia resolutions, they would send delegates here who wouldaccept these propositions without debate or discussion. They have notyet done so. If they intended to limit our right of private judgment, they have certainly not yet expressed any such intention. Theyunderstand, and we have not forgotten, that there is a broaddistinction between the guaranty of old rights and the creation of newones. 

We now understand just what the South proposes. The question isplainly and distinctly presented to us, whether we will assent to aconstitutional recognition of the right to hold slaves in a portion ofthe Territories of the United States. It is not a question ofprohibition at all. We are required to assert the affirmative right ofholding slaves independent of State laws, and under the Constitution. 

Gentlemen present us this question, and coolly tell us we want no morediscussion, no more arguments, no examination of our respective rightsunder or outside the Constitution. We wish you to tell us at oncewhether you will assent to our wishes or not. If you will not, thencomes some dark insinuations about going home to their people, andcertain consequences are to follow, of the precise nature of which weare not informed. 

Gentlemen, when was the sanction of the American people ever securedto an important proposition in such a way as this? If we are not toexercise our judgment, and act according to its dictates, upon everyproposal of amendment here presented, then, for one, I care not howsoon our deliberations end. Until we better understand our relativepositions than we seem to at present, I do not see much use inprolonging the discussion. 

Mr. EWING:--Some concession must be expected from both sides, or wecannot agree. As a Northern man, I feel it to be my duty to get thesepropositions made as acceptable to the North as I can, and then toensure their submission to the people. Even then, we are not committedto the support of these propositions, though I myself should feel soto some extent. A single question is now presented to us. Shall weaccept these propositions when they are perfected as far as they canbe, or shall we submit to a dissolution of the Union? I am willing tosay that I will yield my personal opinions for the purpose ofconcession, and I do not think I show myself an inferior man by doingso. In all disputes, the firmest men are the first to yield. Let a manbe firm as a rock in battle, but conciliatory in council; especiallyin such a council as this, where the lives of millions may beconcerned. There is a firmness which is but another name forimprudence--for rashness. Take the case of a railroad collision. Oneengineer may have the right of track; it may be the duty of all othersto recognize that right, and not interfere with his exercising it. But, if another gets on to it, he who has the right would not bejustified, if, in its exercise, he ran blindly on, and produced acollision, destroying the lives of his passengers, when he could haveavoided the collision. So it is here. We may be right--the North maybe right; but we should not hazard the existence of the Union by adetermination to exercise that right at all events, when, by someslight concessions, we could save the Union. Let us use ourjudgments--let us act in view of the facts here presented, with thatprudence and discrimination which we apply to the ordinary affairs oflife, and all will yet be well. 

Mr. KING:--I have not spoken hitherto, and should not now say a word, but for the remark of the gentleman from Kentucky. I come here as oneof the representatives of the State of New York. As such I am theequal--the peer of any representative of any other State on thisfloor. I do not intend to be lectured into or intimidated from doingany thing which my judgment tells me I should not do, or should do. 

Speaking for New York, I say that she holds her allegiance to theConstitution and the Government of the United States above and beyondany other political duty or obligation. With this obligation alwaysbefore them, her representatives have come here to consult with youupon the present condition of the country. I am as old as thegentleman from Kentucky. I recognize no right in him to lecture me onmy political duties. I revere the Constitution of my country. I waseducated to love it, and my own father helped to make it. I cannot sitstill and hear such declarations as have been hourly repeated here forthe last few days. 

Mr. SEDDON:--Does the gentleman consider this a consolidatedGovernment or a confederation of States?

Mr. KING:--I consider this a confederation of States under theConstitution, and that in all that respects the General Government, every good citizen owes an allegiance to it above and beyond thatwhich he owes to his State or to any other political authority. Andthat statement comprises nearly all I wish to say. The State of NewYork at all times, in peace or war, has been loyal to theConstitution; and, although some of her representatives here mayundertake to make you think differently, she always will be. Yes!loyal with all her strength and power! And as one of herrepresentatives, I shall yield nothing on her part to threats, menaces, or intimidations. I believe the Constitution as it now standsgives you guarantees enough--all you ought to have. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--I ought not to permit this vote to be taken, without aword of reply to the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina. Theimpression would certainly be derived from his speech that GovernorANDREW, of Massachusetts, approved of the JOHN BROWN raid. This is nottrue. There is not a particle of truth in the assertion. There is agentleman here, who heard Governor ANDREW state publicly when hefirst heard of that raid, that JOHN BROWN must be crazy. It is truethat a meeting was held in Boston to raise funds to support thepoverty-stricken family of JOHN BROWN. Governor ANDREW, I believe, presided; and a single paragraph taken from some remarks he made onthat occasion, has been scattered broadcast over the country. In orderto understand what he did say, both the context and what followed itare indispensable. Those were carefully suppressed. The opinions ofGovernor ANDREW are well known. They are in sympathy with those of thepeople of Massachusetts. Neither he nor they approved the JOHN BROWNinvasion. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I call the gentleman to order. He is discussing asubject which is strictly personal, having no connection with thereport of the committee, or the amendments offered to that report. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think the remarks of the gentleman fromMassachusetts are not in order. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--Well, I cannot proceed in order. I only desired tocorrect a misapprehension. I do not quite understand why thesemisrepresentations should be made, and then objections interposed totheir correction. 

Mr. HOPPIN:--I rise, Mr. President, to address the Conference withgreat reluctance. If there is a gentleman within the sound of my voicewhose heart is full of anxious solicitude for the safety of thecountry, he will know how to sympathize with me. I do not represent aState containing four millions of people, but one of the smallest inthe Union; and yet little Rhode Island has a heart which beats true tothe Union. It so happened that she was one of the last to accept theConstitution; but when she did accept it--when she took upon herselfits obligations--she became faithful to it, and she has ever sincebeen true. 

I feel that my position is peculiar. I cannot judge of other men assome gentlemen do. The North is full of men who do not concur in myopinions upon the question of slavery. I know they are honest andhonorable men. I should do injustice to them and to myself, if Ibelieved them to be either corrupt or enemies of the Union and of goodgovernment; and it is just the same in the South as in other sections. Looking around me upon these able and patriotic representatives, whocome here with full hearts and tell us of their position--of thefeelings of their people--of the anxiety and apprehension which is sodeeply felt among them, can I believe that these men are dishonest?that they do not mean what they say? No, sir! Nobody can be so unjustand unfair as that. 

I think of these questions which we are discussing earnestly andcontinually. My heart is torn by conflicting emotions. I wish toperform my duty toward all sections, and I do feel sure that somethingmust be done for our southern friends. They wish to remain in theUnion--they do not wish to be driven out; and they tell us in allsincerity that something must be done to satisfy their people, or theycannot keep them in the Union. I know that the questions presentedhere are very embarrassing to the North, but we must decide them. Wemust do the best we can, and the North will sustain us; ourconstituents will approve our action. 

Rhode Island wishes to act fairly by all. She does not herself, needany amendments to the Constitution; but if her sisters need them, shewill consider their necessities. Her delegation here acts unitedly, and it's members are influenced by the same spirit. We have done allwe could to bring ourselves to a rational conclusion; and we feel, myfriends, as though this body ought never to separate until we come toan agreement--until we come to some compromise which will besatisfactory to all. 

I cannot now, in the short time that remains, go into a minuteexamination of the various points presented. This has been done byabler men. But I do feel that although the questions may be difficult, there are none of them which, as sensible men, we cannot settle. Don'tlet us forget our great mission and descend into personal abuse. Donot let us forget our high duties. Let us perform them in a friendlyand a Christian spirit. Let us look at the facts as they are. Let usnot spend our time in trying to find out who struck the first blow, orwho is responsible. Let us all unite together in one great, finaleffort to save the country and the Union. 

As matters now stand, we who represent Rhode Island can see no waymore desirable than to vote for and support the report of thecommittee. And yet we do not insist upon that report. Show us anything better, and we will go for it. But we will do nothing to widenthe breach--we will do all we can to heal it. My friends, I say oncemore, let us go to work earnestly, and do not let us separate and goto our homes, until we can carry with us the glorious news that wehave healed up all dissensions and adopted a plan that will secure theUnion and make it perpetual. 

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I understand that the proposition of the gentlemanfrom Iowa is to restore the Missouri Compromise. If so, does not hisproposition commend itself to the Conference as one that will commandthe respect and support of the country? I have asked, many others haveasked, what is the cause of our present difficulties? The questionmeets no direct reply--no definite answer. The repeal of the MissouriCompromise is referred to, hinted at, as the principal cause. If ananswer were extorted, I think it would be, the repeal of thatCompromise. 

The history of the Missouri Compromise is so simple that we allunderstand it. Southern men forced the measure upon the North. The fewnorthern men who voted for it were swept out of their politicalexistence at the election which followed its passage. Which section isresponsible for its repeal--the North or the South? You say its repealwas moved by a northern man. Very true! But he was a northern man whohad adopted southern principles, and who sought to secure the favor ofthe South by this act. Southern men supported his proposition andcarried it through Congress against the votes and the remonstrances ofthe North. 

The South, then, established and destroyed the Missouri Compromise. The South wishes to have its provisions restored. Why, then, are younot satisfied to have it put into the Constitution, and so make itpermanent and perpetual, if the North will consent to it? Are thecircumstances of the South so much changed? If it was equitable in1820, _à fortiori_ it ought to be equitable in 1861. Territory hasbeen acquired since 1820, it is true, but it is all or nearly all, south of the compromise line. Restore the Missouri Compromise and thisterritory will be devoted to southern institutions. What territory hasbeen acquired since? Will gentlemen reply, "Oregon"? I insist thatOregon was virtually acquired before. It only required the finalagreement upon a boundary line. 

If there is any proposition in which the North can concur--any thatwill restore harmony between the North and the South--it is therestoration of the Missouri Compromise. If any other is proposed lessfavorable or just to the North, I do not believe the people will adoptit. 

I am not insensible to the condition of the country. Neither are mycolleagues, nor the constituents they represent. But you must notexpect us here, in the worst emergency you can imagine, to forget orthrow away the rights of our people. If we consent to support thisamendment, it is as far as we can go. You ought not to ask us to gofarther. 

Mr. DENT:--I will only occupy one moment. Maryland has spoken inlanguage which satisfies me. As I understand him, I concur in what mycolleague has said. 

Now the nut is to be cracked. The majority report proposes to give upthree-fourths of our territory to the North absolutely, retaining thelittle balance for the South. The amendment proposes to pick thekernel out of the balance, and to leave the husks to us. To that weshall agree when we are compelled to; not before. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--The Supreme Court has already decided, interms which are not ambiguous, that Congress has no right, under theConstitution, to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Now, ourbrethren of the North propose to give us the Missouri Compromise. Whatdo they mean? Do they intend to give us a substantial right--one thatwe can enforce and rely upon, or do they intend to keep it from us?They are shrewd as well as honorable men. They know that the effect ofthis amendment will be to leave the territory south of the line, without the slightest acknowledgment or guaranty, just where it is atthe present time, so far as slavery is concerned. 

The construction placed upon the Missouri Compromise was, that theprohibition of slavery north of the line which it established, impliedthe right of holding slaves south of the line. At the time of itsadoption there was, in respect of this construction, no difference ofopinion: Such was the construction of Mr. WEBSTER. 

Now you propose to leave it still for Congress to legislate as to theterritory south. You secure that north, by a prohibition in theConstitution; you will get that south, by the action of Congress. 

The decision in the Dred Scott case may be reversed. It afforded nopermanent protection. One of your leaders (Mr. WILMOT) says he willwar against it. The gentleman from New York (Mr. SMITH) denies theforce of the decision in this respect. Now, gentlemen, all we of theSouth want, is to have this question settled. You know well that theadoption of this amendment, so far from settling it, leaves it allopen; or rather it settles the question North, and leaves it openSouth. The country is in danger--that all concede. Will you, becauseyou do not agree in opinion with the Supreme Court, refuse to join usin one more effort to save the country?

Mr. CLAY:--I have not unnecessarily occupied a moment of the time ofthis Conference, and it is not now my intention to occupy the wholeten minutes to which I am entitled. But I do wish to express some ofthe opinions which I entertain upon the questions immediately underour consideration. "Red Gauntlet" has been cited as an authority inthis body, but I think I might cite another of the same class whichwould be more in point. It is the "Bleak House, " by Charles Dickens, in which the circumlocution office is so graphically described. Itwould be decidedly more appropriate to our present action. 

Why have we come together? What brought us here? We have come todevise the means of saving a distracted and bleeding country. What theSouth asks you to do, is, to recognize the property which her citizenspossess; and when they take that property to the Territories, tosecure its protection there, or rather to protect it south of the lineof 36° 30´. Will you do it? Are you going to do it? If you intend torecognize our property south of this line, write it down so plain thatmy constituents can understand it--so that they will not be cheated. If you intend to do nothing, let us know it at once. We will then knowwhat to expect, and how to advise our people. 

The question of slavery is but an incident to the great questionswhich are at the bottom of our divisions. Such differences havebrought war after war upon Europe. It is, after all, the old questionof the balance of power between the different sections and differentinterests. Who does not remember that in 1832 and 1833 the Tariffbrought up the same questions? Why did South Carolina then threaten tonullify? Because nullification then, was one of the effects which thedisregard of the rights of a section caused. 

The South have always insisted upon terms of equality with the North. To this equality no one can deny she is justly entitled. So long asnew States came in _pari passu_, North and South, she was satisfied. When this equilibrium was disturbed, she began to insist uponguarantees. Now, when you propose to put the point of equilibrium outof sight altogether, the South insists upon these guarantees, as notonly necessary, but indispensable to her safety. This is right andfair. The North would insist upon the same thing, under likecircumstances. 

Gentlemen from the North have complained here that we have not statedexactly what would satisfy us. We have told you what we wanted overand over again. We want the CRITTENDEN resolutions. We told you that, when we first came here. We have now been here for nearly four weeks, and the CRITTENDEN amendment has never once been submitted to a vote. Since our difficulties first assumed importance, there has never beena measure of pacification suggested which has met with such a measureof acceptance as the CRITTENDEN resolutions. State after State hassent petitions to Congress asking for their adoption. Almost theentire South, with Virginia, the Mother of States, in the advance, tells you that these resolutions will be an acceptable measure ofpacification, and yet you will not give us a vote upon them; you willscarcely consent to consider them. Even the committee, whose report isso unsatisfactory to the North (and a portion of the South also), doesnot appear to have given them much attention. 

Mr. President, in behalf of the South, I think I know what to say. Ifour differences are to be settled at all, we must have our property inour slaves in the Territories recognized; and when that property isconstitutionally recognized, it must be constitutionally protected. Such, I know, are the sentiments of the people of Kentucky. 

Mr. ALLEN:--I wish to ask the attention of the Conference for onlyone moment to the true aspect of the question now before us. We areasked if we will suffer the Union to be destroyed on account of theTerritory of New Mexico. Let me ask these gentlemen who it is thatproposes to break up and destroy the Union? It is the South--it is_not_ the North. But all that I pass by. 

If it were merely a question of who should have the beneficialpossession of our present unoccupied territory, we would give that upat once to the South. But it is not a question of possession at all. It is _the_ question which shall control and give direction to thepolicy of the country--the institutions of Slavery or the institutionsof Freedom! You ask for a provision in the Constitution which willplace that policy under the control of the institutions of slavery. This we cannot grant you. 

We of the North stand where our fathers did, who resisted the StampAct; who threw overboard the tea in Boston harbor. We have been taughtto resist the smallest beginnings of evil; that this is the truepolicy. _Obsta principii_ was the motto of our fathers. It is ours. The debates of this Conference, and those of the Convention of 1787, will stand in a strange contrast to each other. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--I now offer the minority report of the committee, withthe accompanying resolutions as an amendment to--

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from Connecticut is not in order. 

The vote was then taken by States, upon the amendment offered by Mr. CURTIS, to the substitute proposed by Mr. FRANKLIN, for the firstarticle of the section reported by the General Committee, with thefollowing result:

 AYES. --Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and New York--6. 

 NOES. --New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12. 

And the amendment was lost. 

Mr. CORNING:--I dissent from the vote of New York. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I wish to be recorded as voting Aye!

Mr. DODGE:--I dissent; I am against the amendment. 

Mr. WOOD:--I wish my vote recorded in favor of the amendment. 

Mr. COOK:--And so do I. 

Mr. LOGAN:--I am the other way. 

Mr. TUCK:--I dissent from the vote of New Hampshire. 

Mr. GRANGER:--And I from that of New York. 

Mr. WOLCOTT:--I dissent from the vote of Ohio. I notice that mycolleague, Mr. CHASE, is not present at this moment. 

Mr. BRONSON:--I also dissent from the vote of New York. My associate, GEN. WOOL, is confined to his room by a severe indisposition. For hisbenefit, and as I know he feels a deep interest in these votes, anddesires to have his name appear upon the record, in his behalf I offerthe following resolution:

 _Resolved_, Whereas JOHN E. WOOL, a delegate from New York, is unable to attend the Convention, from sickness, therefore that he be permitted, when he does attend, or by communication in writing to the Secretary, to have his dissent recorded, as to any vote of his State. 

This resolution was agreed to without a division. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question now will be upon the adoption of thesubstitute proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FRANKLIN), to the first section of the article reported by the committee. 

Mr. FRANKLIN:--Before that question is taken, I desire to acceptcertain verbal amendments which have been proposed by various members, which will, I think, improve the substitute which I offer. Theseamendments are as follows:

 1st. In the fifth line, as printed, after the words "nor shall any law be passed, " insert the words "by Congress or the Territorial Legislature. "

 2d. In the sixth line, after the words "the taking of such persons, " insert "from any of the States of this Union. "

 3d. In the eighth line, before the words "according to the common law, " insert the words "course of the. "

 4th. In the seventh line, after the words "prevent the taking of such persons, " insert the words "from any State in the Union. "

These amendments I adopt, and wish them to be treated as incorporatedinto my substitute. 

The PRESIDENT:--Such will be assumed as the pleasure of theConference, as no objection is made. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am content, on the part of the committee, that thesubstitute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania should beadopted in the place of the first section of the article reported bythe committee. It amounts to the same thing, and is expressed inshorter and better language. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I move to amend Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute asfollows:[3] I think these words would be more acceptable to the peopleof the Northern States. 

[Footnote 3: This was a verbal amendment. I was not able to note it atthe time, nor have I since been able to procure it. ]

Mr. PALMER:--Does not the gentleman's amendment involve anHibernicism? I think if we are to adopt the report of the committee, the FRANKLIN amendment admits of no improvement. It had better standas it is. If we undertake to change it we shall all get to sea. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I withdraw my proposition. 

Mr. JAMES:--It was moved yesterday to insert the words, "orfacilitate" after the words "hinder or prevent, " in that part of Mr. FRANKLIN'S amendment which negatives the right to pass laws. What wasdone with that?

Mr. FOWLER:--Nothing. I moved it, and I insist upon the motion. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I submit to the Conference whether this amendment isnecessary or proper. Suppose some new question arises relating toslavery which it may be greatly for the interest of the Territory toprotect. Suppose mines are discovered, and the Territory should wantslaves to work them. Shall we put it into the Constitution that no lawshall be passed to encourage their emigration?

Mr. BRONSON:--I see no need of it. 

Mr. JAMES:--The point generally comes out. Now you say that you willhave the right to go into the Territory with your slaves, and no lawshall be passed to prevent you, no matter how much such a law wouldpromote the material interests of the Territory. The converse of thisyou will not agree to. You are not content to let slavery stand byitself, you must have it nursed by the Territorial Legislatures. Doesslavery always require such partiality? I say the power of theLegislature should be exercised on both sides, or it should not beexercised at all. I am trying to perfect the article. If it is topass, and go to the people as a measure of pacification, and if youexpect them to adopt it, you must not have it so one-sided and unfair. The people will understand it--it will be our duty to explain it tothem, and to give them its history. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--But your amendment would prohibit the passage of a lawpermitting the transit of a slaveholder through the Territory with hisproperty. Remember, also, that the prohibition only continues so longas the territorial condition exists. 

Mr. SMITH:--Before this vote is taken, I wish to call attention to thecharacter of the prohibition. "Nor shall any law be passed to hinderor prevent the taking of such persons to said Territory, nor to impairthe rights arising from said relation, " &c. Now, this is very broad. Suppose a law giving the right of transit to the people of the freeStates, or any law for their protection in the Territory, asinhabitants, is held by the Territorial Judge to "impair the rightsarising from said relation. " He holds it unconstitutional. Where isthe remedy? What views are entertained upon some of these points insome sections of the South we know. If you do not adopt this amendmentit is quite in the power of the Legislature to exclude any person fromthe Territory whose presence there may be thought injurious toslavery. Did the committee intend this?

The question upon the adoption of Mr. FOWLER'S amendment resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--10. 

 NOES. --New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--10. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. GROESBECK:--I move to amend the substitute offered by Mr. FRANKLIN, by inserting after the words "nor shall any law be passed, "the words "by Congress or the Territorial Legislature. " I think thisis necessary to make our intention plain. Otherwise it might be saidthat the prohibition did not apply to Congress. 

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I think the suggestion a very proper one. I will acceptthe amendment. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I only wish to understand where we are. Have we disposedof the word "facilitate"?

The PRESIDENT:--That amendment was not adopted. 

Mr. WILMOT:--Then I move to insert before the word "_status_, " theword "legal. "

Mr. RUFFIN:--That raises again every question we have been discussing. The word, as used in the substitute, only refers to the status _infact_. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--This brings up all our old troubles. Let us reject it. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I wish to understand this subject, and what will be theeffect of adopting this amendment. I understand that the slave haswhat we call a _status_. The substitute of Mr. FRANKLIN is intendedspecifically to recognize and protect that _status_ in the Territoriesas fully as it is protected and recognized in the States. I think ithas that effect. Adopt the amendment, and the effect is precisely theopposite. The amendment rescinds the _status_. 

Mr. PALMER:--I wish to make an inquiry of the mover. Does theamendment, after all, make any difference? Must not any _status_, notagainst law, be, of necessity, a _legal_ status?

Mr. WILMOT:--No. I think there is a wide difference, and the Souththinks so. One is a status in fact, the other, one in law. 

Mr. LOGAN:--I hope we shall not adopt the amendment. We all want thesequestions settled. The amendment opens them all wider than before. Ifwe intend to give the South the right she asks for, and, as I think, rightfully asks for, let us give it to her in plain and unequivocallanguage. Let us not give her a legacy of litigation, by using wordswhich mean one thing or the opposite, according to the constructionyou place upon them. I wish to settle all these questions fairly. Theamendment leaves the question as to what constitutes a _legal status_, to be decided by the Court. The North would claim that there cannot besuch a thing as a legal status, a legal condition of slavery. TheSouth would claim the opposite. 

Mr. WILMOT:--If the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina hadbeen adopted, I would not have moved this. The section then would havebeen unambiguous and clear. Now it is all open to construction. 

Mr. CHASE:--In my judgment it is unimportant whether the amendment isadopted or not. The condition of the slave in the Southern States isone arising out of law, established by legislative provisions. _Statusin fact_ must mean _status in law_ as well as _status in fact_. 

I have listened with attention to the appeals made by gentlemen whourge the interests of the South in favor of a settlement of thesequestions. But you are now prosecuting a plan which will be thesubject of debate throughout the country. Adopt your article in eitherform, and the question, What does status mean? will still remain. 

A majority of the people have adopted the opinion that under theConstitution slavery has not a legal existence in the Territories. Thetriumph of this opinion is not the result of any sudden impulse. APresident has been elected, and a Government will soon be organized, whose duty it will be to respect and observe the opinions of thepeople. You are now seeking, by the adoption of a single section, tochange these opinions and this policy. Do not deceive yourselves, gentlemen. You will never accomplish this result so easily. You arepresenting such a subject for debate and excitement as the countrynever had before. It is best we deal frankly. 

The vote was taken upon the adoption of the amendment, and resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--9. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--11. 

And the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--I move to insert in the substitute offered by Mr. FRANKLIN, after the words "south of that line, " the words "notembraced by the Cherokee treaty. "

A word of explanation. Do we intend to prohibit the Cherokee Nationfrom changing the status of persons within their Territory, if theythink proper to do so? Would not this be a violation of ourunderstanding, if not of our treaty stipulations with these Indians?

Mr. EWING:--I have looked into this subject, and I do not think theproposition would be improved by the amendment. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--Then I will withdraw it for the present. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope the vote on the main question will now be taken. It is evident that the sense of the majority is against acceptingamendments. 

Mr. GOODRICH:--That obliges me to renew my motion. I do renew it, andask for a vote by States. 

The vote upon the amendment offered by Mr. GOODRICH was taken, withthe following result:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--11. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--9. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. TURNER:--I move to amend the substitute offered by Mr. FRANKLIN, by inserting after the words "hinder or prevent, " the words "orencourage. "

I think there is a palpable difference between the word "encourage"and the word "facilitate. " The former is broader and less restricted. If this measure is to be commended to the favor of the North, itshould be deprived of this one-sided character. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--We have already decided this question. In everypractical sense the words are synonymous. 

The vote was taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. TURNER, andresulted as follows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--10. 

 NOES. --New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--10. 

And the amendment was lost. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I ask the Conference now to let us have a vote. 

Mr. SEDDON:--Not just yet. I move to amend the substitute offered bythe gentleman from Pennsylvania, by the insertion after the clauseproviding for the division of the territory, of the following:

 "All appointments to office in the Territories lying north of the line 36° 30´, as well before as after the establishment of Territorial governments in and over the same, or any part thereof, shall be made upon the recommendation of a majority of the Senators representing, at the time, the non-slaveholding States. And, in like manner, all appointments to office in the Territories which may lie south of said line of 36° 30´, shall be made upon the recommendation of a majority of the Senators representing, at the time, the slaveholding States. But nothing in this article shall be construed to restrain the President of the United States from removing, for actual incompetency or misdemeanor in office, any person thus appointed, and appointing a temporary agent, to be continued in office until the majority of Senators as aforesaid may present a new recommendation; or from filling any vacancy which may occur during the recess of the Senate; such appointment to continue _ad interim_. And to insure, on the part of the Senators, the selection of the most trustworthy agents, it is hereby directed that all the net proceeds arising from the sales of the public lands, shall be distributed annually among the several States, according to the combined ratio of representation and taxation; but the distribution aforesaid may be suspended by Congress, in case of actual war with a foreign nation, or imminent peril thereof. "

Mr. SEDDON:--I invite the careful and deliberate attention of theConference to the provisions of this amendment. It is commended byhigh authority. It is commended by nothing inferior to the wisdom andexperience of our honored President. It is intended as a division ofthe territory between the North and the South. 

Now, to insure a fair operation of the provisions of the Constitution, as they will stand in that instrument when amended as we propose, wedeem it very essential that the rights of the southern section shouldbe secured by such an amendment as this. It will be noticed that Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute precludes us from any appeal to Congress or theTerritorial Legislatures for affirmative protection. The powers ofthose bodies will be negative only. We have nothing left, then, butthe Federal Courts. We ask now that we may not be subjected to thegovernment and power of Federal officers, whose opinions are againstus--who will exercise those powers for our oppression. Congress or thePresident may send into a Territory in the southern section, a set ofofficers who are anti-slavery propagandists, who will exercise alltheir official powers to our injury. I hold this amendment to beeminently just and fair. We have no protection from Congress; nonefrom the Legislature. Is there a chance, even, unless such a provisionis adopted, that the South will ever be placed in the favorablepossession or enjoyment of the rights you are willing to concede tous?

The latter portion of the amendment is equally just. The Governmentholds the public lands in trust. It is better to divide their proceedsat short intervals, and thus remove the subject from all danger ofcorrupting influences. But I shall leave this to be discussed by themover. 

Mr. PALMER:--I move to rescind the ten-minute rule adopted by theConference, so far as the President is concerned. 

The motion of Mr. PALMER was agreed to without a division. 

President TYLER:--I am very grateful for the compliment which theConference extends to me in the vote which has just passed. I will notabuse its kindness. 

The amendment which is offered may, at first sight, appear to beextraordinary; but I wish to say, in all seriousness, that all myexperience in public life leads me to favor its adoption. I wish tohave the Conference understand fully its import and meaning. 

That policy is the best, which reduces within the narrowest limits thepatronage to be exercised by the Executive authority. Every party outof power has discovered that in the patronage of the President thereis a voice of greater potency than is heard elsewhere in theGovernment. This amendment places a limitation upon the power of thePresident. It confers upon a majority of the Senators from eachsection the power to recommend appointments to office, and this willbe found in practice equivalent to the power of appointment. It is theonly practicable limitation of Executive patronage. The power of theExecutive in this Government is very great. Limit it, abridge it asyou may, and the President will have a power in the Government whichis not possessed by any sovereign of any throne in Europe. 

This is not a political question. Our warrant for the adoption of thisplan will be found in the tranquillity it will give to the country--inthe peace which will result from it. We are now settling differencesbetween the States. Adopt this provision, and we secure unanimityforever. You will always find that dissatisfaction is confined tolimited portions of the country. The North is content with theexisting state of things--so is three-fourths of the South. Removethis power from the Executive, and those measures will be adoptedwhich will promote the welfare of the greater number. Do you not seethat you have in this way good security for the selection of the bestmen?

Suppose the Government should start to day on this new policy--that itshould avoid all propagandism--should place honest, competent men, only, in office--should let all others understand that there was nochance for them--should permit both sides, all sides to be fairlyrepresented. You would ensure peace, secure quiet in the countryforever. You would thus heal the wound, not cicatrize it. How smallwould be the cost of so great a victory!

May I not go one step farther. I have heard with pleasure the feelingsexpressed, the references made, to the Cotton States. I have scarcelyheard an unkind word said against them. We have come here to cementthe Union--to make that Union, of which gentlemen have so eloquentlyspoken, permanent, noble, and glorious in the future as it has been inthe past--not to be content with it as a maimed and crippled Republic. 

Now, eight flourishing States are practically lost to us. The crest ofthe noble Mexican Gulf has separated from us. Let us exert every powerwe possess to bring them all back to the fold. Why should we not?Every motive of interest or patriotism should induce us to do so. Suppose the States were vacillating and in doubt where to go. Supposethey were set up for sale in market _overt_, and the States of Europewere to bid for them--for this, not only the richest portion of ourown country, but of the world--because this portion of our land has anelement of wealth and power which must be prized and valued wherevercommerce is known. What would not one of the Powers of Europe give forthis favored section? The treasures of the continent would be opened. Nations would unlock the caskets of their crown jewels to secure it. England would double her national debt to have it; so would France; sowould Russia. And yet we stand here higgling over these littledifferences which alone have caused our separation. Is it not betterthat we should rise to the level of the occasion, and meet therequisition of the times, instead of expending precious hours in thediscussion of these miserable abstractions?

We talk about the events of the Revolution and their consequences. Have we forgotten our revolutionary history? Have we forgotten theMARIONS, the SUMTERS, the PICKENS, of those times? Has the spirit ofsacrifice which, animated those men wholly departed from theirdescendants? God forbid!

Our body politic is not free from disease. The disease should betreated properly and judiciously. Whenever disease shows itself weshould apply a suitable remedy--one that is suggested by the pharmacyof mutual brotherhood, and yet powerful enough to reach every nerve inour political system. 

It is to accomplish this purpose that we have come together. It is tosecure this desirable result that I urge the adoption of thisamendment. I press it because I feel that it will give peace to allsections. Adopt it, and from that moment you may date the beginning ofthe return of the seceded States into the fold of the Union. Howheartily would we welcome their return! Do we not all desire it? Hasnot Virginia a heart large enough to give them their old place in theUnion? Has not Rhode Island and New Jersey?

I say my proposition will accomplish this, and a single reason willdisclose the ground of my faith. It preserves the equilibrium, thebalance of power, between the sections. It enables each section toappoint its own officers, to protect its own interests, to regulateits own concerns. It is fair and equal in its operations. With it, nosection can have any excuse for dissatisfaction. I pledge the unitedsupport of the South to the Union, if it is adopted. 

The latter branch of the amendment looks to the annual distribution ofthe net proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the severalStates. This was one of the favorite ideas of HENRY CLAY. His argumentupon this subject, to my mind, was always conclusive. Will the partywhich has adopted his principles repudiate this, or will its membersput their feet down firmly and give it their support?

I have watched the operations of this Government with great interestand care, and I have noticed that every approach toward making eachsource of revenue or expenditure separate and independent of allothers, tended to the profit and advantage of the Government, andincreased the chances of securing honorable and honest agents totransact its business. A marked instance of this will be found in theadministration of the affairs of the Post Office Department. And hereI cannot refrain from relating an anecdote which is strongly inpoint, and which forms one of the pleasantest recollections of my ownconnection with the administration of the General Government. 

Upon a certain occasion I called my cabinet together. Sad complaintshad been made concerning the administration of several of theDepartments, and the press had not failed to predict heavy losses tothe Government through the dishonesty and the defalcations of itsagents. I determined that I would know what the facts were, and Idirected all the departments to furnish me, by a certain day, with acorrect and accurate list of all their defaulting employés, and on thesame day I summoned my cabinet to consider these reports. The listscame in from the several Departments, and I assure the Conference thatthey were formidable enough to give ample occasion for anxiety. Butthe list from the Department of the Post Office was not forthcoming. My friend, Governor WICKLIFFE, was at that time at the head of thatDepartment. The day of the cabinet meeting arrived. We were allassembled but the Postmaster General. We waited for a long time forhim and for his report. At length he came, bringing his report withhim, but with the marks of great care and anxiety upon his brow. _Hehad discovered a defalcation_ in his Department. He had been occupiedfor a long time in tracing it out, but he had at length succeeded. Hecame to announce to the President that the postmaster of a certain"Cross Roads" in Kentucky had absconded, and defrauded the Governmentout of the sum of _fifteen dollars_! and worst of all, his bail _hadrun away with him_!!

This is only one of the many proofs which my own experience wouldfurnish of the propriety, if not the necessity of keeping eachDepartment of the Government by itself--of not connecting it withothers, and of making the agents of each Department responsible toitself alone. Carry this idea into practice in all the Departments ofthe Government, and a better class of agents would be secured, and theloss by defaulters would be much lessened. 

The enormous increase of the expenditures of the General Governmentmight, by the same process, be prevented. How does it happen that in atime of peace these expenses have risen from twenty-three millions ofdollars up to seventy or eighty millions? In the same proportion, thesum to which they will reach in another decade will be frightful! Itis high time that a stop was put to this lavish expenditure, andespecially to the losses by dishonest agents. The plan here proposedwill give you a starting point. The proceeds of the vast domain of thepublic lands are now so mingled with the other expenditures of theGovernment, that no one can tell what becomes of them. They are nowcommon plunder. Divide them among the States, and they will besaved--they will be applied to some worthy object, and you will haveadopted a principle which, after a little time, under any honestadministration, will be applied to the other Departments of theGovernment. I trust the whole amendment may be adopted. As theamendment may be divided into two parts--one relating to appointmentsto office, and the other to the public domain--I would ask that thevote may be taken upon each proposition separately. 

The vote was then taken upon the first portion of the amendmentproposed by Mr. SEDDON, with the following result:

 AYES. --Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--5. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--14. 

And the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. JOHNSON:--I cannot concur in the vote just given by Maryland. Idesire to have my dissent recorded. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I dissent, also, from the vote of Maryland. 

President TYLER:--The last part of the amendment will be considered aswithdrawn. 

Mr. McCURDY:--I move to amend the substitute proposed by Mr. FRANKLIN, by adding thereto the following words:

 "_Provided_, That nothing in this article contained shall be so construed as to carry any law of involuntary servitude into such Territory. "

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope we shall reject all such amendments. I considerthis simply procrastination. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--I wish to raise a point, a question oforder. This conflicts directly with the sense of the substituteproposed. We ought not to entertain it. 

The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. McCURDY, withthe following result:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa--7. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--13. 

And the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. ORTH:--I dissent from the vote of Indiana. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--I rise to inquire whether it will now be in order tooffer a substitute? I have one which I wish at the proper time topresent. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question is now upon the adoption of asubstitute--that offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania--to thefirst section of the article reported by the committee. I do not thinkany other substitute is in order at the present time. 

Mr. CHASE:--I hope that this vote may be postponed, and I will brieflystate the reason why. I am informed that a delegation from the Stateof Kansas has arrived during the day, and that their credentials arenow in the hands of the appropriate committee. That committee has notyet reported, and cannot until they have a meeting after ouradjournment. The credentials of three of these delegates have beenpresented by myself but a few minutes since. The Committee onCredentials, I am informed, will not report until Monday. I wish theyoungest State in the Union to express her opinion upon this motion. Itherefore move an adjournment. 

Mr. EWING:--I do not think any delay is necessary. We can let themvote on Monday. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I only wish to say a word of explanation in behalf ofthe Committee on Credentials. The delay in the case of Kansas is notthe fault of that committee. The delegates themselves think it betterthat the report should not be made until all the delegates arrive whoare expected. The committee can report at any time. 

The vote was taken on the motion to adjourn, with the followingresult:

 AYES. --Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Indiana--5. 

 NOES. --New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--12. 

So the motion to adjourn was negatived. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question will now be taken upon the substitute ofthe gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FRANKLIN), offered for the firstsection of the article reported by the committee. 

Which vote being taken, resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--14. 

 NOES. --Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri--4. 

And the substitute was agreed to. 

Mr. FIELD:--There seems to be a misapprehension as to the proper timefor offering substitutes for the whole report of the committee. Ishall act upon the understanding that the proper time to offer themwill be when we have gone through with the report of the committee. IfI am wrong I wish to be corrected now. 

Mr. LOGAN:--I am informed that Mr. LINCOLN, the President-elect, hasarrived in this city. I feel certain that the Conference would desireto treat him with the same measure of respect which it has extended tothe present incumbent of that high office. I therefore move that thePresident of this Convention be requested to call upon thePresident-elect of the United States, and inform him that its memberswould be pleased to wait upon him in a body at such time as will suithis convenience, and that this Convention be advised of the result. 

The motion of Mr. LOGAN was agreed to unanimously. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I move an adjournment to half-past seven o'clock thisevening. 

The motion was agreed to, and the Conference adjourned. 

 * * * * *

EVENING SESSION--SIXTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, SATURDAY, _February 23d, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order by the President, at half-pastseven o'clock. 

The PRESIDENT:--I have addressed a note to the President-elect, announcing the desire of the Conference to offer their respects to himin a body, at seven and one-half o'clock this evening, or at suchother time as would be agreeable to him. I have received his reply, stating that he will be pleased to receive the members of this body atnine o'clock this evening, or at any other time which may suit theirconvenience. 

The Conference then proceeded to the order of the day, being theconsideration of the second article of the section reported by thecommittee. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to strike out the second article, and to insertthe following in its place:

 "Territory may be acquired for naval and commercial stations and transit routes, and by discovery, and for no other purposes, without the concurrence of four-fifths of the Senate. "

It is generally conceded that under our present Constitution theUnited States have no power to acquire territory for coaling or navalstations, within the country of a foreign power. It was thecommittee's intention to remedy this defect by the present section. But as it stands, I do not like it. The idea is somewhat awkwardlyexpressed. I wish to have the enabling power conferred in directterms. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I would ask to interrupt the order of business for amoment, in order to make a report from the Committee on Credentials, in the Kansas case. The defect adverted to in the case of Mr. STONE, has been supplied to the satisfaction of the committee, and Messrs. CONWAY, EWING, and ADAMS, have also presented themselves as delegatesfrom the State of Kansas, with proper credentials. It has not been ourpractice heretofore to admit members by a formal vote, nor do I seeany necessity for making the case of Kansas an exception. Thecommittee would suggest that the clerk enter the names of thesegentlemen upon the roll of delegates, unless objection is made. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Secretary will make the entry, as no objection ismade. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--Some days ago I introduced into the Conference, andcaused to be printed, a substitute which I proposed to offer for thesecond section of the committee's article. I offer it now, as follows:

 "No territory shall be acquired by the United States without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the satisfaction of such treaty. "

I do not propose to occupy time in discussing it, but I ask a minuteor two to explain its provisions. The second section of the articleproposed by the committee, requires that a treaty under whichterritory or commercial or naval stations is acquired, should requirefour-fifths of the Senate for its ratification. This, I think, is anunnecessary restriction upon the treaty-making power. Occasion mayarise when it would not be advisable to wait for the exercise of thispower at all. The question of acquiring territory may arise undercircumstances when delay would be fatal. Suppose our title to anisland in the Arctic Ocean, or a point upon the shore, by discovery orotherwise, which might be settled by prompt action! There might be nonational authority with which we could treat for its acquisition. Ithink it would be hazardous to provide that in no event shouldterritory be acquired except by treaty. The case I have supposed hasno relation whatever to the case of an ordinary acquisition ofterritory by treaty with a recognized foreign power. 

But the question of slavery always arises when the subject ofacquiring territory is mentioned. This clause would fix the _status_, would put it in the power of either class of States to prevent theacquisition, but it would not permit a small number of States to doit. To leave it where a _majority_ of the Senators of both sectionscould control the subject, would seem to me the mode of settlementleast objectionable. The ratification would require two-thirds of theSenate, like all treaties, and these two-thirds would include amajority of both sections. 

Objection will be made to this classification of the States. I do notlike it myself, but there it no way to avoid it. I have adopted thelanguage of the Ordinance of 1787. There can be no very soundobjection to the use of these terms. The objection is rathersentimental than otherwise. 

The amendment I offer ought to satisfy the South, and I think it will. The South asks for these provisions because they settle all questionsabout our present territory, and prevent questions arising over thatwe may acquire hereafter. They will give to both sides equality ofpower. But voting is far more important now than speaking. I willconsume no more time. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The gentleman from Virginia desires to try his motion. For the present, I will withdraw mine. 

Mr. FIELD:--I have only a word to say on this subject. There are verygrave objections to this classification of sections. I will not repeatthem here. I supposed the sense of the Conference had been expressedagainst it. 

But I wish to inquire why this second section is necessary at all? Itcame up in the committee rather by accident than otherwise. I do notthink any one of the committee intended to make it one of the subjectsof our action, and the section was finally presented by a smallmajority. 

Let us leave this subject where the Constitution leaves it. We can nowacquire territory by discovery or by treaty. So far the Constitutionhas operated satisfactorily. The country owes much of its greatness tothis very provision of the Constitution. No grievance to the South, assuredly, has been caused by it. I am much averse to any alteration. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--I think, after some reflection, that this amendment isof much more importance than many of us have supposed. I shall votefor it, because I do not wish to have too many limitations placed uponthe power of the Government in relation to the acquisition ofterritory. We know how difficult it is to change our fundamental law. Very few amendments to the Constitution have been made since the deathof WASHINGTON. We are now establishing our fundamental law for ages tocome. Is there upon the face of the civilized earth a nation withsuch a limitation upon the power of acquiring territory as thisoriginal article proposes? Its adoption would place us at the feet offoreign nations. 

In war, conquest is one means of indemnity--often the best and onlyone. We must look to the acquisition of future territory; we must makeour settlement with that in view. 

Reference has been made here to the seceded States, and some hardwords have been used toward them. This is not the place for suchwords. What is the condition of these States now? They say they areout of the Union. We say, No! The question between us may be decidedby the Courts; it may be decided by the sword. But we all want themback; we would place no restrictions upon their return. They will onlycome back by treaty. Unless you adopt this amendment, the sectionproposed will be applicable to their case, and a mere fraction couldkeep them out of the Union forever. 

In regard to the subject of slavery, what we want is security for thefuture. That we can arrange. In my opinion you will never get back theseceded States, without you give them some hope of the acquisition offuture territory. They know that when slavery is gathered into a_cul-de-sac_, and surrounded by a wall of free States, it isdestroyed. Slavery must have expansion. It must expand by theacquisition of territory which now we do not own. The seceded Stateswill never yield this point--will never come back to a Governmentwhich gives no chance for the expansion of their principalinstitution. They will insist upon equity, upon the same rights withyou in the common territory, and the same prospect, of acquiringforeign territory that you have. If you are not prepared to grant allthis, do not waste your time in thought about the return of theseceded States. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--New Jersey voted to make the first section of thearticle reported applicable to future territory, not because shewishes to acquire new territory, but because she knows that it will beacquired; and she believes all questions raised here can be settlednow, in regard to it, better than they can be hereafter. Thesequestions have raised a ferment in the nation; we would settle themany way. We should have voted for these restrictions upon the power ofacquiring territory; and still we cannot shut our eyes to the factthat in a few years new territory must be acquired. Look at Sonora, atall Mexico; they furnish the reason for our action. An effort will bemade, perhaps, to secure the new territory by treaty. Better get it inthat way than by conquest. 

Personally, I would oppose any farther acquisitions. We need no moreterritory, and yet I know that more will be acquired. The North wishesit more than the South. In the end, the North will insist that weshould have Cuba. What is the sentiment of our commercial cities now?

I think we ought to surround this power of acquisition by somejudicious restrictions; not make them too strong, or the country willbreak over, and not regard them. What restriction would not have beenbroken down, when the question came up in relation to Texas? We mustanticipate occasions of the same kind. I am inclined to vote for thesubstitute of the gentleman from Virginia. At all events let us adoptsome limitations. If not these, then such as are contained in theoriginal article. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:--I propose to amend the substitute offeredby the gentleman from Virginia, by inserting after the words "UnitedStates, " the words "except by discovery, and for naval and commercialdepots and transit routes. "

There is now a law, the constitutionality of which has not beendoubted, providing for the acquisition of territory by discovery. Butthe Court, in the Dred Scott case, decided that territory could not beacquired, except as preliminary to the formation of a State. Thisdifficulty should be obviated. I think the amendment I propose will doit. If we adopt the proposition of Mr. SUMMERS, we cut off the powerof acquiring territory for transit routes, &c. , except by treaty. Ithink my amendment will make the section more satisfactory to theSouth. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I will accept the amendment, and treat it as a part ofmy substitute. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I feel a deep solicitude in this subject. We arehere for the purpose of settling a great difficulty. Instead ofsettling it, we shall add to it by placing these unnecessaryobstructions in the way of acquiring territory in future. Would notthe South be safer by the adoption of this guarantee? It is the onlyone, aside from the first section, which gives the South a grain ofpower. We cannot go on with things as they are--only seven States tocontend with all the rest of the nation. We must all desire that theseceded States should return to the Union. How are they to come back?By treaty, or by the sword? Who will not prefer to win them back byadopting principles in our amendments which will make it for theirinterest to return? If the amendment is adopted, no future territorywill be acquired without the consent of a majority of Senators on bothsides of the line. Reject this, and I have not the slightest hope ofever seeing the seceded States again in the Union. I believe thisamendment will meet the wishes of a large majority of the people ofVirginia. 

The vote upon the adoption of the substitute proposed by Mr. SUMMERSresulted as follows:

 AYES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--9. 

 NOES. --Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--10. 

And the amendment was lost. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I will now renew my proposition, and ask a vote upon itby States. 

The vote upon the substitute offered by Mr. GUTHRIE, for the sectionof the article reported by the committee, resulted as follows:

 AYES. --New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio--10. 

 NOES. --Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa--10. 

And the amendment was lost. 

Mr. PRICE dissented from the vote of New Jersey, and Mr. BARRINGERfrom the vote of North Carolina. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--As the hour named for the call upon thePresident-elect is approaching, I move that a committee of threemembers be appointed by the President to make arrangements for theintroduction of the members of the Conference. 

The motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE was agreed to, and the President appointedMessrs. WICKLIFFE, FIELD, and CHASE, as the committee. 

Mr. McKENNAN:--I move a reconsideration of the vote of the Conferencerejecting the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia. I amnot at all certain that we may not think it advisable to adopt thatamendment. 

The order of the day was now suspended, and the committee appointed towait upon the President-elect, reported that they had performed thatduty, and that the President-elect would be pleased to receive themembers of the Conference in his parlors in Willard's Hotel, at thepresent time. 

For the purpose of waiting on the President, on motion of Mr. EWING, the Conference adjourned until the 25th inst. , at ten o'clock A. M. 

SEVENTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _February 25th, 1861. _

The Convention was called to order at ten o'clock, pursuant toadjournment, by President TYLER, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. SMITH. 

The Journal of Saturday was read. 

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The Delegates from the State of Indiana desire thatthe vote of that State upon the proposition of amendment offered bythe gentleman from Iowa (Mr. CURTIS), on Friday last, may be recorded. The vote was taken on Saturday, and Indiana desires to record her voteagainst said proposition. 

The Conference granted the leave asked, and the vote of Indiana wasaccordingly entered upon the Journal. 

The PRESIDENT:--There have been transmitted to me the proceedings of ameeting of the Democrats of Pennsylvania, in which are containedcertain resolutions relating to the matters now before us. I aminformed that the meeting was one of the largest ever held in thatState. The usual course would be to enter them upon the record, but inthis instance I would suggest the propriety of having them read. However, the Conference will take such order upon them as it thinksproper. 

Mr. POLLOCK:--The policy of the Conference from the beginning has beennot to receive or consider resolutions of a partisan character. Thatdecision was made on one of the early days of our session, upon aseries of resolutions adopted by a convention held in New Haven, Connecticut, which were presented by Mr. CLAY. I think we had betterpass over the subject informally, and I would call for the order ofthe day. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I think the resolutions had better bereferred to the Committee on Credentials. 

Mr. CLAY:--I quite approved of the course taken by the Conference ofthe resolutions which were sent to me for presentation. I hope we willpursue the same course now. I move that these resolutions be enteredupon the Journal as received, and that they be laid on the table. 

The motion of Mr. CLAY was agreed to, and the resolutions were laid onthe table. 

Mr. SMITH, of New York:--I would inquire whether any action has beentaken under the order of the Conference for the printing of theJournal from day to day. It is very important that we have theseJournals, that we may know exactly what has been done. No gentlemancan carry all our proceedings in his memory. 

 The Secretary made a statement to the effect that he had not found time fully to complete the Journal, or to arrange for its being printed under the rule requiring that secrecy should be preserved; that the Mayor of Washington had proposed to have the printing done under a supervision which would secure its non-publication by the press, and that various reasons existed why the order of the Conference had not been complied with. 

Mr. SMITH:--Then I hope the order will be complied with to-day. It isvery important that each member should have a copy of our dailyJournal. I certainly expected one this morning. I will not make amotion now, but if these copies are not furnished, I shall move theappointment of a committee to secure their future publication. 

Mr. DENT:--There was a vote passed upon this subject. It may have beenin the absence of the Secretary. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference is informed that the Journal shall bepublished as soon as possible. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I have two amendments which I shall offer. Atpresent I desire to have them laid on the table and printed. [4]

[Footnote 4: I suppose these amendments offered by Mr. BROCKENBROUGHwere never printed; certainly no printed copy of them was everdistributed to the members of the Conference, and they were neverinserted in the Journal. In preserving my notes, I naturally assumedthat I could rely upon the printed copies distributed to the members, for the various amendments offered. At the period of writing out thesenotes communication with Mr. BROCKENBROUGH is impossible, and I amobliged to omit farther notice of his amendments. I am not even ableto state the subjects to which they referred. ]

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the considerationof the order of the day, which is the motion to reconsider the voterejecting the substitute offered by Mr. SUMMERS, for the secondsection of the articles of amendment reported by the committee. 

Mr. McKENNAN:--At the request of one of my colleagues I would ask apostponement of the vote upon my motion of reconsideration for thepresent. It will produce no injurious result, and I think myself wehad better hold this amendment subject to the future action of theConference. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I will not withhold my consent to the postponement. ButI hope the members of this Conference will consider my amendment, andgive it their attention when it comes up again. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--If we pass Mr. SUMMERS' amendment, we should pass by theconsideration of the whole section. I think that is the better way. Let us now proceed to the consideration of the third section in thearticle of amendment proposed by the committee. 

The PRESIDENT:--Such will be taken as the pleasure of the Conference. 

The third section was read. 

The PRESIDENT:--The third section is open to propositions ofamendment. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to amend this section by striking out the words"by land, sea, or river, " occurring after the words "ortransportation. "

Mr. GUTHRIE'S motion was adopted without a division. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I now move to insert after the words "duringtransportation, " the words "by sea or river. "

Which motion was also agreed to without a division. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I now move to amend the third section by striking outall after the word "give, " in the second line thereof, and insertingas follows:

 "to Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof, touching persons held to service or labor therein. "

 SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any person held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, under the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to impair any rights pertaining to that relation, under the laws now in force within the said District, while such relations shall exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of said State, and of those to whom the service or labor is due, or making them just compensation therefor; nor the power to prohibit or interfere with members of Congress and officers of the Federal Government whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them, for personal service only, retaining, and taking away persons so held to service or labor, nor the power to impair or abolish the relations of persons owing service or labor in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and Territories where such relations are established or recognized by law. 

 SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States to any State or Territory thereof where the same obligation or liability to labor or service is established or recognized by law; and the right during such transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, or landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; nor shall the Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or labor than on land. 

Although it may not be strictly in order, yet, as a part of my plan, Iwish to bring forward a substitute which I shall offer to the seventhsection of the committee's article, which, if adopted, should benumbered

 SECTION 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases where the Marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous assemblage; or where, after such arrest, such fugitive shall be rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such service or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the same, the United States shall pay to such party the full value of such service or labor. 

I offer these in separate sections, in order not only that the votemay be taken upon each one separately here, but also when the samequestions come before the people. The first section of my amendment, as I understand from every quarter, sets all opposition at rest; allare willing to agree to it. This may be adopted and the othersrejected, which could not be done if the original section was adopted. The other sections conform to the language of our presentConstitution, and for that reason I think they will meet with morefavor. Each subject is thus made to stand on its own merits. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question will be taken upon each section of thesubstitute proposed. 

Mr. JAMES:--I propose the following as a substitute for the firstsection of the amendment offered by Mr. HITCHCOCK. It is, I believe, the same as that proposed in Congress by the Committee of Thirteen. Iunderstand, also, that the Committee of the House of Representativesare about to substitute it for what is known as the ADAMS Proposition. We all have the same purpose in view, to negative in express terms theright of Congress to interfere with the institution of slavery withinthe States. I present the amendment because I think it expresses thepurpose in better language. 

 SECTION 1. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. 

Mr. CHASE:--This amendment would be limited in its application to theStates. Congress would still have power in this respect overTerritories. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The report of the committee has been agreed upon aftermuch discussion, and printed. We all understand it, and I hope weshall adhere to it without any alteration. If we begin to adopt theseamendments no one can tell where they will carry us. 

Mr. JAMES:--My proposition is offered as an amendment to that offeredby Mr. HITCHCOCK. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--So I understand; but his amendment is proposed as asubstitute for the third section of the article reported by thecommittee. I object to the whole of it. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--Do I understand that the question now is uponsubstituting Mr. HITCHCOCK'S amendment for the committee's report. 

Mr. JAMES:--No. It is upon substituting my proposition for the firstsection of Mr. HITCHCOCK'S amendment. 

The vote upon the amendment offered by Mr. JAMES resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Indiana--7. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--13. 

And the amendment was lost. 

Mr. WOOD:--I must enter my dissent from the vote of Illinois. 

Mr. FOWLER:--I have an amendment which I offer to the substituteproposed by Mr. HITCHCOCK--

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I object to it as out of order. Let us take the voteupon the various sections of Mr. HITCHCOCK'S proposition. If they arerejected, then these amendments may all be moved to the committee'sreport. 

The PRESIDENT:--I have already decided that the substitute is open toamendment. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--Then I will appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT:--I will state the ground of my decision. It is true, asclaimed by the gentleman from New Jersey, that if the propositions ofMr. HITCHCOCK are _rejected_ these amendments may be moved to thesections reported by the committee. If, on the contrary, they are_adopted_, or either of them, so far as they are adopted they muststand as the order of the Conference, and are no longer subject toamendment. I understand the Parliamentary rule in such a case to bewell settled. 

A somewhat confused debate here arose, when Mr. RANDOLPH withdrew hisappeal from the decision of the chair. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--I move to amend the proposition of the gentleman fromOhio, by striking out the words "nor shall Congress have the power toauthorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service orlabor, than on land. " I do not think these words are appropriate in aprovision of the Constitution. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I supposed the Conference would understand my purpose. It was to substitute my three sections for the third section of thecommittee's report. I did not suppose this series of amendments wouldbe offered. For the present, I will withdraw my amendments. 

Mr. HARRIS:--The gentleman forgets that if we once adopt them, theyare no longer subject to amendment. 

Mr. BRONSON:--I wish to make a suggestion. I don't know butParliamentarians would call it a point of order. Now let us go on anddecide whether we will, or will not, adopt the third section asreported by the committee. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I have several amendments which I am constrained to offerto this third section. My State would think me remiss if I did notoffer them. I move, first, to insert after the words "State orTerritory of the United States, " the words "or obstruct, hinder, prevent, or abolish. "

By the section as reported by the committee, Congress is prohibitedfrom controlling or abolishing slavery in any State or Territory. Thisamendment which I propose will prevent any action in relation toit--in aid of it, or otherwise. The Territorial Legislature willalways be the creature of Congress, and under the committee's sectionit might act upon the subject of slavery. I understand that thepurpose of the committee was to prevent Congress from abolishingslavery in the Territories, but not to prevent the TerritorialLegislature from acting in aid of it. My amendment will secure slaveryfrom all interference. That is what we want. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The first section of the report covers this. Theamendment, I think, is unnecessary. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I think the first section, properly construed, wouldprevent the Territorial Legislature from enacting a law in aid ofslavery, even if the whole people of the Territory desired it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I do not desire to go over these questions again. If theConference intends to come to any conclusion at all, I hope it willvote down all these amendments. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I call for a vote by States. 

Mr. WOOD:--I move that the amendment be laid on the table. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--Which motion is in order--mine or that of the gentlemanfrom Virginia?

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from Ohio having withdrawn hisamendment, the proposal of the gentleman from Connecticut is no longerbefore the Conference. The question is upon the motion of thegentleman from Virginia to amend the third section of the articlereported by the committee. 

The vote upon the amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--6. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky--14. 

And the amendment was not adopted. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I now move to amend the third section reported by thecommittee, by striking out the words "City of Washington, " andinserting in their place the words "District of Columbia. "

The motion of Mr. SEDDON was agreed to without a division. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not see why this privilege of bringing theirslaves into the District should be limited to members of Congress. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--It is not. The expression is "representatives and_others_. "

Mr. SEDDON:--I now propose to amend the same section by insertingafter the words "without the consent of Maryland" the words "andVirginia. " I think slavery ought not to be destroyed in the Districtof Columbia without the consent both of Maryland and Virginia. Ifthere is any reason for requiring the consent of one State, the samereason exists as to the other. This amendment will make the sectionmuch more acceptable to the slaveholding States. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The committee did not require the assent of Virginia, because no part of the present District came from Virginia. We thoughtit unnecessary. 

Mr. DENT:--Maryland and Virginia originally joined in the cession ofthe District to the United States. Afterwards that portion which camefrom her was re-ceded to Virginia. But this question is not one ofterritory alone. The policy and interest of the two States areintimately connected. It would be far more satisfactory to both theseStates, and to the South, if the assent of Virginia was requiredbefore Congress could abolish slavery in the District. Still Marylanddoes not insist upon it. 

Mr. EWING:--I can see no necessity for, or propriety in, theamendment. We might as well require the consent of North Carolina orany of the other slave States. Virginia owns none of the District. Shehas no right to interfere. 

The amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the followingvote:

 AYES. --Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri--5. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas--14. 

Mr. SEDDON:--My next proposition is to amend the third section byinserting after the words "landing in case of distress, shall exist, "the words "and if the transportation be by sea, the right of propertyin the person held to service or labor shall be protected by theFederal Government as other property. "

We claim that our property in slaves shall be recognized by the Unionjust like any other property--that no unjust or improper distinctionshall be made. When we trust it to the perils of the seas, we wish tohave it protected by the Federal Government. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I would inquire of the gentleman from Virginia whetherit has not already been decided that this species of property is asmuch entitled to Federal protection as any other. I refer to the"Creole" case. The British Government made compensation for thisspecies of property in that case. This was done upon the award of thecommissioners pursuant to the decision of the umpire. 

Mr. SEDDON:--Yes! But on the express ground that slavery wasrecognized in the islands. Express notice was given, that when theemancipation policy was adopted, the same principles would not berecognized. We are now removing doubts. We wish to have these mattersno longer involved in uncertainty. We insist upon having theseprovisions in the Constitution. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--I wish to say a word on this subject, much as I regretthe consumption of time. I am willing to leave this question where itis now; and my reason is this: If we put this into the Constitution, the question may be raised, whether if foreign nations shouldinterfere with this kind of property on the high seas, the Governmentwould not be bound to consider it a cause of war. We ought not to bindourselves to go to war. War should always depend upon considerationsof policy. We should raise a thousand troublesome questions byputting these words "shall be protected" into the Constitution. Thematter is well enough as it is. Our rights in this respect are wellenough protected by the ordinary course of national diplomacy. I wouldnot be willing to put into the Constitution language which wouldembarrass us hereafter. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I will frankly say that I think slave property upon everyground is as well entitled to the national protection as any otherspecies of property. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--This amendment brings up the very gist of the matter. The question of the right of our property to Federal protection is nowan open one. In the case of the Creole it was settled by negotiation, and not by the courts. The question so often hinted at and suggestedin this Conference is now fairly brought up for decision. GovernorCHASE struck at the very root of the matter the other day, when hesaid that slavery was an _abnormal_ condition. He laid down theopinion of the North. He is a statesman and a lawyer. He says thatslavery cannot exist anywhere until it is established or authorized bylaw. This is the Northern idea, and it is a technical one. I hatetechnicalities almost as bad as I do sectionalism. The North deals inboth. I regret to speak in these terms of the North, but I must if Ispeak truth. Now, I will lay down what is the opinion of the Southupon the subject. We say that the right to hold and use slaveproperty, always, everywhere, exists until it is prohibited by law. Wesay that it is a natural right, which grows out of the verynecessities of society. We hold that the condition of slavery is anormal condition--not local at all; that it is found everywhere, except where it is forbidden by law. We claim that the right to holdslaves is a natural right, recognized by the law of nations, and ofthe world. I am quite aware that the North does not agree with ouropinion. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--I would ask whether this normal condition is confinedto the blacks, or does it extend to all races?

Mr. BARRINGER:--Most assuredly it is not confined to a single race. Itextends to all races. Slavery of all races exists even in Europe. 

Mr. FIELD:--Not now!

Mr. BARRINGER:--Perhaps not now, and why? For the reason that it hasbeen abolished by law, as in the recent case of Russia. Slavery onceexisted in the Northern States. By law it was also abolished in thoseStates. We say that when slave property is on the high seas it oughtto be protected--the rights of the owner ought to be protected. 

This question came up in the case of the "Amistead. " Mr. ADAMS claimedthat although these slaves were recognized by the laws of Spain asproperty, yet, when once upon the high seas, they were, by the law ofnations, _free_, and these slaves have never been paid for to thisday. 

This amendment is highly important to the South. The concession we askis no greater than has been made before. In the treaties of 1783 and1815, slaves were to be protected as property. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not wish to nullify the action, or change thecourse of our Government on this question. Slaves upon the high seashave always been recognized as property. Look at the treaty of 1815. That recognized slaves as property, and those which were taken fromthe District were paid for. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, took the sameground now taken by the North. The Government took the oppositeground. The question was ultimately referred to the Emperor of Russia, who decided that property in slaves must be recognized by the law ofnations, and sustained our view. Take the "Creole" case also. But Iwill not go over the ground. The "Amistead" case stood upon groundswhich were entirely different. 

But it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Constitution. The rights of the South in this respect are well enough protected now. 

Mr. GRANGER:--I regret that the distinguished gentleman from Virginiahas again raised a question which was decided against him by a largemajority in the Conference a few days ago. 

Mr. SEDDON:--The gentleman is quite correct. The principle must be thesame whether applied to the Territories or to the high seas. 

Mr. GRANGER:--It is claimed by the South that slaves are propertyeverywhere. Why, then, name slave property more than any other speciesin the Constitution?

Mr. BARRINGER:--We say that slaves are _both_ persons and property. 

Mr. GRANGER:--It has always been the course of the Government to payfor slaves taken on the high seas. The gentleman has referred to the"Amistead" case as having been decided against the southern claim. Ipresent the "Amistead" case as a perfect answer to the miserablecalumnies which have been disseminated against that Court. The Judgesin that case were unanimous with a single exception, and he was aJudge from a free State. We of the North upon these national questionsare prepared to go with you to the extreme verge of right and loyalty. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I have no desire to complicate thesequestions of international law. The treaties of 1783 and 1815 wereparticipated in by JAY and the elder ADAMS. They expressly providedfor the payment for slaves like other property. This is plain English, and settles the question so far as the North is concerned. I am forletting it alone where it is. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I am not able to support this proposition of thegentleman from Virginia. I consider the right of property in slaves, in the slave States, and in the territory south of 36° 30´, as fullyrecognized and established in the report of the majority of thecommittee. In this very clause this property is expressly admitted, and Congress is prohibited from interfering with it. This isenough--it is all that should be done. We have come here to settle ourdomestic troubles. The report of the committee recognizes and affirmsthese rights of the South which have heretofore been denied ordoubted. I think their report gives us all the assurance we need. Wewere not sent here to engraft new principles into our foreign policy, and I will not consent to enter upon that business. We have got thisright of property specifically recognized, and no administrationhereafter will refuse to carry out the plain provisions of theConstitution. 

Mr. SEDDON:--Where in the article do you find this right recognized?It simply prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery withincertain limits. Nothing beyond that. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I find the recognition pervading the whole report. Theright of transportation, for instance, is secured. Does not thatinvolve, of necessity, a recognition of the right of property? I amsure the South is safe in leaving this question where the reportleaves it. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--We feel disposed to adhere firmly to the report of thecommittee. We know the arduous labor they have bestowed upon thesubject, and feel that we ought to be satisfied with the result. We donot wish to have our friends put us in a false position. We shall voteagainst the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, not because wedo not think it is right on principle, but because we think it isunnecessary. The right of property in slaves is protected now whereverthat property goes. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--I admit that the policy of the Government hitherto hasbeen as the gentlemen claim. If the South could have been satisfiedwith that, we should never have been sent here--this Convention wouldnever have been called. But we have come together for the reason thatwe fear the established policy of the Government will be changed bythe party now coming into power. We ask for assurances that the oldpolicy should be continued; and we wish to have the obligation tocontinue it, written down in the bond. 

The Chair restated the question, and Mr. SEDDON called for a vote byStates. 

The vote upon Mr. SEDDON'S amendment resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Missouri--4. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17. 

And the amendment was lost. 

Messrs. BUTLER and CLAY, of Kentucky; Messrs. DONIPHAN and JOHNSON, ofMissouri; Messrs. HOWARD and DENT, of Maryland, dissented from thevotes of their respective States. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I now move the following amendment of the same thirdsection. After the words "in case of distress, shall exist, " insertthe following:

 "And the rights of transit by persons holding those of the African race to labor or service, in and through the States not recognizing the relations of persons held to labor or service, in passing with them from one State or Territory recognizing such relation, to another, shall be secure. "

I only wish to say in reference to this amendment that it secures aright specifically referred to in the resolutions of Virginia underwhich this Conference is called. On that account I feel bound tooffer it, but I will not occupy time in its discussion. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--In the early years of our Government this right wasextended by courtesy to the slaveholding States. Since thesedifferences have sprung up, in some States it has been denied--inothers, the courtesy still exists. We considered this questionthoroughly in committee. We did not wish to put any thing into ourreport that would operate to excite the prejudices of any sectionagainst it, and so lessen the chances of its being adopted. We thoughtit best not to insert such a provision. I am opposed to the amendment. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I call a vote by States. 

The amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the followingvote:

 AYES. --Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--4. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17. 

Mr. SEDDON:--One more amendment. I move to amend the third section asfollows: after the words "by the laws thereof touching, " insert thewords "the relations existing between master and slave or. "

I shall not detain the Conference for five minutes in the discussionof this amendment. I wish, however, to have the words "master andslave" somewhere inserted in this article, in plain English language, so that the dangerous delusion so prevalent at the North, that theConstitution does not recognize slavery, may be thoroughly and foreverremoved; so that the Constitution shall, beyond any question, recognize the relation of master and slave; a duplex relation--arelation of person and property. I wish to meet that question fairlyand squarely. Let it be thoroughly understood as a relation of personand property. This is what we ask, and this is what we insist upon. Put this into the Constitution, and you take the shortest and the mosteffective means of settling the question, and of promoting peace andtranquillity. You strike the axe to the very root of bitterness, whence has sprung all our trouble, all our difficulties. I ask a voteby States. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--What I have already said applies with equal force tothis amendment. I will not repeat my objections. 

The amendment offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the followingvote:

 AYES. --Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--18. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--Maryland votes "No, " not because she specially objectsto the amendment, but she stands by the report of the committee. 

Mr. DENT:--I dissent from the vote of Maryland. 

Mr. CLAY:--And I from the vote of Kentucky. 

Mr. ALEXANDER:--[5]

[Footnote 5: The published Journal states that Mr. ALEXANDER dissentedfrom the vote of New Jersey. My notes do not show that he dissented, and I think the Journal may be erroneous in this particular. ]

Mr. HALL, of Vermont:--I move to amend the third section by strikingout the word "nor, " immediately succeeding the words "persons so boundto labor, " and inserting the following:

 "But the bringing into said District of persons held to service, for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pass all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor shall Congress have. "

It is well known that much of the agitation upon the question ofslavery has formerly arisen from the existence of the slave-trade inthe District of Columbia. Since the prohibition of 1850, the publicmind has been much more quiet, so far as this subject is concerned. Isuppose the committee did not intend to change the law of 1850, but Ifear their action will not be so understood at the North. I propose tomake the matter clear. [Mr. HALL here read the section of the Act of1850 referring to this subject. ] My amendment puts the language ofthis act into the Constitution. My only purpose is, to have thisquestion left in exactly its present position. Without the amendment, I fear it will be claimed that the article restores the slave-trade inthis District. Nothing would more effectually destroy the article atthe North. 

Mr. WHITE:--The language of the report is clear. It gives no right tosell slaves in the District. 

Mr. HALL:--I wish to be understood. The article prohibits Congressfrom interfering with slavery. _Ergo_, it will be claimed they cannotprohibit the exercise of any of its functions. The construction, tosay the very least, will be doubtful. It should not be left in doubt. 

Mr. NOYES:--The slave-trade in the District of Columbia has alwaysbeen a subject of great dissatisfaction. I don't know that it isconsidered of much importance in the South, but at the North it alwayshas been. Ten years ago it was abolished by act of Congress. I fearthat unless the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont is adopted, the effect of the committee's report will be to restore theslave-trade in the District. The section reported by the committeepermits any person to bring his slaves into the District; to retainthem there as long as he chooses, and to take them away. It recognizesthe right of absolute dominion. It secures it effectually. It imposesupon the soil of the District the right of holding, retaining, andtaking away the slaves by the owner himself, his agent or assignee. The slave-trade, in my judgment, is thus restored. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am satisfied that the article reported by thecommittee is not susceptible of misconstruction, and I hope we shallnot mar the report by adopting the amendment. Our intention was onlyto permit public officers to bring their servants here. 

Mr. AMES:--Two words will cure all this difficulty. The insertion ofthe words "for personal service only. "

Mr. GUTHRIE:--We have no intention of reviving the slave-trade in theDistrict. I have no more to say. 

Mr. DODGE:--I hope this section will not be left in doubt. When Ifirst read it I said to myself, "This thing will never do; it willbring the slave-trade back to the District. "

Mr. AMES:--Will the gentleman from Vermont accept my amendment?

Mr. HALL:--No. I cannot accept it. I offer the amendment in goodfaith, for I believe it necessary. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--Cannot we avoid the verbiage of theamendment?

Mr. EWING:--I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman fromVermont, so that I can vote for that proposed by Mr. AMES. 

The vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment being taken by States, resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--11. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--10. 

And the amendment was adopted. 

Messrs. HOPPIN and BROWNE, of Rhode Island, dissented from the vote ofthat State. 

Mr. McCURDY:--I move to amend the original article of the committee'sreport by the addition of this proviso. My object is to prevent thesale of slaves in the waters of New York or any other port:

 "_Provided_, That nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent any States in which involuntary servitude is prohibited, from restraining by law the transfer of such persons, or of any right or interest in their services, from one individual to another, within the limits of such State. "

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I insist there is not the slightest necessity for thisamendment. I hope gentlemen will stop interposing these uselesspropositions; they confound the sense of the article, and we areguarding against questions which by no possibility can arise. 

The vote was then taken on the amendment of Mr. McCURDY, and resultedas follows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--11. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--10. 

And the amendment was agreed to. 

Messrs. LOGAN and PALMER, of Illinois, dissented from the vote of thatState. 

Mr. HOWARD:--I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut if he everknew or heard of a case where a slave was sold in a free State?

Mr. McCURDY:--I do not intend to argue that question; but as I amappealed to, although the proviso is adopted, I will state the groundson which it rests. 

Mr. CLAY:--I wish to know whether the object of the amendment is toprevent the making of contracts connected with the purchase or sale ofslaves in the free States?

Mr. McCURDY:--My object is apparent from the amendment. It explainsitself. I wish to prohibit any transactions concerning the purchase orsale of slaves, either within the free States or the navigable watersconnected therewith, or under free State jurisdiction. If there wereno such prohibition, a cargo of slaves might be brought from the coastof Africa into the port of New York, and transferred there to partiesresiding in the slave States. The free States have a right to directwhat shall, and what shall not be a subject of commerce within theirlimits. I presume it is not intended that the Constitution shallprohibit the exercise of this right. I desire not to leave this opento construction, but to make the section declare that no suchintention exists. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am now satisfied that we shall get nothing here thatis satisfactory to the people of the south side of the river. We arecontinually waylaid by suspicions, which are unjust, unfounded, andought not to exist. If this class of amendments is to be adopted, Icannot go on, with respect to myself or the Convention. I feel now, since this amendment is adopted, that my mission here is ended. 

Mr. REID:--I move to insert at the end of the third article reportedby the committee these words: "Persons of the African race shall notbe deemed citizens, or permitted to exercise the right of suffrage, inthe election of federal officers. "

Mr. GUTHRIE:--This is worse than ever, and it comes from the Southtoo. 

Mr. REID:--I will withdraw it then. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to movethe adoption of the previous question. We may as well come to thepoint now as ever. There is no use of discussing this question anylonger. I move the previous question upon the report. 

Objections and cries of "No, no, " were made by several members. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I will withdraw the motion. 

Mr. TURNER:--I think it would be very unreasonable for any gentlemanto expect that we were to get through with the questions presented bythis report without the exercise of mutual forbearance. The adoptionof an amendment implies no disrespect to the committee. No member ofthe committee should take it in that sense. I will move areconsideration of the vote by which the last amendment was adopted. Ido not think we had better take the vote now, but pass the subject forthe present. 

The PRESIDENT:--It can be passed by common consent. 

The vote was reconsidered without a division, and the immediateconsideration of the question passed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I now renew the offer of my substitute for the thirdsection of the article reported by the committee. 

Mr. FIELD:--I thought when the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. McCURDY'S amendment was agreed to, it was understood that theconsideration of the whole section was to be passed for the present. My vote upon that amendment was given deliberately, and I have no ideathat this Convention is to break up because a vote is passed in itwhich is distasteful to any man, State, or delegation. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I think I must insist upon the consideration of mysubstitute. 

Mr. BROWNE:--I move to lay the substitute proposed by the gentlemanfrom Ohio on the table. If that motion is carried, I do not understandthat the effect of it is to lay the report of the committee on thetable. 

Mr. SMITH:--I rise to a question of order. I think the question nowshould be on Mr. McCURDY'S amendment. I ask for information. I do notquite see how that amendment can be informally passed over without atthe same time passing the consideration of the whole article. 

The PRESIDENT:--It was passed by universal consent. 

Mr. CHASE:--As I understand it, the gentleman from Illinois made themotion that the vote be reconsidered, and the consideration of theamendment passed for the present, and this was agreed to by theConference unanimously. 

The motion of Mr. BROWNE to lay the motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK on thetable, was agreed to without a division. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--I move to strike out these words in the third section:"Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate oftaxation on persons bound to labor than on land. " I have alreadystated that I think this language singularly inappropriate to aprovision of the Constitution. The Constitution already prohibits suchdistinctions in the laying of taxes, and, therefore, there is nonecessity for the adoption of this clause. But I have another and moreimportant objection to it; it contains and proposes to place in theConstitution the distinct recognition of the right of property inslaves. This recognition was carefully avoided in the Convention whichframed the Constitution, and the North always has been, and alwayswill be, opposed to any such recognition. Place it there, and yourarticle will never be adopted in any of the free States. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--The first statutes passed by Congress on this subjectrecognized the right to tax slaves. This implied the right to holdslaves. This recognition of the right of taxation was made in expressterms. The gentleman has forgotten the history of the legislation onthis subject. The object of the committee is to prevent anypossibility that those who come after us should make any distinctionbetween these classes of property in levying taxes. We do not seek arecognition of the right of property in slaves in this; that right isalready recognized to our satisfaction in the Constitution. 

Mr. TUCK:--I understand the gentleman from Kentucky, and I think he isright. If we adopt the article at all we ought to retain thislanguage. 

The vote was taken by States on the amendment proposed by Mr. BALDWIN, with the following result:

 AYES. --Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut--3. 

 NOES. --New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--18. 

Mr. PRATT dissented from the vote of Connecticut. 

Messrs. NOYES and SMITH also dissented from the vote of New York. 

Mr. FOWLER:--I move to strike out the words "without the consent ofMaryland, " immediately following the words "service in the District ofColumbia. "

I can see no necessity for requiring the consent of Maryland to theabolition of slavery in the District. There is no more reason for itthan for requiring the consent of Maine, or any other State. By thecession of the District to the United States Maryland has parted withall power over it, and the exclusive power of legislation is given toCongress. The District has become the common property of the Union asmuch as any of the Territories, and ought to be controlled in the sameway. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I hope this amendment will not prevail. The Districtis almost surrounded by the Territory of Maryland. The abolition ofslavery in it would be very destructive to our interests and property. To convert the District into free territory would offer a directinvitation to our slaves to abscond and go into the District. Even ifthe rendition clause of the Constitution was faithfully observed andcarried out, it would involve us in much expense and difficulty. If weare required to maintain faith with the Government, the Governmentmust keep faith with us. 

Mr. FOWLER:--I did not suppose my motion would meet with such seriousobjections. If they exist I will withdraw it. 

Mr. BATES:--I have an amendment to propose, which I think will improvethe language of the section, and make it more consonant with that usedin the Constitution. I move to amend the third section by striking outthe word "bound" wherever it occurs therein, and inserting in itsplace the word "held;" also to insert after the words "to labor"wherever they occur, the words "or service. "

The amendments proposed by Mr. BATES were adopted without a division. 

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--I propose to amend the section as it stands after theadoption of the amendments of Mr. BATES, by inserting between thewords "or" and "service" where they occur in that connection, the word"involuntary. "

Mr. EWING:--I had rather leave out the word "involuntary;" it wouldlook better. As the section now stands, both voluntary and involuntaryservice are included. 

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--By the insertion of the words "service" in Mr. BATES'amendment, one portion of my purpose is accomplished. I will withdrawmy motion. 

Mr. GROESBECK:--I would ask if it is now in order to move a substitutefor the whole section. I have one which meets my wishes, and which, Ithink, will meet the views of, and be acceptable to, the Conference. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not think it is in order to offer a substitute atthe present time. 

Mr. GROESBECK:--Then I will call it a motion to strike out and insert, which, certainly, is in order. I, therefore, move to strike out thewhole of the third section and insert the following:

 SECTION 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish or control within any State the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof respecting persons held to service or labor therein. 

 SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to legislate respecting the relation of service or labor in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, but within States where that relation is established or recognized, and while it continues, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland, and compensation to persons to whom such service or labor is due. 

 SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal from any State or Territory of persons held to service or labor therein, to any other State or Territory in which persons are so held; and the right during removal of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist, but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory without its consent. No higher rate of taxation shall be imposed on persons so held than on land. 

Three objects are sought to be obtained by the third section asproposed by the committee: one is, the declaration that Congress hasno power over slavery in the States; the second, that Congress shallnot legislate respecting slavery in territory under its jurisdiction, but within the limits of States, without the consent of such States, nor abolish slavery in the District without the consent of Maryland;the third concerns the subject of the removal of slaves from place toplace. It is desirable that these three subjects should be sopresented that one or more of them may be adopted, and the othersrejected; a purpose that cannot be accomplished if they are allembraced in the same section. My substitute is plain and simple, and Ithink covers the whole ground. 

Mr. ROMAN:--Has not the gentleman entirely left out the provisionrelative to bringing slaves into the District of Columbia?

Mr. GROESBECK:--I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary. Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within theDistrict cannot be taken from the owner under any authority ofCongress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensationwould in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, orelsewhere. Under the Constitution, slavery cannot be abolished withoutcompensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in thesubject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolishslavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner. 

Mr. SEDDON:--The owner should always have compensation, it is true;but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property inslaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalentfor the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself thequestion whether he will part with his property upon receivingsuitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this rightwould be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is afarther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The Northdenies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensationalso, unless compelled to make it under the Constitution. The Northholding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolishthe institution without paying for it. 

Mr. GROESBECK:--I am willing to amend Section 4 of the substitute Ioffer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relationwithout making compensation, and the section may be thus considered. 

Mr. DODGE:--I wish to support the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK; andlet me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; weshould use language which common men can understand, and which doesnot require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have someconfidence in each other. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--There is another entire and important omission in Mr. GROESBECK'S proposition: there is no provision whatever for theTerritories. 

Mr. DENT:--I think the Conference had much better adhere to thesection reported by the committee as it has been already amended. Wehave all read and studied that section. We understand it. A State thatwill not adopt the whole of the section will not adopt any part of it, and so there is no use in severing the subjects provided for. I amopposed to the adoption of the substitute. We understand the originalarticle better than we can any other. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I think the original proposition the best; the word"regulate" has been struck out of it, leaving only the words "impairor abolish. "

Mr. McCURDY:--I ask leave to revive my motion. I regret havingwithdrawn it. I think I have the right to renew it now. 

The PRESIDENT (Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair):--The motion of thegentleman from Connecticut is out of order. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I understand we are now considering the amendmentoffered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. GROESBECK). If so, I move toinsert in his proposition after the word "abolish" the words "orimpair. "

Mr. GROESBECK:--I think the amendment improves it. I will accept it. 

Mr. CHASE:--There is, certainly, a misunderstanding as to the effectof the vote laying the amendment offered by Mr. HITCHCOCK upon thetable: it was offered as a substitute to the third section; if it didnot carry the whole section to the table, then motions to amend thatsection are in order. In that view, I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is inorder either way: to amend the article proposed by the committee, orto amend the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is entirely out of order;it has once been passed by informally. 

Mr. CLEVELAND:--Is it not in order at any time to make a motion whichwill render the proposed substitute more perfect?

Mr. McCURDY:--I do not wish my proposition ruled out upon anytechnical construction of rules. I will now move it as an addition tothe third section. 

Mr. FOWLER:--I move to reconsider the vote adopting the motionproposed by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. HALL). 

Mr. FIELD:--I oppose the motion. The amendment is both proper andnecessary. It can certainly do no harm to the South; and if the Southwishes to be fair, it will not object to it. 

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I oppose the reconsideration of the vote adopting Mr. HALL'S amendment, and I will state very shortly the reason why. If thedoctrine is to be established here, that the report of the committeeis too sacred to be touched--too perfect to be made subject toamendment--let us know it. It will relieve myself, and I think manyothers, from farther attendance here; and I wish to say now, that ifwe are to sit here, such considerations must not be presented infuture. 

Mr. FOWLER:--I will withdraw my motion. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I certainly wish some one would renew the motionto reconsider the vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment. I do not like to doit myself, but I think if that amendment were reconsidered, we wouldfix upon some terms that would be satisfactory to all sides. 

Mr. AMES:--I do not see the necessity for adopting Mr. McCURDY'Sproposition. I think it amounts to nothing. It is simply a prohibitionin the Constitution against the exercise of a right which no onewishes to exercise. I oppose it because it is unnecessary. 

Mr. McCURDY:--I certainly do not wish to insist upon an unnecessaryamendment. If the third section, as reported by the committee, isadopted, it declares that the right of transportation, &c. , _shallexist_. Under this, if no amendment is adopted, slaves may be boughtand sold in any of the waters of the free States. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--What difficulty or damage does the gentleman proposeto obviate by his amendment?

The PRESIDENT:--The Chair has already decided that the proposition ofMr. McCURDY is not in order. 

Mr. CHASE appealed from the decision of the Chair, and upon the appealthe decision was sustained. 

Mr. FIELD:--I understand this decision cuts off both the amendmentsoffered by Mr. HALL and Mr. McCURDY; that compels us to vote againstthe proposition of Mr. GROESBECK. 

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. HALL, hasbeen accepted. It stands as the order of the Conference, and cannot berescinded except by a vote. I sustain the decision of the Chair, because, by every rule of parliamentary law, it was correct. But onething farther. It is now perfectly in order to move Mr. McCURDY'Sproposition, or any other, as an _addition_. 

The PRESIDENT:--Most clearly so. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not discover any particular objection to theamendment of Mr. GROESBECK. If it had been reported by the committee, I should have preferred it; but the South is willing to take thesection as it stands, and prefers the original to any substitute. 

Mr. NOYES:--I am against the substitute, for it destroys the effect ofthe amendments offered by Messrs. HALL and McCURDY. 

The vote was then taken upon Mr. GROESBECK'S amendment, and resultedas follows:

 AYES. --New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, and Indiana--7. 

 NOES. --Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas--12. 

And it was rejected. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I feel that my mission here is ended, and that I may aswell withdraw from the Conference. I seem to be unable to impressgentlemen with the necessity of accomplishing any thing. The report ofthe committee is not satisfactory to the South; it is even doubtfulwhether they will adopt it; certainly they will not, if it is cut topieces by amendments. I may be compelled to sacrifice my property, orgo with the secessionists. At my time of life, I do not wish to doeither. 

Mr. McCURDY:--I regret that my amendment produces so much feeling, butI think, at all events, we should prevent the sale of slaves in thefree States; it should be prevented beyond any possibility. I renewthe offer of my amendment. 

Mr. EWING:--If the laws of New York will permit the sale of slaveswithin the limits of that State, then we should prohibit the sale inthe Constitution as proposed; but so long as that State has power topass a law prohibiting it, there is no necessity for the amendment. The owner is only permitted to touch with his slaves, under certaincircumstances, at the ports of free States. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--It is impossible that slaves can be sold in a free Stateunder the section reported by the committee. We propose to give theright of touching at those ports as a privilege, but we give no rightof sale there. The laws of a free State could not be evaded in thisway. Each State is supreme within its own limits; that supremacy wouldnot be aided by this proviso. 

Mr. TURNER:--Suppose a slave owner is compelled to stop at the port ofCairo, through stress of weather or any other cause, and he diesthere, are his slaves set free by his death? Does not the law ofactual domicil prevail? I think they will be regarded as slaves, andthat under this provision they might be administered upon and sold asa part of his estate. 

Mr. POLLOCK:--I think we may obviate all difficulty by inserting afterthe words "landing in case of distress, " the words "but not fortraffic or sale. "

Mr. TUCK:--I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentlemanfrom Pennsylvania. It is not proper or best to encumber thesepropositions with amendments that are not necessary. 

Mr. LOGAN:--Every State has the right to regulate transit within itsown limits to suit itself. The proposed amendment gives no rightsexcept such as are expressly named: "a right, during transportation, of touching at the ports, and of landing in case of distress. " Theright of the State to regulate transit is left unimpaired. 

Mr. HOWARD:--There is one principle of law which will settle thisquestion at once: property that is held under State laws must betransferred by the operation of State laws alone. Slaves are held andtransferred by the specific laws of the States in which they are held. 

Mr. PALMER:--The right of sale cannot possibly arise out of the rightto touch during transportation at a port, or the right to land in caseof distress. I cannot see the slightest occasion or necessity for theadoption of Mr. McCURDY'S amendment. 

Mr. McCURDY'S amendment was rejected by the following vote:

 AYES. --Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and Iowa--7. 

 NOES. --New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--14. 

Mr. POLLOCK'S amendment was then adopted without a division. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--I wish to propose an amendment by way of proviso:

 "_Provided_ nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent any State from prohibiting the introduction as merchandise of persons held to service or labor, or to prevent such State from prohibiting the transit of persons so held to service or labor through its limits. "

Mr. FIELD:--This does not cover Mr. McCURDY'S proposition at all. Isthere any secret purpose here to bring into the Constitution aprovision which will permit the sale of slaves in free States? Ifthere is not, why not say plainly that the States shall have theexclusive right to determine who shall and who shall not cross itsborders, and what shall be the subject of sale or traffic within them?

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The States have all the powers which are not expresslydelegated under the Constitution to be exercised by Congress. Congresshas no power, except such as are expressly conferred upon them. Thepower to prohibit the sale of slaves rests somewhere. It has not beenconferred upon Congress; it must remain in the State. 

Mr. SMITH:--The argument of the gentleman from Kentucky seems to mevery inconsistent with his report in other respects. 

Mr. HOWARD:--The Border States are trying to get back the secededStates. We hope they will come back. We expect the adoption of thisreport to offer a strong inducement to them to return to the Union. Itwill not offer such inducement if its general effect is ruined byamendments. 

The vote upon Mr. VANDEVER'S amendment resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and Iowa--7. 

 NOES. --New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--14. 

So the amendment was not agreed to. 

Mr. CLAY:--I have already stated that the State of Kentucky isprepared to adopt the CRITTENDEN amendment; that amendment will besatisfactory to the Border States. The longer we remain here the moreI become satisfied that the CRITTENDEN amendment will meet with moregeneral favor than any other; therefore I ask the consent of theConference to introduce the CRITTENDEN amendment as a substitute forthe committee's report. 

The consent of the Conference was not given to Mr. CLAY'S proposition. 

Mr. GROESBECK:--I move to amend the third section by inserting afterthe words "in case of distress shall exist, " the words "but not theright of transit in any other State or Territory without its consent. "

We must certainly do something to cover this difficulty; if we omitthe subject entirely, we shall leave much opportunity for cavil onthis question when the question goes to the people. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--I move to amend the amendment by substituting in place ofthe words "without its consent, " the words "against its dissent. "

Mr. GROESBECK:--I will accept the amendment. 

The amendment of Mr. GROESBECK was agreed to by the following vote:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--10. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois--8. 

Mr. ALEXANDER, of New Jersey, dissented from the vote of that State. 

Mr. GRANGER moved that when the Conference adjourn it adjourn tohalf-past seven o'clock this evening. 

The vote upon Mr. GRANGER'S motion was taken by States, and resultedas follows:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--13. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri--6. 

So the motion was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. CHASE the Conference adjourned. 

 * * * * *

EVENING SESSION--SEVENTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _February 25th, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair. 

Mr. SMITH, of New York:--I move that a committee of two be appointedby the PRESIDENT to arrange for the printing of the Journal. 

The motion of Mr. SMITH was adopted, and the PRESIDENT appointed assuch committee, Mr. SMITH, of New York, and Mr. HOWARD, of Maryland. 

The Conference then proceeded to the consideration of the order of theday, being the third section of the article reported by the committee. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I move to amend the third section by striking out thewords "or Territory of the United States, " occurring after the words"within any State. "

I think we shall make the amendment more satisfactory by limiting theprohibition to States alone; still leaving the power in Congress to beexercised in conformity with the other provisions that regulateslavery in the Territories. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I have the same objection to this as to otheramendments. It may not be important, but I do not want to commence byadopting amendments at all. 

The question was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. HITCHCOCK, and was agreed to by the following vote:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Kansas--10. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--9. 

Mr. SUMMERS:--I now desire to call up for consideration the amendmentproposed by myself on the evening of the 23d instant. The state of thecase is this: Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, moved an amendment to myproposition, which was accepted; my amendment was then rejected by avote of the Conference, and on the 25th the Conference reconsideredthe vote by which the amendment was rejected. I will not now repeatwhat I said, when the amendment was offered, in favor of itsadoption. I would only call the attention of gentlemen to the remarksI then made, and say in addition, that I earnestly hope the Conferencewill now adopt the amendment. It will make the proposition much moreacceptable to the South, and, certainly, not more objectionable to theNorth. The amendment is offered to the second section, and is asfollows:

 "No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty. "

The amendment of Mr. SUMMERS was adopted by the following vote:

 AYES. --New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12. 

 NOES. --Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas--6. 

The PRESIDENT:--No further amendment being offered to the second andthird sections, the Conference will proceed to the consideration ofthe fourth section of the report, or any amendments proposed to thatsection. 

None being proposed, the Conference proceeded to the fifth section. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I move to strike out the whole of the section. It hasbeen heretofore stated, on behalf of the North, when this section wasunder consideration, that its adoption was not desirable, inasmuch asexisting laws, properly enforced, amount to a sufficient prohibitionof the slave-trade. If the North does not desire it, the South doesnot. I hope the Conference will consent to strike it out. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I think it very important to retain this section; itcan, certainly, do no harm. We all agree, North and South, that theforeign slave-trade should not be revived. 

The amendment offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the followingvote:

 AYES. --Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--4. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17. 

Mr. BRADFORD:--I move to amend the fifth section by inserting afterthe words "slave-trade, " the words "by citizens of the United States. "

In proposing amendments to the Constitution, it seems to me improperthat we should attempt to bind any but our own citizens. The adoptionof the section in this form would seem to imply that we undertook toprohibit the slave-trade in other countries and among citizens ofother countries. I desire to see it prohibited, but wish to have theconstitutional provision expressed in appropriate terms. 

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I object to this amendment. It would nullify theoperation of the section entirely. There are in the United Statesthousands of persons who are not citizens, but who, under such aprovision of the Constitution, would revive the slave-trade and infuseinto it a vigor which it never before possessed. It would be better tohave no section at all than to permit such an amendment as this. Theamendment can bear but one construction. It is intended to prohibitthe slave-trade by our own citizens, and expressly to permit it bythose who are not citizens. 

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment. 

Mr. BRADFORD:--I do not desire to embarrass the action of theConference, and I will withdraw the amendment. 

Mr. JAMES:--I move to amend this section by striking out the followingwords: "from places beyond the limits thereof. "

The object of this amendment is apparent, and does not needexplanation. 

The amendment of Mr. JAMES was agreed to by the following vote:

 AYES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kansas--17. 

 NOES. --Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move that the vote just passedstriking out the words "from places beyond the present limitsthereof, " be rescinded. 

I think the action of the Convention in passing this vote was hasty, and not taken upon due consideration. It may be an important questionto determine, what are "the present limits thereof. " Upon oneconstruction it might prohibit the bringing of slaves from the Stateswhich have seceded and left the Union; upon another construction, which assumes that these are still in the Union and does not recognizetheir secession, it would not cut off the trade between those Statesand the others. I do not like to have such a question raised. 

Mr. BACKUS:--I am against this reconsideration. So far as I amconcerned, I do not propose, in this Conference, to recognize thesecession of the States at all. I deny the legal power of a State towithdraw itself from the Union without the consent of the others. Andbeyond this, I do not think the question is raised as the gentlemanasserts. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--I think the clause is better as it is. By striking outthe words "from beyond the present limits thereof, " we do notestablish any territorial limitation. And whether these States comeback or not, no question of territory is raised. But if thisreconsideration is carried, and the seceding States do not return tothe Union, they will retaliate upon us. In the event of theircontinued secession we cannot get back from those States those of ourslaves who are now temporarily there. We may wish to bring back thoseslaves, and some of our people may wish to carry ours there. 

Mr. GRANGER:--I hope this vote will not be reconsidered. The argumentof Judge RUFFIN is conclusive. 

Mr. COALTER:--This is likely to be a troublesome question any way. Whynot leave it as we have to leave many others--to the discretion ofCongress? We certainly do not wish to adopt a provision which will cutoff the traffic in slaves between the Gulf States and the others. Nobody is in favor of that, and I am at a loss how to manage thisquestion. The negroes are a portion of the families of Southern men. They are regarded as such in all the transactions of life. Thosefamilies may at times become separated. A portion of them may now bein the seceded States, and a portion farther North. Again, it oftenhappens that during one season of the year the planter, with hisfamily and slaves, lives upon the plantation in the Gulf States; andat another season, removes with his family and slaves to a plantationfarther North. We do not wish to obstruct a relation or proceeding ofthis kind. This is not a mere matter of dollars and cents. It is oneinvolving the happiness of families. The blacks themselves areinterested in it. I think it better to let the section stand as itdoes, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of Congress. 

Mr. GRANGER:--I have always stood up against all the societies andorganizations which have been established at the North to carry oncrusades against slavery. My position in that respect is stillunchanged. I hold that the people of the free States have nothing todo with slavery; that they are not responsible for it, and that it istheir duty to let it alone. At the same time I have just as steadilyopposed the slave-trade. I think it inhuman and atrocious, and I amthe last man that would consent to its restoration. This section as itstands, in my judgment, cannot be improved. I think we had betterleave it, and not raise these troublesome questions which willinevitably be suggested if these words are restored. 

Mr. MOREHEAD:--This is a matter which requires some reflection, and, on the whole, I am inclined, for the present, to withdraw myproposition. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I do not like this plan of legislating in theConstitution. The Constitution ought to be an instrument defining andlimiting the powers of Congress. We had better leave to Congress, orrather, to assign to Congress the power to exercise this prohibition. I, therefore, move to amend by inserting at the commencement of thesection these words: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit, " andto strike out at the end of the section the words "are foreverprohibited. "

Mr. ALLEN:--This would be a most effectual way of reviving theslave-trade. It would remove the constitutional prohibition, andpermit Congress to prohibit or permit it, as that body may choose. Would that ever hereafter be considered a crime which Congress hadpower to permit? No. I cannot conceive it possible that any Stateshould seriously wish to see a traffic resumed which has beenstigmatized by the whole civilized world as worse than piracy. This isa question which I would not leave to Congress. We know how immenselyprofitable this trade is--that fortunes are made by a singlesuccessful voyage. Don't let such an inducement to corruption creepinto our Constitution. 

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of this amendment, not because I am infavor of the slave-trade, but because such a section is out of placein the Constitution. The Constitution is a bill of rights, aninstrument which defines and settles the rights of citizens. It is nota law. I have no fear that if we leave this to Congress theslave-trade will be revived. 

Mr. DONIPHAN:--I cannot agree with my colleague. I am opposed to theforeign slave-trade in every form. I would not even make a treaty witha nation or a State that would permit it. If the seceded States are tobe regarded out of the Union, I would not treat with them; I would notinvest Congress with such a dangerous power. Nothing will suit me butan unqualified prohibition of this trade in the Constitution itself. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--The gentleman from Missouri has expressed the views ofDelaware. His argument is conclusive. 

Mr. HOWARD:--The intervention of Congress will be necessary whetherthis amendment passes or not. The section as adopted makes noprovision for the punishment of any one who violates it. If a vesselshould be seized while engaged in the trade, this section does notprovide for her forfeiture or condemnation, or the punishment of herofficers or owners. The section would be inoperative without theaction of Congress. Why not let Congress have all the power?

Mr. DODGE:--Congress will declare the punishment. 

Mr. SEDDON:--If you cut off the slave with the seceded States, theywill do the same with you. I think the Border States should at allevents adopt the amendment. 

The Conference refused to agree to the amendment of Mr. SEDDON by thefollowing vote:

 AYES. --Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri--5. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--16. 

Messrs. JOHNSON and DONIPHAN, of Missouri, dissented from the vote ofthat State. 

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I move to strike out the whole of this section, andinsert a new one of the following tenor: "The foreign slave-trade ishereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress topass laws to prevent the importation of slaves into the United Statesand their Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof. "

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I like the amendment proposed better than theoriginal, but I wish to suggest an amendment to it myself. 

We are aware that certain countries which are much exercised over thecriminality of slavery and the slave-trade, have recently adopted asystem, the horrors of which are not surpassed by those of the middlepassage. I refer to the importation of coolies and other persons fromChina and the East. In my judgment, this is the slave-trade in one ofits worst forms. I think if we prevent the importation of slaves atall, the provision ought to be made to cover such a case. I thereforemove to amend the proposition of Mr. MOREHEAD, by inserting after thewords "importation of slaves, " the words "or coolies, or persons heldto service or labor. "

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I accept the amendment of Mr. WICKLIFFE, and shouldhave inserted it myself had it occurred to me. My proposition as itnow stands, covers both the points here made; it declares the entireprohibition of the slave-trade, and it makes it also the duty ofCongress to pass laws effectually to prevent it. 

The amendment offered by Mr. MOREHEAD was agreed to by the followingvote:

 AYES. --Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--11. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Kansas--8. 

Mr. HOPPIN, of Rhode Island, Messrs. ORTH and ELLIS, of Indiana, andMr. STOCKTON, of New Jersey, dissented from the votes of theirrespective States. 

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I move to strike out the whole section. I hadrather have no section at all, and no provision upon the subject, thansuch a one as we have now adopted. The requisition upon Congressmaking it their duty to enact laws, will be considered as a necessaryone; the consequence which must result is, that until Congresslegislates, there is no law against the importation of slaves. 

The motion of Mr. CROWNINSHIELD was rejected by the following vote:

 AYES. --Massachusetts, Virginia, and Tennessee--3. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas--18. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the considerationof the sixth section. 

No amendment being offered thereto, the Conference proceeded to theseventh section. 

Mr. TURNER:--I move to strike out the whole of the seventh section, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

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

The seventh section, as it now stands, will encounter more seriousobjection at the North than all the remaining portion of the article. It is objectionable for many reasons: it looks to the actual exerciseof violence and intimidation by mobs and unlawful assemblies at theNorth. Although such may have occurred in one or two sections only, generally the provisions of the fugitive slave law have been observedand carried out. The whole subject is very distasteful to the North. Ithink if we keep it out of the article, and in its place secure thatrespect for the privileges of citizens in the various States, towhich, indeed, under the Constitution, they are entitled, we shall domuch better. 

Mr. LOGAN:--There are various reasons peculiar to some of the freeStates why this provision should not be adopted. The laws of severalof the Western States do not recognize negroes as citizens. I move toamend the amendment proposed by my colleague, by inserting the words"free white" before the word "citizens. "

The amendment offered by Mr. LOGAN was adopted by the following vote:

 AYES. --New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois--10. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa--8. 

Mr. ORTH, of Indiana, dissented from the vote of his State. 

Mr. TURNER:--I suppose the purpose of my colleague has been attained. If there is a delegation willing to make such a distinction in theConstitution, they will, of course, support the amendment as it is nowamended. 

The vote was then taken upon the amendment, as amended, with thefollowing result:

 AYES. --None. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana--18. 

Mr. WILMOT:--If the seventh section is adopted, I think the Northshould have some compensation therefor. I think citizens of the Northhave as much occasion for complaint on account of the action of mobsand riotous assemblies in the slave States, as the slave States haveof the occurrence of those mobs and assemblies in the North. Itherefore move the following as an addition to the seventh section:

 "And Congress shall farther provide by law, that the United States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies, in his person or property, or in the deprivation, by violence, of his rights secured by this Constitution. "

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am opposed to this amendment upon the generalprinciples I have so often stated. I oppose it for another reason. Iam not in favor of an amendment which encourages mobs and riots at theNorth, and I will not consent to one which, like this, encouragesseditious speeches at the South. 

Mr. WILMOT:--Such is not the effect of my amendment. It does notprotect a man in making seditious speeches in the slave States. Itonly secures to the citizen his rights without regard to the State towhich he belongs. We have a provision of the Constitution on thatsubject now, but it is not effective. 

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment. There is great necessityfor it. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I think gentlemen entirely misconstrue the intent andpurpose of the present provision of the Constitution on that subject. It grows out of and rests upon that provision which requires thereturn of fugitive slaves. It imposes an obligation upon Congress tosecure to the owner, when he pursues his slave into a free State, theright which he enjoys as a citizen of his own State. In all otherrespects it is unnecessary. If a man is injured in his person or hisproperty, he has his redress in the State courts; or if he is aforeigner or a citizen of another State, he may go into the Federalcourts and get his redress there. In this respect the citizens of bothsections are amply protected. 

Mr. STEPHENS:--I earnestly hope this amendment may be rejected. Wehave come here to arrange old difficulties, not to make new ones. Adopt this, and you lay the foundation stone of disunion. It is anencouragement to seditious speeches and purposes. The clause is wellenough as it is. We do not wish to encourage men to come among us andexcite discontent among our slaves. We will not permit them to do it. Our safety requires that we should not. Our own citizens do notconnive at the escape of slaves. None do it who have any business inour States. We are here for peace. When half a dozen States are out, whose return we wish to secure, shall we put such a clause as thisinto the Constitution? Do it, and a half dozen others will follow. Iam not at all sure that the report of the majority, if adopted, willsatisfy my State. It certainly will not if it is mangled and fritteredaway. I have not occupied time in making speeches here. I say to yougentlemen, beware! If I thought the spirit of the North was trulyrepresented in this Conference, I would go home and advise my State tosecede; and if she did not, I would abandon her forever. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--I am opposed to the amendment because I think itunnecessary, and because it opens a new and very serious controversy. The rights of Northern men are fully protected now. There is not acourt in the South in which a Northern citizen cannot find a lawyer toadvocate his cause. If he is poor, he may even sue _in formapauperis_, and incur no liability even for costs. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I am claiming no more than I have a right to claim underthe decision of the Supreme Court. That court, in the case of Prigg_vs. _ The State of Pennsylvania, decided that the Constitution imposesthe duty upon Congress of carrying this provision into effect. Iinsist upon making it plain. Rights upon both sides are sought to beprotected by this article. They are correlative. 

Mr. LOGAN favored and Mr. EWING opposed the amendment, in a few briefremarks. 

Mr. ORTH:--I do not think we shall accomplish much by protracting ourpresent session longer. I move that the Conference adjourn, and ask avote by States. 

The Conference refused to adjourn, by the following vote:

 AYES. --Maine, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--7. 

 NOES. --New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--14. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question recurs upon the amendment of thegentleman from Pennsylvania. 

The vote upon the question of agreeing to the motion of Mr. WILMOT, resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Maine, New York, Indiana, Vermont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Iowa--8. 

 NOES. --Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--11. 

And the motion was rejected. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--I now move to amend the seventh section, by addingthereto the following words:

 "And in all cases in which the United States shall pay for such fugitive, Congress shall also provide for the collection by the United States of the amount so paid, with interest, from the county, city, or town in which such arrest shall have been prevented, or rescue made. "

I am certain that no objection can be made to the equity of thisamendment. If a municipal corporation shall permit the rights of aslave owner to be disregarded by the rescue of a slave, it not onlyfails to perform its duty under the Constitution, but becomes anactive participant in the crime. Shall the consequences of its ownfault be visited upon the people of the whole country? Those whoacknowledge and carry out their obligations under the Constitution, aswell as those who do not? This would inflict a punishment upon theinnocent for the crime of the guilty. It is not right to leave it inthat way. It would present an inducement to these violations of lawwhich the provision is intended to prevent. We ought to make theguilty party pay the penalty. 

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--If such a proposition were to come from a free State, the mover would be charged with attempting to destroy all hope thatthe committee's report could be adopted by the people. However, if thefriends of the report are willing to adopt it, I do not know that Iought to object. It places the Government in a position where it isbound under the Constitution to prosecute a municipal corporation forthe acts of its individual members. It is certainly novel, andintroduces a new system into the jurisprudence of the country. Is themover serious in his proposition?

Mr. BARRINGER:--I am certainly serious. I would like to hear somesubstantial argument against my motion. 

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. BARRINGER, resultedas follows:

 AYES. --Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas--3. 

 NOES. --Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--17. 

And the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. DENT:--I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Maryland. Iconsider the amendment as eminently just and proper. 

Mr. CLAY:--I dissent from the vote of Kentucky. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I have an amendment which I intend to offer atsome time, and I may as well propose it now. The people of the freeStates have complained, and not without good reason, that one clausein the Constitution is not carried into effect in some of theslaveholding States. Their complaints are similar to those made on thepart of the South, which it is the purpose of the seventh section toremove. If there have been instances at the North where mobs andriotous assemblies have obstructed the administration of justice inthe case of fugitive slaves, so there have been instances at the Southwhere mobs and riots have disregarded the rights of citizens ofNorthern States. I propose to deal fairly by all sections. Let usremove both causes of complaint. I move to amend the seventh sectionby adding thereto the following words:

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

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I repeat my objection to all these amendments. If ourwork here is to have any efficacy, we must adhere to the report. Whybring in another bone of contention?

Mr. ORTH:--Will you not extend the same protection to free citizenswhich you do to slaveholders?

The question was taken on the motion of Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, with thefollowing result:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kansas--16. 

 NOES. --Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia--4. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. ROMAN dissented from the vote of Maryland. 

Mr. AMES:--I move an amendment which will make the section moreexplicit. I move to strike out the word "force, " and to insert insteadthereof the words "violence or intimidation. "

The motion was agreed to without objection. 

Mr. ORTH:--I move to amend the seventh section by adding at the closethereof the following words:

 "And such fugitives, after such payment, shall then be discharged from such service. "

I am opposed to this whole business of making compensation forfugitive slaves; but if this section is to be adopted, and theGovernment pays the owner the whole value of the fugitive, upon everyprinciple of equity and justice the fugitive should be discharged, andthe master should have no right to reduce him again to slavery. Youmake the measure of the owner's damages in such a case the value ofthe slave. Do you intend, after he has secured that, he shall stillhave the right of capture--that after the damages have been fullypaid, he may still call on the courts of law for the slave'ssurrender? This would be a double compensation indeed. I shall insistupon this amendment, and ask a vote by States. 

Mr. ROMAN:--I have not hitherto addressed the Conference, but I shoulddo myself injustice if I remained silent any longer. I came here ingood faith, encouraged with the hope that this Conference would dosomething which would indicate a purpose to protect and acknowledgethe rights of the slaveholding States. I have patiently attended yoursittings, and little by little that hope has faded, until to-night ithas almost passed away. What good can come of these deliberations, when upon every question which is presented the lines of sectionalismare tightly drawn, and with one or two exceptions every northern Stateis arrayed against us? Suppose these proposals of amendment asreported by the committee are adopted, there is evidently a purposemanifested here by a large delegation from the free States, to preventtheir adoption by the people. I know the opposition which in any eventwill be arrayed against them. It is an opposition which nothing butunanimity among the moderate conservative men of the country canovercome. Believe it or not, gentlemen, I assure you we are inearnest, in our determination to have our rights under theConstitution defined and guaranteed. Our safety, as well as ourself-respect, requires this. I have not been satisfied with themajority report, but if I had been disposed to accept it--if the Southwould accept it now, you will not concede even that. You insist uponweakening its provisions by amendments, and by amendments which areinsulting to us. 

It is now seriously proposed under the Constitution, by an expressprovision, to deprive us of our property in slaves against ourconsent, and to emancipate them by making compensation. What othereffect can be given to such an amendment? One of our slaves escapesinto a free State. He is arrested by the marshal and discharged by amob. Does this act discharge him from his service? Does this lawlessviolence make him free? And if the town or city where the mob occursis made to pay a slight penalty, does this also divest the owner ofhis right? This is nothing but an inducement to mobs and riots. Passthis provision, and no fugitive slave will ever again be returned froma free State. There will always be abolitionists enough to pay for aslave, and this payment will set the slave free, and will constitutethe only penalty for this violence. For one, I would prefer to have noprovision at all on the subject than to have one encumbered with suchan amendment. 

I have but little more to say. If the peace of this country is to behereafter established on a permanent basis, and the Union is to bepreserved, you, gentlemen of the North, must recognize our rights, andcease to interfere with them. You have nothing to do with thisquestion of slavery. It is an institution of our own. If it is acrime, we are responsible for it, and will bear the responsibility. Wehave never interfered with your institutions. You must now let usalone. 

Mr. ORTH:--The objection of the gentleman from Maryland may beanswered in a word. It is for the owner to elect whether or not toaccept compensation and set his slave free. If he still chooses topursue him, he need not accept compensation; but if he does not, andreceives payment for him, the slave should go free. As to mobs andriots, we punish men at the North who engage in them. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I entirely agree with my colleague in this respect. Wecould not accept the section if such an amendment was adopted. Thereport of the committee is the very least that will satisfy ourpeople. Do not destroy it by such amendments as these. 

The vote was then taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. ORTH, withthe following result:

 AYES. --Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kansas--10. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia--11. 

And the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. CLAY:--I move to amend the report by adding a section to benumbered Section 8, as follows:

 "The second paragraph of the second section of fourth article of the Constitution shall be so construed that no State shall have the power to consider and determine what is treason, felony, or crime, in another State; but that a person charged in any State with treason, felony, or crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime. "

I do not think discussion necessary upon such an amendment as this. Itis well known to the Conference that great difficulties have beenfound to exist in carrying into effect this provision of theConstitution. So far as the slave States are concerned, it is aperfect nullity. Unless it is amended it may as well be stricken fromthe instrument. I believe the tenor of the decisions at the North hasbeen to permit the executive upon whom the requisition is made, todetermine whether the offence charged is a crime under the law of theState to which the person charged has fled. If it is a crime, thefugitive is delivered up. If not a crime in that sense, he isdischarged. The decisions of the courts have been to the same effect;whenever the fugitive has been brought upon _habeas corpus_, thedecision has been the same. It is obvious that under this constructionof the Constitution no fugitive will be hereafter returned for anoffence in which the question of slavery is involved. This is only oneof the many evasions of the Constitution which have been practised inthe free States. I deem the amendment very important. 

Mr. BRONSON:--The gentleman from Kentucky is entirely mistaken in hisstatement of the decisions of the northern courts or northerngovernors. The decisions are uniform so far as I know, that where theoffence charged is either a crime at common law, or under the statutesof the State from which the fugitive has fled, he has been deliveredup. 

Mr. CLAY:--Did not the Executive of New York refuse to deliver up afugitive on the demand of the Governor of Virginia?

Mr. BRONSON:--In that case I think there was no evidence that theoffence charged was a crime under the statutes of Virginia, and itcertainly was not at common law. 

The vote was taken upon Mr. CLAY'S amendment, and resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia--5. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kansas--16. 

And the amendment was rejected. 

And on motion, at two o'clock A. M. , the Conference adjourned. 

EIGHTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, _February 26th, 1861. _

The Conference, pursuant to adjournment, was called to order at eleveno'clock. 

Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. GURLEY. 

The PRESIDENT informed the Conference that in consequence of thelength of the Journal of yesterday, the Secretary had not been able towrite it out, and that it would be necessary to omit the readingthereof this morning. 

Mr. McCURDY:--There was a vote taken in the confusion near the closeof the session last evening, in which Connecticut, according to theminutes of the Secretary, appears to have voted in the negative. Itwas upon the amendment of Mr. ORTH, declaring that the slave should befree whenever his master had accepted payment for him. On thatamendment the vote of Connecticut was Yea. As the vote is recorded Nayby mistake, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment wasrejected. 

Mr. BRONSON:--The motion to reconsider is not necessary. Connecticutcan record her vote as she wishes to have it stand. It will not changethe result. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think the motion is in order, if made byConnecticut. 

Mr. BATTELL:--I will move to reconsider. I voted with the majority. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--No individual delegate can make sucha motion. States vote here, not individuals. I submit that the motionis out of order, unless made by a majority of the delegation. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--The question is not complicated at all; neither is themotion out of order. A majority of the delegation from Connecticutcast the vote of that State in favor of Mr. ORTH'S amendment. Bymistake that vote was recorded against the amendment. The samemajority whose vote is made to do them injustice by a mistake forwhich its members are not responsible, now moves to reconsider thevote. 

The question was then taken upon Mr. McCURDY'S motion, and resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Vermont and Kansas--11. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10. 

And the motion prevailed, and the vote was reconsidered. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs upon the amendment offered byMr. ORTH. On this amendment the vote will be taken by States. 

Mr. WHITE:--I consider this amendment as entirely unnecessary. Theresult which it seeks to attain is only the announcement of awell-understood provision of the common law. By the common law, if anaction is brought for a trespass, and judgment recovered for thattrespass, and the damages under that judgment paid, the property whichis the subject of the action, and which may have originally beenwrongfully taken, becomes transferred; the damages take the place ofthe property, the defendant has paid for his wrongful act, or, inother words, has paid for the property. The same principle applies tothe case of the fugitive slave who is rescued from the custody of thelaw, when his owner has consented to accept payment for him. The legalright of the owner in the slave is satisfied by such payment; themoney takes the place of the slave. But if this were not so, we oughtnot to encumber the Constitution with such provisions. Congress willundoubtedly make the proper provision both for the protection of theslave and his master. Congress will not permit payment to be made fora slave, and then suffer him to go back to bondage. This would be bothunlawful and unjust. I can see no necessity for adopting theamendment. 

Mr. ORTH:--I understand there is some difference of opinion betweenmembers of the Conference as to the effect of the phraseology of myamendment. I will change that phraseology, and make the amendment readas follows:

 "And such fugitive, after the master has been paid therefor, shall be discharged from such service. "

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I am opposed to this amendment upon everyground. I would rather see some direct scheme of emancipation adoptedand inserted in the Constitution. Adopt this amendment, and the resultis inevitable. It would amount to emancipation upon the largestpossible scale. Our slaves would escape, you would rescue and pay forthem, and that would be the end of them. Why not leave it to Congressto pass the necessary laws upon this subject? The adoption of thisamendment would destroy all hope that our labors would be acceptableto the South. I say again, we had better establish emancipation atonce. 

Mr. DENT:--If this amendment is to be adopted, I hope we shall at thesame time reconsider the vote by which we rejected the amendment ofthe gentleman from North Carolina, requiring the payment by thecounty, city, or town wherein the slave is rescued from the custody ofthe law. This provision would make the General Government pay for thecrimes of a few citizens in one section. In that case the GeneralGovernment ought to own the negro. It has paid for him, and theproperty in him ought to be transferred. 

Mr. WILMOT:--There is nothing in this. We do not wish to have theGovernment own the negro. It is bad enough to have individuals ownslaves. We do not propose to turn the Government into an extensiveslave owner. 

But let me ask the gentleman seriously, who is to own the negro, insuch a case, after he has been paid for? Certainly not the formerowner, because his right is gone. This amendment only states aconclusion of law; the right of the owner being gone, the negro isfree. 

Mr. CHASE:--I think a single word will settle this. By theConstitution as it now stands, the escaped fugitive is not dischargedfrom service or labor. The original section, as proposed, requiresthat the slave should be paid for, when he is rescued. Now, he mightbe rescued three or four times. Shall he be paid for as often? Dogentlemen claim that his owner shall receive compensation more thanonce? I cannot see why gentlemen interested in slavery should objectto this amendment. 

Mr. RIVES:--I think if gentlemen would look at this propositionseriously, there would be no difference of opinion among us. Such aproposition would foist into the Constitution a most injurious, pernicious, and troublesome doctrine. By the most ultra abolitionistsof the free States the power of emancipating our slaves has beendisclaimed. From the organization of the Government, no such right hasbeen claimed by any respectable party or body of men. The questionarose in the first Congress, I think, upon the petition of the Quakersof Pennsylvania. It was decided almost unanimously against the power, even when exercised by Congress. But there is no need of multiplyingor citing precedents. From that time to this, no political party hasclaimed the power of emancipation. Such is the universal doctrine now. 

The right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia is nowclaimed by some. I think that is the doctrine of Mr. CHASE. But uponwhat argument is it founded? Simply this: That the States, by the actof cession, have surrendered this power to Congress. This is the onlyargument I have ever heard in favor of the right, even in theDistrict. 

But this amendment proposes a most comprehensive scheme ofemancipation. It accomplishes emancipation in every one of the slaveStates. It amounts to forcible emancipation upon the principle ofcompensation. 

The point has been well stated by gentlemen who have preceded me. Place this in the Constitution, and there is an end of returningfugitives. The very courts will act upon it. They will say that if anyone will come forward and pay the value of a slave when arrested, allthe requirements of the Constitution are satisfied, and he shall gofree. 

What is the object of our Conference? Why are we here? We are here tobury out of sight all the causes of our difference and trouble. Andyet you propose to insert a new principle into our fundamental law, which, however you may look upon it, will be regarded at the South astotally inconsistent with our independence. Our people will notconsent to it. 

There is another view which I would suggest. This is eminently amatter of legislative regulation. If the slave is paid for, Congresswill at once recognize the impropriety and injustice of permitting theowner to receive payment for, and also receive his slave. Congress maysay with great propriety that the owner shall give a bond to returnthe money upon the restoration of his slave. I hope no principle willbe implanted in the Constitution which will be more troublesome--moreproductive of difficulties than any which has heretofore been made thesubject of discussion. 

Mr. EWING:--If we do any thing of this kind, perhaps we had better saythat if the owner accepts compensation for his slave, he shall executea deed of manumission. This will make it a matter of consent on thepart of the owner. Put the amendment in that form and I will vote forit. 

Mr. COALTER:--This amendment would offer a most powerful inducement toour slaves to run away. It would be dangerous in the extreme. When afugitive has been paid for, and thus emancipated, he can come back andsettle by the side of his master. What effect would that have upon therest of his slaves? Would they not attempt the same thing? It may besaid that the States can pass laws which will prevent their return. But this power will not be exercised. I know many free negroes in theslave States who are respectable persons, who own property, and havetheir social and domestic ties. These examples are bad. A fugitive whohas been set free is not a safe man to return and settle as a freenegro among those who were his co-slaves. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--By this amendment you are inaugurating a system ofcovert emancipation to which the South can never submit. We protestagainst its adoption. The argument upon which you seek to sustain itis a false one. How can the owner receive the full value of hisrescued slave when he himself, as a citizen and tax-payer, pays a partof the price?

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move to amend this amendment byadding thereto these words:

 "And the negro when thus emancipated shall not be permitted to leave the State in which the emancipation takes place. "

We know from past experience what the abolitionists of the free Stateswould do under such a provision as this in the Constitution. Therewill be an underground railroad line along every principal route oftravel. There will be depots all along these lines. Canoes will befurnished to ferry negroes over the Potomac and Ohio. JOHN BROWN & CO. Will stand ready to kill the master the very moment he crosses theline in pursuit of his slave. What officer at the North will dare toarrest the slave when JOHN BROWN pikes are stacked up in every littlevillage? If arrested, there will be organizations formed to rescuehim, and you may as well let the "nigger" go free at once. You areopening up the greatest scheme of emancipation ever devised. 

Mr. BACKUS:--I move to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. ORTH by thesubstitution of the following:

 "And the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to said fugitive. "

It is claimed that this is a scheme of emancipation. It is nothing ofthe sort. It is not intended that the owner shall be obliged to acceptcompensation for his slave. That is left optional with him. He maytake it or not as he likes. The effect of accepting compensation wouldbe just the same as if he sold his slave to the North. The gentlemanfrom Virginia raises a curious objection; that the owner does notreceive a full compensation because he pays a portion of it himself. Well, I suppose the owner would pay the one hundred andthirty-millionth part of the price! Does not the same objection layagainst the payment of any tax whatever? It is asked, Does thispayment transfer the legal title to the slave? Well, it probably goesto the party who pays for it. If the payment is made in a free State, where slavery is not tolerated, the title would not pass at all. Isubmit to our friends from the South, whether they wish to have theGovernment become a slave-trader, to set it up as a huckster of slavesin the shambles. My amendment imposes the responsibility uponCongress. I have no doubt Congress will legislate properly upon thesubject. 

Now let me say one word to gentlemen, friends of the South, in allkindness. I have appreciated your position, and it has influenced myaction. I have not refused to give you any reasonable guarantees, andI shall not refuse them. But I submit to you, whether it is in goodtaste for you to declare that, if we do not yield all these littlepoints to you, the Government is to be broken up; that that is theonly alternative?

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope this amendment will be adopted. As a Southernman, I declare that it is acceptable to me. Let us adopt it, and endthe matter. [Cries of "Agreed. "]

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--I have a very serious objection to puttingany bid in the Constitution to induce slaves to run away. I firmlybelieve that if this amendment should ever become a part of theConstitution, it would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery. TheState of Missouri is surrounded on three sides by free States. Whenone of our slaves escapes and crosses the border, he finds himself atonce among a people, some of whom will vindicate his freedom withtheir lives. I am willing to leave this whole subject to Congress. Congress will not permit the owner to get his money, and also retainhis slave. In the name of God I ask that no such provision may be putinto the Constitution!

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I will agree to this. The difference between the two isas wide as the poles. 

The vote was then taken upon the amendment as amended, and resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont--17. 

 NOES. --Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia--3. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Messrs. CLAY, of Kentucky, DENT and ROMAN, of Maryland, STEPHENS andTOTTEN, of Tennessee, dissented from the votes of their respectiveStates. 

Mr. BRONSON:--It is evident under the rules, as they now stand, thatthis debate is not to close within a month. I move to amend the rulesas follows:

 "Before reaching the final question on the plan to be submitted to Congress, no member shall be allowed to speak more than three minutes on any proposition. "

Mr. SEDDON:--I rise to a question of order. I submit that the motionof the gentleman from New York is not in order. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to lay the amendment on the table. 

The motion of Mr. GUTHRIE prevailed without a division. 

Mr. FIELD:--I move to add an additional section to the report, asfollows:

 SECTION 8. 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 obligation of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

In offering this amendment as an additional section, I propose verybriefly to state the reasons for its adoption. I shall not anticipateany of the objections that may be urged against it, for, as Iunderstand the rule, I shall have the right to speak in reply. I willonly state one or two arguments in favor of the article. 

We have been discussing the means of removing the symptoms of thedisease called secession. This amendment attacks the disease itself. The doctrines of CALHOUN, originated and advocated by him, have nowbeen taken up by his followers, who are striking at the veryfoundation of our Government. The doctrine of the North is, that noState can secede from the Union. This amendment asserts that doctrine. Before we begin to amend, we ought to know whether we have anyConstitution to amend. The people of my section wish to know whetherwe can compel obedience of a State, if every man in it undertakes torefuse obedience. They believe that power to exist in the Constitutionnow. If there is any doubt about it, they wish that power distinctlyasserted. 

Mr. EWING:--I move to lay the amendment on the table at present, without affecting the section of the report under consideration. 

Mr. FIELD:--This motion is debatable. 

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I submit that the motion of the gentleman from NewYork is not an amendment; that it is an addition, and may be laid onthe table without affecting the remainder of the report. 

Mr. BRONSON:--We have now gone through with the propositions, and areready to take a final vote upon them. Mr. FIELD'S amendment isproperly an addition, and relates entirely to other subjects. Layingthat on the table does not carry the whole subject there. 

The motion of Mr. EWING prevailed by the following vote: Ayes, 11;Noes, 10. [6]

[Footnote 6: I relied upon the Journal for the individual list of thevotes. In this respect the Journal is defective, and does not give thenames of the States voting. My minutes show that the vote was taken byStates with the foregoing result. ]

Messrs. MEREDITH, WILMOT, and CHASE dissented from the votes of theirrespective States. 

Mr. FIELD:--I now offer it as an amendment to the 7th section. 

Mr. BRONSON:--I rise to a point of order. My colleague has proposedthis amendment as an additional section, and it has been laid upon thetable. He now proposes to put the same thing in another place. That iscertainly not in order. 

Mr. FIELD:--I now offer it distinctly as an amendment to the 7thsection, to avoid the quibbling by which a direct vote was avoidedbefore. It may as well be understood that other than slave States havecertain rights upon this floor, and that those rights will beasserted. I wish gentlemen to understand that I shall resist, as wellas I may, every attempt to avoid or dodge this question. 

The PRESIDENT:--In the opinion of the Chair it is not in order. 

Mr. FIELD:--Then I offer one-half the amendment as follows: "The Unionof the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble. "

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Is it necessary to put this into the Constitution?Does not the gentleman think the Constitution prohibits secession now?If so, let him offer a resolution to that effect, and I will vote forit. 

Mr. DENT:--I rise to a point of order. The amendment is not germane tothe section. 

The PRESIDENT:--That is entirely a matter of opinion. The Chair cannotrule out an amendment on that ground. 

Mr. FIELD:--If gentlemen will give us a square vote on my proposition, I will not debate it. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I believe every word that is stated in thatproposition. It is all in the Constitution now; but the South thinksdifferently, and this is one of the great obstructions in our path. There is not a man here who does not believe that this provision isalready in the Constitution. I hope, therefore, that we shall vote atonce, and vote it down. 

Mr. EWING:--The amendment proposed, implies the existence of the rightof secession, under the present Constitution. I do not believe inthat, and shall therefore vote against it. 

Mr. FIELD:--I desire to obtain a clear vote upon this question, andnot have it pass off upon any technical points. I will withdraw myamendment, and now move to amend the 7th section by striking out thewhole of it, and inserting in its place the following:

 "No State shall withdraw from the Union without the consent of all the States, given in a Convention of the States, convened in pursuance of an act passed by two-thirds of each House of Congress. "

Mr. GOODRICH:--I do not quite like the language of the amendment, forit might seem to give the implication of a right to secede. I move thefollowing as a substitute:

 "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. "

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--There is no objection on my partagainst the gentleman from New York taking any course he pleases, andas much time as he likes; but I should regret extremely to have thisamendment adopted, and to have the Constitution made practically toassert a right of secession. I have denied that right always in myState, in public and in private. I am aware that on this point Idiffer from the general sentiment of the South, and I hold there is noright of secession, and on the part of the General Government no rightof coercion. I claim that a State has no right to secede, because thatright is not found in the Constitution, and the theory of theConstitution is against it. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think the amendment of Mr. GOODRICH is not in order. 

Mr. FIELD:--As suggested by a friend, I will modify my motion, andstate it in this way, which certainly will avoid all theseobjections:

 "It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the present Constitution, that the Union of the States under it is indissoluble. "

Mr. COALTER:--Does the gentleman mean this as a substitute for theentire report of the committee, for all that we have hitherto done?

Mr. FIELD:--Certainly not. 

Mr. COALTER:--We have not met here for any such purpose as thatindicated in the present amendment. We are not here to discuss thequestion of secession. We are here because the Border States arealarmed for their own safety. We wish them to remain in the Union. Thepurpose of our consultations is to make an arrangement under whichthey can stay in the Union. If we do not confine ourselves to thatpurpose, and leave these questions alone, our differences may besubmitted to a greater than any human judge. I hope, in Heaven's name, they will not be submitted to the arbitrament of battle. No practicalgood whatever can come from debating this amendment. I move to lay iton the table; but if that motion will have the effect to carry thewhole report on the table, I will not make it. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I shall vote against this amendment. I believe theConstitution is endowed with sufficient authority to accomplish itsown preservation, and to carry into execution its own laws; and, believing so, I deny the right of secession, but the right ofrevolution is a natural right possessed by every people. They mayrevolutionize their governments when they become oppressive. TheConstitution was adopted as the logical consequence of this idea. There is no use now in discussing the abstract question of secession. We must treat the present condition of the Gulf States as a revolutionin fact accomplished. We must meet them fairly. I vote against thisamendment, and wish to stand right upon the record. If the history ofthis Convention is to be written, I do not wish to be handed down toposterity as one who favors the right of secession, which I believe tobe a radical error. 

Mr. WILMOT:--Pennsylvania is agreed in principle upon the doctrine ofthis amendment. I believe the whole North agrees also that the rightof secession cannot be conceded, but my colleagues and myself differessentially as to the manner in which we shall make our doctrine mosteffective. I think the true way is, to vote for this plainproposition, and not vote against it. 

Now, all the North agrees that there is no right under theConstitution to interfere with slavery where it exists. No one hasever asserted such right, or believed in it. We are now asked to givea declaratory provision on that subject--to give it in order to quietthe slave States. One of my colleagues--Mr. POLLOCK--was willing togive that declaratory clause, which was necessary. I went with him inthat; I now ask him to go with me, not against a mere shadow, butagainst what is the doctrine of a large portion of the people of theslave States; a doctrine of that proportion which proposes tooverthrow the Constitution of the country. It is a demoralizingdoctrine. My colleague proposes to vote against it. Did my colleaguebelieve that any one proposed to interfere with slavery in the States?

Mr. POLLOCK:--No, I do not believe there was any such intentionentertained by any considerable party. But there was an apprehensionupon this subject in the slave States, caused by the action of a fewradical men at the North. I was willing to vote for a declaratoryresolution to quiet that apprehension. 

Mr. WILMOT:--This amendment points to something more than anapprehension. It deals with an existing fact. Seven States havealready gone out of the Union, asserting that the principal allegianceof their people is to the State, and not to the General Government. Ithink it high time that the Constitution was made unequivocal uponthis subject of secession. 

Mr. PRICE:--I occupy even a few minutes of time with much reluctance. Time is precious to us--too precious to be used in debate. I believein the doctrine of the gentleman from New York. That is the doctrineof my State; but I believe in a great many other things which it isnot necessary to insert in the Constitution. We came here to treat afact, a great fact. There is a Southern Confederacy--there is aPresident DAVIS--there is a Government organized within the Unionhostile to the United States. I came here, as the gentleman fromIllinois has said, to act as if I had never given a vote or unitedwith a political party. I say, with my colleague, that when thecountry is in danger my political robes hang loosely upon myshoulders. 

There is an element in this Conference which, from the first day ofour session, has opposed any action. Its policy has been to distractand divide our counsels, to put off every thing, to prevent allaction. How different this is from what I expected when I came here. Shall we sit here debating abstract questions when State after Stateis seceding? I hope not. I trust the patriotic spirit which animates amajority of this Conference will to-day send forth a proposition whichwill restore peace to the country. We all agree to the principlecontained in this amendment; but if we adopt it and make it a part ofthe Constitution, we could never, under it, bring back the secededStates. They will not admit the principle. What is to be gained, then, by adopting it? Why will gentlemen insist upon propositions which willnullify our action? New Jersey occupies high constitutional ground. She is ready to do any thing that is fair, and she goes for thesepropositions of the majority because they are fair. She will adoptthese, and I believe every State will adopt them--New York as quicklyas any. I do not think the gentleman properly represents the wishes ofhis constituents. He misrepresents them. Let us act, then, promptly, and act now. Every moment is precious. I know the trembling anxietywith which the country is awaiting our action. Do not let us sit herelike the great Belshazzar till the handwriting appears on the wall. Let us set our faces against delay. Let us put down with an indignantrebuke every attempt to demoralize our action or destroy its effect. 

Mr. BUCKNER:--I move to amend the amendment of Mr. FIELD, by addingthe following:

 "But this declaration shall not be construed so as to give the Federal Government power or authority to coerce or to make war directly or indirectly upon a State, on account of a failure to comply with its obligations. "

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I hope the gentleman from New York will withdrawhis resolution. The view of this Convention is against secession, andwe all know that the Union of the States under the Constitution isindissoluble. We know just as well that it is not necessary to assertthis principle now. It is not expedient to assert it. We want to getback the seceded States. If we are earnest in this, is it best to callthem traitors? I ask the gentleman whether the rejection of hisproposition will not tend to weaken the Government and the Union? Itwill stand as a naked vote of rejection; the reasons why we voteagainst it will not go before the world. 

Mr. BRONSON:--With the exception of a few minutes between eleven andtwelve o'clock, a few nights since, I have not occupied the time orattention of the Conference. I will not now occupy but a few minutes. I came here to do something. I supposed we could accomplish something. We learned very soon after our arrival here that my colleague wasopposed to any amendment of the Constitution. The same is true ofseveral of my colleagues; perhaps a majority of them are here to donothing. I supposed that something ought to be done to quiet thecountry. Instead of that an amendment is now offered asserting that wedo not believe in the right of secession, that we do believe thatthese States which have seceded have done wrong. Suppose we do notbelieve in secession, what relevance has that to the present subject?Such an amendment may be used to delay or embarrass our action. Thereare a good many ways to defeat the project, a good many ways tosuppress secession. My colleague looks to force alone. He proposes tobring back the seceded States by force. I contemplate the use of forcein this connection with horror. It can never be used successfully. 

We are here to agree upon something which will give peace to thecountry. Our committee has submitted a report which they think willaccomplish that. My colleagues are skilful; they know how many waysthere are to accomplish their purposes. One way to defeat any actionhere is by making long speeches, by loading down the propositions ofamendment to the Constitution with other amendments, which will makethe whole thing offensive to the country. 

I stand here for my country. I would leave politics and politicalparties in the back ground. I would vote for nothing here which is notpertinent to the Constitution, and which will not help us in ourattempts to quiet the apprehensions of our fellow-citizens. Mycolleague now brings forward a proposition which may be true initself, but it is not pertinent and amounts to nothing. I am sorry heis not in his seat to hear what I have to say. He shot his arrow, and, I understand, has left for New York. 

I am ready to vote down his proposition. I wish to see it voted down. I am prepared to take all the consequences of voting it down, here andelsewhere. But I have drawn an amendment myself which I offer in lieuof his. Permit me to read it:

 "While we do not recognize the constitutional right of any State to secede from the Union, we are deeply impressed by the fact that this Government is not maintained by force, but by unity of origin and interest, inducing fraternal feelings between the people of different sections of the country; and our labors have been directed to the end of giving a new assurance to our brethren, North, South, East, and West, of our determination to stand firmly by all the compromises of the Constitution. "

I think we can vote for this amendment. It denies the right ofsecession as explicitly as the amendment of my colleague. But it hasno coercion about it, and it asserts, as I understand it, the trueprinciple upon which our Government is founded. I offer it as anexpression of my own views. I have sat here for eight or ten days andhave voted, except in a few instances, with the delegation from my ownState. There is a bare majority of that delegation against thepropositions of the committee. That majority ordinarily casts the voteof our State. I cannot express my views by my votes, and for thatreason I undertake to express them in this amendment. 

Mr. KING:--Like my colleague, I have taken but little part in thediscussions in this Conference. I cannot be justly charged with havingoccupied time unnecessarily, as I have spoken on but one occasion, andthen very briefly. I would not speak now if I did not sincerelybelieve this amendment to be eminently proper for the consideration ofthis body. 

Myself and the majority of my colleagues differ from the majority ofthe Conference. That difference is an honest difference of opinion. Itis based upon principle. If we consulted policy only, it would give uspleasure to yield to the wishes of the majority. But our first duty isto our constituents, and we must represent their opinions here. Weshould do it because our opinions coincide with theirs; and it wasbecause we entertained these opinions that we were selected torepresent New York in this body. When we are called upon to vote, weshall vote to carry out those opinions; and even when we differ fromsome of our colleagues, we are entitled to the same consideration fromthis body that they are. We do not intend to be driven from ourposition by threats or by intimidation. We believe that it iseminently proper for this Conference to express its decidedconvictions upon the question of secession. We are told here thatsecession is a fact. Then let us deal with it as such. I go for theenforcement of the laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution. Iwill never give up the idea that this is a Government of the people, and possessing within itself the power of enforcing its own decrees. This I shall never do. This Conference could perform no nobler actthan that of sending to the country the announcement that the union ofthe States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and that secessionis but another term for rebellion. 

The gentleman from New Jersey says we misrepresent our constituents. How does he know that? Who gave him the right to place himself betweenour constituents and ourselves--to sit in judgment upon us? He willfind that statement a very adventurous one. I should know somethingabout New York and the people of New York. I have lived in that Stateall my life. I have been honored by the confidence and support of myfellow-citizens. Let me assure the gentleman that I know the people ofthat State far better than he. We will undertake to answer to ourconstituents; let him answer to his. 

I will occupy no farther time. I wish to live in peace and harmonywith our brethren in the slave States. But I wish to put upon therecord here a statement of the fact that this is a Government of thepeople, and not a compact of States. 

Mr. PALMER:--It is no part of my business or duty to vindicate themotives or conduct of the gentleman from New York, who is charged byone of his colleagues with interposing his amendment only for thepurpose of delay. But that amendment meets my approval, and will havemy support without regard to such imputations. Of what consequence arethe gentleman's motives to us if his motion is right and proper? Arewe to be gravely told that secession and treason are not propersubjects for our consideration? To be told this when every mail thatcomes to us from the South is loaded with both these crimes? Sir, wehave commenced wrong. The first thing we ought to have done was todeclare that these were crimes, and that we would not negotiate withthose who denied the authority of the Government, and claimed to havethrown off their allegiance to it. Far better would it be for thecountry if, instead of debating the question of slavery in referenceto our Territories, we had set to work to strengthen the hands of theGovernment, and to put down the treason which threatens its existence. 

You, gentlemen of the slave States, say that we of the North use fairwords, that we promise fairly, but you insist that you will not relyupon our promises, and you demand our bond as security that we willkeep them. I return the statement to you with interest. You, gentlemen, talk fairly also--give us your bond! You have been talkingfairly for the last dozen or twenty years, and yet this treason, blackas night, has been plotted among you, and twelve years ago one of yourstatesmen predicted the very state of things which now exists. I amwilling to give bonds, but I want our action in this respect to bereciprocal. I want your bond against secession, and I ask it becauseseven States in sympathy with you have undertaken to set up anindependent Government--have placed over it a military chieftain whoasserts that we, the people of the United States, are foreigners, andmust be treated with as a foreign nation. 

You charged JOHN BROWN with treason. You convicted and executed him;and yet among you are thousands of men guilty of treason, beside whichthat of JOHN BROWN was paltry and insignificant. If we are to act atall, gentlemen, we must act upon reciprocal terms. I am willing tomake every reasonable concession. Will you do the same? Will you, gentlemen of the South, declare that you will stand by the Union, andbrand secession as treasonable? If you will, you must vote for thisamendment. 

Mr. HOWARD:--I am sure no member of this Conference could havelistened to the remarks of the two gentlemen who have last spokenwithout the deepest regret. It has been intimated here that Marylandwill secede unless she secures these guarantees. I do not know whethershe will or not. I know there is danger that she will. 

I agree that there is no _right_ of secession. I think that secessionis revolution. But the right of revolution always exists. It hasalways been maintained by statesmen North and South. It was admittedby WEBSTER in his reply to HAYNE. I would read a quotation from hisspeech if time was not so valuable. 

Yes, gentlemen, we are all in danger. The storm is raging; Virginiahas hung her flag at half-mast as a signal of distress. If Virginiasecedes our State will go with her, hand in hand, with Providence asour guide. This is not intended as a threat. GOD forbid! It is a truthwhich we cannot and ought not to conceal. 

Why will not New York and Massachusetts for once be magnanimous? Whywill they not follow the glorious example of Rhode Island? If theywill, I should still have hope. But if those two great States areagainst us, I can see nothing but gloom in the future. 

Mr. SMITH:--I hope the true state of the question will not be lostsight of. The first question is on the motion of the gentleman fromMissouri, to amend the proposition of my colleague. On that I rise toa point of order. The motion of the gentleman from Missouri is adistinct proposition, and inconsistent with that offered by Mr. FIELD. 

The PRESIDENT:--I do not think the point of order is well taken. 

The question upon agreeing to the amendment of Mr. BUCKNER was thentaken by States, with the following result:

 AYES. --Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia--5. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas--15. 

So the amendment was lost. 

Mr. BRONSON:--My motion is now in order as an amendment. I insist thatthe question should be taken upon its adoption. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Does the gentleman propose to put this into theConstitution? If the gentleman wishes to publish it as his speech, Iwill agree to it. 

The question on the adoption of Mr. BRONSON'S motion was taken _vivavoce_, and the amendment was rejected. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs on the amendment offered bythe gentleman from New York--Mr. FIELD. 

Mr. RIVES:--I hope the Conference will pardon me for saying a fewwords upon this motion. I feel so sensibly the gravity of theconsequences involved in the result of this vote, that I ask for a fewminutes only in which to beseech the Conference not to act now upon amere abstraction. 

Gentlemen, what have we come here for? We have come at a time when theGovernment of our country is in great peril; and after a long sessionof diligent labor, and when we are just upon the point of arriving atthe satisfactory adjustment of our differences, we have these abstractquestions thrust upon us. They do not belong here. They ought not tobe considered here. They would better befit a debating society than anassembly of statesmen met to consider constitutional questions. Thegentleman (Governor KING) of New York announces his theory that thisis a Government of the people and not a compact of the States. While Ishould agree with him upon his conclusions, we should differ widely asto the premises from which they are derived. It is a compact. All theauthorities say so; and like any other compact, it is one from whicheach independent party may withdraw. 

Now, what is this proposed amendment but an abstraction? In theory, the union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble. Buthow is it in fact? It is now a fact that the Union is disrupted, isdissolved, because certain of the States composing it have withdrawn. But this is no time to discuss these questions. While we are talkingabout abstractions, we are wasting our time. I do not propose toenlarge upon the observations I have already submitted. But I beseechyou, one and all, recognizing every member of the Conference as abrother of a common family, that now, after the labor of three weeks, and upon the very verge of adjustment, you should not destroy all wehave done by interposing questions of this kind. Do not let us be seenengaged in the idle labor of Sisyphus. Do not let us now, just as weare about placing on the top of the mountain the block ofconstitutional adjustment, suffer that block to rebound. Dismiss theamendment with, I pray you earnestly, all questions of this sort, andlet us proceed to the practical matters involved in the report, andits adoption. 

Mr. NOYES:--If my colleague who offered this amendment, was not atthis time absent, I should not address the Conference at all. I shouldlike, however, to know what possible dangerous consequence we mayanticipate from the adoption of this clause. Whether this Union is acompact of the States or a Government of the people, is equallyunimportant in this connection. In either case it is not to be brokenup at pleasure. If it is claimed either that the right existsalready--if it is apprehended that the people themselves may assertthe right to overthrow the Constitution and destroy the Government atpleasure--we should not, by all means, pass this amendment. 

The slave power has now had possession of the Government in all formore than fifty years. A President has been elected belonging to theopposing party. For that cause alone, and without claiming orassigning any other, the slave States, under the powerful protectionof Virginia, have come here for guarantees. We are told, over and overagain, that seven States have left the Union. There is a fact withwhich we have to deal. On our side, we are merely dealing withapprehensions. If you have a right to guarantees to quiet yourapprehensions, have we not a right to insist that secession shall beput down and condemned by an explicit clause of the Constitution? Itis this claim of the right of secession which has brought all thetrouble upon the country. We are right in our claim that it should bedealt with in this Conference. If we, as delegates, should provefaithless to our trust, should yield you all the guarantees you ask, and should insist upon nothing on our side, such action would notavail you any thing. 

The North and the people of the North must be satisfied upon thispoint. Much has been said here about the right of revolution. I do notpropose to discuss that right. At all events that is not a right whichdepends upon the Constitution, or grows out of it. If it exists atall, it is higher than, and above all Constitutions. The statement inthis amendment does not controvert the right of revolution. It issimply a statement that _the Union of the States, under theConstitution, is indissoluble_. I regard the adoption of thisamendment as both expedient and essential. 

Mr. TURNER, of Illinois:--I do not think this amendment very importanteither way. If this is intended as a mere declaration of the purposesof the Constitution, it may be well enough. But will the assertionthat such is the purpose of the Constitution preserve that instrumentand the Government under it? No, sir. We may call spirits from thevasty deep; but the question is, will they come?

If the right of secession exists at all, it is not confined to theSouth. If it is conceded at all, it must be conceded in much broaderterms--in terms that are common to all the States. This amendmentsecures to the States no practical benefit. I protest against beingbound to harmonize on all abstract questions. This is an abstraction. Gentlemen schooled in deduction could spend weeks in argument over it. 

The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. FIELD, andresulted as follows:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kansas--10. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I now submit that we ought to take the vote on thesubstitute proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut. I trust we arethrough with speeches, and hope we shall now get to some result. Wemay as well vote upon all these propositions within the next hour. 

Mr. SOMES:--I desire to move an amendment by adding the following, tobe numbered

 SECTION 8. "That the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall not be abridged; but that the people of any Territory of the United States shall be left perfectly free to discuss the subject of slavery. "

Mr. BRONSON:--I move to lay that amendment on the table. 

Mr. SOMES:--Is not that motion debatable?

The PRESIDENT:--It is not debatable. 

The motion to lay the amendment offered by Mr. SOMES upon the table, prevailed by the following vote:

 AYES. --Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas--13. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont--5. 

Thus the amendment was laid upon the table. 

Mr. VANDEVER:--I move to amend the report by the addition of thefollowing section:

 "The navigation of the Mississippi River shall remain free to the people of each and all the States; and Congress shall provide by law for the protection of commerce on said river against all interference, foreign or domestic. "

The importance of this proposition can be seen at once. It is one inwhich the whole country is interested, especially that portion of itin which I reside, which is drained by the upper waters of theMississippi and Missouri. On this subject we have our apprehensions, and they are better founded, too, than any which I have heard from theSouth. We believe that our right to the navigation of this greatnational highway is imperilled. I submit whether we are to becavalierly treated in this matter, and whether a subject of so muchimportance is to be laid upon the table? We may at all events, withperfect propriety, go this far, and make it, under the Constitution, the duty of Congress to protect the free navigation of the MississippiRiver by law. We want it understood that the navigation of that rivershould be free and unobstructed, and that the faith of the nation ispledged to enforce that right. HENRY CLAY once stated that nothingupon earth could induce him to agree to any thing that should impedethe free navigation of that river. I assert and repeat hisdeclaration. We of the Northwest ask that this right should beguaranteed to us. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I am as anxious for the free navigation of theMississippi River as the gentleman. I wish simply to say that it ismade the duty of the people of Iowa, and of other States bounded bythis river, to protect that right of navigation. But the amendment isnot germane to the report of the committee. I move to lay it on thetable. 

The motion of Mr. CRISFIELD prevailed by the following vote:

 AYES. --Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia--14. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York--6. 

So the amendment was laid on the table. 

Mr. BALDWIN:--I move that my substitute be taken up, and ask that itmay be read. 

It was read as follows:

 _Whereas_ unhappy differences exist, which have alienated from each other portions of the people of the United States, to such an extent as seriously to disturb the peace of the nation and impair the regular and efficient action of the Government within the sphere of its constitutional powers and duties;

 _And whereas_, the Legislature of the State of Kentucky has made application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States;

 _And whereas_, it is believed to be the opinion of the people of other States that amendments to the Constitution are, or may become, necessary to secure to the people of the United States, of every section, the full and equal enjoyment of their rights and liberties, so far as the same may depend for their security and protection on the powers granted to or withheld from the General Government in pursuance of the national purposes for which it was ordained and established:

 This Convention does therefore recommend to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her application to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to the Legislatures of the several States, or to Conventions therein, for ratification, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress, in accordance with the provision in the fifth article of the Constitution. 

I propose to avail myself of the privilege of a short reply to thearguments against my proposition; and in order that I may occupy aslittle time as possible, I have reduced my reply to writing. At therisk of repeating some of the remarks I made at the opening of thediscussion, I wish to recur to the facts on which my report is based. 

The resolution which I have moved to substitute, recommends to theseveral States to unite with Kentucky in her application for thecalling of a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution. 

On the 28th day of January, seven days before the assembling of thisConference Convention, the Governor of Kentucky transmitted to thePresident of the United States the joint resolutions of the GeneralAssembly of that Commonwealth, "recommending a call for a Conventionof the United States, " with a request that the President would lay thesame before Congress; and on the 5th of February, the day after theassembling of this Convention, they were, by a special message of thePresident, communicated to Congress, with the expression of greatsatisfaction in the performance of that duty, and of confidence thatCongress would bestow upon those resolutions the careful considerationdue to the distinguished and patriotic source from which theyproceeded, as well as to the great importance of the subject whichthey involve. The resolution requesting the call of a Convention Ihave already read to the Conference. 

There are, sir, but two modes provided by the people of the UnitedStates for altering the fundamental law of their Government, both ofwhich are specified in the fifth article of the Constitution:

 1. Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses _shall deem it necessary_, shall PROPOSE amendments to the Constitution; or, 2. On the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall _call a Convention_ for PROPOSING _amendments_, which, in either case, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, when _ratified_ by the Legislatures, or by Conventions in _three-fourths_ of the States. 

The first mode is recommended by the majority of the committee, in theexpectation that Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, willpropose, on the request of this Convention, for ratification by theStates, the several amendments they have reported. 

The second mode is the one proposed by the Legislature of Kentucky, and which, in accordance therewith, I have moved to substitute for therecommendation of the committee. 

There are now but few days remaining before the termination of thefunctions of the present Congress. If it were within the fair scopeand interest of the constitutional provision that Congress should act, in the proposing of amendments, on the recommendation of thisConference Convention, no one, I think, can reasonably expect them toconsider and deliberately act on such recommendation during the fewremaining days of the present Congress. Other questions, of engrossinginterest, now pending before them, and the acts of necessarylegislation at the close of the session, will prevent it. It must, therefore, go over to the next Congress. Assuming that during the termof that Congress the amendments recommended by this Convention shall, by two-thirds of both houses, be _deemed necessary_, and be proposedto the States for ratification; there would probably be no earlierfinal action by the requisite number of States, than in the modeproposed by Kentucky, and recommended by the resolution which I havemoved to substitute for the mode of amendment reported by thecommittee. But the great objection, in my mind, to the mode ofamendment contemplated by the majority report, is that it is not inaccordance with either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. The people of the United States intended, when they adopted theConstitution under which we have for more than seventy years enjoyed ahigher degree of prosperity than has fallen to the lot of any otherpeople, that it should remain in full force and unchanged, except inone of the two modes prescribed in that sacred instrument for its ownamendment. 

It is a Constitution which binds the people of every State, as thesupreme law of the land, until it can be changed by the action, in thefirst instance, of those who are _sworn_ to support it. No amendmentscan, consistently with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, be _proposed_ by Congress, unless two-thirds of both houses, actingunder the responsibility of their official oaths, shall "_deem_ them_necessary_. " No interference or pressure by any extraneous bodyunknown to the Constitution, was contemplated, or can be allowed withsafety to the people, to impair the exercise of this function underall the responsibilities and official sanctions that properlyappertain to it. The judgment of two-thirds of both houses of Congressin regard to the _necessity_ of the amendments, must precede theirproposal to the States for _ratification_. 

The Government of the United States, in its sphere of duties, issupreme. The State Governments, when they consented to its formationby the people of the United States, surrendered so much of theirseparate sovereignties as was essential to its strength andefficiency. To that extent we became one people. This Government, forall _national_ purposes, took the place of the State Governments, aswell in regard to the _paramount allegiance_ as to the duty ofprotection of the people of every State in the enjoyment of all theirfederal rights. Its powers can neither be enlarged nor diminished, except in the _constitutional_ mode, without violating the rights ofthe States as well as of the people. 

Any attempt from without, by combinations and associations notresponsible to the people, to _coerce_ or overawe Congress, or in anyway to impair the free and _deliberate_ exercise of its judgment in_proposing_ amendments "as deemed _necessary_" by Congress, is apalpable violation of the privileges of the people. They elected themembers of the House of Representatives with the intention that theyshould freely and deliberately, under their official oaths, proposeamendments, or not, to the Constitution, as _they_ might _deemnecessary_, and not at the dictation of _States even_, who cannotthemselves propose amendments, but can only require of Congress tocall a Convention of _all the States_ for that purpose. Much less cana convention of delegates from the Legislatures, or the Executive of apart only of the States--a body unknown to, and unauthorized by, theConstitution--assume to exercise, or dictate to Congress the exerciseof this high prerogative. 

WE do not represent the people of the United States. This Government, for every purpose for which it was established, is a separate, and insome sense a foreign government to the States. It operates directly onthe people, and is itself their true protector in all their Federalrights. 

Any number of States, less than two-thirds, have no more right to callinto action the power of Congress either to call a Convention, or topropose amendments, than the individual members of their Legislaturesin their private capacities; and Congress might as well, and probablywould, treat our interference with their official duties as an_usurpation_; as much so as if we should seek to interfere with theappropriate duties of the Legislatures of Virginia or Massachusetts. And, sir, I cannot but regard it, so far as the _free_ action ofCongress should be influenced by the recommendations of this body, asin the nature of a _revolutionary proceeding_ for which there is nosufficient cause or justification. Sir, all the States are not hererepresented. All have not even had an opportunity to be here. And yetwe are endeavoring to influence the action of Congress in a mannerwhich may deeply affect their interests. If, under any circumstances, a body so convened, would have a right to act upon Congress, by theexpression of our opinions as a Convention of States, ought not all tohave an opportunity to participate in our deliberations? Mostcertainly they ought. 

But it is said some of the States are threatening to secede from theUnion; others have seceded, and must be induced to come back, by thespeedy action of Congress on the amendments recommended by thecommittee. Does the _Constitution_ authorize amendments under suchcircumstances, with _less care_ and deliberation than in time of peaceand tranquillity?

This Government, sir, cannot recognize the fact that _States_ haveseceded. It is not a Government over _States_, but over the _people_of the United States, irrespective of the State in which they live. This Government, and not the States, protects them in their Federalrights, and requires allegiance and obedience from the people in everyState, to the Constitution and laws of the United States as thesupreme law of the land, any thing in the laws or ordinances of anyState to the contrary notwithstanding. It is the _people_ and not theStates that are governed by that law, within the sphere of itsconstitutional operation. 

I have said that the course proposed by the majority of the committeeis, in my judgment, not only against the letter, but the spirit of theConstitution. The State of Kentucky, ever patriotic and conservative, must have so regarded it, when, instead of asking Congress to proposethe amendments they desired, they requested their sister States tounite with them in an application in the mode prescribed by theConstitution to Congress to call a Convention for that purpose. 

Our fathers, who framed that Constitution, and the people of theUnited States, who ratified it, set it forth in the preamble as theirfirst great purpose "to form a more perfect Union. " They intended toestablish thereby a Government of perpetual obligation and ofself-sustaining vigor. They did not contemplate the necessity ofamendments for any other causes than such as, after calm, deliberate, undisturbed consideration should be judged necessary. They did notintend that it should be exposed to the danger of hasty action underthe influence of excited passions or timid and groundlessapprehension. They would not trust the entire people even with theright of amendment, except in the mode prescribed, with all the delaysincident to that mode; and then only by the action, in every stage ofthe proceeding, of persons bound by solemn oath to support it. 

The Constitution, in prescribing the modes of proposing amendments, endeavored to provide against irregular combination of a part only ofthe States to effect them. Hence it prohibited all agreements orcompacts between the States; and it made no provision for therecognition of any action by a convention, except when called on therecommendation of two-thirds of the States applying to Congress, byseparate action of their Legislatures, for that purpose. 

Any interference with the duty of Congress by such a body as we are, representing only a portion of the States in any form, and some of usonly the executives of the States from which we come, would be as muchat variance with the Constitution as with the counsel of thatillustrious American--I will not say Virginian--for WASHINGTONbelonged to his whole country--in the Farewell Address which hededicated to the people of the United States on his retirement fromthe public service, and which ought to be cherished in the heart ofevery patriot. In addition to what I have already read from thataddress let me read this passage:

 "All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all _combinations_ and _associations_ under whatever plausible character, with the _real design to direct, control, counteract_, or _awe_ the regular deliberation and action of the _constituted authorities_, are destructive to this fundamental rule, and of fatal tendency. "

Let me read it again. "All obstructions, " &c. "All combinations, " &c. 

This address is replete with words of true wisdom. Let us heed them;for they are eminently adapted to the present occasion. There is noexigency which should be allowed to overawe Congress in theperformance of its constitutional duties. No State intervention, nocombination or association of representatives of States in a mannerunknown to the Constitution, can be recognized as authoritative bythose to whom, on their own responsibility, the people of the UnitedStates have conferred their national interests and the guardianship oftheir fundamental law. "We owe, " in the language of the illustriousstatesman of Kentucky, "_a paramount_ allegiance to the Government ofthe United States--a subordinate one to our State. "

Sir, while I am willing to perform all my constitutional duties--allmy fraternal duties toward the people of every section of our commoncountry, I, for one, feel bound to abstain from any encroachment onthe duties which the Constitution of my country has delegated toothers to be performed, in the modes, and with the responsibilities, which the _people_ for their own security have deemed it proper toprescribe. 

With these opinions, I should be unfaithful to my own convictions ofduty, and recreant to the trust which has devolved on me as a citizenof the United States, and by inheritance from an ancestor who took apart in the deliberations of the Convention which framed ourConstitution, and to whose public services, you, sir, so kindlyalluded at the opening of the Conference, were I to unite with themajority of the committee in urging upon Congress the amendments theyhave proposed. 

Entertaining as I do for the members of the committee who haveconcurred in that report a profound respect, it has been with afeeling of unaffected diffidence and self-distrust that I haveventured to express my sentiments on this occasion. But as I must acton my own convictions of duty, which are in harmony with those of myassociates from Connecticut, so far as in the brief period which haselapsed since the report was submitted I have had opportunity toascertain them, I felt bound to make known to the Convention thereasons which will govern my action. [7]

[Footnote 7: The closing remarks of Mr. BALDWIN were committed towriting. I am able through the kindness of a member of his family toavail myself of a copy. ]

The vote was then taken by States on the substitute proposed by Mr. BALDWIN, and the substitute was rejected by the following vote:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont--8. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas--13. 

So the amendment was not agreed to. 

The following gentlemen disagreed to the vote of their respectiveStates:

Mr. BRONSON, of New York; Mr. GRANGER, of New York; Mr. DODGE, of NewYork; Mr. CORNING, of New York; Mr. ORTH, of Indiana; Mr. HACKLEMAN, of Indiana. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I suppose it is now in order for me to move my substitutefor the report of the majority of the committee. 

Mr. TUCK:--I also have a substitute to offer. I shall not discuss it. 

Mr. SEDDON:--The substitute which I propose embodies the CRITTENDENresolutions, with the modifications suggested by Virginia. These areprincipally confined to the first section, which is made to apply toour future as well as our present territory. I have modified the formof the substitute in several particulars, and now offer it withoutfarther introduction. These are the amendments which I understand thedelegation from Virginia is instructed to insist upon:

 JOINT RESOLUTIONS

 PROPOSING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 

 WHEREAS, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas, it is eminently desirable and proper that those dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: therefore, _Resolved_, by this Convention, that the following articles are hereby approved and submitted to the Congress of the United States, with the request that they may, by the requisite constitutional majority of two-thirds, be recommended to the respective States of the Union, to be, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the States, valid and operative as amendments of the Constitution of the Union. 

 ARTICLE 1. In all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° 30´, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory now or hereafter acquired south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress; but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance; and when any territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, 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 slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide. 

 ARTICLE 2. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves. 

 ARTICLE 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the free white inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal Government or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves and holding them, as such, during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District. 

 ARTICLE 4. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by the sea. And if such transportation be by sea, the slaves shall be protected as property by the Federal Government. And the right of transit by the owners with their slaves in passing to or from one slaveholding State or Territory to another, between and through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, shall be protected. And in imposing direct taxes pursuant to the Constitution, Congress shall have no power to impose on slaves a higher rate of tax than on land, according to their just value. 

 ARTICLE 5. That in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall provide by law, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in all cases, when the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall reimburse themselves by imposing and collecting a tax on the county or city in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, equal in amount to the sum paid by them, with the addition of interest and the costs of collection; and the said county or city, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers, or rescuers, by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himself might have sued and recovered. 

 ARTICLE 6. No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution, and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be allowed or permitted. 

 ARTICLE 7. SEC. 1. The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal, State, territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African race. 

 And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legislative power: and whereas it is the desire of this Convention, as far as its influence may extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore, 1. _Resolved_, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution of said laws. 

 2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which, in their operation, impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practices, and led to consequences which have obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing. This Convention, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper, respectfully and earnestly, to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corrections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes. 

 3. That the act of the eighteenth of September, eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount, in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave to summon to his aid the _posse comitatus_, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue. 

 4. That the laws for the suppression of the African slave-trade, and especially those prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States, ought to be made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed, and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made. 

The substitute offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the followingvote:

 AYES. --Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia--4. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas--16. 

Mr. DENT dissented from the vote of Maryland. 

Mr. HOUSTON:--I wish to explain the vote of Delaware. She has endorsedthe CRITTENDEN resolutions. She would accept the mode of adjustmentproposed by the gentleman from Virginia. She has adhered to heropinions as long as she thinks it fit or expedient to do so. Underthese circumstances Delaware feels it her duty to vote for the reportof the majority. As we desire to harmonize conflicting opinions, andto arrive at a fair settlement, we have voted against Mr. SEDDON'Samendment. 

Mr. CRISFIELD:--Like Delaware, Maryland prefers the CRITTENDEN plan ofadjustment. That we think is now impossible. But that plan does notdiffer very widely from the report of the majority. Certainly notenough to warrant us in risking the Union, when we can get the one andcannot have the other. For this reason Maryland votes "No" on Mr. SEDDON'S proposition. 

Mr. CLAY:--I gave notice some days ago that I should offer as asubstitute the CRITTENDEN resolutions--pure and undefiled--without thecrossing of a "t" or the dotting of an "i. " I now offer them asfollows, and demand a vote by States:

 WHEREAS, the Union is in danger; and owing to the unhappy divisions existing in Congress, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for that body to concur, in both its branches, by the requisite majority, so as to enable it either to adopt such measures of legislation, or to recommend to the States such amendments to the Constitution as are deemed necessary and proper to avert that danger; and whereas, in so great an emergency, the opinion and judgment of the people ought to be heard, and would be the best and surest guide to their representatives: Therefore, _Resolved_, That provision ought to be made by law, without delay, for taking the sense of the people, and submitting to their vote the following resolutions as the basis for the final and permanent settlement of those disputes that now disturb the peace of the country and threaten the existence of the Union. 

 And that whereas serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas, it is eminently desirable and proper that those dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: Therefore, _Resolved_, That the following articles be, and hereby are, proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States:

 ARTICLE 1. In all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° 30´, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress; but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance; and when any Territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, 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 slavery, as the constitution of such new States may provide. 

 ARTICLE 2. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves. 

 ARTICLE 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal Government or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves, and holding them, as such, during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District. 

 ARTICLE 4. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by the sea; and the right of transit by the owners with their slaves in passing to or from one slaveholding State or Territory to another, between and through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, shall be protected. 

 ARTICLE 5. That, in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave in all cases, when the marshal or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall have the power to reimburse themselves by imposing and collecting a tax on the county or city in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, equal in amount to the sum paid by them, with the addition of interest and the costs of collection; and the said county or city, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers, or rescuers, by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himself might have sued and recovered. 

 ARTICLE 6. No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be allowed or permitted. 

 ARTICLE 7. SEC. 1. The elective franchise, and the right to hold office, whether federal, State, territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons who are, in whole or in part, of the African race. 

 SEC. 2. The United States shall have power to acquire, from time to time, districts of country in Africa and South America, for the colonization, at expense of the Federal Treasury, of such free negroes and mulattoes as the several States may wish to have removed from their limits and from the District of Columbia, and such other places as may be under the jurisdiction of Congress. 

 _And whereas_, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legitimate power; and whereas it is the desire of this Convention, as far as its influence may extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore, 1. _Resolved_, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or other illegal means, to hinder of defeat the due execution of said laws. 

 2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which in their operation impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States. Yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practices, and led to consequences which have obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing. This Convention, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper, respectfully and earnestly, to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corrections or explanations of them, as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes. 

 3. That the act of the eighteenth of September, eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount, in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave to summon to his aid the _posse comitatus_, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue. 

 4. That the laws for the suppression of the African slave-trade, and especially those prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States, ought to be made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed, and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made. 

The question on agreeing to said amendment resulted in the followingvote:

 AYES. --Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia--5. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont--14. 

So the amendment was not agreed to. 

Mr. DENT:--I desire to dissent from the vote of Maryland. 

Mr. EWING:--I desire to record the vote of Kansas in the negative. 

The PRESIDENT:--Leave will be given unless objection is made. 

Mr. TUCK:--I hold in my hand a substitute which I propose to offer forthe report of the committee. I know all the delegates have made uptheir minds how to vote, and what to vote for. Argument now willamount to but little. But I submit this as indicating to a certainextent the views of the minority here. I shall make no fartherremarks, but shall pass it to the Secretary, and I hope the Conferencewill be patient for five minutes while it is read. 

The proposition of Mr. TUCK was read as follows:

 TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES:

 On the 4th day of February, 1861, in compliance with the invitation of the State of Virginia, commissioners from several other States met the commissioners of that State in Conference Convention, in the City of Washington. From time to time, commissioners from other States appeared, appointed as were those who first appeared, some by the Legislatures, and some by the Governors of their respective States, until, on the 23d instant, twenty-one States were then represented. The Convention thus constituted claims no authority under the Constitution and laws; but deeply impressed with a sense of existing dissensions and dangers, proceeded to a careful consideration of them and their appropriate remedies, and having brought their deliberations to a close, now submit the result to the judgment of their fellow-citizens. 

 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 other nation. 

 Whatever branch of industry, or whatever staple production, shall become, in the possible changes of the future, the leading interests 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 other State, full and adequate redress can and ought to be provided for such grievances. 

 3d. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land, to which every citizen owes faithful obedience; and it is therefore respectfully recommended to the Legislatures of the several States to consider impartially whatever complaints may be made of acts as inconsistent therewith, by sister States or their citizens, and carefully revise their statutes, in view of such complaints, and to repeal whatever provisions may be found to be in contravention of that supreme law. 

 4th. _Resolved_, That this Convention recommend to the Legislatures of the several 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. CHASE:--I have not thought it best to occupy much of the time ofthe Convention in discussing the propositions presented for itsdecision. I have indeed been impressed with an idea that a decisionupon these propositions just now may be premature. 

I have already stated to the Conference that the delegates from Ohioact under resolutions of the General Assembly of that State, one ofwhich requires them to use their influence in procuring an adjournmentof this body to the 4th of April next. It is the wish of that Statethat opportunity may be given for full consideration of anyconstitutional amendment that may be proposed here, and especially toavoid precipitate action under apprehensions of resistance to theinauguration of Mr. LINCOLN on the 4th of next month. 

I have already submitted resolutions in accordance with the views ofthe Legislature, and intended, at the proper time, to ask a vote uponthe proposed adjournment. On consultation with my colleagues, however, I find a majority of them averse to postponement; and, in view of thefact that the resolution of the Legislature is not imperative in itsterms, and especially in consideration of the assurances constantlygiven here by delegates from slaveholding States that, whatever may bethe result of our deliberations, no obstruction or hindrance will beopposed to the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN, I have determined toforbear urging a vote. 

Upon the respective merits of the propositions of the committee, andthe proposed amendments, I have not much to say. But what I do saywill be said in all seriousness. 

I do not approve the confident pledges made here of favorable actionby the people of either section, or of any State, upon whateverpropositions may receive the sanction of this Conference. The peopleof the free States, so far as my observation goes, do not commit theirright of judgment to anybody. They generally exercise it themselves, and be assured they will exercise it freely upon any propositioncoming from this body. Whatever our actions may be here, everyproposition to amend the Constitution must come before the people. They will discuss it, and must adopt it before it can become a part ofthe fundamental law. Dismiss, then, the idea that all that isnecessary to secure amendments acceptable to a particular interest orsection is to secure for them the sanction of a majority in this hall. 

The result of the national canvass which recently terminated in theelection of Mr. LINCOLN has been spoken of by some as the effect of asudden impulse, or of some irregular excitement of the popular mind;and it has been somewhat confidently asserted that, upon reflectionand consideration, the hastily-formed opinions which brought aboutthat election will be changed. It has been said, also, thatsubordinate questions of local and temporary character have augmentedthe Republican vote, and secured a majority which could not have beenobtained upon the national questions involved in the respectiveplatforms of the parties which divide the country. 

I cannot take this view of the result of the Presidential election. Ibelieve, and the belief amounts to absolute conviction, that theelection must be regarded as the triumph of principles cherished inthe hearts of the people of the free States. These principles, it istrue, were originally asserted by a small party only. But, after yearsof discussion, they have, by their own value, their own intrinsicsoundness, obtained the deliberate and unalterable sanction of thepeople's judgment. 

Chief among these principles is the restriction of slavery withinState limits; _not_ war upon slavery within those limits, but fixedopposition to its extension beyond them. Mr. LINCOLN was the candidateof the people opposed to the extension of slavery. We have electedhim. After many years of earnest advocacy and of severe trial, we haveachieved the triumph of that principle. By a fair and unquestionablemajority we have secured that triumph. Do you think we, who representthis majority, will throw it away? Do you think the people wouldsustain us if we undertook to throw it away? I must speak to youplainly, gentlemen of the South; it is not in my heart to deceive you. I therefore tell you explicitly that if we of the North and West wouldconsent to throw away all that has been gained in the recent triumphof our principles, the people would not sustain us, and so the consentwould avail you nothing. And I must tell you farther, that under noinducements whatever will we consent to surrender a principle which webelieve to be so sound and so important as that of restricting slaverywithin State limits. 

There are some things, however, which I think the people are willingto do. In all my relations with them, and these relations have beensomewhat intimate, I have never discovered any desire or inclinationon the part of any considerable number, to interfere with theinstitution of slavery within the States where it exists. I do notbelieve that any such desire anywhere prevails. All your rights havebeen respected and enforced by the people of the free States. Morethan this: even your claims have been enforced, under repulsivecircumstances, and, in my judgment, beyond right and beyondconstitutional obligation. When and where have the people of the freeStates, in their representatives, refused you any right? When andwhere have they refused to confer with you frankly and candidly whenyou imagined your rights to be in danger? They have been, and stillare, patient and forbearing. They do not believe that you need any newconstitutional guarantees. You have guarantees enough in theirvoluntary action. But, since you think differently, they send ushither to meet you, to confer with you, to consider the questionswhich threaten the Union, to discuss them freely and decide themfairly. 

Now, gentlemen, what do we ask of you? Do we ask any thingunreasonable in the amendment which has been submitted? We simply askthat you say to your people that we of the free States have nopurpose, and never had any purpose, to infringe the rights of theslave States, or of any citizen of the slave States. And that ourdevotion to the Government and the Constitution is not inferior tothat of any portion of the American people. By uniting with us in thedeclaration we propose, you tell your people at home that noconsiderable party, that no considerable number of persons, in thefree States, has any wish or purpose to interfere with slavery in theStates where it exists, or with any of your rights under theConstitution. You can say this with absolute truth, and with entireconfidence. In all the action of the delegates who favor thisamendment, in all our private consultations, every heart has beenanimated by a most anxious desire to maintain the Union and preservethe harmony of the Republic. No word has been uttered indicating theslightest wish to avoid any obligation of the Constitution, or todeprive you of any right under it. All concur in desiring to giveeffect to the Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance of it. Thesame sentiments animate the people of the free States. Congress hasdeclared, with the almost unanimous concurrence of the members fromthe free States, against national interference with slavery in theslave States. The Chicago Convention most emphatically asserted thesame doctrine. It has been reiterated over and over again by theLegislatures of the free States, and by great and small conventions oftheir people. Is it, then, too much to ask you to unite with us in adeclaration that all fears of aggression entertained by your peopleare groundless? Such a declaration will go far to insure peace; whynot make it?

You profess to be satisfied with slavery, as it is and where it is. You think the institution just and beneficial. The very able gentlemanfrom Virginia (Mr. SEDDON), who commands the respect of all by thefrankness and sincerity of his speech, has said that he believesslavery to be the condition in which the African is to be educated upto freedom. He does not believe in perpetual slavery. He believes thetime will come when the slave, through the beneficent influences ofthe circumstances which surround him, will rise in intelligence, capacity, and character, to the dignity of a freeman, and will befree. 

We cannot agree with you, and therefore do not propose to allowslavery where we are responsible for it, outside of your State limits, and under National jurisdiction. But we do not mean to interfere withit at all within State limits. So far as we are concerned, you canwork out your experiment there in peace. We shall rejoice if no evilcomes from it to you or yours. [Mr. CHASE'S time having expired, hewas unanimously invited to proceed. ]

Aside from the Territorial question--the question of slavery outsideof the slave States--I know of but one serious difficulty. I refer tothe question concerning fugitives from service. The clause in theConstitution concerning this class of persons is regarded by almostall men, North and South, as a stipulation for the surrender to theirmasters of slaves escaping into free States. The people of the freeStates, however, who believe that slaveholding is wrong, cannot andwill not aid in the reclamation, and the stipulation becomes thereforea dead letter. You complain of bad faith, and the complaint isretorted by denunciations of the cruelty which would drag back tobondage the poor slave who has escaped from it. You, thinking slaveryright, claim the fulfilment of the stipulation; we, thinking slaverywrong, cannot fulfil the stipulation without consciousness ofparticipation in wrong. Here is a real difficulty, but it seems to menot insuperable. It will not do for us to say to you, in justificationof non-performance, "the stipulation is immoral, and therefore wecannot execute it;" for you deny the immorality, and we cannot assumeto judge for you. 

On the other hand, you ought not to exact from us the literalperformance of the stipulation when you know that we cannot perform itwithout conscious culpability. A true solution of the difficulty seemsto be attainable by regarding it as a simple case where a contract, from changed circumstances, cannot be fulfilled exactly as made. Acourt of equity in such a case decrees execution as near as may be. Itrequires the party who cannot perform to make compensation fornon-performance. Why cannot the same principle be applied to therendition of fugitives from service? We cannot surrender--but we cancompensate. Why not, then, avoid all difficulties on all sides, andshow respectively good faith and good will by providing and acceptingcompensation where masters reclaim escaping servants and prove theirright of reclamation under the Constitution? Instead of a judgment forrendition, let there be a judgment for compensation, determined by thetrue value of the services, and let the same judgment assure freedomto the fugitive. The cost to the National Treasury would be as nothingin comparison with the evils of discord and strife. All parties wouldbe gainers. 

What I have just said is, indeed, not exactly to the point of thepresent discussion. But I refer to this matter to show how easily thegreatest difficulties may be adjusted if approached in a truly just, generous, and patriotic spirit. 

I refer to it also in order to show you that, if we do not concede allyour wishes, it is because our ideas of justice, duty, and honorforbid, and not because we cherish any hostile or aggressivesentiments. We will go as far as we can to meet you--come you also asfar as you can to meet us. Join at least in the declaration wepropose. Your people have confidence in you. They will believe you. The declaration, made with substantial unanimity by this Conference, will tranquillize public sentiment, and give a chance for reason toresume its sway, and patriotic counsels to gain a hearing. 

Do you say that after all what we propose embodies no substantialguarantees of immunity to slavery through the perversion of Federalpowers? We reply that we think the Constitution as it stands, interpreted honestly and executed faithfully, is sufficient for allpractical purposes; and that you will find all desirable security inthe legislation or non-legislation of Congress. If you thinkotherwise, we are ready to join you in recommending a NationalConvention to propose amendments to the Constitution in the regularand legitimate way. Kentucky, a slave State, has proposed such aConvention; Illinois, a free State, has joined in the proposition. Join us, then, in recommending such a Convention, and assure us thatyou will abide by its decision. We will join you and give a similarassurance. 

This, gentlemen, is the proposition we make you to-day. It is embodiedin the amendment just submitted. Is it not a fair proposition? It is aplain declaration of facts which cannot reasonably be questioned, anda plain submission of all disputed questions to the only propertribunal for the settlement of such questions--that of the Americanpeople, acting through a National Convention. 

The only alternative to this proposition is the proposition that thepresent Congress be called upon to submit to the States a thirteentharticle embodying the amendments recommended by the committee. Inorder to the submission of these amendments to the States by Congress, a two-thirds vote in each House is necessary. That, I venture to say, cannot be obtained. Were it otherwise, who can assure you that the newarticle will obtain the sanction of three-fourths of the States, without which it is a nullity? As a measure to defeat all adjustment, I can understand this proposition. As a measure of pacification, I donot understand it. There is, in my judgment, no peace in it. Gentlemenhere, of patriotism and intelligence, think otherwise. I am sorry thatI cannot agree with them. 

Gentlemen say, if this proposition cannot prevail, every slave Statewill secede; or, as some prefer to phrase it, will resort torevolution. I forbear to discuss eventualities. I must say, however, and say plainly, that considerations such as these will not move mefrom my recognized duty to my country and its Constitution. And let mesay for the people of the free States, that they are a thoughtfulpeople, and are much in earnest in this business. They do not delegatetheir right of private judgment. They love their institutions and theUnion. They will not surrender the one nor give up the other withoutgreat struggles and great sacrifices. Upon the question of themaintenance of an unbroken Union and a whole country they never were, and it is my firm conviction they never will be divided. Gentlemen whothink they will be, even in the worst contingency, will, I think, bedisappointed. If forced to the last extremity, the people will meetthe issue as they best may; but be assured they will meet it with nodiscordant councils. 

Gentlemen, Mr. LINCOLN will be inaugurated on the 4th of March. Hewill take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the UnitedStates--of the whole--of all the United States. That oath will bindhim to take care that the laws be faithfully executed throughout theUnited States. Will secession absolve him from that oath? Will itdiminish, by one jot or tittle, its awful obligation? Will attemptedrevolution do more than secession? And if not--and the oath and theobligation remain--and the President does his duty and undertakes toenforce the laws, and secession or revolution resists, what then? War!Civil war!

Mr. President, let us not rush headlong into that unfathomable gulf. Let us not tempt this unutterable woe. We offer you a plain andhonorable mode of adjusting all difficulties. It is a mode which, webelieve, will receive the sanction of the people. We pledge ourselveshere that we will do all in our power to obtain their sanction for it. Is it too much to ask you, gentlemen of the South, to meet us on thishonorable and practicable ground? Will you not, at least, concede thisto the country?

The question on agreeing to said amendment resulted in the followingvote:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont--9. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11. 

So the amendment was not agreed to. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I wish now to offer an amendment which embraces anunconditional proposition for the call of a Convention. 

Mr. BRONSON:--This has been voted down already. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--What changes do you gentlemen from Pennsylvania andOhio wish to make in the report of the committee? Would you adopt thatreport in a General Convention?

The PRESIDENT:--The Chair rules that the amendment offered by thegentleman from Pennsylvania is not in order. 

Messrs. WILMOT, CHASE, CORNING, and BRONSON then entered theirdissents from their respective States upon the substitute offered byMr. TUCK. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I hope now that we may be permitted to take the voteat once upon the report of the majority. 

Mr. REID:--Before this vote is taken, I deem it my duty to myself andmy State to make a remark. 

I came here disposed to agree upon terms that would be mutuallysatisfactory to both sections of the Union. I would agree to any fairterms now, but the propositions contained in the report of themajority, as that report now stands, can never receive my assent. Icannot recommend them to Congress or to the people of my own State. They do not settle the material questions involved; they contain nosufficient guarantees for the rights of the South. Therefore, in goodfaith to the Conference and to the country, I here state that I cannotand will not agree to them. 

Mr. CLEVELAND:--If the gentlemen from the South, after we have yieldedso much as we have, assert that these propositions will not besatisfactory to the slave States, I, for one, will not degrade myselfby voting for them. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I insist now upon taking the vote. 

The PRESIDENT:--The rules of the Conference do not require the vote tobe taken upon this proposition by sections. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--We have not heretofore adhered to the rules. Let usvote then on the whole as a proposition, and not by sections. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I think we should take the vote by sections. It iscertainly within the discretion of the President to rule that the votemay be so taken. The rules do not apply to an article which iscomposed of many sections. We certainly should vote upon themseparately. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I desire now to get the amendment which I haveproposed once more before the Conference. I move to amend by adding tothe first section a clause which shall provide that

 "The rights of the slave States shall be protected by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance. "

By the section as it now stands, the rights of the North are absolute;those of the South should be equally clear. It is true that thesection contains a distinct recognition of the relation of master andslave, but this recognition is in negative terms. It is certainly theduty of the territorial legislature and government to protect theserights wherever they are invaded. If this is so, why not declare it inthe provision?

Mr. WILMOT:--I desire to ask whether this proposition is in order. 

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I insist that it is. I assert the existence ofcertain rights, and I want these rights protected under theConstitution. Rights without remedies are anomalies of which the lawknows nothing. 

Mr. WILMOT:--I feel constrained to oppose any amendment of this kind. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Chair is inclined to rule this amendment as not inorder. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--Before the final vote is taken, I wish to say a word byway of explanation. My colleague says he cannot vote for the report ofthe committee because he does not approve the whole of it. I do notlike the first article, but the report as a whole is a greatimprovement upon the Constitution as it now stands. I think the reportought to go before the people. If we can secure what the reportproposes, we are certainly no worse off. I wish to submit it to mypeople, and thus have them to judge for themselves whether they willadopt it. 

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I would not say a word were it notfor the words that have fallen from my colleague--Governor REID. Icame here to try to save the Union. I have labored hard to that end. Ihope and believe the report of the majority, if adopted, will save theUnion. I wish to carry these propositions before the people. I believethat the people of North Carolina and of the Union will adopt them. Give us an opportunity to appeal to the generosity of the people ofthe whole Union. Certainly no Southern man can object to submittingthese propositions to the popular vote. 

Mr. LOOMIS:--I am content to vote for the first article. 

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--I only desire to say for my State that if you willgive us these propositions, Tennessee will adopt them, and it willsink secession beyond any hope of resurrection. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--I cannot say that I am gratified with the displaywhich I have just witnessed in these appeals from the Conference tothe people. We come here to deal with facts, not theories. I do notspeak with the confidence of some with respect to the action of someof the people. I know the people of the South, and I tell you thishollow compromise will never satisfy them, nor will it bring back theseceded States. We are acting for the people who are not here. We aretheir delegates that have come here, not to demand indemnity for thepast, but security for the future. This is my opinion. You will seewhether I am right or not. We could stand upon the CRITTENDENproposition or the Virginia alternative. With Virginia in our favor wecould have stood upon either. You, gentlemen of the North, might aswell have consented to either as to the report which is now presented. I desire the preservation of the Union; I would go for this scheme ifthat would accomplish it. But it will not. There is great force in thestatement of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. CHASE, in which he saysthere is no importance to a scheme which goes from this Conference tothe States only by a majority of one or two States. If one or twoStates only, which are here, reject this compromise, it will berejected entirely. Once more I say it would have been better for allto have stood upon the Virginia alternative. 

Mr. STOCKTON:--I have not much to say, sir. I rise with a sadnesswhich almost prevents my utterance. I was born at Princeton. My hearthas always beat for the Union. I have heard these discussions withpain from the commencement. Shall we deliberate over any propositionwhich shall save the Union? The country is in jeopardy. We are calledupon to save it. New Jersey and Delaware came here for that purpose, and no other. They have laid aside every other motive; they haveyielded every thing to the general good of the country. 

The report of the majority of the committee meets their concurrence. Republicans and Democrats alike, have dropped their opinions, forpolitics should always disappear in the presence of a great questionlike this. Politics should not be thought of in view of the questionof disunion. By what measure of execration will posterity judge a manwho contributed toward the dissolution of the Union? Shall we standhere and higgle about terms when the roar of the tornado is heard thatthreatens to sweep our Government from the face of the earth? Believeme, sir, this is a question of peace or war. 

In the days of Rome, Curtius threw himself into the chasm when told bythe oracle that the sacrifice of his life would save his country. Alas! is there no Curtius here? The alternative is a dreadful one tocontemplate if we cannot adopt these propositions and secure peace. Itis useless to attempt to dwarf this movement of the South by the nameof treason. Call it by what name you will, it is a revolution, andthis is a right which the people of this country have derived incommon from their ancestors. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I now move that we proceed to take the vote, and proposeto take it upon the first section of the report of the majority. 

Mr. ELLIS:--I move so to amend the rule that when the report is takenup each section and each distinct proposition shall be voted onseparately. 

The PRESIDENT:--I think this motion is out of order, and the questionwill be taken on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky for theadoption of the first section, which the Secretary will now read. 

 SECTION 1. In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, 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 servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide. 

The question on agreeing to said section resulted as follows--Indianadeclining to vote:

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--8. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--11. 

And the section was not agreed to. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the votes of their respectiveStates: Mr. RUFFIN and Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina; Mr. TOTTEN, ofTennessee; Mr. COALTER and Mr. HOUGH, of Missouri; Mr. BRONSON, Mr. CORNING, Mr. DODGE, Mr. WOOL, and Mr. GRANGER, of New York; Mr. MEREDITH and Mr. WILMOT, of Pennsylvania; Mr. RIVES and Mr. SUMMERS, of Virginia; Mr. CLAY and Mr. BUTLER, of Kentucky; and Mr. LOGAN, ofIllinois. 

The vote was taken in the midst of much partially suppressedexcitement, and the announcement of the vote of different Statesoccasioned many sharp remarks of dissent or approval. After the votewas announced, for some minutes no motion was made, and the delegatesengaged in an informal conversation. 

Mr. TURNER finally moved a reconsideration of the vote. 

Mr. GRANGER:--To say that I am disappointed by the result of thisvote, would fail to do justice to my feelings. I move that theConference adjourn until half-past seven o'clock this evening. I thinkit well for those gentlemen from the slave States especially, who haveby their votes defeated the compromise we have labored so long and soearnestly to secure, to take a little time for consideration. Gentlemen we have yielded much to your fears, much to yourapprehensions; we have gone to the very verge of propriety in givingour assent to the committee's report. We have incurred the censure ofsome of our own people, but we were willing to take the risk of allthis censure in order to allay your apprehensions. We expected you tomeet us in the path of compromise. Instead of that you reject andspurn our propositions. Take time, gentlemen, for reflection. Bewarehow you spurn this report, and incur the awful responsibility whichwill follow. Reject it, and if the country is plunged in war, and theUnion endangered, you are the men who will be held responsible. 

Mr. President, I have been deeply pained at the manner in which somegentlemen have here spoken of the possible dissolution of thisGovernment. When, perchance, the rude hand of violence shall here haveseized upon the muniments and archives of our country's history; whenall the monuments of art that time and treasure may here havegathered, shall be destroyed; when these proud domes shall totter totheir fall, and the rank grass wave around their mouldering columns;when the very name of WASHINGTON, instead of stirring the blood topatriotic action, shall be a byeword and a reproach--then will thispeople feel what was the value of the Union!

The motion to reconsider was then adopted by a vote of 14 ayes to 5noes, and the Conference adjourned to seven o'clock and thirty minutesthis evening. 

 * * * * *

EVENING SESSION--EIGHTEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, _February 26th, 1861. _

The Conference was called to order pursuant to adjournment by thePresident. 

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I hope after some of the informal consultations whichhave been held since the adjournment of the Conference this afternoon, that we may yet be able to bring our minds together, and to adopt thepropositions recommended by the committee. It is, however, certainthat the vote had better not be taken this evening. I therefore movean adjournment until ten o'clock to-morrow morning. 

The motion to adjourn was agreed to; ayes 17, noes 3, and theConference adjourned. 

NINETEENTH DAY. 

WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, _February 27th, 1861. _

The Conference assembled pursuant to adjournment, and was called toorder by President TYLER. Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. GURLEY. 

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the considerationof the order of the day, the proposals of amendment to theConstitution reported by the majority of the committee. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I suppose, under the rules which the Conference hasadopted, discussion of these proposals is no longer in order. I hopenow the Conference will proceed to the vote. The opinions of eachdelegation are undoubtedly fixed, and cannot be changed by fartherargument. 

I move you, sir, the adoption of the first section of the report asamended, which I ask to have read by the Secretary. 

The section was read by the Secretary, as follows:

 SECTION 1. In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, 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 servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide. 

The vote upon said section resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--8. 

So the section was adopted. 

The vote of New York being called, Mr. KING, temporary Chairman of thedelegation, said:

The question arises concerning the vote of New York. Mr. FIELD, one ofthe delegates from this State, is necessarily absent from theConference, having left to attend to the argument of a cause in theSupreme Court noted for argument this morning. It is hisunderstanding, and with him that of a majority of the delegation, thatthe vote of New York is to be cast against this section, and the wholereport. Under these circumstances I propose to give the vote of NewYork as it would be given if Mr. FIELD was present. 

Mr. CORNING:--I object to this. The vote of that State should be givenas the majority of the commissioners present decide. And I think thisis a matter for the delegation, and that the Conference has nothing todo with it. 

The PRESIDENT:--An absent member cannot participate in the control ofa vote except by general leave of the Convention. 

Mr. KING:--If Mr. FIELD is not to be taken into the account, the voteof New York upon this section is divided. [8]

[Footnote 8: I have not heretofore expressed my own opinions upon theaction of the Conference or of delegations; but as much has been saidabout the vote given by New York, or rather the division of thedelegation, under which no vote was given, it is due to the partiesconcerned that I should state my own understanding of the practice ofthe Conference in this respect. After the rejection of the motion ofMr. CHASE (found on page 209), and the adoption of the proposition ofMr. DENT, so far as my own knowledge goes it was never deemednecessary that the entire delegation from a State should be present inorder to cast its vote. I was present all the time, and frequentlycast the vote of my own State upon previous consultation with mycolleagues, when a majority of the delegation was absent. This wasfrequently done, to my personal knowledge, by other States: by nonemore frequently than Virginia. During several of the sessions thePresident himself was absent, and the chair was filled for the greaterpart of the time by Mr. ALEXANDER, or Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky. I canrecall to mind several occasions when the vote of Virginia was cast byMr. SEDDON alone, no other member of his delegation being present. When the question arose upon the vote of New York, I was surprisedthat this point was not insisted upon; but deeming it a matterexclusively for the delegation from that State to settle, I did notthink the case one in which others should interfere. L. E. C. ]

Mr. EWING:--The vote of Kansas is also divided. 

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The vote of Indiana is divided. The commissioners ofIndiana were appointed by virtue of resolutions passed by theLegislature of that State, which require them to report to theLegislature any proposition before voting for it finally, so as tocommit the State either for or against it. It is impossible, under thecircumstances, to submit this proposition of amendment to theLegislature of Indiana for approval or rejection. Indiana, therefore, declines to vote. 

Mr. SLAUGHTER:--As the delegation from Indiana declines to cast itsvote, I desire to have my individual vote entered in the affirmativeupon this section. 

Mr. ELLIS:--For the same reason I desire to have my vote entered inthe negative. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their respectiveStates: Mr. CLAY and Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky; Mr. RUFFIN and Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina; Mr. MEREDITH and Mr. WILMOT, ofPennsylvania; Mr. TOTTEN, of Tennessee; Mr. COOK, of Illinois; Mr. RIVES and Mr. SUMMERS, of Virginia; and Mr. CHASE and Mr. WOLCOTT, ofOhio. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move the adoption of the second section of the reportas amended, and ask that it may be read. 

The Secretary read it as follows:

 SECTION 2. No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty. 

The vote on the adoption of section two was taken, and resulted asfollows:

 AYES. --Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Vermont--8. 

New York and Kansas were divided. 

So the section was adopted. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their States: Mr. MEREDITH and Mr. WILMOT, of Pennsylvania; Mr. RUFFIN and Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina; Mr TYLER, of Virginia; Mr. CLAY, of Kentucky; andMr. HACKLEMAN and Mr. ORTH, of Indiana. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I now move the adoption of the third section of thereport as amended, and request that it may be read. 

The Secretary proceeded to read as follows:

 SECTION 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining and taking away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof, where it is established or recognized by law or usage; and the right during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic, against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to labor or service than on land. 

 The bringing into the District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as merchandise, is prohibited. 

The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the followingvote:

 AYES. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--12. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont--7. 

New York and Kansas were divided. 

So the section was adopted. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their States: Mr. CLAY, of Kentucky; Mr. COOK, of Illinois; Mr. SLAUGHTER, of Indiana;and Mr. CHASE, and Mr. WOLCOTT, of Ohio. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move the adoption of the fourth section of the reportas amended. 

And the Secretary read it as follows:

 SECTION 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due. 

The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the followingvote:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia--15. 

 NOES. --Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire--4. 

New York and Kansas were divided. 

And the section was adopted. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their respectiveStates: Mr. BALDWIN, of Connecticut; Mr. HACKLEMAN and Mr. ORTH, ofIndiana; and Mr. CHASE and Mr. WOLCOTT, of Ohio. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I now move the adoption of the fifth section of thereport as amended. 

It was read by the Secretary as follows:

 SECTION 5. The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor, into the United States and the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof. 

The vote on the adoption of this section resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas--16. 

 NOES. --Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Virginia--5. 

So this section was adopted. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their respectiveStates: Mr. BALDWIN, of Connecticut; Mr. CLAY, of Kentucky; Mr. RUFFINand Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina; Mr. WOLCOTT and Mr. CHASE, ofOhio; and Mr. HACKLEMAN and Mr. ORTH, of Indiana. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move the adoption of the sixth section of the reportas amended, and desire that the Secretary may read that also. 

The Secretary read as follows:

 SECTION 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section of these amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States. 

The vote on the adoption of this section stood as follows:

 AYES. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Kansas--11. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--9. 

The State of New York was divided. 

And this section was adopted. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their States:--Mr. RUFFIN and Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina; Mr. CHASE and Mr. WOLCOTT, of Ohio; Mr. COOK, of Illinois; and Mr. SUMMERS and Mr. RIVES, ofVirginia. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move the adoption of the seventh section of thereport, as amended. 

The Secretary read as follows:

 SECTION 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. 

The vote on the adoption of this section was as follows:

 AYES. --Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Kansas--12. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Missouri, North Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia--7. 

The vote of New York was divided. 

So this last section was also adopted. 

The following gentlemen dissented from the vote of their respectiveStates:--Mr. RUFFIN and Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina; Mr. TOTTEN ofTennessee; Mr. HACKLEMAN and Mr. ORTH, of Indiana; and Mr. CHASE andMr. WOLCOTT, of Ohio. 

Mr. CHASE:--The sections which have been adopted severally, as a wholemay not be acceptable to a majority of the Conference. They have beenadopted by different votes and different majorities. I think a voteshould be taken upon them collectively, in order that we may knowwhether, as a single proposition, they meet the approbation of theConference. I move that a vote be taken upon the several sections as awhole. 

The PRESIDENT:--It is the opinion of the Chair that this motion is notin order. Each section, when once approved by a majority of votes, stands as the order of the Conference. These sections have beenseverally taken up, amended, and adopted, and no further vote isnecessary or proper, except by way of reconsideration. 

Mr. CHASE:--I think the motion an important one, and with alldeference, appeal from the decision of the Chair to the Conference. 

The PRESIDENT:--The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair standas the order of the Conference?

Mr. CHASE:--As I have no wish except to secure a fair vote, and theopinion of the Chair may be technically correct, I will withdraw myappeal. 

Mr. FRANKLIN:--Having adopted the report of the committee, I think nowthere should be an expression of the Conference upon the question ofsecession. I therefore move the adoption of the following resolution:

 _Resolved_, As the sense of this Convention, that the highest political duty of every citizen of the United States is his allegiance to the Federal Government created by the Constitution of the United States, and that no State of this Union has any constitutional right to secede therefrom, or to absolve the citizens of such State from their allegiance to the Government of the United States. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--I move to lay that resolution on the table. This is aConvention to propose amendments to the Constitution, not to makecommentaries upon that instrument. 

Mr. CLEVELAND:--I ask a vote by States. 

The question was taken by States, and resulted as follows:

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia--9. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Kansas--12. 

And the Convention refused to lay the resolution upon the table. 

Mr. COALTER:--I offer the following amendment: strike out all afterthe word resolve, and insert as follows:

 "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 amendment of Mr. COALTER was rejected by a _viva voce_ vote. 

Mr. SEDDON:--I now move to amend by striking out all after the word"resolved" in Mr. FRANKLIN'S resolution, and insert a series ofamendments hitherto proposed by myself, as follows:

 To secure concert and promote harmony between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding sections of the Union, the assent of the majority of the Senators from the slaveholding States, and of the majority of the Senators from the non-slaveholding States, shall be requisite to the validity of all action of the Senate, on which the ayes and noes may be called by five Senators. 

 And on a written declaration, signed and presented for record on the Journal of the Senate by a majority of the Senators from either the non-slaveholding or slaveholding States, of their want of confidence in any officer or appointee of the Executive, exercising functions exclusively or continuously within the class of States, or any of them, which the signers represent, then such officer shall be removed by the Executive; and if not removed at the expiration of ten days from the presentation of such declaration, the office shall be deemed vacant, and open to new appointment. 

 The connection of every State with the Union is recognized as depending on the continuing assent of its people, and compulsion shall in no case, nor under any form, be attempted by the Government of the Union against a State acting in its collective or organic capacity. Any State, by the action of a convention of its people, assembled pursuant to a law of its legislature, is held entitled to dissolve its relation to the Federal Government, and withdraw from the Union; and, on due notice given of such withdrawal to the Executive of the Union, he shall appoint two commissioners, to meet two commissioners to be appointed by the Governor of the State, who, with the aid, if needed from the disagreement of the commissioners, of an umpire, to be selected by a majority of them, shall equitably adjudicate and determine finally a partition of the rights and obligations of the withdrawing State; and such adjudication and partition being accomplished, the withdrawal of such State shall be recognized by the Executive, and announced by public proclamation to the world. 

 But such withdrawing State shall not afterwards be readmitted into the Union without the assent of two-thirds of the States constituting the Union at the time of the proposed readmission. 

I desire to get these amendments on the Journal. It is my duty tooffer them, and I wish the Journal to show that I have performed thatduty. 

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I then move to lay the amendment on the table, and togive the gentleman leave to have it inserted in the Journal. That willaccomplish his purpose. 

The question was taken on the motion to lay the amendment on thetable, and resulted in an affirmative vote. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--I regard the mission of this Convention as now performed, and I hope we shall take up no new questions, which can only distractand divide us. I therefore move to postpone the consideration of thisresolution indefinitely. 

The question was taken on Mr. RUFFIN'S motion, with the followingresult:--

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania--7. 

The vote of New York was divided. 

Messrs. DUNCAN and AMES dissented from the vote of Rhode Island. 

Mr. GUTHRIE:--It will be necessary that this proposition be presentedto Congress in an authentic form, and I suppose it will not benecessary for the Convention to continue its sessions until thispresentation is made. I therefore offer the following preamble:

 TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

 The Convention assembled upon the invitation of the State of Virginia to adjust the unhappy differences which now disturb the peace of the Union and threaten its continuance, make known to the Congress of the United States that their body convened in the city of Washington on the 4th instant, and continued in session until the 27th. 

 There were in the body, when action was taken upon that which is here submitted, one hundred and thirty-three commissioners, representing the following States: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas. 

 They have approved what is herewith submitted, and respectfully request that your honorable body will submit it to conventions in the States as an article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move the adoption of the preamble, and that the same, with the propositions already adopted, be authenticated by the presentSecretary, and that all be presented by the President of thisConvention to the Senate and House of Representatives, with arespectful request for their passage. 

This motion was agreed to. 

Mr. BARRINGER:--As the labors of the Convention are now closed, Ipresume there is no occasion for continuing the injunction of secrecy. As notes of the proceedings have been taken with a view, I presume, topublication, I now move that the injunction of secrecy againstspeaking of the action of the Convention, or the publication of itsproceedings, be removed. 

The motion of Mr. BARRINGER was agreed to by a _viva voce_ vote. 

Mr. JOHNSON:--I desire here to have printed in the Journal thefollowing resolution. 

Leave was granted to Mr. JOHNSON as requested, and his resolution wasas follows:

 _Resolved_, That while the adoption, by the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, of ordinances declaring the dissolution of their relation with the Union, is an event deeply to be deplored; and while abstaining from any judgment on their conduct, we would express the earnest hope that they may soon see cause to resume their honored places in this Confederacy of States; yet to the end that such return may be facilitated, and from the conviction that the Union being formed by the assent of the people of the respective States, and being compatible only with freedom, and the republican institutions guaranteed to each, cannot and ought not to be maintained by force, we deprecate any effort by the Federal Government to coerce in any form the said States to reunion or submission, as tending to irreparable breach, and leading to incalculable ills; and we earnestly invoke the abstinence from all counsels or measures of compulsion toward them. 

Mr. POLLOCK:--The Committee on Finance have made an examination of theexpenses which have been incurred for printing, stationery, &c. , bythe Conference. It has been, already stated that the expense ofprinting the Journal is met by the city of Washington. The additionalexpense incurred amounts to $735. If this is equally apportioned amongthe States represented it will amount to $35 each. It is for theConference to decide in what manner the assessment shall be made. 

Mr. BROWNE:--I offer the following resolution:

 _Resolved_, That the report of the committee be received and accepted; that the committee be continued, and requested to make the necessary disbursements; and that the States now pay over the sum assessed to the chairman. 

And the resolution was unanimously adopted. 

Mr. LOOMIS:--I take great pleasure in presenting to the Conference thefollowing letter, which has been addressed by the proprietors of thehall to the Secretary. I ask that the letter may be read, and I alsooffer the following resolution. 

The letter was read, as follows:

 CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, ESQ. , _Secretary Conference Convention_:

 SIR:--Please inform the Convention that we have tendered, free of charge, the use of our Hall and lights, which they have occupied. We hope the use may be sanctified by restoring peace to the Union. 

 We are, respectfully, &c. , J. C. & H. A. WILLARD. 

 _February 23d, 1861. _

And the resolution, which was unanimously adopted, was as follows:

 _Resolved_, That the thanks of this Convention are justly due, and are hereby given, to the Messrs. Willard, for the liberal and generous tender, free of charge, of the use of the Hall and the lights, for the purposes expressed in their letter to the Secretary; and that the Secretary be requested to communicate to them a copy of this resolution. 

Mr. DODGE offered the following resolution, and that, too, wasunanimously agreed to:

 _Resolved_, That the thanks of this Convention are justly due and hereby given to the Mayor and Council of the city of Washington, for their kindness and liberality to the members of this Convention, in defraying so large an amount of their expenses for printing and stationery, and also for the officers to protect this hall and the members from intrusion whilst in session, and that the Secretary be requested to communicate the same to said parties. 

On motion of Mr. RANDOLPH, the thanks of the Conference were tenderedto the clergymen of the city for their services during the Conference. 

The thanks of the Conference were also presented to the Secretary andhis assistants. 

Mr. EWING:--I move the adoption of the following:

 _Resolved_, That the thanks of this Convention be tendered to the President, for the dignified and impartial manner in which he has presided over the deliberations of this body. 

The resolution being seconded by Mr. HACKLEMAN, it was unanimouslyadopted; whereupon President TYLER addressed the Conference asfollows:

"GENTLEMEN OF THE CONFERENCE:

"The labors of this Convention are drawing to a close. Before weseparate never in this world to meet again, I am much pleased that theresolution you have just adopted gives me an opportunity of uttering afew words of congratulation and farewell. 

"We came together at a most important and critical time. One of theoldest members of the American Union, a commonwealth which hadcontributed its full share to the honor and glory of thenation--having as great interests at stake as any other member of thesisterhood of States--summoned you here to consider new additions toour Constitution, which the experience of near three-quarters of acentury had taught us were required. I expected from the first thatyou would approach the consideration of the new and importantquestions which must arise here, with that patriotism and intelligencewhich belongs to the descendants of the patriots of the Revolution andthe statesmen of the Convention of 1787. I have not been disappointed. In the whole course of a public life, much longer than usually fallsto the lot of man, I have been associated with many bodies of myfellow-citizens, convened for legislative or other purposes, but Ihere declare that it has never been my good fortune to meet with anassociation of more intelligent, thoughtful, or patriotic men, thanthat over which I have been here called to preside. I cannot but hopeand believe that the blessing of GOD will follow and rest upon theresult of your labors, and that such result will bring to our countrythat quiet and peace which every patriotic heart so earnestly desires. I thank you most sincerely for that kindness and partiality on yourpart which induced you to call me to the honorable position of yourpresiding officer, and for the courtesy so uniformly extended in thedischarge of the responsible duties of that position. 

"Gentlemen, farewell! I go to finish the work you have assigned me, ofpresenting your recommendations to the two Houses of Congress, and toask those bodies to lay your proposals of amendment before the peopleof the American Union. Although these proposals are not in allrespects what I could have desired--although I should have preferredthe adoption of those recommended by the Legislature of Virginia, because I know they would have been acceptable to my own constituents, still it is my duty to give them my official approval and support. Itis not to be expected that entire unanimity of opinion should existamong the representatives of so large a population, and so manydiversified interests, as now comprise the Republic of the UnitedStates. It is probable that the result to which you have arrived isthe best that under all the circumstances could be expected. So far asin me lies, therefore, I shall recommend its adoption. 

"May you have a happy and safe return to your constituents and yourfamilies! May you all inculcate among your people a spirit of mutualforbearance and concession; and may GOD protect our country and theUnion of these States, which was committed to us as the blood-boughtlegacy of our heroic ancestors!"

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I move that the Convention do now adjourn, its laborshaving come to an end; and I would suggest that the delegates meetinformally and take leave of each other at three o'clock thisafternoon. 

Mr. BROWNE moved that the Conference adjourn without day, and hismotion was adopted by the following vote:

 AYES. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont--9. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania--5. 

And the Conference adjourned without day. 

APPENDIX. 

No. I. 

Before the final vote was taken upon the proposals of amendment to theConstitution of the United States, reported by the General Committeeof which Mr. GUTHRIE was Chairman, and the votes upon the varioussubstitutes offered for such proposals, there were _twenty-one_ Statesrepresented in the Conference. 

Maine and Iowa were represented by their respective Congressionaldelegations; Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, andMissouri, by delegates appointed by their respective Legislatures, under joint resolutions which are here inserted; New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Indiana, and Kansas, by delegates appointed by their respective Governors. 

The resolutions of Virginia originated the call for the Conference. 

Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Oregon were notrepresented. South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas had passed ordinances of secession previous to themeeting of the Conference. Messrs. BENJAMIN and SLIDELL, the Senatorsfrom Louisiana, withdrew from the Senate of the United States beforethe proposed amendments to the Constitution were reported to theConference. 

The following resolutions of their respective States were presented bythe delegates to the Committee on Credentials, and were ordered by theConference to be printed, on the motion of Mr. CHASE. [9]

[Footnote 9: See page 64, Proceedings of the Conference. ]

TENNESSEE. 

RESOLUTIONS _proposing amendments to the Constitution of the UnitedStates. _

_Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee_, That aConvention of delegates from all the slaveholding States shouldassemble at Nashville, Tennessee, or such other place as a majority ofthe States coöperating may designate, on the fourth day of February, 1861, to digest and define a basis upon which, if possible, theFederal Union and the constitutional rights of the slave States may beperpetuated and preserved. 

_Resolved_, That the General Assembly of the State of Tennesseeappoint a number of delegates to said Convention, of our ablest andwisest men, equal to our whole delegation in Congress; and that theGovernor of Tennessee immediately furnish copies of these resolutionsto the Governors of the slaveholding States, and urge theparticipation of such States in said Convention. 

_Resolved_, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, such plan ofadjustment should embrace the following propositions as amendments tothe Constitution of the United States:

1. A declaratory amendment that African slaves, as held under theinstitutions of the slaveholding States, shall be recognized asproperty, and entitled to the _status_ of other property, in theStates where slavery exists, in all places within the exclusivejurisdiction of Congress in the slave States, in all the Territoriessouth of 36° 30´; in the District of Columbia; in transit; and whilsttemporarily sojourning with the owner in the non-slaveholding Statesand Territories north of 36° 30´, and when fugitives from the owner, in the several places above named, as well as in all places in theexclusive jurisdiction of Congress in the non-slaveholding States. 

2. That all the territory now owned, or which may be hereafteracquired by the United States south of the parallel of 36° 30´;African slavery shall be recognized as existing, and be protected byall the departments of the Federal and Territorial Governments, and inall north of that line, now owned, or to be acquired, it shall not berecognized as existing; and whenever States formed out of any of saidterritory south of said line, having a population equal to that of acongressional district, shall apply for admission into the Union, thesame shall be admitted as slave States, whilst States north of theline, formed out of said territory, and having a population equal to aCongressional district, shall be admitted without slavery; but theStates formed out of said territory north and south having beenadmitted as members of the Union, shall have all the powers over theinstitution of slavery possessed by the other States of the Union. 

3. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under itsexclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States thatpermit the holding of slaves. 

4. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the Districtof Columbia, as long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginiaand Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation made to such owners of slaves as do notconsent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibitthe officers of the Federal Government or members of Congress whoseduties require them to be in said District, from bringing with themtheir slaves, and holding them as such, during the time their dutiesmay require them to remain there, and afterwards take them from theDistrict. 

5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder thetransportation of slaves from one State to another, or the Territoryin which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether thattransportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by seas. 

6. In addition to the fugitive slave clause, provide that when a slavehas been demanded of the Executive authority of the State to which hehas fled, if he is not delivered, and the owner permitted to carry himout of the State in peace, the State so failing to deliver, shall payto the owner the value of such slave, and such damages as he may havesustained in attempting to reclaim his slave, and secure his right ofaction in the Supreme Court of the United States, with executionagainst the property of such State and the individuals thereof. 

7. No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the sixpreceding articles, nor the third paragraph of the second section ofthe first article of the Constitution, nor the third paragraph of thesecond section of the fourth article of the Constitution; and noamendments shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize orgive to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in anyof the States by whose laws it is, or may be allowed or permitted. 

8. That slave property shall be rendered secure in transit through, orwhilst temporarily sojourning in, non-slaveholding States orTerritories, or in the District of Columbia. 

9. An amendment to the effect that all fugitives are to be deemedthose offending the laws within the jurisdiction of the State, and whoescape therefrom to other States; and that it is the duty of eachState to suppress armed invasion of another State. 

_Resolved_, That said Convention of the slaveholding States havingagreed upon a basis of adjustment satisfactory to themselves, should, in the opinion of this General Assembly, refer it to a Convention ofall the States, slaveholding and non-slaveholding, in the mannerfollowing:

It should invite all States friendly to such plan of adjustment, toelect delegates in such manner as to reflect the popular will, toassemble in a Constitutional Convention of all the States North andSouth, to be held at Richmond, Virginia, on the ---- day of February, 1861, to revise and perfect such plan of adjustment, for its referencefor final ratification and adoption by a Convention of the Statesrespectively. 

_Resolved_, That should a plan of adjustment, satisfactory to theSouth, not be acceded to by a requisite number of States to perfectamendments to the Constitution of the United States, it is the opinionof this General Assembly that the slaveholding States should adopt forthemselves the Constitution of the United States, with suchamendments as may be satisfactory to the slaveholding States, and thatthey should invite into the Union with them all States of the Northwhich are willing to abide such amended Constitution and frame ofGovernment, severing at once all connections with States refusing suchreasonable guarantees to our future safety; such renewed conditions ofFederal Union being first submitted for ratification to Convention ofall the States respectively. 

_Resolved_, That the Governor of the State of Tennessee furnish copiesof these resolutions immediately to the Governors of thenon-slaveholding States. 

OHIO. 

JOINT RESOLUTIONS _of the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, relative to the appointment of Commissioners to the Convention to meetin Washington on the 4th of February, proximo. Passed, January 30, 1861. _

WHEREAS, The Commonwealth of Virginia has appointed five Commissionersto meet in the City of Washington on the fourth day of February next, with similar Commissioners from other States, and after full and freeconference to agree, if practicable, upon some adjustment of theunhappy difficulties now dividing our country, which may be alikesatisfactory and honorable to the States concerned; therefore be it

_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio_, That theGovernor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, be and heis hereby authorized and empowered to appoint five Commissioners torepresent the State of Ohio in said Conference. 

_Resolved_, That while we are not prepared to assent to the terms ofsettlement proposed by Virginia, and are fully satisfied that theConstitution of the United States as it is, if fairly interpreted andobeyed by all sections of our country, contains ample provisionswithin itself for the correction of all evils complained, yet adisposition to reciprocate the patriotic spirit of a sister State, anda sincere desire to have harmoniously adjusted all differences betweenus, induce us to favor the appointment of the Commission as requested. 

_Resolved_, That the Governor be requested to transmit without delay acopy of these Resolutions to each of the Commissioners to be appointedas aforesaid, to the end that they may repair to the City ofWashington, on the day hereinbefore named, to meet such Commissionersas may be appointed by any of the States in accordance with theaforesaid propositions of Virginia. 

_Resolved_, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, it will bewise and expedient to adjourn the proposed Convention to a later day, and that the Commissioners to be appointed as aforesaid, are requestedto use their influence in procuring an adjournment to the fourth dayof April next. 

KENTUCKY. 

RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners to attend a Conference atWashington City, February 4th, in accordance with the invitation ofthe Virginia Legislature. _

WHEREAS, The General Assembly of Virginia, with a view to make aneffort to preserve the Union and the Constitution in the spirit inwhich they were established by the Fathers of the Republic, have, byresolution, invited all the States who are willing to unite with herin an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies, toappoint Commissioners to meet on the 4th of February next, toconsider, and if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment--

_Resolved_, That we heartily accept the invitation of our Old MotherVirginia, and that the following six Commissioners, viz. : Wm. O. Butler, James B. Clay, Joshua F. Bell, C. S. Morehead, James Guthrie, and Chas. A. Wickliffe, be appointed to represent the State ofKentucky in the contemplated Convention, whose duty it shall be torepair to the City of Washington, on the day designated, to meet suchCommissioners as may be appointed by any of the States in accordancewith the foregoing invitation. 

_Resolved_, That if said Commissioners shall agree upon any plan ofadjustment requiring amendments to the Federal Constitution, they berequested to communicate the proposed amendments to Congress, for thepurpose of having the same submitted by that body, according to theforms of the Constitution, to the several States for ratification. 

_Resolved_, That if said Commissioners cannot agree on an adjustment, or if agreeing, Congress shall refuse to submit for ratification suchamendments as they may propose, the Commissioners of this State shallimmediately communicate the result to the Executive of thisCommonwealth, to be by him laid before this General Assembly. 

_Resolved_, That in the opinion of the General Assembly of Kentucky, the propositions embraced in the resolutions presented to the Senateof the United States by the Hon. JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, so construed, that the first article proposed as an amendment to the Constitution ofthe United States shall apply to all the territory of the UnitedStates now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36° 30´, andprovide that slavery of the African race shall be effectuallyprotected as property therein during the continuance of theTerritorial Government; and the fourth article shall secure to theowners of slaves the right of transit with their slaves between andthrough the non-slaveholding States and Territories, constitute thebasis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which nowdivides the States of this Confederacy, as would be acceptable to thepeople of this Commonwealth. 

_Resolved_, That the Governor be, and he is hereby requested tocommunicate information of the foregoing appointment to theCommissioners above named, at as early a day as practicable, and thathe also communicate copies of the foregoing resolutions to theExecutive of the respective States. 

INDIANA. 

A JOINT RESOLUTION _authorizing the Governor to appoint Commissionersto meet those sent by other States in Convention on the state of theUnion. _

WHEREAS, The State of Virginia has transmitted to this Stateresolutions adopted by her General Assembly, inviting all such Statesas are willing to unite with her in an earnest effort to adjust theunhappy controversies, in the spirit in which the Constitution wasoriginally formed, to send Commissioners to meet those appointed bythat State in Convention, to be held in the City of Washington, on thefourth day of February next, to consider, and if possible, to agreeupon some suitable adjustment. 

And whereas, some of the States to which invitations were extended bythe State of Virginia have already responded and appointed theirCommissioners; therefore, _Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana_, That weaccept the invitation of the State of Virginia, in the true spirit offraternal feeling, and that the Governor of the State is herebydirected and empowered to appoint five Commissioners to meet theCommissioners appointed by our sister States, to consult upon theunhappy differences now dividing the country; but the saidCommissioners shall take no action that will commit this State until_nineteen_ of the States are represented, nor without first havingcommunicated with this General Assembly in regard to such action, andhaving received the authority of the same so to commit the State. 

_Resolved_, That while we are not prepared to assent to the terms ofsettlement proposed by the State of Virginia, and are fully satisfiedthat the Constitution, if fairly interpreted and obeyed, containsample provisions within itself for the correction of the evilscomplained of; still, with a disposition to reciprocate the patrioticdesire of the State of Virginia, and to have harmoniously adjusted alldifferences existing between the States of the Union, this GeneralAssembly is induced to respond to the invitation of Virginia, by theappointment of the Commissioners herein provided for; but as the timefixed for the Convention to assemble is so near at hand that theStates cannot all be represented, it is expected that theCommissioners on behalf of this State will insist that the Conventionadjourn until such time as the States shall have an opportunity ofbeing represented. 

_Resolved_, That his Excellency, the Governor, be requested totransmit copies of these resolutions to the Executives of each of theStates of the Union. 

DELAWARE. 

JOINT RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners. _

WHEREAS, The State of Virginia has recommended the holding of aConvention of Delegates from all the States of the Union, at the Cityof Washington, on the fourth day of February next, for the purpose oftaking into consideration and perfecting some plan of adjusting thematters in controversy now so unhappily subsisting in the family ofStates, and has appointed five Commissioners to represent the peopleof that Commonwealth in said Convention; and

_Whereas_, the people of the State of Delaware regard the preservationof the Union as paramount to any political consideration, and arefixed in their determination that Delaware, the first to adopt theFederal Constitution, will be the last to do any act tending todestroy the integrity of the Union; therefore, _Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of theState of Delaware in General Assembly met_, That the Hon. George B. Rodney, Daniel M. Bates, Esq. , Dr. Henry Ridgely, Hon. John W. Houston, and William Cannon, Esq. , be, and they are hereby appointedCommissioners, on behalf of the State of Delaware, to represent thepeople of said State in the Convention to be held at Washington, onthe fourth day of February next. 

_Resolved_, That in the opinion of this General Assembly, the peopleof Delaware are thoroughly devoted to the perpetuity of the Union, andthat the Commissioners appointed by the foregoing resolution areexpected to emulate the example set by the immortal patriots whoframed the Federal Constitution, by sacrificing all minorconsiderations upon the altar of the Union. 

_Resolved, further_, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary ofState to furnish a copy of the above preamble and resolutions to eachof the Commissioners herein and hereby appointed, duly attested underthe great seal of the State. 

_Resolved, further_, That immediately upon the adoption of theforegoing preamble and resolutions, it shall be the duty of the Clerkof the House to transmit to the Secretary of State a copy thereof, certified by him; and when the Secretary of State shall have receivedsaid copy so certified, it shall be evidence that said preamble andresolutions were duly adopted by this General Assembly. 

ILLINOIS. 

WHEREAS, resolutions of the State of Virginia have been communicatedto the General Assembly of this State, proposing the appointment ofCommissioners by the several States to meet in Convention, on thefourth day of February, A. D. 1861, at Washington. 

_Resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurringherein_, That with the earnest desire for the return of harmony andkind relations among all our sister States, and out of respect to theCommonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of this State be requested toappoint five Commissioners on the part of the State of Illinois, toconfer and consult with the Commissioners of other States who shallmeet at Washington: _Provided_, That said Commissioners shall at alltimes be subject to the control of the General Assembly of the Stateof Illinois. 

_Resolved_, That the appointment of Commissioners by the State ofIllinois, in response to the invitation of the State of Virginia, is_not_ an expression of opinion on the part of this State that anyamendment of the Federal Constitution is requisite to secure to thepeople of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the securityof their rights, nor an approval of the basis of settlement of ourdifficulties proposed by the State of Virginia, but it is anexpression of our willingness to unite with the State of Virginia inan earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies in thespirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, andconsistently with its principles. 

_Resolved_, That while we are willing to appoint Commissioners to meetin convention with those of other States for consultation upon matterswhich at present distract our harmony as a nation, we also insist thatthe appropriate and constitutional method of considering and actingupon the grievances complained of by our sister States, would be bythe call of a Convention for the amendment of the Constitution in themanner contemplated by the fifth article of that instrument; and ifthe States deeming themselves aggrieved, shall request Congress tocall such Convention, the Legislature of Illinois will and does concurin such call. 

NEW JERSEY. 

JOINT RESOLUTIONS _in relation to the Union of the States. _

WHEREAS, the people of New Jersey, conforming to the opinion of "theFather of his Country, " consider the unity of the Government, whichconstitutes the people of the United States one people, a main pillarin the edifice of their independence, the support of theirtranquillity at home and peace abroad, of their prosperity, and ofthat liberty which they so highly prize; and properly estimating theimmense value of their National Union to their individual happiness, they cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it asthe palladium of their political safety and prosperity; therefore, 1. _Be it resolved by the Senate and General Assembly of the State ofNew Jersey_, That it is the duty of every good citizen, in allsuitable and proper ways, to stand by and sustain the Union of theStates as transmitted to us by our fathers. 

2. _And be it resolved_, That the Government of the United States is aNational Government, and the Union it was designed to perfect is not amere compact or league; and that the Constitution was adopted in aspirit of mutual compromise and concession by the people of the UnitedStates, and can only be preserved by the constant recognition of thatspirit. 

3. _And be it resolved_, That however undoubted may be the right ofthe General Government to maintain its authority and enforce its lawsover all parts of the country, it is equally certain that forbearanceand compromise are indispensable at this crisis to the perpetuity ofthe Union, and that it is the dictate of reason, wisdom, andpatriotism, peacefully to adjust whatever differences exist betweenthe different sections of the country. 

4. _And be it resolved_, That the resolutions and propositionssubmitted to the Senate of the United States by the Honorable John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, for the compromise of the questions indispute between the people of the northern and of the southern States, or any other constitutional method that will permanently settle thequestion of slavery, will be acceptable to the people of the State ofNew Jersey, and the Senators and Representatives in Congress from NewJersey be requested and earnestly urged to support those resolutionsand propositions. 

5. _And be it resolved_, That as the Union of the States is inimminent danger unless the remedies before suggested be speedilyadopted, then, as a last resort, the State of New Jersey hereby makesapplication, according to the terms of the Constitution, of theCongress of the United States, to call a Convention (of the UnitedStates) to propose amendments to said Constitution. 

6. _And be it resolved_, That such of the States as have in force lawswhich interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens of theother States, either in regard to their persons or property, or whichmilitate against the just construction of that part of theConstitution that provides that "the citizens of each State shall beentitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in theseveral States, " are earnestly urged and requested, for the sake ofpeace and the Union, to repeal all such laws. 

7. _And be it resolved_, That his Excellency Charles S. Olden, PeterD. Vroom, Robert F. Stockton, Benjamin Williamson, Joseph F. Randolph, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Rodman M. Price, William O. Alexander, andThomas J. Stryker, be appointed Commissioners to confer with Congressand our sister States, and urge upon them the importance of carryinginto effect the principles and objects of the foregoing resolutions. 

8. _And be it resolved_, That the Commissioners above named, inaddition to their other powers, be authorized to meet with those nowor hereafter to be appointed by our sister State of Virginia, and suchCommissioners of other States as have been, or may be hereafterappointed, to meet at Washington on the fourth day of February next. 

9. _And be it resolved_, That copies of the foregoing resolutions besent to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives of the United States, and to the Senators andRepresentatives in Congress from New Jersey, and to the Governors ofthe several States. 

NEW YORK. 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners from this State tomeet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation ofVirginia. _

WHEREAS, the State of Virginia, by resolutions of her GeneralAssembly, passed the 19th instant, has invited such of theslaveholding and non-slaveholding States as are willing to unite withher, to meet at Washington, on the fourth of February next, toconsider, and, if practicable, agree on some suitable adjustment ofour national difficulties; and whereas, the people of New York, whilethey hold the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, asit is, contains all needful guarantees for the rights of the States, are nevertheless ready, at all times, to confer with their brethrenupon all alleged grievances; and to do all that can justly be requiredof them to allay discontent; therefore

_Resolved_, That David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. Wadsworth, James O. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, AddisonGardiner, Greene O. Bronson, William E. Dodge, Ex-Governor John A. King, and Major-General John E. Wool, be and are hereby appointedCommissioners, on the part of this State, to meet Commissioners fromother States, in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of Februarynext, or so soon thereafter as Commissioners shall be appointed by amajority of the States of the Union, to confer with them upon thecomplaints of any part of the country, and to suggest such remediestherefor as to them shall seem fit and proper; but the saidCommissioners shall at all times be subject to the control of thisLegislature, and shall cast five votes to be determined by a majorityof their number. 

_Resolved_, That in thus acceding to the request of Virginia, it isnot to be understood that this Legislature approves of thepropositions submitted by the General Assembly of that State, orconcedes the propriety of their adoption by the proposed Convention. But while adhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, NewYork will not reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringingtogether the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of anhonorable settlement of our national difficulties, and the restorationof peace and harmony to the country. 

_Resolved_, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of theforegoing resolutions to the Executive of the several States, and alsoto the President of the United States, and to inform the Commissionerswithout delay of their appointment. 

_Resolved_, That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to thehonorable the Senate, with a request that they concur therein. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

RESOLUTIONS _to appoint Commissioners to a Convention of the States. _

WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Virginia has invited ameeting of Commissioners from the several States of this Union, to beheld in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of February next, toconsider, and if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment ofthe unhappy differences which now disturb the business of the countryand threaten the dissolution of this Union:

_And whereas_, in the opinion of this Legislature, no reasonable causeexists for this extraordinary excitement which now pervades some ofthe States, in relation to their domestic institutions, and whilePennsylvania still adheres to, and cannot surrender the principleswhich she has always entertained on the subject of slavery, thisLegislature is willing to accept the invitation of Virginia, and unitewith her in an earnest effort to restore the peace of the country, bysuch means as may be consistent with the principles upon which theConstitution is founded; therefore, _Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania in General Assembly met_, That theinvitation of the Legislature of Virginia to her sister States, forthe appointment of Commissioners to meet in the City of Washington, onthe fourth of February next, be and the same is hereby accepted; andthat the Governor be, and he is hereby authorized to appoint sevenCommissioners for the State of Pennsylvania, whose duty it shall be torepair to the City of Washington on the day designated, to meet suchCommissioners as may be appointed by any other States which have notauthorized or sanctioned the seizure of the forts, arsenals, or otherproperty of the United States, to consider, and if possible, to agreeupon suitable measures for the prompt and final settlement of thedifficulties which now exist: _Provided_, That the said Commissionersshall be subject, in all their proceedings, to the instructions ofthis Legislature. 

_Resolved_, That in the opinion of this Legislature, the people ofPennsylvania do not desire any alteration or amendment of theConstitution of the United States, and any recommendation from thisbody to that effect, while it does not come within its appropriate andlegitimate duties, would not meet with their approval; thatPennsylvania will cordially unite with the other States of the Unionin the adoption of any proper constitutional measures adequate toguarantee and secure a more strict and faithful observance of thesecond section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the UnitedStates, which provides, among other things, that "the citizens of eachState shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizensof the several States, " and that no person held to service or labor inone State under the law thereof, escaping into another, shall inconsequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from suchservice or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the partyto whom such service or labor may be due. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

RESOLVE _for the appointment of Commissioners to attend a Conventionto be held in the City of Washington. _

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is desirous of a full andfree conference with the General Government, and with any or all ofthe other States of the Union, at any time and on every occasion whensuch conference may promote the welfare of the country; and whereas, questions of grave moment have arisen touching the powers of theGovernment and the relations between the different States of theUnion; and whereas, the State of Virginia has expressed a desire tomeet her sister States in Convention at Washington; therefore, _Resolved_, That the Governor of this Commonwealth, by and with theadvice and consent of the Council, be and he hereby is authorized toappoint seven persons as Commissioners, to proceed to Washington toconfer with the General Government, or with the separate States, orwith any association of delegates from such States, and to reporttheir doings to the Legislature at its present session; it beingexpressly declared that their acts shall be at all times under thecontrol, and subject to the approval or rejection of the Legislature. 

RHODE ISLAND. 

WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, on the19th day of January inst. , adopted resolutions inviting the sisterStates of this Union to appoint Commissioners to meet on the fourthday of February next, in the City of Washington, to consider thepracticability of agreeing on terms of adjustment of our presentnational troubles:

_Resolved_, That the Governor be, and he is hereby authorized toappoint five Commissioners, on the part of this State, to meet suchCommissioners as may be appointed by other States, in the City ofWashington, on the fourth day of February next, to consider and, ifpracticable, agree upon some amicable adjustment of the presentunhappy national difficulties, upon the basis and in the spirit of theConstitution of the United States. 

MISSOURI. 

JOINT RESOLUTION _to appoint Commissioners. _

_Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurringtherein_, That Waldo P. Johnson, John D. Coalter, A. W. Doniphan, Harrison Hough, and A. H. Buckner be appointed Commissioners on thepart of the State of Missouri, to meet Commissioners from Virginia, and other States, in Convention at Washington City, on the 4th ofFebruary, 1861, to endeavor to agree upon some plan of adjustment ofexisting difficulties, so as to preserve or to reconstruct the Unionof these States, and to secure the honor and equal rights of theslaveholding States. Said Commissioners shall always be under thecontrol of the General Assembly, except when the State Conventionshall be in session, during which time they shall be under the controlof the Convention. 

No. II. 

The following is a corrected list of the Delegates to the Conference, with their respective post office address. 

MAINE. --William P. Fessenden, _Biddeford_; Lot M. Morrill; Daniel E. Somes, _Biddeford_; John J. Perry, _Oxford_; Ezra B. French, _Damariscotta_; Freeman H. Morse, _Bath_; Stephen Coburn; Stephen C. Foster, _Pembroke_. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE. --Amos Tuck, _Exeter_; Levi Chamberlain; Asa Fowler, _Concord_. 

VERMONT. --Hiland Hall, _North Bennington_; Levi Underwood, _Burlington_; H. Henry Baxter, _Rutland_; L. E. Chittenden, _Burlington_; B. D. Harris, _Brattleboro'_. 

MASSACHUSETTS. --John Z. Goodrich, _Stockbridge_; Charles Allen, _Worcester_; George S. Boutwell, _Groton_; Theophilus P. Chandler, _Boston_; Francis B. Crowninshield, _Boston_; John M. Forbes, _Salem_;Richard P. Waters, _Salem_. 

RHODE ISLAND. --Samuel Ames, _Providence_; Alexander Duncan, _Providence_; William W. Hoppin, _Providence_; George H. Browne, _Providence_; Samuel G. Arnold, _Providence_. 

CONNECTICUT. --Roger S. Baldwin, _Windham_; Chauncey F. Cleveland;Charles J. McCurdy, _Lyme_; James T. Pratt; Robbins Battell; Amos S. Treat, _Bridgeport_. 

NEW YORK. --David Dudley Field, _New York_; William Curtis Noyes, _NewYork_; James S. Wadsworth, _Geneseo_; James C. Smith, _Canandaigua_;Amaziah B. James, _Ogdensburg_; Erastus Corning, _Albany_; FrancisGranger, _Canandaigua_; Greene C. Bronson, _New York_; William E. Dodge, _New York_; John A. King, _Jamaica_; John E. Wool, _Troy_. 

NEW JERSEY. --Charles S. Olden, _Princeton_; Peter D. Vroom, _Trenton_;Robert F. Stockton, _Princeton_; Benjamin Williamson, _Elizabeth_;Joseph F. Randolph, _Trenton_; Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, _Newark_;Rodman M. Price, _Harrison, Hudson Co. _; William C. Alexander, _P. O. , 92 Broadway, N. Y. _; Thomas J. Stryker, _Trenton_. 

PENNSYLVANIA. --James Pollock, _Milton_; William M. Meredith, _Philadelphia_; David Wilmot, _Towanda_; A. W. Loomis, _Pittsburg_;Thomas E. Franklin, _Lancaster_; William McKennan, _Washington_;Thomas White, _Indiana_. 

DELAWARE. --George B. Rodney, _Newcastle_; Daniel M. Bates, _Wilmington_; Henry Ridgely, _Dover_; John W. Houston, _Milford_;William Cannon, _Bridgeville_. 

MARYLAND. --John F. Dent, _Milestown_; Reverdy Johnson, _Baltimore_;John W. Crisfield, _Princess Ann_; Augustus W. Bradford, _Govanstown_;William T. Goldsborough, _Cambridge_; J. Dixon Roman, _Hagerstown_;Benjamin C. Howard, _Catonsville_. 

VIRGINIA. --John Tyler, _Sherwood Forest_; William C. Rives; John W. Brockenbrough, _Lexington_; George W. Summers, _Kanawha C. H. _; JamesA. Seddon, _Goochland_. 

NORTH CAROLINA. --George Davis, _Wilmington_; Thomas Ruffin, _Graham_;David S. Reid, _Pleasantville_; D. M. Barringer, _Raleigh_; J. M. Morehead, _Greenboro'_. 

TENNESSEE. --Samuel Milligan, _Greenville_; Josiah M. Anderson, _WalnutValley_; Robert L. Carruthers, _Lebanon_; Thomas Martin, _Pulaski_;Isaac R. Hawkins, _Huntington_; A. W. O. Totten, _Jackson_; R. J. McKinney, _Knoxville_; Alvin Cullom, _Livingston_; William P. Hickerson, _Manchester_; George W. Jones, _Fayetteville_; F. K. Zollicoffer, _Nashville_; William H. Stephens, _Jackson_. 

KENTUCKY. --William O. Butler, _Carrollton_; James B. Clay, _Ashland_;Joshua F. Bell, _Danville_; Charles S. Morehead, _Louisville_; JamesGuthrie, _Louisville_; Charles A. Wickliffe, _Bardstown_. 

MISSOURI. --John D. Coalter, _St. Louis_; Alexander W. Doniphan, _Liberty_; Waldo P. Johnson, _Osceola_; Aylett H. Buckner, _BowlingGreen_; Harrison Hough, _Charleston_. 

OHIO. --Salmon P. Chase, _Columbus_; William S. Groesbeck, _Cincinnati_; Franklin T. Backus, _Cleveland_; Reuben Hitchcock, _Cleveland_; Thomas Ewing, _Lancaster_; V. B. Horton, _Pomeroy_; C. P. Wolcott, _Akron_. 

INDIANA. --Caleb B. Smith, _Indianapolis_; Pleasant A. Hackleman, _Rushville_; Godlove S. Orth, _Lafayette_; E. W. H. Ellis, _Goshen_;Thomas C. Slaughter, _Corydon_. 

ILLINOIS. --John Wood, _Quincy_; Stephen T. Logan, _Springfield_; JohnM. Palmer, _Carlinville_; Burton C. Cook, _Ottowa_; Thomas J. Turner, _Freeport_. 

IOWA. --James Harlan, _Mt. Pleasant_; James W. Grimes, _Burlington_;Samuel H. Curtis, _Keokuk_; William Vandever, _Dubuque_. 

KANSAS. --Thomas Ewing, jr. , _Leavenworth_; J. C. Stone, _Leavenworth_;H. J. Adams, _Leavenworth_; M. F. Conway, _Lawrence_. 

No. III. 

In the United States Senate, February 27th, 1861, while the ArmyAppropriation bill was under consideration, proceedings relating tothe Peace Conference were opened as follows:

Mr. POWELL:--Is it in order to move to postpone this bill and take upanother?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair believes it is in order. 

Mr. POWELL:--I move to postpone the Army bill for the purpose oftaking up the resolutions to amend the Constitution proposed by mycolleague. For several weeks Senators have declined to make an effortto call up the propositions of my colleague, for the reason thatcertain Peace Commissioners were in session in this capital, convenedat the call of the State of Virginia. I am confident now that thatCommission, or Peace Congress, or Conference, or whatever you may callit, will not accomplish any thing. Indeed, certain facts have fallenunder my notice, that cause me to believe that it has been the fixedpurpose of certain Republicans that that Conference should notaccomplish any thing. I believe, sir, that certain commissioners fromStates of this Union have been brought into that Conference for thepurpose of preventing them from agreeing on any thing. I have thoughtthat for some time past. A friend sent to me yesterday the Detroit_Free Press_, containing two letters from the distinguished Senatorsfrom the State of Michigan to their Governor, which, I think, clearlyand fully establish the fact that the Republicans, a portion of themat least, instead of sending commissioners to that Conference with aview to inaugurate something that would compromise the difficulties bywhich we are surrounded, and save this country from ruin, haveabsolutely been engaged in the work of sending delegates there toprevent that commission from doing any thing. I send this paper to thedesk, and ask the Secretary to read these letters. 

The Secretary read as follows:

 WASHINGTON, _February 15th, 1861. _

 DEAR SIR: When Virginia proposed a Convention in Washington, in reference to the disturbed condition of the country, I regarded it as another effort to debauch the public mind, and a step toward obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power so insolently demands. I have no doubt at present but that was the design. I was therefore pleased that the Legislature of Michigan was not disposed to put herself in a position to be controlled by such influences. 

 The Convention has met here, and within a few days the aspect of things has materially changed. Every free State, I think, except Michigan and Wisconsin, is represented; and we have been assured by friends upon whom we can rely, that if those two States should send delegations of true, unflinching men, there would probably be a majority in favor of the Constitution as it is, who would frown down rebellion by the enforcement of laws. These friends have urged us to recommend the appointment of delegates from our State; and, in compliance with their request, Mr. CHANDLER and myself telegraphed to you last night. It cannot be doubted that the recommendations of this Convention will have a very considerable influence upon the public mind, and upon the action of Congress. 

 I have a great disinclination to any interference with what should properly be submitted to the wisdom and discretion of the Legislature, in which I place great reliance; but I hope I shall be pardoned for suggesting that it may be justifiable and proper, by any honorable means, to avert the lasting disgrace which will attach to a free people who, by the peaceful exercise of the ballot, have just released themselves from the tyranny of slavery, if they should now succumb to treasonable threats, and again submit to a degrading thraldom. If it should be deemed proper to send delegates, I think, if they could be here by the 20th, it would be in time. 

 I have the honor, with much respect, to be truly yours, K. S. BINGHAM. 

 To his Excellency Governor BLAIR. 

Mr. FESSENDEN:--I submit whether it is in order to go into adiscussion on this motion. If so, I suppose this must be regarded as apart of the speech. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair understood the discussion to be inorder. It was certainly not objected to at the time the Senatorcommenced. 

Mr. FESSENDEN:--It is not too late to raise the point. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The motion is to lay aside one bill and takeup other business; and the Chair understood the Senator from Kentuckyto be giving his reasons why he wished that to be done. 

Mr. FESSENDEN:--If it is in order, of course I cannot object to it;but I raise that question. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from Maine raises the questionwhether this debate is in order. 

Mr. POWELL:--There was no objection to my proceeding, and I suppose Ihave a right to go on. I wish the letters read as part of my speech. 

Mr. FESSENDEN:--There is no objection to reading them. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair has decided that the Senator fromKentucky is in order. 

Mr. POWELL:--I have not yielded, except for the purpose of readingthese letters. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Is an appeal taken from the decision of theChair?

Mr. FESSENDEN:--I take no appeal. 

The Secretary read as follows:

 WASHINGTON, _February 11th, 1861. _

 MY DEAR GOVERNOR: Governor BINGHAM and myself telegraphed you on Saturday, at the request of Massachusetts and New York, to send delegates to the Peace or Compromise Congress. They admit that we were right and that they were wrong; that no Republican State should have sent delegates; but they are here and cannot get away. Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois; and now they beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue, and save the Republican party from rupture. I hope you will send _stiff-backed_ men, or none. The whole thing was gotten up against my judgment and advice, and will end in thin smoke. Still, I hope as a matter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren, that you will send the delegates. 

 Truly your friend, Z. CHANDLER. 

 His Excellency AUSTIN BLAIR. 

 P. S. --Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight would be awful. Without a little blood-letting this Union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush. 

Mr. POWELL:--I think it evident from these letters, that there is, andhas been, a fixed purpose in certain quarters, that the PeaceConference should do nothing. Indeed, it seems, from the letter of theSenator from Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER], that while he opposed anyRepublican State going into this Conference, yet, as some of them werethere, and Indiana, and Illinois, and Ohio, and Rhode Island wereabout to cave in, on the advice of Massachusetts and New York he askedMichigan to come in and relieve them, and save the Republican partyfrom rupture. Is it possible that the Republican party is to be saved, even if the Union be destroyed? It is very evident that those"stiff-backed" gentlemen were to be sent here in order to prevent anycompromise being presented. The object, then, as I stated, on the partof certain members on the other side of the Chamber, has been to senddelegates to the Conference for the purpose of preventing anycompromise measures being proposed by that body. They desire, in thelanguage of these letters, to save their party from destruction. Theysay that if the Conference should agree on any thing, it would have ademoralizing effect upon the people, and upon the two Houses ofCongress. In one word, it will have the effect to make a rupture inthe Republican party, which, in the estimation of the Senators, ishigher, holier, and better, it seems, than the Union. 

In consequence of this fact being apparent, that it is not the designor the intention that the Peace Conference should do any thing, Ithink we should not wait for it any longer, but the Senate shouldproceed at once to the consideration of the amendments to theConstitution proposed by my colleague. I think we had better beengaged in that work--one that is calculated, if the propositions ofmy colleague should pass, in my opinion, to save the country fromfurther disintegration. I think we had better be at that, than beappropriating money to support an Army that is to be engaged, itseems, in the work of blood-letting. The Senator from Michigan thinksthe Government is not worth a rush until it shall have drawn a littleblood. I hope my motion will prevail, and that we shall lay this billaside and proceed to the consideration of the measures proposed by mycolleague. 

Mr. CHANDLER:--The Senator from Kentucky has read what purports to bea short note that I sent the other day to the Governor of Michigan. Whether it is a correct copy or not, I cannot say; I kept no copy ofit, nor do I care. 

Mr. POWELL:--If the Senator will allow me one word, I will state tothe Senate that, when I received this paper, yesterday--

Mr. CHANDLER:--I was about to state that. 

Mr. POWELL:--I asked both the Senators if the letters were right. Theytold me they kept no copies, but they believed they were substantiallyso. 

Mr. CHANDLER:--I was going to say that. Now, sir, I desire to answerthe Senator from Kentucky, and to set myself right on thisquestion--(my position from the first has been well known upon thisquestion, and upon most others)--but, at the earnest solicitation ofthe Senator from Maine, who has charge of this bill, I will forego theresponse which I intended to make, and which I shall make to theSenator from Kentucky, for the present, for the purpose of going onand disposing of the Army appropriation bill. At another day I proposeto give my views more at large upon these compromise measures, thatthe Senator from Kentucky seems so anxious to take up at this time. Iam as anxious as he is to go into that discussion. I am anxious to gointo it. It is a question that ought to be discussed. It is a questionin which the people of Michigan take a deep interest. They are opposedto all compromises; they do not believe that any compromise isnecessary; nor do I. They are prepared to stand by the Constitution ofthe United States as it is; to stand by the Government as it is; ay, sir, to stand by it to blood, if necessary. 

Mr. POWELL:--I ask for the yeas and nays on my motion. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. MASON:--I ask the general permission of the Senate to give noticethat at three o'clock I shall move to go into executive session; andif it is not agreed to, I shall then ask that the galleries may becleared, for the purpose of disclosing what I consider ought to bepassed on in executive session. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:--If I can obtain the attention of theSenator from Kentucky, I wish to make a suggestion. Those resolutions, as I understood, went over until last Monday at one o'clock, and werethen to be taken up and considered. I do not know whether the motionwas made in that way, or whether it was an informal understanding thatthey should be taken up last Monday for consideration; but as the Armybill is now under consideration, and the time is growing short, wouldit not be better to have a night session, and postpone the subjectuntil seven o'clock this evening, and let it be taken up at that time;and then let this other bill go on to-day? Those who want to makespeeches on those resolutions could do it to-night; we should thussave time and expedite business. 

Mr. FESSENDEN:--I think the Senator from Virginia has given anadditional very good reason for taking up the Army bill, and goingthrough with it; and not postponing it for speeches at the presenttime. 

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted--yeas 17, nays 27;as follows:

 YEAS. --Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman, Douglas, Fitch, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Polk, Powell, and Rice--17. 

 NAYS. --Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, King, Morrill, Pearce, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson--27. 

So the motion to postpone the Army bill, in order to take up theresolutions of Mr. CRITTENDEN, was not agreed to. 

Subsequently the following action, by the Senate, was taken on thereport of the Peace Conference. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The Chair has received a communication fromEx-President TYLER, as President of the Conference which has beenrecently sitting in this city, which he will lay before the Senate;and also the proceedings of that body. 

The Secretary read the communication, as follows:

 _To the Senate of the United States:_

 I am instructed, as the presiding officer of the Convention, composed of Commissioners appointed by twenty-one States, now in session in this city to deliberate upon the present unhappy condition of the country, to present to your honorable body the accompanying request and proposed amendment. 

 JOHN TYLER, _President of the Convention. _

 WASHINGTON, D. C. , _February 27, 1861. _

 * * * * *

 _To the Congress of the United States:_

 The Convention assembled, upon the invitation of the State of Virginia, to adjust the unhappy differences which now disturb the peace of the Union, and threaten its continuance, make known to the Congress of the United States that their body convened in the City of Washington on the fourth instant, and continued in session until the twenty-seventh. 

 There were in the body, when action was taken upon that which is here submitted, one hundred and thirty-three Commissioners, representing the following States: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, _Wisconsin_, and Kansas. They have approved what is herewith submitted, and respectfully request that your honorable body will submit it to conventions in the States as article _thirteen_ of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 

 Attest: J. HENRY PULESTON, _Secretary. _

 * * * * *

 ARTICLE XIII. 

 SEC. 1. In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, 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 servitude, as the constitution of such State may provide. 

 SEC. 2. No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery and for naval and commercial stations, depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty. 

 SEC. 3. Neither the constitution, nor any amendment thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit Representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage, and the right during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic, against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to labor or service than on land. The bringing into the District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service, for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as merchandise, is prohibited. 

 SEC. 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due. 

 SEC. 5. The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor, into the United States and the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof. 

 SEC. 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section of those amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States. 

 SEC. 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. 

Mr. MASON:--I suppose the proper disposition is to have it printed. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--There is nothing to print. 

Mr. GREEN:--And refer it to the Committee for the District ofColumbia. I think that is about right. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I move that it be referred to a select committee, with instructions to report to-morrow morning. 

Mr. MASON:--We ought certainly to have it printed. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--It can be printed in the mean time. 

Mr. FESSENDEN:--We should have time to look at it. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--It is moved that the communication be printed andreferred to a select committee, with instructions to report to-morrowmorning. 

Mr. BIGLER:--I would be glad to make a suggestion to the Senator fromKentucky, that he name in addition an hour to-morrow at which theconsideration of the report shall be in order, or else a singleobjection will throw it over to the next day. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Well, to-morrow at twelve o'clock, I would say. ["One. "] I move one o'clock. 

Mr. BIGLER:--With instructions to the committee to report to-morrowmorning, and that the report be the special order at one o'clock?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Yes, sir. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--Does the Senator indicate the number of thecommittee?

Mr. GREEN:--Seventeen. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--Five is enough. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--A committee of five; no more. 

Mr. COLLAMER:--I would suggest to gentlemen not only that it be madethe order of the day for twelve o'clock to-morrow, but that it beadopted by three-fourths of the States the next day. [Laughter. ]

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--It is moved and seconded that the communicationbe printed and referred to a select committee of five members, toreport to-morrow at one o'clock. 

Mr. HALE:--I ask for a division of the question. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The first question will be on printing. 

The motion to print was agreed to. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The next question is that the communication bereferred to a select committee of five, with instructions to reportto-morrow at one o'clock. 

Mr. HALE:--I ask for a division of that. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--How would it be divided?

Mr. HALE:--The motion to refer to a select committee is oneproposition, and the instructions are another. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--That is the form in which the Senator wants itdivided?

Mr. HALE:--Yes, sir. 

Mr. BIGLER:--As the Chair states the proposition, it does not reachthe object which the Senator from Kentucky had in view. Theinstructions should be that the committee report to-morrow morning, and that the report shall be the special order at one o'clock. Unlessthat is done, one objection will put it over. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The Senator from New Hampshire asks for adivision of the question, and it is susceptible of division. The firstquestion is on referring the communication to a special committee offive. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The next branch of the proposition is that thatcommittee be instructed to report to-morrow morning, and that theirreport be made the special order for to-morrow at one o'clock. 

Mr. HALE:--On that, I should like to have the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The question is upon directing the committee toreport to-morrow morning, and that the report be made the specialorder for to-morrow at one o'clock. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CLINGMAN:--Though I am utterly opposed to the proposition, I amwilling to give it the direction its friends desire, and I vote "yea. "

Mr. LATHAM:--I desire to change my vote. I have no confidence in thisthing, and I fear it will be an unnecessary consumption of time; but Iyield to the judgment of my political associates and I vote "yea. "

The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 21; as follows:

 YEAS. --Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Clingman, Crittenden, Dixon, Douglas, Fitch, Foster, Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Rice, Sebastian, and Thomson--26. 

 NAYS. --Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Green, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, King, Morrill, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson--21. 

So the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I move that the committee be appointed by the Chair. 

The motion was agreed to; and Mr. CRITTENDEN, Mr. BIGLER, Mr. THOMSON, Mr. SEWARD, and Mr. TRUMBULL, were appointed the committee. 

On the 28th of February the committee so appointed, presented to theSenate the following report, and the following action was takenthereon:

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--The select committee, to whom was referred thecommunication received yesterday from the Convention assembled in thisplace, commonly called the Peace Convention, with instructions toreport by twelve o'clock to-day, have had the subject underconsideration, and have directed me to make the following report--

Mr. HALE:--I object to its consideration to-day. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH in the chair):--Objection being made, it cannot be considered until one o'clock, but it will be read. 

The Secretary read the joint resolution reported by Mr. CRITTENDEN (S. No. 70), proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of theUnited States, as follows:

 JOINT RESOLUTION _proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States. _

 WHEREAS Commissioners, appointed on the invitation of the State of Virginia, by the following States, respectively: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Kansas, have met in Convention at the City of Washington, for the purpose of considering the distracted and perilous condition of the country, and proposing measures for the preservation of the peace, the safety of the people, and the security of the Union, and having performed that duty, and communicated to Congress the result of their deliberations, with a request and recommendation on the part and in the name of said States, that the following be proposed to the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, according to the fifth article of said instrument, namely: [See article preceding. ]

Mr. SEWARD:--Mr. President--

Mr. GWIN:--I think I am on the floor. 

Mr. SEWARD:--I desire to speak a word from the committee touching thepresent report. 

Mr. GWIN:--Certainly. 

Mr. HALE:--I object to its present consideration. 

Mr. SEWARD:--I am not proposing to consider it. 

Mr. BIGLER:--The Senator from New Hampshire has no right to make theobjection. 

Mr. SEWARD:--I am not proposing to consider it at the present moment;but I am desirous of making an explanation from the committee, touching the report made by the Senator from Kentucky. The honorableSenator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL], and myself, constituted aminority of the committee. We dissent from the report, and we proposedin committee to submit a substitute. The majority held that, for somereason, sufficient in their estimation, we were not entitled to submita minority report. I therefore ask leave of the Senate to introduce ajoint resolution in my own name, and in which the honorable Senatorfrom Illinois authorized me to say that he concurs with me, and whichI ask unanimous consent to have read and printed; and it will be thesubject of consideration at such time hereafter as the Senate shallchoose to hear it, either in connection with the other or not. 

Mr. MASON:--Is it in the form of a report?

Mr. SEWARD:--No; it is not insisted on in that form; it is submittedon my own behalf. I desire that it may be read for information andprinted, subject to the future action of the Senate. 

The proposition of Mr. SEWARD was read, as follows:

 A joint resolution concerning a National Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 

 WHEREAS, The Legislatures of the States of Kentucky, New Jersey, and Illinois, have applied to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States: Therefore, _Be it Resolved, &c. _, That the Legislatures of the other States be invited to take the subject into consideration, and to express their will on that subject to Congress, in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution. 

Mr. BIGLER:--I desire to make--

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from California was on the floor. No action is now requested on the paper just offered, only a motion toprint. Shall the paper be printed?

Mr. HALE:--Was it read for information?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--For information only. 

Mr. SEWARD:--I move that it be printed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair hears no objection. 

Mr. BIGLER:--I desire to make a remark in reference to the question oforder made by the Senator from New Hampshire. The Senator objects tothe consideration of the report to-day. Yesterday, when the Senatorfrom Kentucky made the motion, I insisted on further moving that thereport of the committee should be the special order at one o'clockto-day. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--That is the record. 

Mr. BIGLER:--That instruction was offered, and therefore the Senator'sobjection will not apply. 

Mr. HALE:--Therefore it will. 

Mr. SEWARD:--I insist on the motion to print. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from California is on the floor. The Senator from New Hampshire having objected to the presentconsideration of the resolution reported by the Senator from Kentucky, for the time being it cannot be considered. 

Mr. SEWARD:--Will the Senator from California allow the question to beput on my motion to print?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:-The Chair heard no objection to that; and itwas ordered. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE:--The Senator from California will allow me to say asingle word. I observe that, in this report, the State of Wisconsin ismentioned as having sent delegates to this Convention, commonlydenominated the Peace Convention. That is a mistake. I desire, also, to give notice that when this subject shall come up for consideration, I shall offer as an amendment to the first section of articlethirteen, as proposed, the following proviso:

 _Provided, however_ (and this section shall take effect upon the express condition), That no State, or any part thereof, heretofore admitted, or hereafter to be admitted, into the Union, shall have power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and that this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land therein, any thing contained in any constitution, act, or ordinance of any State Legislature or Convention to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The section will then read as follows:

 SEC. 1. In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of the Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from the said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, 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 servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide; _Provided, however_ (and this section shall take effect upon the express condition), That no State, nor any part thereof, heretofore admitted, or hereafter to be admitted into the Union, shall have power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and that the Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land therein, any thing contained in any constitution, act, or ordinance, of any State Legislature or Convention to the contrary notwithstanding. 

And I desire that that amendment, which I now send to the Chair, maybe printed. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Is there any objection to printing the paperwhich the Senator has just read? The Chair hears no objection. 

The same day the Report of the Peace Conference was called up forconsideration, when Senator HALE objected to the consideration of thereport. Considerable discussion then ensued, in which Messrs. HALE, BIGLER, TRUMBULL, CRITTENDEN, and DIXON participated. This discussionrelated merely to the question, whether under the rules of the Senatethe Report of the Peace Conference could at this time be taken up. Themerits of the report were not considered, and for that reason it isnot deemed necessary to report the proceedings of the Senate in thisrespect. The joint rules of the two Houses were suspended in orderthat another subject might be taken up, and no decision was had uponthe question, whether the Report of the Peace Conference at this timeshould be considered. 

The allotted time having been consumed in this discussion, the Senateproceeded to the consideration and disposal of several orders of theday. On the first of March it resumed action on the Report of thePeace Conference. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH):--It is the duty of the Chair toannounce the special order of the day, being the joint resolution (S. No. 70) proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the UnitedStates. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I ask that the resolutions from the House ofRepresentatives, in regard to amendments of the Constitution, be laidbefore the Senate, in order that they may be considered at the sametime. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair will lay before the Senate a jointresolution from the House of Representatives. 

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 80) to amend the Constitution of theUnited States, was read the first time by its title. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I ask that that be made the special order at the sametime, in connection with the joint resolution reported by the Senatorfrom Kentucky. 

Mr. MASON:--I have looked at that joint resolution, and it certainlyought to be committed to a committee to correct its English. It isunintelligible. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--My object is merely to have it considered at the sametime with the other. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The joint resolution will have its secondreading. 

The joint resolution (H. R. No. 80) was read a second time by itstitle. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--It is now the subject of any motion that maybe made in regard to it. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I move that it be made the special order in connectionwith the joint resolution reported by the Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. CLARK:--How does that happen to be in order here when there is aspecial order called up?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--It is not in order to consider it, except byunanimous consent. 

Mr. CLARK, Mr. BINGHAM, and Mr. SUMNER:--I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The special order is before the Senate. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I ask that the other resolutions which have come fromthe House of Representatives, be read. There are two of them, Ibelieve. 

The House joint resolutions (No. 64) declaratory of the opinion ofCongress in regard to certain, questions now agitating the country, and of measures calculated to reconcile existing differences, wereread the first time by the title. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The second reading--

Mr. CHANDLER and others:--I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Is objection made?

Mr. CHANDLER:--I withdraw my objection. 

Mr. SUMNER:--I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Objection being made, it cannot be read thesecond time. 

Mr. SIMMONS:--It passed the other House unanimously. There can be noobjection, I think. 

Mr. CLARK:--We have another subject up. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The special order is before the Senate. Thequestion is on the second reading. 

The joint resolution (S. No. 70) proposing certain amendments to theConstitution of the United States, was read the second time, andconsidered as in Committee of the Whole. 

Mr. PUGH:--Let the resolution be read, not the proposition itself, butthe formal part, the introduction. 

Mr. HUNTER:--Is that open to amendment now?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--It is in Committee of the Whole, and open toamendment. The reading of the formal part of the joint resolution iscalled for. 

The Secretary read it. 

Mr. SEWARD:--I offer the following as a substitute:

 Strike out all after the word "whereas, " in the preamble, to the end of the resolution, and insert:

 The Legislatures of the States of Kentucky, New Jersey, and Illinois, have applied to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States; Therefore, _Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the Legislatures of the other States be invited to take the subject of such a Convention into consideration, and to express their will on that subject to Congress, in pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair understands that a proviso wasoffered to the matter that the Senator from New York proposes tostrike out. The vote will first be taken on the proviso offered by theSenator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE], to insert at the end ofsection one of article thirteen:

 _Provided, however_ (and this section shall take effect upon the express condition), That no State, nor any part thereof, heretofore admitted, or hereafter to be admitted into the Union, shall have power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and that this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing contained in any constitution, act, or ordinance of any State Legislature or Convention to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I believe that the amendment of the Senator fromWisconsin is not pending. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from Wisconsin proposes that as aproviso to the matter which the Senator from New York moves to strikeout; and the question must first be taken on that. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I did not know that that was before the Senate. 

Mr. BIGLER:--He only gave notice of it. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I thought the Senator from Wisconsin only gave noticethat he would offer it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair may have misunderstood the Senator'smotion at the time. He called for the printing of it; but if that isthe understanding of the Senate--

Mr. SEWARD:--What does the record say?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair understands that the record presentsit as "intended to be offered. "

Mr. SEWARD:--Then the question is on the substitute. I ask that thequestion be taken. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I have an amendment to submit. I propose to amend thefirst section of the proposition before us, by inserting in lieu of itthe first article of what are called the CRITTENDEN resolutions. Imove to strike out the first article of the peace propositions, and toinsert:

 That in all the territory of the United States now held, or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° 30´, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress; but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance; and when any Territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, 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 slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide. 

Mr. COLLAMER:--I rise to a question of order. It will be observed thatthis paper is before us under a recital that, whereas thesepropositions of amendment have been presented by the Commissioners, asthey are called, from the several States--naming them--who have askedCongress to submit them, therefore we propose to submit them to theStates. The whole proceeding is based and predicated on this recital. I say that it cannot be amended. If it were amended, it would cease tobe the application of that body which the recital States. I thereforeobject to any amendments, except a substitute; perhaps a substitutemay be offered striking out the recital and all; but an amendment toit is out of order, in my view. 

Mr. HUNTER:--In regard to the question of order, I understand that therecital is the recital of the committee, and that the question beforeus is on these propositions for amending the Constitution of theUnited States, which are to be treated as a bill. If so, each sectionis subject to amendment as a bill would be subject to amendment. Itwas my purpose to offer the entire series of what are called theCRITTENDEN resolutions, as an amendment to these, and I still intendto offer them, section by section; but I was prevented from offeringthem in that form, because the Senator from New York got the floorfirst, and offered his proposition as a substitute. I therefore couldnot raise the question which I desired to raise, except by offeringthe amendments, section by section, in order to perfect the originalproposition. I submit that it is in order. 

Mr. COLLAMER:--I submit, still, my question of order, suggesting togentlemen that if we make any amendment, we must strike out therecital. 

Mr. BIGLER:--I do not see that any ordinary question of order can beraised in this case; but I do think there is a consideration much moregrave, and that is the question whether we will treat the series ofresolutions presented here by this Peace Congress as a propositionwhich we ought either to accept or reject. I was one of those in theselect committee who took that position. It was manifestly intendedthat we should accept the entire programme, or reject it. Therefore Iwas unwilling; and we decided to consider no question of amendment--

Mr. HUNTER:--That is not a question of order, but of propriety. Itwould be an argument against any amendment. 

Mr. BIGLER:--I have said it was no ordinary question of rules; butthat there was a far graver question of propriety. I agree with theSenator in that view; and I rose for the purpose of alluding to theview taken of this subject by the select committee. The Senator fromNew York desired the leave of the committee to report his propositionas a substitute; but the majority of the committee held that theresolutions had not been committed to us for the purpose ofconsidering them and changing them, or substituting something else, but simply to attach to them the formal resolution to present them asamendments to the Constitution for the ratification of the States. Forthat reason we proposed no amendment; and the Senator from New Yorkyesterday offered his substitute on his own responsibility, because, as I understood him, of the view taken by the committee. Now, sir, Istill entertain the view that, while the Senate have a clear rightunquestionably to change these resolutions, and to change theresolution of submission to make it conform to any thing we may do, weought to consider these resolutions sent here by this Peace Conferenceas a whole, and accept them or reject them; but there can be noquestion of ordinary rule raised as to the right to offer anamendment; there is a greater, a graver question of propriety as tohow they shall be treated. 

Mr. SEWARD:--It is not merely a question of form or order, but theproposition of the Senator from Virginia would change the wholecharacter of the transaction. This joint resolution is one single, complete proposition. It is one act. It begins with a declaration byCongress, that "whereas Commissioners, appointed on the invitation ofthe State of Virginia, " have performed a certain duty confided tothem, "and communicated to Congress the result of their deliberations, with a request and recommendation on the part and in the name of saidStates"--of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, RhodeIsland, and the rest of the States represented in the Convention--"thefollowing"--nothing different, nothing originating in Congress, nothing originating anywhere else, but--"the following be proposed tothe several States as amendments to the Constitution of the UnitedStates, according to the fifth article of said instrument. " Now, if weshould adopt this whole transaction, we should simply do this: weshould submit these amendments to the people of the United States fortheir acceptance, for the reason that the Peace Convention, as it iscalled, has considered upon the subject, and thought it grave enoughto solicit us to invest it with the legislative or congressionalsanction, and so submit it to the Legislatures and conventions of theStates; but whenever you have made a single alteration in it, such asis proposed now by the Senator from Virginia, it is not, then, theproposition of the States "of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, " or any other States; but it is a recommendation of theCongress of the United States. The whole character is changed. TheConvention is swept out of existence in the history of Congress. Theresolutions then adopted become the deliberate conviction of themajority of the Congress of the United States, who substitute theirown judgment, and their own wisdom, and their own will, for thewishes, the opinions, respectfully submitted to them by therepresentatives of those States, and take the responsibility of sayingthat this is what the Peace Convention should have submitted, insteadof the proposition which they have sent here. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I wish to make a suggestion in regard to the realposition of this question, as it now appears before us. The argumentsthat have been urged by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senatorfrom New York might very well be brought up against the propriety ofadopting the amendment; but, so far as the question itself stands, itis only brought before us by a report of our committee. The PeaceConference had no power to present questions or make communications tous; but they having made a communication, and we, having respect forthat body, agreed to take it up, and we referred their proposition toa committee. The only authority which we have now for considering itin the Senate, is on the recommendation of our committee. Thisproposition stands here as a recommendation of that committee to alterthe Constitution, as proposed by this Conference. It being theirrecommendation in regard to the alteration of the Constitution, underour rules it stands like a bill; and I have a right to move to amendit, section by section; and in doing so, I should be pursuing themethod taken by the Peace Conference, as I understand, for I am toldthey never took a vote on it as a whole, but voted on it propositionby proposition; and in fact, the majority who passed the propositionswere composed of different States, and they never did take a vote onthe articles as a whole. 

Now, I am proposing to amend this as it comes up, proposition byproposition; and if it would be in order for me to make such a motion, supposing that this proposition had originated with a committee ofthis body, who had made a report proposing such amendments to theConstitution, I should have a right to make it now, for it is only inthat way that it appears legally before us. I say, then, so far as thequestion of order is concerned, it seems to me that I have clearly aright to do it. I would be willing, in order to get rid of thequestion of order, to move to strike out the preamble too; but in myopinion it stands before us as a bill would stand. I may amend theparticular sections. I am not proposing by this amendment to perfectthe whole proposition, but a part of it; and if I should succeed inthat, I can then go back, and move to amend the preamble. 

So far as the question of order is concerned, I cannot see how it isthat I am out of order. There may be a question of propriety. Thosewho believe that this proposition is one that ought to be accepted asa whole, and ought to be accepted because it comes from this body, eminently respectable, as we all acknowledge it to be, may say that weought not to amend it; not that we have not the power, but that weought not to amend it. Those of us, however, who think as I do, thatit is a proposition not to be accepted; that it is a propositionhighly dangerous, and one which will give rise to great difficulties, on the other hand, may think it eminently proper to amend it. I, thinking in that way, avail myself of what I suppose my parliamentaryright, to offer an amendment; and it is upon that question ofparliamentary right alone, as I understand, that the Chair is todetermine. 

Mr. TRUMBULL:--Mr. President, it seems to me very clear that, as aquestion of order, this proposition does not stand in any respectdifferent from any other. Suppose an individual Senator had thoughtproper to propose amendments to the Constitution; that they had beenreferred to a committee; and the committee had approved them: whatwould it have done? Precisely what this committee has done. It wouldhave reported back the proposition, with a resolution in conformitywith that clause of the Constitution which points out the mode of itsamendment. The fact that this proposition was adopted by gentlemenfrom various States does not alter it at all. It comes here as a merepetition. However respectable and dignified the Convention may havebeen which arrived at these conclusions; however much weight theirconclusions may be entitled to in the country, they come here simplyas petitioners--in that light, and none other--asking Congress tosubmit certain resolutions to the States of the Union to be adopted ornot as portions of the fundamental law, and, unquestionably, anySenator has a right to propose an amendment in the same way as if theywere introduced by an individual Senator. Can it be possible that if Idraw up a series of propositions as amendments to the Constitution ofthe United States, and a select committee thinks proper to recommendthem to this body, the hands of the body are tied up, and it must takethem, word for word, and letter for letter, as I have drawn them? Thequestion is, whether it is proper to do this; whether the respect duethe Peace Convention should not deter gentlemen from offeringamendments, is a question we are not discussing. The point is one oforder; and as a question of order, I was astonished when the Senatorfrom Pennsylvania first suggested it. 

Mr. BIGLER:--I suggested no question of order. 

Mr. TRUMBULL:--I did understand the Senator from Pennsylvania to say, that that was the view he took in committee in response to what wassaid by the Senator from Vermont, and it was to that I alluded when Isaid I was astonished at the ground he took, that the committee couldnot amend these propositions, or that any other person could not moveto amend them. 

Mr. BIGLER:--The Senator from Vermont made a distinct point of order;but I did not sustain the Senator's views on the point of order. Onthe other hand, so far from that, I stated distinctly, that therecould be no ordinary question of order under the rule; but a questionof propriety, a question as to the consideration that was to beattached to this proposition of the Peace Convention; that the selectcommittee, or a majority, at least, were under the impression that itwas expected we would treat it as a whole, and accept it or reject it. That is what I said. I have no doubt whatever of the right of aSenator on this floor to move to amend this resolution. But, sir, Icannot agree with the Senator from Illinois by any means, that thisproposition should be treated as the mere report of a committee or theproposition of an individual Senator. Who supposes that twenty Stateswould have sent commissioners here to consider this great question andsuggest to Congress--

Mr. TRUMBULL:--The Senator from Pennsylvania, I see, ismisunderstanding me. I said, as a question of order, it was to betreated the same as if offered by an individual Senator; that howevermuch respect we might have for it, as coming from the source it did, yet, as a question of order, there was no difference in the rules. 

Mr. BIGLER:--I did not understand the Senator as placing entire stresson the question of order. I have been endeavoring to take thisquestion away from the rules, to set it above the rules, and I saythat we ought to consider it without reference to the rules. If it bethat this programme is not acceptable to the Senate, let it berejected. What I supposed was intended from the beginning was, thatwhatever they sent here was to be considered as an entirety--acceptedor rejected. I was about to remark, who supposes that twenty Stateswould have sent commissioners to prepare a programme of peace for theconsideration of Congress, if they had supposed that immediately thepeculiar views of each member of Congress would be set up inopposition to them?

Mr. President, a single remark in relation to what fell from theSenator from New York, and I shall have done. The Senator from NewYork alludes to the terms of the preamble, that, for the reason thatthese commissioners agreed, therefore these propositions are submittedas amendments to the Constitution. I do not wish to be understood asregarding it in that light. I do not think it is the right of Congressto submit propositions of amendment of the Constitution because theycome from any source. The spirit of the Constitution is, that Congresswill submit amendments to the Constitution; because Congress approvesthose amendments, and it would be a reason why I should vote for oragainst them, whether I approved them or not. If, as a whole, I couldvote for them, I would vote for them; if, as a whole, I could not, Iwould vote against them. That does not affect the question whether, under all the circumstances, and solemn surroundings, the labor whichhas been bestowed, and the character of the men that have presentedthis paper, we should consider it as an entirety, or attempt to cut itup by piecemeal, by which neither they, nor the public, will everascertain what the judgment of Congress was on the results of theirlabor. That is what I say. 

Mr. SEWARD:--The honorable Senator may very naturally and veryproperly take the ground that he would not vote, and that Congressought not to vote, for submitting this proposition to the people, forthe reason assigned in the paper before us. I have not any dispositionto quarrel with him about it. I might take the same view, and saythat I would not submit to the people a proposition which was futile, which was frivolous. That is not what I was speaking to. What I wasspeaking to was, the character of this proposition; and this is aproposition just to this effect, logically and technically expressed:that whereas these commissioners appointed by the States have met, consulted, considered, and adopted that resolution, therefore, forthat reason, independent of every thing else, Congress submits it tothe States. 

Mr. PUGH:--I want to make an appeal to the friends of some propositionof peace. This is the last day of the session but one, and we have notmade the progress of one line. We have gone into an eternal discussionabout questions of order, and that, too, in defiance of the rule ofthe Senate. I insist that the question shall be decided withoutfurther debate. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH):--It is not for the Chair to decideany question of propriety, except as an individual Senator. AsPresiding Officer, he does not deem the question of order, made by theSenator from Vermont, to be well taken. The joint resolution differsin no respect from other resolutions, and is open to amendment, and isbefore the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, for that purpose. Thequestion is on agreeing to the amendment which has been offered by theSenator from Virginia. 

Mr. HUNTER:--Mr. President, I have offered this amendment, as thefirst of a series which I shall offer, for the purpose of carrying outthe will of my State, as it has been expressed through itsLegislature; and I might say there are other Senators similarlysituated, for there are other States which have declared a dispositionto settle upon the basis of what are called the CRITTENDENresolutions. That is the first reason which prompts me; and to me itis imperative, because the Legislature of the State which I have thehonor in part to represent, has declared that this is the basis uponwhich it would settle, and intimated that it would not take less thanthey propose by way of security for the South. I have also anotherreason. I have examined this proposition of the Peace Conference--

Mr. WADE:--Will the Senator let us hear it read? We do not understandwhat his proposition is. 

Mr. HUNTER:--My proposition is the first article from the CRITTENDENamendments, in regard to the territorial adjustment. 

Mr. WADE:--We understand that. 

Mr. HUNTER:--After as careful an examination as I have been able togive this proposition from the Peace Conference since it was printed, that is to say, within the last day or two, I have come to theconclusion that it would not only make a great many more difficultiesthan it would remove, if it should be adopted as an amendment to theConstitution, but that it would place the South--the slaveholdingStates--in a far worse position than they now occupy under the presentConstitution, with the Dred Scott decision as its exposition. 

Mr. CLARK:--Will the Senator from Virginia allow me to make asuggestion?

Mr. HUNTER:--Certainly. 

Mr. CLARK:--I understand him to say he proposes to offer the severalpropositions of the CRITTENDEN amendment one after the other. 

Mr. HUNTER:--Yes, sir. 

Mr. CLARK:--Then I suggest, as that is the intention of the Senator, that unanimous consent be given to move them as one amendment, so thatwe may have them all up for discussion, if any one chooses to discussthem, at the same time. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I have no objection to that, if it is the general wish. Iwas saying, Mr. President, when I was interrupted, that after ascareful an examination as I was able to give this peace proposition, since it was printed, I came to the conclusion that it would put thesouthern States in a far worse position than they now occupy under thepresent Constitution, and with the Dred Scott decision. Under thatConstitution, and with the Dred Scott decision, they had a right, asthe court has decided, to carry their slaves into any Territory of theUnited States. That is a right which has been adjudicated to them by asolemn decision of the Supreme Court; and it is to be remembered thatthis right has not only been accorded to them by the decision of thecourt, but by the action of the several branches of the FederalGovernment. That is their present state of things under the presentConstitution of the United States with regard to the territorialquestion. In what position, then, does this proposed territorialadjustment place them? Why, sir, it excludes them; it puts the WILMOTproviso on all territory north of 36° 30´; and south of 36° 30´ itgives them the privilege of another lawsuit, in order to try theirright and title to enter the territory with their slaves. What are thewords of this proposed amendment of the Constitution?

 "In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ of persons hold to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. "

"In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ ofpersons held to involuntary servitude or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed. " What is the meaning of that word "_status_"?What is the _status_? The word _status_ may be applied to differentthings; there may be a local _status_ or a political _status_. In somecountries a slave may hold property, and, in a certain form, sue; inothers, he cannot. Or it may be the social and legal relation, that ofthe slave to his master, which constitutes the _status_ that isreferred to; and I presume it is that which it is declared shall notbe changed. But, sir, shall not be changed by whom? By Congress? Itdoes not say so. By the Territorial Legislature? It does not say so interms. Does it mean that it shall not be changed by Congress or by thegovernment of the Territory? Does it mean that it shall not be changedat all by anybody? Does it mean the master shall not emancipate him ifhe chooses? Is it an absolute prohibition of any change of the_status_ of the slave, of any sort or description?

These are the terms which we are obliged to resort to in order toescape from the manly declaration of the CRITTENDEN resolution, thatsouth of that line slavery shall be recognized and protected. It waseminently proper, as we excluded them north of it, that ourinstitutions should be recognized and protected south of that line. That, sir, was plain English; that everybody could understand; buthere we are interpolating law Latin into the Constitution; this word"_status_" is introduced; and who is to determine what the _status_was? I thought it had been considered a march forward, a step ofprogress, an evidence of improvement in English legislation, when itabandoned Norman French and law Latin, and resorted to the mothertongue; and especially it should be so, when we are makingconstitutions for American people of English descent, and who speakthe English tongue. A constitution is for the millions, and themillions should be able to understand it. 

But, Mr. President, let us proceed a little further. This whole matteris to be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of common law. That embraces the right of themaster to his slave as a matter of cognizance under the common lawbefore the courts; because what do they mean by the _status_ of allpersons held to involuntary servitude or labor? They mean rightfullyheld. They do not mean if a man is kidnapped and held illegally toinvoluntary service or labor that he is always to be so held. It meansthat the _status_ of persons who are rightfully and legally held shallnot be changed; and who is to determine that? The courts are todetermine it according to the common law. That is to be determined byjudges who are to be appointed from a party, and by a party whobelieve that there cannot be property in man; by a party who believethat, in the Somerset case, Lord MANSFIELD has laid down the commonlaw properly; by a party who will probably believe that the decisionof the English courts, in regard to the slave ANDERSON, that it was nomurder for a slave when escaping to kill his master, was a correctexposition of the common law. 

How, then, do we stand? Why, sir, in relation to our right to slaves, we have to try that right before judges who are thus appointed, andappointed from a party who we know entertain these opinions. Why, sir, you might poll that party through the whole United States, and I wouldventure any thing upon the assertion that you cannot get one in ahundred thousand who would not deny that there could be property inman, especially under the common law. We thus lose the advantage ofthe Dred Scott decision. According to the Dred Scott decision, we cancarry them into the territory of the United States and hold them, andit is decided that there is property in slaves--decided under theConstitution. The court maintain that the Constitution recognizes it. It is upon constitutional ground that we have made our claims, and sofar, it is upon this that we have fought and won the battle, not uponcommon law; and now we are to abandon the advantages that we have gotfrom that ground of title under the Dred Scott decision, and go intocourt and try a case that has been already decided in our favor; andunder the common law, try it before judges who are to be selected by aparty entertaining such opinions as I have just described; and I amsorry to say, without appeal to the Supreme Court; because, in theterritorial bills which have been lately passed, that right has beentaken from us. My friend from North Carolina will be kind enough toread an article in the Chicago platform, showing what is held on thatsubject by those who wield the power of this Government. 

Mr. CLINGMAN read, as follows:

 Eighth. "That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that 'no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, ' it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States. "

Mr. HUNTER:--Thus much, Mr. President, in regard to the _status_; andit is to be observed that the same word is used in reference topersons who are now held to involuntary servitude in the Territoriesand to those whom we are to have the right to take into theTerritories from the States recognizing slavery. So that we submitthis question of our right to slaves, when it reaches the Territories, to be tried under the common law, by courts appointed by the partyentertaining the opinions I have described, and that without appeal. This is in regard to the Territories which we now own. What is thesettlement provided for in regard to territory hereafter to beacquired? Here it is, in the third section:

 SECTION 3. Neither the Constitution, nor any amendment thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit Representatives and others from bringing with them, to the District of Columbia, retaining and taking away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized. 

That is, they shall not prohibit it as to future acquired territory, where it is established or recognized. Will not the inference beclaimed from such an expression, that where it is not established andnot recognized, they may prohibit it? Will it not be said that theexpression of one exception to the power of Congress to prohibitslavery in the Territories excludes the idea of an exception to thatpower when slavery is not recognized in the Territories?

Mr. COLLAMER:--If the gentleman will indulge me a moment, I desire tosay that is a section declaring that Congress shall not abolishslavery in the dock-yards, &c. , in the States where it is recognized. There is nothing in it about future acquired territory. 

Mr. HUNTER:--This third section applies not only to present but tofuture acquired territory. It is not confined, like the first section, to the territory at present acquired. It is not confined to dock-yardsand arsenals in the Territories and States. If the Senator willexamine it, he will find that it is applied to all places where theUnited States have exclusive jurisdiction. "Exclusive jurisdiction" isthe word. Will it not be claimed that they have exclusive jurisdictionin the Territories of the United States? Will not those who have thepower to construe, and carry out their construction, so construe it?Will they not say it is a prohibition to Congress to prohibit slaverywhere it is recognized in the Territories or States, but not a denialof the right to prohibit slavery in Territories where it is notrecognized by law, although that Territory may be vacant anduninhabited?

Mr. COLLAMER:--That clause of the section is, that Congress shall nothave power--

 "To interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized. "

That, so far as I have read, is confined only to where they have localjurisdiction in the States holding slaves. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I thought so at first myself; but the Senator will find, on a further examination, I think, that he is mistaken. They shall notprohibit it wherever they have exclusive jurisdiction in places whereslavery "is established or recognized. " It is not confined todock-yards, forts, and arsenals. Why should it be in the Territories?They have exclusive jurisdiction over the whole. There is reason forconfining it to dock-yards in the States; but there is no reason forconfining it to dock-yards, &c. , in the Territories. But that is notthe construction which will be given; the construction given to itwill be, that they shall not prohibit it where they have exclusivejurisdiction, if it is recognized in such places; but if it be notrecognized in such places, where they have exclusive jurisdiction, Isay the inference will be drawn, plausibly, if not justly, that theyshall have power to prohibit; and I say if this be so, then it is apower (so far as Mexican territories are concerned, if there should beany acquisition there) by which the South will be forever estopped;because there the Mexicans have abolished slavery, and there, underthis clause giving in that territory exclusive jurisdiction, the partynow controlling the Government would claim the right to prohibit it. And what a difference between our position then and our position nowunder the decision of the Supreme Court! Under the decision of thatcourt, all the people of all the States have a right to go into thecommon territory with their institutions. It belongs to all in common, and Congress cannot prohibit them from taking their property there. 

I say that those who have the power to carry out any construction theychoose to give, would be interested in putting upon it theconstruction which I fear; and it would be difficult to raise anargument which they would deem conclusive against it. But take it theother way; suppose that the Senator from Vermont is right in his firstsupposition, that it was only meant to be applied to forts, arsenals, and dock-yards, then I ask what settlement does this proposition giveus in regard to future acquired territories; what earthly settlementis it? We have all the old difficulties to encounter that we have tomeet now, every one of them. We not only have all the old difficultiesto encounter, but the slaveholder would have an additional obstaclewhich this first clause would put in his way. It requires that theright to slaves in the present territory shall be tried by the commonlaw, and it might be said in court that the inferences drawnheretofore from those provisions of the Constitution recognizingslavery were to be overruled by the fact that the people in theirlatest action--by way of constitutional amendment--had introducedanother rule in order to determine the _status_ of those held toinvoluntary service or labor, and the consequence of that would bethat the South never could acquire another foot of territory; that is, the few southern States who are left in the Union. 

I am told that here is a provision that you cannot acquire territoryexcept by the assent of a majority of the Senators from both sections. Does any man believe that the North, with its eighteen, soon to betwenty, or thirty, non-slaveholding States, would allow a majority ofsix, or seven, or eight slave States, that are now attached to them, to prevent them from acquiring any territory hereafter? Would theyagree to such an amendment, in the first instance; and if they did, how long before they would change this restriction in theConstitution? Indeed, it is hardly to be supposed that they will agreeto it in the first instance, so far as it regards the acquisition ofterritory; but of what avail would it be to the South? There is butone conceivable acquisition--I speak of possible things, and I hopegentlemen will not understand me as coveting my neighbor's goods, ordesiring to lay violent hands on the property of any other States ornations--but, if things should so happen that we could rightfullyacquire Cuba, under my view of the probable construction to be givento this clause, and because slavery there is recognized, Congressmight be prevented from prohibiting it; but, everywhere else, theSouth would be shut out and excluded. 

Then, sir, what would be its position? It would be prevented fromacquiring any territory under this Government as an outlet for itsslaves; and the only chance of securing that necessity of itscondition would be to quit this Union and join the SouthernConfederacy, which can acquire territory. It would be an inducement todisunion so strong as would almost force them to it. 

Let us go a little further. Here is another clause holding out thesame temptation:

 "The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited, and it shall be the _duty_ of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor, into the United States and the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof. "

This is to be the duty of Congress. As it now stands, it is in thepower of Congress. When it was merely given as a power to Congress, was there a failure to execute that power? Do we not know that everyState in the present Confederation has desired to suppress the Africanslave-trade? Some do it from sentiment and principle; some frominterest; but there is a controlling motive with each and all of them. It is safe enough to leave it where it stood, giving Congress thepower merely. Here you make it their duty. Suppose this case: theStates that have left us have set up another Government, anotherConfederation; under this clause you forbid us to buy their slaves, tointerchange and trade in slaves with them: what will be theconsequence? They will exclude us from selling our slaves in theirterritory, and where then do we stand? If you should think it prudent, if you should think it politic, you would have no means, under thisproposed amendment, of allowing that to be done between these twocoterminous countries. Though it would be to the advantage of bothConfederacies that there should be this interchange, you precludeCongress from allowing it; and then where would that place the borderslave States? They would not be able to sell their slaves in theStates further South; and if they carried them there, they would haveto emigrate with them. You would thus prevent Congress from adopting aregulation which would make it possible for them to remain in thisUnion with safety, with advantage, to themselves. Why was this put in?Why not have left it where it stood, giving Congress the power, whenwe all know that there is no State in the present Confederation thatwould not exercise that power for the purpose of suppressing theslave-trade from Africa? This probably would constitute the onlyexception. Why shut ourselves out from allowing the exception?

But, Mr. President, my desire is to be brief; I do not want to consumethe time of the Senate; I am merely endeavoring to state the points ofobjection as briefly as I can. Here is, at the close of it, anotherprovision which, it seems to me, contains the seeds of civil war; andthat is this: "Congress shall provide by law for securing to thecitizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens inthe several States;" that is to say, Congress shall have power to passlaws to force the States to receive those persons whom they haveexcluded from police considerations--considerations of domesticsafety. Yes, sir, to force the States to receive persons who would bedangerous to their peace; to force upon them, if you will, abolitionlecturers; to force upon them persons whom they regard as the mostdangerous emissaries that could be sent among them; to enable Congressto obtrude, in fact, into all the business of the States. That was notintended when the Constitution was framed, and never ought to havebeen. The present provision in regard to the rights of citizens in theseveral States, I regard as in the nature of an inter-treatystipulation. It is a duty imposed on each State, for the violation ofwhich there is no remedy; no remedy, unless the State aggrieved mayresort sometimes to retaliation. 

There are various things of that sort in the Constitution. Dutiesimposed upon the States, but without a remedy for the failure toexecute them. No State shall keep a standing army; but suppose itdoes: what are you to do? Congress cannot remedy it; and it would notbe right to give Congress the power to remedy it. You have to trustsomething to the sense of right and duty of the States themselves; andso it should be in regard to this matter of citizens. Suppose oneState should say that the citizens of another should not sue in itscourts; how is Congress to enforce their right? Is Congress to saythey shall be allowed to sue, and that the Sheriffs and officers ofthe State shall execute the process? Is it proposed to allow Congress, by law, to interpose in all these delicate matters? Is it not farbetter to leave it to the sense of justice of the States--to theirsense of duty and of honor? Have we not got along very well while weleft it there? If there be any instances in which there have beenexceptions, they are instances in which persons have been excluded onaccount of police considerations, deemed to be dangerous to the safetyof the people who excluded them. Is it proposed so to amend theConstitution as to take from the people of the States this right ofself-defence?

If we once introduced this as an amendment to the Constitution, whatwould become of the feeble southern States, six or seven (for Delawarecan hardly be considered as a slave State), that would be left?Arkansas may conclude to secede when she shall determine finally uponher position in the Union. What would become of us in the hands ofthis powerful majority, who would pass what laws they pleased inregard to the introduction of their citizens among us, and the rightsof those citizens to do as they pleased after they got there? Is itnot obvious that these various changes would lead to endlessdiscontents, to irreparable breaches between these States? Would younot certainly drive out the Border States? They would say, "If we gosouth, we ally ourselves to a homogeneous people; we shall have noneof these difficulties; we have no reason to fear their citizens; wecan grant all these privileges without the least difficulty ordanger; we can send our slaves south from a country where they are notprofitable, to one where they are; but if we stay here, we areforbidden to do any of these things; if we stay here, we are preventedfrom ever obtaining any outlet for our slave property. " Will you notoffer them the highest inducements, nay, will you not make it almostnecessary for them to leave you, if you should adopt such aproposition as this?

Nor is that all, Mr. President. Our present Constitution--for I amcomparing our position under it with that in which this would placeus--in most of its difficult provisions has been expounded--expoundedby the action of the State Governments, by the action of all thedepartments of the Federal Government. We have had legalinterpretations in the decisions of the State and Federal courts. Wehave come almost to a point--indeed, I, who believe that the DredScott decision is law, think we have come to a point--where we have alegal exposition on the whole of these matters. Are we to be turnedaside from that, to wander into a new sea of doubt and difficulty andambiguity? No candid man can take this up and say it is not full ofdouble constructions, full of ambiguities, giving ground for newquarrels between the sections, to new constructions of courts, to newlawsuits. 

Mr. COLLAMER:--And to be perpetual. 

Mr. HUNTER:--Yes, sir; and to be made perpetual. We cannot change themafterwards, if we want to do it. I can conceive nothing that wouldendanger what is left of this Union so much as the adoption of thisproposition, although it has been produced by persons so eminent andso respectable as those who composed the Peace Congress. 

I know that this measure does emanate from a body eminently patrioticand wise, entitled to the public deference and affection; and fortheir work I feel all possible respect. Against that work I willpronounce nothing except what the necessities of the occasion mayrequire. But when the peace, the safety, the rights of the State whichI seek to represent--when the peace of the whole country, as it seemsto me, would be so seriously imperilled as it would be if this wereadopted, I feel bound by a sense of what I owe to those who sent mehere, bound by a sense of what I owe to those who have some respectfor my opinions, to express them here on this occasion, and to givebriefly the points and the heads upon which I differ from theconclusions of that Congress. Indeed, sir, before taking my seat, Imay suggest a doubt whether I am in truth acting against any thingwhich they have really done. I was informed by a member of thatCongress that they never did take a vote upon this proposed article, as a whole. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE:--If the Senator will allow me, I beg leave to statethat I was informed of the same fact by a distinguished member of theConvention; and I was further informed that the person who claims tobe the secretary of the Convention was never elected as such. Andthere is another fact stated in the preamble that I know is notcorrectly stated: that the State of Wisconsin was in that Convention, or took any part in it. How many more mistakes there are in thepreamble, I am unable to say. 

Mr. HUNTER:--I believe it is certain that they never did take a voteon this article as a whole, but upon its separate sections. I think itequally probable that it could not have passed as a whole. Thatopinion was expressed to me by a member. As it did pass, I think therewere three or four States not voting; and the States not voting weresupposed to be against it. Under such circumstances, I do not knowthat this is to be taken as an expression of the will of thatCongress. Further: I will say, in regard to myself, that a majority ofthe members from my own State voted against it, and were very decidedin their opposition to it. They believed it was not such a propositionas the South could safely accept; and that majority, I believe, havereturned home to express that opinion to the State Convention, and togive their reasons for it. Under all these circumstances, I havethought that I ought to present, as a counter proposition (believingthat the people whom I represent cannot and ought not to acceptthese), resolutions upon which they have said they were willing tosettle this controversy. I believe the State of Kentucky has declaredthe same thing. I understand the State of California has donelikewise. I believe, though I may be mistaken, that Tennessee has saidthe same. The State of North Carolina has made the same declarationunanimously. To the last, I believe I may add Missouri. 

Now, I am making a proposition to amend, by inserting the resolutionsof the honorable Senator from Kentucky; upon which so many of theborder slaveholding States have said they would settle the difference. Why not send them out to the States and the people? We know that someof them would settle on that. Why should we send out such aproposition as this, which there is every reason to believe they willnot accept, and which will have the effect of dividing theconservative men of the North? Those northern men who are willing tosettle on some proposition that would give satisfaction to the BorderStates, would just as soon vote for the CRITTENDEN resolutions as forthese, and some probably would prefer to do so. They will waste alltheir strength, and efforts, and energies, in going for a propositionwhich the South in the end will not accept, or at least which I do notbelieve they will accept, as there is every reason to suppose theywill not accept it. Then, when we know there are propositions uponwhich so many of the Border States have said they would be willing tosettle existing difficulties, why not submit them? I think, under suchcircumstances, notwithstanding the respect which I feel for themembers composing the Peace Congress, my duty to my own State, whoseLegislature has spoken in regard to it, and my sympathy with so manyof the Southern States who have declared the same opinion, shouldinduce me to present the proposition which they desire instead of oneto which none of them have as yet given their adhesion, and to which Ihave no idea they will ever agree. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I suppose, Mr. President, not only out of deferenceto the Presiding Officer of this body, but because it seems to me tobe entirely reasonable, that the decision of the Chair on the questionof order which was made as to the admissibility of these amendments, was correct. The question which these amendments present, I think, isa question of consistency or inconsistency with the proceeding inwhich we are engaged, with the resolutions offered by the PeaceConference; and each member, in deciding ultimately upon the questionfor or against the proposed amendment, will consider that question ofconsistency or inconsistency, and regulate his vote accordingly. It isnot, perhaps, strictly a question of order, to be decided on theconsistency or inconsistency of amendments. So I take it. I am willingit should be decided by this body. Now, what is it? The proposedamendment contravenes the whole nature of the transaction, and changesits character. The representatives of twenty-one or twenty-twoStates--we will not make any question about Kansas; whether it be inor not, is not material--the representatives and delegates of overtwenty States of the Union have recommended to us the adoption ofcertain amendments to the Constitution, which they say will arrest thetroubles of the country and adjust those great differences which nowso much threaten us; and they ask Congress to propose these amendmentsto the several States, according to the fifth article of theConstitution, for their adoption. These amendments have been submittedto us, and the question is, whether we will submit them to the Statesor not? That I take to be the specific and solitary question. Thisimposes no obligation on us to sanction these constitutionalamendments by proposing them to the people. We can do as we pleaseupon that point; but what is the question and the only question? It isnot whether we ourselves will propose amendments to the Constitution, but whether we will propose to the people the amendments which thisConvention has proposed to us. Now, that whole character is effaced, and a new character is given to the transaction, if any one of theamendments proposed by Senators be adopted. 

Suppose these same States, by their Legislatures, had respectivelyrecommended to us these particular and specific constitutionalamendments, asking us to propose them according to the Constitution:would it have been proper for us then to undertake to amend theirresolutions? It would be a different transaction altogether. In theone instance, out of respect to the States, we are proposing theirresolutions; in the other case, we are proposing our own to theStates. Now, the question here is, whether the resolutions have cometo us with a sufficient sanction to constitute in our minds a reasonfor referring to the States the amendments which the States themselveshave asked. That is all. It seems to my mind to be a clear question. They have asked us, they have requested us, to submit theirresolutions, and not any others, to the States; and the question is, will we comply with their request, not whether we will fabricateamendments of our own and refer them to the people. They have asked ofus to submit their proposals; and the question is, whether we will doit. 

This amendment implies, in the first instance, that we will not dothat, because the moment we adopt the amendment of the Senator fromVirginia, that moment we say in effect, "We will not propose yourrecommendations to the people; while proposing our own, which we willsubstitute for yours. " That is passing by this Convention altogether;it is negativing the States represented in it. 

If gentlemen take this view it will be a sufficient reason, I trust, in itself, for voting against the proposed amendment. Thesepropositions which the Convention has recommended may be such as wemay refuse; it is in our power to refuse; but the question is, whethera recommendation, coming so sanctioned to us, is not, in itself, asufficient reason why Congress, if disposed to satisfy the people, shall do the small act of presenting this to the people themselves, for their adoption. We may reject it, if we please. The people, whenit is sent to them, will, of course, have the power to reject or adoptit. The only question now is, whether we will give the States anopportunity of saying whether this proposition is satisfactory or not. 

Sir, I do not wish to occupy time; but I cannot perceive the justiceof the criticisms made upon these resolutions of the Convention. Theyseem to me to be perspicuous and intelligible in every part and inevery sentence. I do not see where the difficulty is to arise. Gentlemen need not tell us here, in respect to these resolutions, that a member of the Convention told them thus and so. No matter whata member of the Convention told this one or that one about the votesthat were given, it is certified to us, in a formal manner, by thePresident of the Convention--himself a Virginian, and once a Presidentof the United States--that this is the result of the proceedings ofthe Convention. 

Mr. HUNTER:--If the Senator will allow me, I will state to him howthat occurred. It was decided, as it will be seen when we get theJournal, that, according to some rules of the old Convention, theyshould not vote upon a proposition as a whole, but upon eachparticular provision. That was the rule of the Convention; andtherefore he certified it as the Convention had instructed. The votewas taken only section by section, and the vote was never taken on itas a whole. There is no inconsistency between what I have said, andthe certificate of the President of the Convention, because, accordingto the rules adopted by them, he had to certify it if it was adoptedby sections, though it was not voted upon as a whole. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I suppose this remark is intended to annul theConvention, and discredit all their proceedings, though the Senatehave received the letter of the President and Secretary as authenticevidence that this does contain the result of the deliberations andthe proceedings of the body. I take it so, whatever a discontentedmember here and there may have said to the contrary notwithstanding. He may have said it all truly, for aught I know, but we must regardthis as the authentic act of the Convention; otherwise it was nothing;and it is certified to us by the proper authority as its act, by thePresident of the Convention, with the request that we shall adopt it. It must have had, in some form or shape, the sanction of a majority ofthe Convention, or it could not have been so certified to us. How theyvoted, whether upon parts or the whole, they gave such votes as, theythought were necessary to ascertain the meaning of the body, and theexpression of their will and opinion upon the subject. This is whatthey have done. 

I do not stop to inquire whether I like these resolutions better thanI do those proposed by myself, or the amendments now offered by theSenator from Virginia. We are near the close of our session. I havelooked upon the proceedings of this great and eminent body of men asthe best evidence of public opinion outside of this body, and of thewish and will of the States they represent. I am for peace. I am forcompromise. I have not an opinion on the subject of what would be bestthat I would not be perfectly willing to sacrifice to obtain anyreasonable measure of pacification that would satisfy the majority. Iwant to save the country and adjust our present difficulties. [Applause in the galleries. ]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BRIGHT in the chair) called to order. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--That is what I want to do. That is the object I amaiming at. I attach no particular importance--I feel, at least, noselfish attachment--to any opinions I may have proclaimed on thesubject heretofore. I proclaimed those opinions because I thought themright; but I am ready to sacrifice them, any and every one of them, toany more satisfactory proposition that can be offered. I look upon theresolutions proposed by this Convention as furnishing us, if not thelast, the best hope of an adjustment; the best hope for the safety ofthe people and the preservation of the Government. I will not stop tocavil about the construction of these words; but I see none of thedifficulties that suggest themselves to the mind of my friend fromVirginia. Look at that third section, which has been the subject ofhis particular criticism. Every part and portion of it is a negationof power to Congress, and nothing else; and yet he has argued as if itgave Congress power; as if it conferred more power upon Congress. Itleaves to the States all the rights they now have; all the remedieswhich they now have; and consists merely in a negation of power toCongress. How can that take away the rights of the people? How canthat make our condition worse? I cannot possibly see. It is nothingbut a negative from beginning to end, and therefore it cannot takeaway any thing from the people. It may take from Congress, but cannottake away from the States, or the people, any thing. It is a negativein its form and in its language, from beginning to end, that Congressshall have no power to do this, that, or the other. If they have thatpower under the present Constitution, it is taken away. That is all. It takes away no power from the States. It takes away no rights fromindividuals. Its simple office is the negation of power to Congress. That is all there is in it; and how, under that, can the gentlemanfind constructions which are to increase our difficulties and diminishour rights? He says the language will need construction. So does alllanguage need construction. I do not see that this is particularly so. 

Now, sir, the Senator offers my own proposition as an amendment tothis. I shall vote against my own proposition here; I shall vote forthis. [Applause in the galleries. ]

Mr. MASON:--I shall be constrained to require that the galleries becleared, if there be any further demonstrations in that quarter. 

Mr. BAKER:--I hope the galleries will not be cleared. The admirationof a noble sentiment is never out of place. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--There is no motion to clear the galleries. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I shall vote for the amendments proposed by theConvention, and there I shall stand. That is the weapon offered now, and placed in my hand, by which, as I suppose, the Union of theseStates may be preserved; and I will not, out of any selfish preferencefor my own original opinions on this subject, sacrifice one idea orone particle of that hope. I go for the country; not for thisresolution or that resolution, but any resolution, any proposition, that will pacify the country. Therefore, I vote against my own, togive place to a proposition which comes from an authority much higherthan mine--from one hundred and thirty of the most eminent men of thiscountry, out of which number a Senate might be selected that mightwell compare in point of talent and intellect and ability even withthis honorable body. They have recommended this on arduous, laboriousconsultation with one another; through many difficulties, through manydiversities of opinion, they have at last arrived at theseconclusions, and sent them to us. Shall any Senator stand upon thelittle consideration, "this changes my resolution, " and shall hecompare that little atom of his production with the great end andobject proposed to be attained for a whole nation? No, sir; not amoment. I believe our best hope of preservation is in adopting theresolutions proposed by this Convention, and I adhere to them againstall amendments. 

Mr. President, the only material or substantial change in respect tothe first section of this proposed amendment from my first propositionis, that it omits all reference to territory hereafter acquired, limiting our consideration and our settlement to territory which wenow have. When I first offered my resolutions, I explained somewhat inreference to that particular provision which related to futureterritory. I said that I wanted no more territory. Our great troublenow is from the magnitude of the territory which we have alreadyacquired. New Mexico is one of our acquisitions, and what a subject ofdispute it has been! I want no more acquisitions. My country is bigenough, and great enough. I say that further acquisitions aredangerous. We have found them to be so. Our experience and our reason, then, unite in teaching us "to beware of that sin, ambition. " Nationalaggrandizement! I want no more. I proposed that, however, as the ideathen was, that we wanted a settlement that was to last forever; to beeternal; to embrace the present and to embrace the future, with allits acquisitions, all its changes. Reflection since, and thearguments of others, I will say, have changed my opinion on thatpoint. If they had not changed it, however, I should be ready here tosacrifice it and give it up, if thereby I could obtain the assent ofany respectable portion of my countrymen to the propositions forpeace. If we can settle in respect to what we have, in GOD'S name letus do it; and if we are to have future acquisitions, let us leave thetroubles they may bring upon us to a future day. We have enough forto-day. I do not object, therefore, to the first section of theproposition of the Convention, that it is confined to the territorywhich we now have. The adjustment which they have made varies butlittle in substance in regard to the territorial question, and thequestion of slavery as connected with it, from my originalproposition. South of the line which we propose to establish, 36° 30´, you have no foot of territory left, but what is embraced in theTerritory of New Mexico. In New Mexico, by law of the Territory--aconstitutional law, a valid law of the Territory--slavery exists asfully and completely as the law can establish it, or has establishedit. 

Now, this proposition is, that the _status_ of things shall continueas it is until that Territory becomes a State; and when it becomes aState, let it dispose of the question of slavery as it chooses. Thereis no ambiguity about this. In substance, though in a different formof words, the same is expressed in my proposition. The proposition ofthe Convention is the same in substance, only omitting the words--avery proper and a very timely omission--supposed to be offensive incertain parts of the country, and substituting others that are equallywell understood in all parts of the country, and which were lessoffensive to some. 

Sir, now is the time for mediation; now is the time for pacification;now is the time to omit every word that can give offence or add to theirritation under which the country is. I desire, by the most moderateterms, by the most unoffending language, to reach some mode ofadjustment that can give satisfaction to the whole country and reuniteus all. 

My friend from Virginia seems to apprehend that under these amendmentswe shall be worse off in respect to territory hereafter acquired. Thatis supposed to be sufficiently provided for and secured in theprovision, that no future acquisition shall be made, by purchase or bytreaty, except that treaty or that purchase be ratified by a majorityof the Senators from the slaveholding States, as well as a majority ofSenators from the non-slaveholding States. Does not this give theSouth a safe assurance, an assurance to be relied upon? My friend fromVirginia says, however, do we believe the North, with its superiornumber, would submit to this provision of the Constitution? Why, sir, the Convention have had the caution to make this provision, if Iunderstand them, irrepealable by any future amendment of theConstitution. There it stands, then, in the most solemn form that mencan enter into any compact, in the most formal language by any termsthat Government can establish, that all are bound by that provision ofthe Constitution which requires a majority from each section. When thegentleman asks whether we can believe for a moment that this law willbe acquiesced in and adhered to, I say we must to some extent haveconfidence in one another, or all human society must lose its basis, not merely of government, but its foundation, and all society would betorn up at once by the roots. That confidence is the root of society;it is the root of all the associations of men in public or privatelife; it is the root and foundation of all government. What more canyou have, what better security can you have than written, solemn termsupon any subject which is to regulate government? There is nothingmore solemn among men, unless you would require angels to come downand make responses for them. Here you have the very highest securitythat can be given; and when any gentleman shall say these are not tobe relied upon, he says there is no Government that stands upon anyfoundation that can be relied upon. Such an assertion strikes not atthis provision; it strikes at the root of all government. What furthersecurity can be had? If our brethren of the other section were willingto give the highest possible security they could, what can they givemore? Nothing. This argument, then, can avail nothing. 

Mr. President, I have gone perhaps a little further than I ought tohave done. It is not now necessary that I should enter into avindication of every provision of these amendments offered by theConvention. It is sufficient to speak to the amendment which thegentleman has offered. Excluding territory hereafter to be acquired, Ithink, in substance, we ought to be satisfied with that; I believethat will make peace; I believe that will give substantial security toour rights, and to the rights which the Southern States claim. Withthat I am satisfied. It is enough for the dreadful occasion. It is thedreadful occasion that I want to get rid of. Rid me of this, rid thenation of this, and I am willing to take my chance for the future andmeet the perils of every day that may come. Now is the appointed timeupon which our destiny depends. Now is the emergency and exigency uponus. Let us provide for them. Save ourselves now, and trust toposterity and that Providence which has so long and so benignly guidedthis nation, to keep us from the further difficulties which in ournational career may be in our way. 

I prefer the propositions which the Convention have made to my ownpropositions, because I have no hope for my propositions. They havenot been so fortunate as to receive the favor of my colleagues of theSenate from the North, the men whose sanction of them was necessary togive them effect. I transfer all my hopes of peace to thesepropositions and terms proposed by the Convention representingtwenty-odd of the States of this Union--a large majority of all theStates. I will not go into particulars about it; but since gentlemenhave made some allusion to the out-of-door rumors and reports andsayings in respect to this Convention, I believe that perhaps amajority of those who voted for these amendments were men representingnon-slaveholding States. I do not know the fact, and I will not stateit, but I am under that impression now, and that impression encouragesmy hopes that the Senate, rather than see the country fall into ruin, fall into dismemberment, limb from limb, and blood flowing at theplucking out of every limb, will supply the remedy which is proposed. It seems to me proper and just. But little is asked, and great is thereward, and mighty are the consequences that are to flow from it. 

Sir, I have occupied more of the time of the Senate on this particularquestion than I ought to have done. 

Mr. MASON:--Mr. President, there is a very grave duty devolving uponthe Senate on the proposition which is now before us. We are calledupon, pursuant to the Constitution, to propose amendments to theConstitution. The fifth article of the Constitution says this:

 "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution. "

Now, sir, I cannot agree, for one, to propose an amendment to thisConstitution unless it has the sanction and the approbation of myjudgment; and I suppose no other Senator will. I am bound, therefore, by every obligation of faith and honor to my State, when a propositionis submitted to the Senate as one that should be proposed to theStates as an amendment to the Constitution, to examine it andunderstand it, and see it in all its bearings and effects, as far asmy intellect will enable me, and to propose it or to withhold it by myvote, as I shall be guided by my judgment. I can see no other positionof a Senator. 

Now, sir, what are the facts? The country was convulsed by the successin the late presidential election of one of the political parties ofthe country. The tremor was evinced at once in all the SouthernStates, in a belief that their existence and their safety wasimperilled by that election. Congress met. As was proper andnecessary, the very first act in each House was to appoint a committeeto take the condition of the country into consideration, and see if, by any mode of amendment to the Constitution, those perils could beavoided. A committee was raised in the collateral branch. A committeewas raised in this Senate, I think upon the motion of the honorableSenator from Kentucky, actuated as he always is by principles of thehighest patriotism. Those committees met. They remained in anxiousdeliberation for weeks. What was the result? They were unable toagree. I think the committee came before the Senate and admitted thefact. They could agree upon no form of amendment which they believedwould remedy the evils and avert the perils under which the countrysuffered. 

In that state of things, the Legislature of Virginia--my own honoredState--having been called into special session on the 19th of January, passed a series of resolutions, one of which recites this:

 "That on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia, an invitation is hereby extended to all such States, whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights. "

That is the recital of the resolution of the Legislature of Virginia:"to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequateguarantees for the security of their rights;" and there was a furtherprovision, that, if those States should meet and agree upon any formof adjustment, it should be submitted to Congress. A number of theStates--some twenty or twenty-one, it seems--some by theirLegislatures, some by their Executives--met the invitation ofVirginia, and deputed their commissioners to the conference inWashington, to see if they could agree upon a mode of adjustment. Wehave the report of that Conference before us now, presented through acommittee of this body; and they propose an additional article to theConstitution. Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Kentucky, whohas pronounced so deserved a eulogium upon that body, does not exceedme in the respect which I bear to it. If there be one more thananother Senator upon whom it would devolve to treat the work of thatConvention with peculiar respect, it would devolve upon me and mycolleague, because they met at the invitation of my State. I yield tonone in the respect which I bear to those gentlemen or to the purityof their motives in the results which they have attained in thatConference; but, sir, I am bound by my obligations to theConstitution, by my honor as a man, by my faith to my own State, tounderstand what they have done, and to exhibit it either inrecommendation or disapproval, as my judgment may dictate. _Nulliusaddictus jurare in verba magistri. _

I admit no authority to bind my judgment as a representative of one ofthe States of the Union. I yield my respect to what they have done;but I will scan it, and if, in my honest, unbiased judgment, I cannotrecommend it as an amendment to the Constitution, I am bound towithhold that recommendation, and to give the reasons for it. 

As I have said, sir, the State of Virginia, finding that Congress wasat a loss for a mode of adjustment, invited the States to sendcommissioners here for this purpose:

 "To agree upon something which would afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights. "

Virginia knew that, under the Constitution as it was interpreted underthe constituted authorities of the country as they have been elected, there was no security for their rights; and it was in the hope ofobtaining such a security--Congress failing to agree upon it--that, ather invitation, these gentlemen from the different States met here inconference. I am to look, therefore, to their work, and to see if itaffords that security for their rights; and if I am satisfied in myown judgment, as I honestly am--and the reasons for which I am now toannounce to the world--that it not only affords no security for therights of the South, but takes away what little they have, I should bea traitor if I would recommend it as an amendment to the Constitutionof the United States. 

Now, sir, let us look at it. It is presented as an entire article, tobe the thirteenth article, if adopted, of the Constitution. The firstsection of it relates to the Territories--the great and difficultpoint of division between the two sections. If that could beovercome--if these rights that are spoken of in the resolutions ofVirginia in the Territories could be guaranteed by adequate securitiesto the slaveholding States--I believe the rest of the path would besmooth. It embraces almost the whole controversy. What securities areprovided in the Territories to the slaveholding States by this firstsection of the thirteenth article? It proposes to divide the presentTerritories--for it is confined to them--by an east and west line, aparallel of latitude. North of that line, there is a clear cutentirely, unsusceptible of misinterpretation. None can doubt what thecondition of servitude is north of that line. It is a clear cut; it isprohibited, and prohibited forever. No interpretation can mistake it;no casuist can doubt upon it; it is a work well done. North of thatline involuntary servitude, except for crime, is prohibited. How is itsouth? My honorable colleague, I think, has well said that, south ofthat line, for our rights, at best we are remitted to a lawsuit. Iwill read the language:

 "Nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons--"

That is, persons held to service--

 "from any of the States of this Union to said Territories, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation. "

Neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature has power tointerfere with the rights arising from the relation of master andservant, or master and slave. That is the meaning; that is clear. Whatnext?

 "But the same--"

The rights resulting from the relation of master and slave--

 "shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. "

There is the security for the rights of the South. South of that linethey are remitted to the courts under the common law. Now, sir, let usexamine that. By this section, if it is adopted as an article of theConstitution, the common law, _eo nomine_, is made a part of theConstitution, so far as it affects the relations of master and slave. Now, what is the common law? Who is there upon this floor that willtell me what common law is meant by this section? With all my respectfor the thorough knowledge and the legal acquirements of the honorableSenator from Kentucky, I know he cannot tell me what common law ismeant by that first section. We know, as jurists, what is meant by theterm common law, for it is a technical term. The common law is the lawof England, the unwritten law of England, the _lex non scripta_. Thatis the common law in its legal acceptation. Is it, then, the law ofEngland that is made a part of the Constitution, and to which themaster is remitted for the security of his rights between him and hisservant? Will any gentleman tell me that it is the common law ofEngland that is to be made a part of the Constitution to which we areto be remitted? If it is the common law of England, is it the commonlaw of England as it stands at this day, on the first of March, 1861?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--If my friend will allow me, I take it that that termapplies only to the remedies known to the common law. The laws of theTerritories are to be enforced, and the remedies under them are to beadministered according to common law. The master is to have his rightsaccording to the law of the Territory, and to secure those rightsaccording to the common law. 

Mr. MASON:--The language of the section is, that neither Congress northe Territorial Legislature shall interfere to impair the rightsarising from this relation of master and slave; "but the same"--thatis, this relation between master and slave--"shall be subject tojudicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course ofthe common law. "

Now, the honorable Senator says that means only the remedy of thecommon law; that you are to take the law of the Territory, whatever itmay be, and administer that, by confining it to the remedies known tothe common law. I deny the interpretation. The Senator may be right, or I may be right. I say the text does not warrant the interpretation. The text refers to the rights in the relation of master and slave, andsays they (those rights) shall be the subject of judicial cognizance, according to the course of common law. Now, I ask, what is the commonlaw that is thus made a part of the Constitution for the subject towhich it refers? Is it the law of England? There is no common law, that I am aware of, known to jurists as the law of England. There isno law in the State of Virginia, and, I presume, none in the State ofKentucky, known as common law. The State of Virginia, when it becameindependent as a colony of Great Britain, adopted and made its ownthat which before had been the common law of England, and thereforethe common law of the colony. The State of Virginia (and I instancethat only because I am familiar with it), when it became independent, adopted as its law the common law of England, as that common law stoodat the commencement of the fourth year of James I. ; and thereby, bystatute, made that which had been the common law, the law of Virginia. Now, it is the law of Virginia, not because it is the common law, butbecause statutes made it the law of Virginia. But is the common law ofVirginia, if you will call it by that name, the common law ofKentucky; or is the common law of Kentucky the common law of Missouri;or is the law of those three States, or any other State, now thecommon law of England? I demand to know, therefore, when we make thecommon law a part of the Constitution, if this enactment shouldprevail, what is meant by the common law? To that vague, grandresiduum of judicial legislation we are to be remitted for our rightsbetween master and slave, if this is enacted. 

Now, sir, suppose it were so: my colleague has well said (and I willnot repeat it after him, for I should only weaken it), that there isnot one judicial interpreter or expounder of the common law, in anyone of the free States, in reference to the relation of master andslave, that does not deny that the master has any property in hisslave, at this day and this hour. Why, sir, what is the pendingcontroversy between the State of Ohio, one of the free States, and theState of Kentucky, one of the slave States--a controversy dependinghere recently in the Supreme Court? The Governor of Kentucky demanded, under the Constitution, the rendition of a fugitive from justice, whohad abducted a slave from Kentucky, and carried him into Ohio. TheGovernor of Ohio refused the demand, upon the ground that there couldbe no stealing of a man; that there could be no property in man; andthat the slave, being a man, was not a subject of theft, of larceny;and he refused, and refuses up to this day, under the common law, torecognize the existence of property in man. 

Now, take the common law of England at this day: here, within the lastthree or four weeks, the Queen's Bench, in England, has declared asthe common law, that if a slave murders his master, or murders theagent of his master, in the attempt to recapture him, he is justified. That is the common law to which we are to be remitted for the rightsresulting from the relations of master and slave. Sir, I have lookedback a little to see what the common law was in England in this famousSomerset case, I find this in the argument of the counsel there, expounding the common law, which was afterwards sustained by LordMANSFIELD in his decision:

 "But it has been said by great authorities, though slavery, in its full extent, be incompatible with the natural rights of mankind, and the principles of good government, yet a moderate servitude may be tolerated, nay, sometimes must be maintained. "

And again:

 "There is now, at last, an attempt, and the first yet known, to introduce it [slavery] into England. Long and uninterrupted usage, from the origin of the common law, stands to oppose its revival. "

And again:

 "A new species has never arisen till now; for had it, remedies and powers there, would have been at law; therefore, the most violent presumption against it, is the silence of the laws, were there nothing more. It is very doubtful whether the laws of England will permit a man to bind himself by contract to serve for life; certainly will not suffer him to invest another man with despotism, nor prevent his own right to dispose of property. "

And again:

 "There are very few instances, few, indeed, of decisions as to slaves in this country. Two in Charles II. , where it was adjudged trover would lie. Chamberlayne and Perrin, William III. , trover brought for taking a negro slave; adjudged it would not lie. 4th Ann. , action of trover; judgment by default. On arrest of judgment, resolved that trover would not lie. Such the determinations in all but two cases; and those the earliest, and disallowed by the subsequent decisions. Lord HOLT: 'As soon as a slave enters England he becomes free. '"

In the opinion of the court, of Lord MANSFIELD, as to these principlesof common law, that very distinguished and able judge, who made thelaw, as I understand, for the occasion, but certainly ruled it as thecommon law, says this:

 "The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced for any reasons, moral or political; but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It's so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England. "

I need not go back to authority. We have it abundantly in our owncountry, in all the free States, so far as I know, without exception. They deny what the amendment of my honorable friend from Kentuckyaffirms. They deny that there is property in a slave. The amendment ofthe Senator affirms there is property in a slave. This section issilent, ominously silent, portentously and potentially silent. It isnot only silent, Mr. President, but when it refers you to that code oflaw which is to protect the right of the master to the slave, itrefers you to the common law, and the common law to be expounded bythe Federal courts, and the common law, which is judicially andhistorically known to the whole country, to be expounded in all thefree States as one that denies that very property which we say must besecured. That is our position under this section. Sir, the State ofVirginia has said that we must have adequate guarantees; and I amasked here to vote away what little guarantees we have. I am asked, almost in the high ethics or morals of revealed religion, when myadversary takes away my cloak, that I shall give him my coat also. Iam required to do that by this section. We believe that our rights aresecured under the present Constitution; we know that they have beenwithheld by the political party which has now come into power; webelieve that they are insecure unless there are further and adequateguarantees; but, so far from their being proposed by the sectionbefore us, in my judgment, what little we have is taken away. Sir, Icannot vote for these propositions. I regret it. I was prepared, whether it had the approval of my judgment or not, to follow theinstructions of my State, and to vote for the amendment offered by thehonorable Senator from Kentucky after it had been modified, as wasrequired by the resolutions of my State. 

The amendment of the Senator from Kentucky was so modified, I do notknow whether at the instance of Virginia or not; but it was modifiedby a vote of this Senate, so as to embrace what was required in theresolutions of Virginia. I am not at liberty to recommend, or, in thelanguage of the Constitution, to propose to the States this section ofthe thirteenth article; because it not only withholds, but denies bywithholding, any security, far less that security which the State ofVirginia requires. 

There are further provisions in this proposition that areobjectionable, one of which was pointed out by my colleague: thatwhich calls upon Congress to legislate on that clause of theConstitution which secures to the citizens of one State all theprivileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. I neednot say that any legislation on that subject by Congress would be anything but the messenger of peace to which the honorable Senator fromKentucky looks. Why, sir, it has been found indispensable inslaveholding States, as a part of their police regulations, to punishall persons who were either of the State or otherwise, who tamper withthe slaves, who have intercourse with them that is forbidden by law, far more those who preach to them sedition, or insurrection, orrevolt; and yet, if we were to be controlled within the body of theState by Federal relations in our interior police, we should becompletely at the mercy of the free States. 

Mr. President, I should have been certainly gratified, if my honoredState of Virginia had been successful in the mediation which sheinvited of all the States, with a view to agree upon an adjustmentwhich would guaranty the rights of the South. I deeply deplore, and Idoubt not my State will deplore, that that mediation has not beeneffected. So far from impugning any motives or purpose of thathonorable and distinguished body, I doubt not that, in the short timethat was allowed to them, they got together the best mode ofadjustment which would satisfy their judgment, but which I am surewill not satisfy the judgment of the Southern States, but would placethem in still greater peril, if they were to admit that to become apart of the Constitution. I did not intend to do more than state myobjections to it as briefly as I could. I have done so temperately andwithout heat, I regret that I cannot, as one Senator, propose this asan amendment to the Constitution. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I wish only to reply for a single moment to thematerial objection urged by the Senator from Virginia. The portion ofthe article to which the Senator from Virginia objects, declares thatthe _status_ of persons bound to service and labor shall remainunchanged; that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature shallpass any law affecting the relation, or the rights growing out of therelation between master and servant--I do not pretend to recite theexact words; but that is the exact idea--well knowing that, accordingto the laws of the Territory, the _status_ of slavery was fullyestablished, and all the rights of the master in and to his servantestablished, as they exist in the State of Missouri, or the State ofVirginia, by positive law of the Territory. It is therefore equivalentto saying that that law shall stand, when it says that the _status_shall continue unchanged. It then goes on to say (which I admit wasaltogether unnecessary) that the remedy for the violation of therights of the master, whatever they might be, shall be had in theFederal courts, and according to the course of the common law. Now, sir, what right does this take away from any slaveholder? That lawwhich secured and gave him a right, is declared to be unchangeable. That law acknowledges his property in any sense in which you please totake it, or in any sense in which it is applicable. It acknowledgesit, and gives legal remedies for the violation of it; and in additionto all that, and, as I admit, by a sort of pleonasm of expression, itsays that he shall have his remedy in the Federal court, according tothe course of the common law. 

Mr. MASON:--Will the Senator allow me a moment?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Certainly. 

Mr. MASON:--With the permission of the Senator I will put thisproposition to him: He says that the meaning of the language, "according to the course of the common law, " is confined to theremedy. Now, admitting that to be the case, for the sake of theargument, suppose, in one of these Territories, a slave is purloined, seduced, got away; the slave of A gets into the possession of B, andhe is there at work for him upon his farm, or in his house, and Abrings an action of trover to recover him; that is an action known tothe common law; and the decision of the Federal court is, that troverlies only to recover property, and a slave is not property: what isthe remedy? That is the decision in England; and I presume it would bethe decision in the free States, if the suit were brought. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--It was to avoid going into definitions of that sortthat this language was employed in the amendments of the Convention. They saw and had before them the law of New Mexico, which didacknowledge the existence of this right as fully as it isacknowledged by the law of Virginia. However it may be disputed here, however legal opinions may differ about it, the law of New Mexicoestablished property in slaves; and there the law stands; and theConvention now comes and says that _status_ shall remain unchanged. 

Mr. BRAGG:--Oh, no. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--That is the resolution. 

Mr. BRAGG:--Will the honorable Senator allow me a word, for I am veryanxious to understand it?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Certainly. 

Mr. BRAGG:--The Senator says it provides that that law, the law of NewMexico, whatever it may be, shall remain unchanged, if I understandhim, and that that fixes the _status_ of slavery in the Territory. Icall the attention of the Senator to the language. I think that onlyfixes the _status_ of persons now in the Territory, and not those tobe carried there hereafter--not the _status_ of slavery, but the_status_ of persons who are there now, held to service or labor, andnot the _status_ of those who are to be carried there in future. Thatis provided for in the language which it follows in another part. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Here it is, sir:

 "In all the present territory south of that line"--

Which I have explained, and which gentlemen admit to be embraced inthe Territory of New Mexico--

 "the _status_ of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists. "

It is not as to such slaves as are now there, but such slavery as nowexists. 

Mr. BRAGG:--If it said that, I admit that it would cover the _status_of slavery. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--It does say that. It seems to me that is the onlyconstruction that can be given to the language. It could not beintended to confine it to the twenty-six slaves that are now heldthere, especially when they provided, in a subsequent article, that itshall be lawful for any one to carry slaves there. 

Mr. BRAGG:--Will the honorable Senator again allow me to interrupthim?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Certainly. 

Mr. BRAGG:--I have not the slightest doubt that a great many who votedfor the proposition consider it as the Senator does. I have equally aslittle doubt that others intended it to mean precisely what I havestated. I cannot see, for my life, while they were framing aconstitutional provision, why they did not place this matter beyondany sort of doubt. If they intended to recognize slavery, they couldhave said so in one word. If they intended not to recognize it, theycould have said it in another word. If they intended to mystify andleave in doubt, then they have been very successful in accomplishingtheir purpose. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--"In all the present territory south of that line, the_status_ of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it nowexists;" not as they now exist; not in respect to those that are therenow; but part of the same sort of slavery which now exists, shallcontinue to exist unchanged until the Territory becomes a State; andin the mean time persons shall be admitted to go into that Territoryand carry their slaves with them. Now, I submit it to my honorablefriend if it is not entirely improbable that any such construction ashe suggests can prevail before any court that seeks to attain the realintention of the parties who made this proposition? It is such slaveryas now exists. Persons held to that service--you may carry as manythere as you please. Put them both together, and they would read so;and they being in the same instrument, can there be a doubt that oughtto alarm us here, that the construction will be given to it which Iplace upon it, that it was intended not to be confined merely topersons now there and held to servitude, but as well to those whomight be carried there hereafter? This is all I will say in referenceto that; and I submit it to the candor and the judgment of myhonorable friend from North Carolina, in which I have entireconfidence, whatever result he may come to, that if we put the twopropositions together, all doubt would seem to be removed. 

Now, sir, my friend from Virginia will argue this question as if thequestion of slavery was to be decided according to the course of thecommon law, and then refers us to the express declarations anddecisions as though the common law decided that slavery could notexist. What sort of construction would that make of this provision?Here they have provided that the law establishing slavery shall exist, that the property of the master in him shall be recognized as it isthere established by law; and then the gentleman supposes that to beexactly contradictory, to refer to the common law as furnishing therule of decision, which common law says there can be no property, ashe interprets it, in man, and that when trover was brought for aslave--

Mr. MASON:--Not as I interpret it, but as interpreted in England. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I know that. He says it may be so interpreted; thatwhen trover was brought for a slave in England, the judges decidedthere was no property in man. Could the same judges, sitting in acourt in New Mexico, have given that decision when the law thereestablished such property? In such a case, their decision must bedifferent. They are referring, according to him, to two contradictoryrules: one establishing slavery and acknowledging property in themaster, and the other the common law denouncing and deciding againstthe right of property in man. This could not have been theirintention, nor can this be the construction. We cannot consider thesegentlemen to have changed their opinion from one sentence to another, to have left an incongruity and a contradiction expressed upon theface of the same section. 

Nor, sir, do they refer--and that is my answer to my friend fromVirginia--to the common law as furnishing the rule of decision at all. The proceedings shall be according to the course of the common law;that is all. If any violation is done to the rights of the master, hemay sue; and, for his greater security, he may sue in the Federalcourts; and, for greater security still, the law shall be administeredaccording to the course of the common law. The common law is referredto as determining the mode of trial. We say according to the course ofthe civil law, and we say according to the course of the common law. What do we mean? We mean this marked and characteristic and essentialdifference: the course of the civil law is for the judge, without theintervention of a jury, to decide facts as well as the law. The commonlaw takes away from the judge the power of deciding the facts, anddemands a trial by jury. What this convention mean, therefore, by thisprovision is, that trial shall be by jury, according to the course ofthe common law. That is the explanation of the difficulty, and thusall doubt is removed. By these plain provisions--plain in themselves, and made plainer still by being taken with the context--they say youshall have your rule of right, according to the law of the Territory, which is in your favor as to the right to hold persons as property;that law shall be your security; you shall have a remedy for anyviolation of that right in the Federal courts, and you shall have thatremedy, not according to the course of the civil law, in which thejudge is to decide, who might be against you, but in which a juryshall be called to decide the fact according to the course of thecommon law. That is the whole of it. 

Mr. MASON:--Mr. President--

Mr. POLK:--If the Senator will allow me, before the Senator fromKentucky sits down, I will ask him if the Mexican law establishesslavery, or if it does any thing more than to protect the right of themaster to his slave? If that is the only establishment of it, then itis established by implication merely. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I really do not know whether the gentleman wouldconsider it as establishing or merely protecting. I do not know thatthere is a law in any State of the Union that _eo nomine_ establishesslavery; I do not know. 

Mr. POLK:--The object of the inquiry was this: it has been contendedheretofore that, by the law of Mexico, there could be no slaverythere; and then there is another law of New Mexico professing toprotect the right of property. I have never seen that New Mexican law. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I believe I have answered the gentleman as far as myinformation extends. I have examined that law. It is as strong infavor of the master as the laws of Kentucky or Missouri. I believe itis the law of Mississippi transcribed literally, _verbatim_. That ismy understanding. The law is as complete on the subject as the law ofany State that I know of. 

Mr. MASON:--Mr. President, if the Senator from Kentucky is right, and, in the interpretation of this section, the courts are necessarily toconsider the expression, "according to the course of the common law, "to which slaveholders are referred for the enforcing of the relationof master and slave, as referring only to common law remedies, then Iam at no loss to conceive, after our experience of judicialinterpretation against slavery, by what sort of artificial andsophistic reasoning those judges of the Federal courts may feelthemselves bound to withhold the remedy. Why, sir, are we to shut ourears and our eyes against experience passing before us every day? Whatis the present Constitution? The second section of the fourth articleis in these words:

 "A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime. "

That is the text of the Constitution. What is the interpretation inthe free States? In the State of Kentucky an African is property, under their laws and usages, and has been so for two hundred years;for it was so when it was a part of Virginia; and did it ever enterinto the mind of man to conceive that this plain text of theConstitution would be resisted, upon the ground that property in manwas not acknowledged? And yet it is done. If I am not mistaken, thehonorable Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD], not now in his seat, when Governor of New York, made that very question with the Governorof Virginia; and seeing this, are we to be willingly blind to this asthe actual, judicial, and executive interpretation in every thing thataffects the question of slavery as it stands in that section, andthat, too, while we are seeking equality? Sir, it never entered intothe mind of man, at the time this Constitution was formed, to creditthat the time could ever come in the relations of these States when aman who fled from the State of Kentucky because he had stolen a negrointo the State of Ohio, was screened from the operation of theConstitution, because in Ohio they do not deem a negro to be thesubject of property; and yet that is the fact, the very issue nowdepending between those States; and we are asked to be blind, willingly blind, to all that experience at the very time we areattempting to secure a guarantee for violated rights!

Now, I said, Mr. President, that, if I were to tax my ingenuity, Imight find a mode, even if the honorable Senator is right in ascribingto this clause of the section the necessary interpretation that itrefers to remedies only. The Senator says the previous part of thesection establishes the relation, as he construes it, not directlylike the resolution of the honorable Senator which we offer here as anamendment, which establishes directly that there is property inslaves. This does not; but designedly avoids it; not from any impropermotive--I do not ascribe that--but it is not only silent, but itavoids the very question. I suppose the honorable Senator is right insaying this language, judicial cognizance, according to the course ofthe common law, refers only to the remedy. Now, I tax my ingenuity toknow how a court, in one of the free States, always leaning, ofcourse, against slavery, would reason out that proposition, whetherthe remedy could be applied. Suppose an action of trover is brought. The inquiry would be, what is the remedy? We are told this is theremedy for which you are to apply to the law. A remedy is nothing inthe world but a redress for wrong. Before you can apply the remedy, therefore, you must ascertain whether a wrong has been committed forwhich the remedy is adequate. Well, it comes from one side: the wrongwas in taking the negro from the possession of the owner, against thelocal law of the Territory. The answer would be, "that may be true asfar as the local law of the Territory is concerned; but here theConstitution adopts the common law as part of its text, and points thejudges to the common law, and it applies the remedy. " Now, the remedyis redress of the wrong, and we are bound to see that the wrong is oneto which the remedy is applicable. The remedy is to recover propertyin the possession of one who is not entitled to it, and the commonlaw, which applies that remedy to that wrong, says there is no wronginflicted by taking the negro from the possession of his owner. Itcomes to that. It is suggested to me by the honorable Senator fromVermont [Mr. COLLAMER], that the common law, as a remedy, is oneapplicable to a common-law wrong. I do not say that the reasoning isjust; I do not say that it is juridical; but I say, in our experience, we should be willingly blind if we take that for a security which willonly be a snare. 

Mr. PUGH:--Mr. President, it is very well known to the Senate that Iprefer the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, as a matter ofindividual choice, to the proposition which is proposed by the PeaceConference. Nevertheless, that Conference having been authorized, ifnot by Congress, at all events, so far as my State is concerned, bythe act of her Legislature; and an overwhelming majority of thecommissioners having agreed to this proposition as it stands, I shallhesitate very much in departing from it, whatever might be myindividual opinion; but certainly if I thought the two Senators fromVirginia had given it a correct interpretation, I should not agree toit. Now, as to this clause, it, in my judgment, had better have beenomitted:

 "The same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. "

I suggest that the common law is referred to as fixing a right simply. The course of the common law is a phrase defined for more than twohundred years, in Latin, in English, and in Norman French. It meansthe formula of proceeding. I understood the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] to say that it had been decided in several of the courts thatan action of trover could not be brought for a negro slave in England. I think I am familiar with the case. It is reported in Salkeld'sReports, Lord Raymond's Reports, and in the Modern Reports--the samecase reported three times; but the same court which decided thattrover would not lie, because trover included the idea of property inthe man himself, in the same opinion said that trespass on the casewould lie for the loss of the service; so that it was all a questionof pleading, and no question of right at all. It is within myrecollection--and I believe the case was brought to the Supreme Courton a writ of error, and can be found in Howard's Reports--that acitizen of Kentucky declared in trespass on the case for taking awayhis slaves, and added two counts in trover. What is trover but anaction of trespass on the case? Nothing more; and it never was anything more. The measure of damages is the same in both actions--thevalue of the service of the servant; and yet that controversy on merepleading--which, in nine-tenths of the States of this Union, hasceased to be of any value, because they have a code of procedure, ismade a terrific objection here. 

Now, sir, I have never read the code of New Mexico, and I do notpropose to read it; but it is perfectly understood that thatTerritorial Legislature, pursuing the privilege, if you call itprivilege, conferred by the compromise measures of 1850, hasestablished the relation of master and slave, or master and servant, as perfectly as it is established in any of the fifteen so-calledslaveholding States. I do not admire this word "_status_" which wefind in the report of the Peace Conference; but as to the meaning ofthat word, I cannot be in any doubt. It does not refer to any personsin particular; it refers to a legal relation of servitude as betweenmaster and servant, and it provides that that relation, or condition, or _status_, shall not be changed; that for all wrongs orcontroversies arising out of that there shall be a remedy through theFederal judiciary. 

I can see why the commission made this distinction. There have beenmany who have insisted that the Congress of the United States shouldpass laws for the protection of the right of the master to theservices of his slave in a Territory; but it has always been myopinion, that the worst thing the slaveholding States ever could havewould be to have that; for there would be a perpetual controversy herefrom session to session, and from day to day, whether the law went farenough in giving protection or went too far; and they would beremitting their right to the adjudication of the Senators andRepresentatives from the non-slaveholding States. Others haveinsisted, as the propositions of my honorable friend from Kentuckyprovided, that the relation should be protected by the legislation ofthe territorial authority. I would rather it were so, individually, ifthey chose to establish it. The peace commission do not want that. They evidently do not want to quarrel with the TerritorialLegislatures about the measure of legislation; but they declare theright, and then say that this right shall be enforced in the Federaljudiciary according to the course of remedies and forms of the commonlaw. I do not see how there can be a doubt; and yet, as I have said, it seems to me that a great deal of it is unnecessary verbiage. I donot mean to debate that; I am not one of the peace commissioners; I amnot to select my words to express the idea; but I am here; and myState with other States, having appointed commissioners in view of acrisis like this, as they esteem it, and as I esteem it, and theyhaving agreed upon a great variety of propositions, some of whichcommend themselves to my judgment and some do not; but taking italtogether as one proposition, I am satisfied that I must either votefor all of it, or let all of it fall. I would rather vote for theproposition of my honorable friend from Kentucky. I said that sixtydays ago; and I have said it in season and out of season. I haveexpressed my views frequently. I think the proposition of thecommissioners would be better expressed, though it would come to thesame thing, in these words: "in all the territory south of that line, it is hereby declared that no law or regulation shall ever be made orhave any effect denying or impairing the right of the inhabitants tothe service or labor of such persons as were held in that condition inany State of the Union; and thence taken into the said Territory. "That would have expressed my idea more clearly, yet I am satisfiedwith this; it amounts to that. Whether the word "_status_" be goodLatin or good English, the meaning is very clear. 

I believe I admonished the Senate two hours ago that time was veryprecious; and I shall not detain them myself. 

Mr. BAKER:--Mr. President, I mean to vote for the passage of theseproposed amendments, just as they are, without any change; and Ipropose to give very briefly a few of the reasons which govern myjudgment in that act. I will do it as pointedly as I can, and I willcertainly do it very briefly. 

In the first place, I feel that I am but submitting to the people ofthe whole country, amendments which they, and they only, canincorporate in the present Constitution; and I do not believe that, inany state of the case, I can do very wrong in doing that; but when Iconsider the immediate condition of the country, I feel that I amdoing very right. Twenty States assemble in what is called the PeaceConvention. They recommend to us, in times of great trial anddifficulty, the passage of these resolutions. They are eminent men;they are able men; they are--very many of them, at least--great men;they have been selected by the States which they respectivelyrepresent, because of their purity of character and ability. Thecountry is in great trouble. Six States have seceded; and I am told byvery many men in whom I have great confidence, that their States areto-day trembling in the balance. I believe it. I am told--and uponthat subject I have not yet made up my mind--that the adoption ofthese measures by the people will heal the differences with the BorderStates. I do not believe that I can do wrong, therefore, in giving thepeople of the whole Union a chance to determine these questions. 

In the beginning, I voted against the propositions of thedistinguished Senator from Kentucky. Even then I did not perceive anygreat harm in submitting any propositions to the people of the UnitedStates which circumstances might appear to render necessary for anygood purpose. I refused to vote for them, for two reasons: first, Ibelieved something better might be attained; and second, I did notbelieve that the people of the States would agree to them. I do notbelieve that now, and for one simple reason: I think I may considermyself in some respect a representative of the opinion as well as thepower of my own people. I am a Republican, a zealous and determinedone. I have all my life been of the opinion that Congress ought not toprotect slavery, and to extend the dominion of this Government forthat purpose or with that possibility. A great many in the North, whoare not Republicans, but are what we call DOUGLAS men, have shown, atthe last election, under something of trial and sacrifice, that theytoo, do not believe that the Constitution does or ought to extendslavery. I am not disposed to give up that opinion; I do not believethey are. I was not disposed to give up when six States were in theUnion who are now out, as they say; and I am not disposed to give itup yet. Independently of pride of opinion, I do not believe that kindof sacrifice would accomplish any good result. 

These are the reasons in brief which induced me to vote with regretagainst the propositions of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky inthe earlier portion of this session. But now, we are within two daysof adjournment. Propositions essentially variant in their character tothose are submitted here; and I am asked: "Will you, in yourrepresentative capacity, submit these to your people for theirdecision, either to accept or reject?" Now, why not? I need not dwellupon the fact that, while we are a representative, we are at the sametime a democratic Government. I will not shut my eyes to the fact thattwenty States appeal to us; I will not shut my eyes to the fact thatthere is imminent danger of permanent dissolution; I will not shut myeyes to the fact that, though the Republican party is in aconstitutional majority, it is not yet, and it never has been, in anactual majority; and I do not believe that it is possible forone-third of the people to coerce the opinion of two-thirds. 

Mr. WILKINSON:--I wish to ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. BAKER:--Do, sir. 

Mr. WILKINSON:--I understand him as saying that the whole of thetwenty States which were assembled in this Peace Convention agreed tothis proposition. 

Mr. BAKER:--My distinguished friend was writing, instead of listening, when he understood that. I did not mean to say that, and I did not. 

Mr. WILKINSON:--I understood the Senator to say that twenty Statesappealed to us. 

Mr. BAKER:--Yes, sir; just as I say that the Government appeals toanother Government, I do not say every individual in it; just as I saythat Congress appeals to another Government, not every individualmember of Congress; but I do say, in the words of the propositionbefore us, that "they, " the Peace Convention, composed of the Statesrecited, "have approved what is herewith submitted, and respectfullyrequest that your honorable body will submit it to conventions in theStates, as article thirteen of the amendments to the Constitution ofthe United States. " That is all I said, or, at least, it is all Imeant to say. 

Now, sir, suppose every argument that the distinguished Senators fromVirginia have brought to bear on this proposition was true: what then?Is that any reason why it should not be submitted to the people?Suppose they do not approve of it: what then? It is their business, not ours. Suppose they should: it is a measure of peace, of security, of union. Sir, I know, as you do, many of the members of thatConvention. I have acted with them as Whigs in old times, and I wishthey could come back. I know they have proved in old times, as theywill prove again, that they love this Union to the very depth and coreof their hearts. I do not propose to give them up; I do not propose toweaken them; I do admire, with my whole heart, the sacrifice ofopinion which they make, and which is typified by the noble expressionof the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to-day. Party or no party, North or no North, I, at least, will meet him half way. My State isvery far distant. She had no members in that Convention. I do not knowwhether she will approve this measure; but I know it will neither hurtthat State nor me to give her a chance to determine. I know very wellthat the Senators from Virginia do not approve it. That is the veryreason I do. [Laughter. ] If I was sure they would not think me guiltyof disrespect, I would remind them of what was said by a distinguishedman in old times. Phocion, in the last days of his Republic--and Ihope in that respect, at least, there will be no parallel--Phocion wasonce making a speech to the Athenian people, and something he saidexcited very great applause. He turned around to gentlemen, friendsnear him, and said: "What foolish thing have I been saying, that thesepeople praise me?" Sir, if Virginia, represented as she is to-day--notas I believe she really is--but if Virginia, represented as she ishere to-day, and as she has been during this session, were to approvethese propositions, I should doubt them very much indeed. 

I was surprised, however, to hear some things that the distinguishedSenator from Virginia--I do not know whether to call him junior orsenior--said. I do not mean the Senator who spoke last. He [Mr. HUNTER] says that this proposition here is worse than the oldConstitution. If that be really so, what in the world has he beencomplaining of so bitterly? He tells us, now, that under the oldConstitution slavery was secure. Then, why do you grumble? Heconsiders it as secure, not only wherever it is, but wherever it cango--nay, more than that; wherever the Stars and Stripes of theAmerican Republic can float. I have been telling my people that, as aRepublican, for a long while, and complaining of the Dred Scottdecision; but he says slavery is secured. All the complaint that theother Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] makes, is against the decisionof the courts in the free States we have been in the habit of making, which he insists are against the decision of the Supreme Court, constituted other than we wished it was. We have been in the habit ofbelieving that one of the great evils we complained of was under theold Constitution, and that a new construction was given to it, aliento the intention, wish, construction, of our fathers; and we havecomplained that the Supreme Court was so constituted that it could notbe reversed. We complained, as partisans, that now this Senate and theother House were so composed that we had no power in the Government, save through the President. Now, the Senator from Virginia indorsesthe whole of it, and says they were very well off, and didbeautifully. Then why dissolve; why threaten; why make a PeaceConference necessary?

Mr. President, let us be just to these propositions. As a Republican, I give up something when I vote for them; but remember, sir, I am notvoting for them now; I am only voting to submit them to my people; andI shall go before them, when the time comes, being governed in myopinion and advice as to whether they shall vote for them or not, as Isee that Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Missouri, by their people, desire. To be frank, sir; if this proposition willsuit the Border States, if there will be peace and union, and loyaltyand brotherhood, with this, I will vote for it at the polls with allmy heart and with all my soul; but if I see that the counsels of theSenators from Virginia shall prevail; if my noble friend fromTennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] shall be overwhelmed; if secession shall stillgrow in the public mind there; if they are determined, upon artificialcauses of complaint, as I believe, still to unite their fate, theirdestiny, and their hope, with the extremest South, then, perceivingthem to be of no avail, I shall refuse them. Therefore, at the pollsat last, I shall be governed as an individual citizen by myconviction at the moment of what the ultimate result of thesepropositions will be; but I am not voting for that to-day. I amsaying: "People of the United States, I submit it to you; twentyStates demand it; the peace of the country requires it; there isdissolution in the very atmosphere; States have gone off; othersthreaten; the Queen of England upon her throne declares to the wholeworld her sympathy with our unfortunate condition; foreign Governmentsdenote that there is danger to-day that the greatest Confederation theworld has ever seen is to be parted in pieces, never to be reunited. "Now, not what I wish, not what I want, not what I would have, but allthat I can get, is before me. I know that I do no harm. If the peopleof Oregon do not like it, they can easily reject it. If the people ofPennsylvania will not have it, they can easily throw it aside. If theydo not believe there is danger of dissolution, if they preferdissolution, if they think they can compel fifteen States to remain inor come back, or if they believe they will not go out, let them rejectit. I repeat again, it is their business, it is not mine. 

But, sir, whether I vote for it at the polls or not, in voting for ithere it may be said that I give up some of my principles. Mr. President, we sometimes mistake our opinions for our principles. I amappealed to often; it is said to me: "You believed in the Chicagoplatform. " Suppose I did. "Well, this varies from the Chicagoplatform. " Suppose it does. I stand to-day, as I believe, in thepresence of greater events than those which attend the making of aPresident. I stand, as I believe, at least, in the presence of peaceand war; and if it were true that I did violate the Chicago platform, the Chicago platform is not a Constitution of the United States to me. If events, if circumstances change, I will violate it, appealing to myconscience, to my country, and to my God, to justify me according tothe motive. [Applause in the galleries. ]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FOSTER in the chair). Order will bepreserved in the galleries, or they will be cleared. 

Mr. BAKER:--Again, sir, let us see how, as a Republican, I give up anything. First, suppose I did: I would give up a great deal to preservea great Government; I would give up a great deal to be able to shakehands with Kentucky and Tennessee as friends for the rest of my life, as I have in all that has gone before. I would not be ashamed to giveup. I would not at least be giving up to traitorous secession, such asLouisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina are guilty of to-day; but Iwould be giving up to loyal and affectionate brethren, who implore mefor the love of a common Union to do something to satisfy the doubtsand fears of their people. I can stand that; I will do it. 

Again, sir; how much do I give up? I have said, as a Republican, thatCongress has the power to prohibit slavery in all the Territories ofthe United States. I believe it to-day. Talking about giving up, thereare a good many other people that give up something here. Gentlemen onthe other side, who have been contending that Congress had no powerwhatever to prohibit slavery, acknowledge that they were mistaken; atany rate they go for it; they do prohibit it by law, by theConstitution itself. Therefore I am not the only one that gives up. 

Again: I believe it is wrong, politically wrong--I am not nowdiscussing the social and moral question--but I believe it to bepolitically very wrong to establish slavery in the name of freedom. Sir, twelve years ago or more, it was my fortune, perhaps, to wanderin a foreign land beneath the Stars and Stripes of my country. I wentthere, as I think, impelled by motives of patriotism, perhaps havingmingled with them not a little desire of adventure, love of change, and that feverish excitement for which we people of this country arealways and everywhere remarkable; but I believe, if I know myself, that I did suppose I was doing something to repay the country for muchthat she had done for me. Sir, often and again, wandering sometimesbeneath

 "Where Orizaba's purpled summit shone, "

sometimes by the dark pestilential river that marks the boundarybetween the two countries, often and often have I wondered to myselfwhether I was wandering and suffering there to spread slavery over anunwilling people. I am not sorry to see that now that is renderedimpossible. I am not sorry to see that it is impossible, first, in thecourse of events; but if it were not so, I know, if these propositionsshall pass, that the foul blot of slavery never will be extended overone foot of territory to be stolen or conquered by the people of theUnited States. 

But I am asked, "What do you say about New Mexico?" I will tell you intwenty words. I am an older Republican than many of those I see aroundme, who vote to-day differently from me; not a better but an older. Ivoted in 1850, on the floor of the other House, against the compromisemeasures of that year. I did so, among other reasons, because I wasnot willing that Utah and New Mexico should become slave or freeaccording to the wishes of their people, believing as I did then (Ihave changed my opinion in some respects since), that that was notbest for the whole country. Contrary to my wishes, those compromisemeasures prevailed. New Mexico is nominally now, I believe, a slaveTerritory; that is, to use the words of the distinguished Senator fromNew York [Mr. SEWARD], there are some twenty slaves in the wholeTerritory. There they may, they probably will, remain. I submit to mypeople a proposition, that if they approve it as a compromise, as aconcession, for peace for the Union, as it happens that that littleTerritory includes all that possibly can be slave territory, they willlet it alone till the people are able and willing to make their ownState constitution. That is all. Do I state it fairly? Does it gobeyond that?

First, I contend that I give up but little. I give it up, as Iunderstand, for purposes of freedom; and the distinguished Senatorsfrom Virginia agree with me. They say, in substance, that I am gettinga great deal more than I give; and I confess, taking that view of thesubject, at least in part, I wonder that a good many more of myRepublican friends do not go with me. 

Again: it is said on the Republican side that we protect slavery. Inone sense we do, and in another sense we do not. In the offensive ideato me and to you of protecting slavery, I do no such thing, and Iwould die first. When the resolutions of the Senator from Kentuckywere up the other day, I voted for the amendment of the other Senatorfrom Kentucky [Mr. POWELL], in order to make them clear, to show whatI was voting against. I was unwilling that territory hereafter to beacquired should be rendered slave territory; and I put thatproposition distinctly in it, in order that when I voted against them, it might be seen why and how I did it. As I have said, thisproposition renders that impossible. First, it refers only to theterritory we now possess; that is, New Mexico alone. As to theterritory north of 36° 30´, I need not speak. We know that GodAlmighty has registered a decree in Heaven that that shall never beslave. We, on our part, want no WILMOT proviso there; we all agreethat we are willing to let it alone. South, there is but the barrenTerritory of New Mexico. Beyond that, who knows? If we are to acquireit, we are to acquire it by this proposition, by the assent of amajority of the States of both sections and two-thirds of the whole;and I do not know a man living who believes that with that propositionincorporated in the Constitution, slavery is probable, or evenpossible. 

Therefore, Mr. President, I agree that in the compromise I, as aRepublican, do give up to that extent, and no more, what I have said;but doing that, I believe that I consecrate all the territory betweenhere and Cape Horn to freedom, with all its blessings, forever andforever. 

So far, sir, as the discussion as to the meaning of this phrase aboutthe common law is concerned, I do not care to indulge in it, and forthis simple reason: first, according to the legal view of the Senatorfrom Ohio, everybody knows that this expression, "the course of thecommon law, " means the duly established forms of procedure known tothe courts; that is all. In the next place, I am not afraid of thecommon law. I have been reared under it. With all its imperfections, and they are many, I love it. While it may be an objection to Virginiato quote it, to me it is full of guardianship and blessing. I do notstop to talk about the Somerset case, nor the decision in Salkeld, northe Modern Reports. It is enough for me that I know, taking the wholeproposition together, that slavery is impossible beyond where it nowis, and, as a Republican, I can justify myself to my conscience ingiving that vote. 

Mr. President, I add very few more words. I should have beenexcessively pleased, as a partisan and a man, if the inauguration ofMr. LINCOLN could be one at which all the States would attend with theold good feeling, and with the old good humor. I have seen six Statesseparate themselves, as they say, from us, and form a new confederacy, with great pain and greater surprise. I cannot shut my eyes, if Iwould, to the existing state of things. I listen to the warning of myfriend from Kentucky. I listen to the warning of my friend fromTennessee. I have been in both States. I know something of theirpeople. I believe that there, even there, the Union is in danger; andI believe if we break up here without some attempt to reconcile themto us, and us to them, many of the predictions of friends and foes asto the danger will be accomplished. I said, in the earlier part of thesession--I repeat it--I would yield nothing to secession. When theRepresentatives from South Carolina and Mississippi and Alabama andLouisiana came here invoking war, telling us that if we did not yieldto them they would secede, they would confederate with foreignGovernments, they would break this Union, they would hold us as aliensand strangers and enemies, I believed then, as I believe now, thatthat was too dear a price to pay even for Union and peace; but to-daythe case is altered. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, reiterate theirlove for the Union. They tell us in unmistakable terms that theydesire to remain; and in every county, nay, in every township of thoseStates, we have staunch and true and ardent friends who would bewilling to seal their devotion to this Union with their blood. It isthey to whose appeal I would listen. It is from them that I would takecounsel and advice; and when they tell me, "pass these resolutions;they are resolutions of peace; submit them to your people; listen towhat ours say in reply; if it appears to you at the polls that theseresolutions will produce peace, restore union, create or renewfraternal, kindly feeling, pass them; let us settle this question, andbe one people, " I agree; with all my heart, I will do it. 

Now, as I close, let me ask what evil; who will be hurt? Suppose, whenI get home, I find that the Senators from Virginia are on the stumpand they are convincing their people that they are a great deal worseoff; the more they convince Virginia that she is worse off, the morePennsylvania and New York will be convinced that they are better off;and every argument they make against it in Virginia will have atwofold weight North and West. I could not make half as good a speechin favor of these propositions of Union, even in Oregon, orCalifornia, or Illinois--I speak of the States I know best--as Ishould make if I were to read their objections to these propositions. 

But suppose--which I do not think possible--they could succeed, notonly in Virginia (which I do not believe), but in Kentucky andTennessee; suppose they were to swear, by the throne of God, theywould not take them, but would dissolve and go off whether we passedthem or not: we could very easily refuse to vote for them and be in asgood a condition as we are to-day, and, in the mean time, next Monday, Mr. LINCOLN will be inaugurated. I desire to see around him thronging, nay forming the procession, every augury of hope and peace. 

I expect to hear from his lips words of manly trust and confidence inthe Union, and of concession, kindness to all its constituent parts. Ihave hoped that, in response to what he shall say, I shall hear fromevery part of what is now acknowledged everywhere yet as ourConfederacy, a perpetual hymn of hope and praise rising from all partsof the Union; and, above all things else, I have hope and trust intime and patience. Therefore it is that I shall do no harm. 

I know that there are very excited feelings upon this subject Northand South. I understand that Massachusetts, an honored State--let mesay, to qualify what I am going to say, first, that I believe thatMassachusetts is the pattern of a community in the world; as wellrepresented here as any State can be; representing herself better thananybody else can do it for her--I know that there are excited feelingsin Massachusetts, and I think she has good cause. The act that morethan any other else, perhaps, leads to this proposition of a PeaceConvention--that "Congress shall provide by law for securing to thecitizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens inthe several States"--was an act which I abhorred and condemned fromthe beginning, and which I am not sorry to perceive thatMassachusetts remembers now. Many gentlemen on the floor know to whatI allude. On the other hand, South Carolina and Louisiana areferocious for disunion; and I am afraid that their young men do wantwar. There is not excitement enough on the plantation and the farm, and in the streets of the towns; but they really want contest, excitement, and bloodshed. What they want I do not; I am trying tokeep from it. I do not apprehend, therefore, that the sentiments whichI have expressed here to-day will meet the approbation of the extrememen upon either side. I have no doubt my republicanism may be doubted. I think I can see in the look of my friend on my left now [Mr. KING]that he has various convictions that I am very far from being sound inthe faith. [Laughter. ] Sir, it may be. I come from the midst of apeople not directly concerned in this controversy; a population abouthalf northern, half southern. We have intermarried together. Ourinterests, our fears, our hopes, our recollections, are mingled Northand South; and I believe I am expressing their opinions--which perhapsform my own--when I say that I can see no possible harm to anybodyanywhere in submitting these propositions to the people, who are, andought to be, sovereign. 

Besides, sir, what else can I do? As I sit down, let me ask Senatorsupon every side, what else can any of us do? Shall we sit here forthree months, when petition, resolution, public meeting, speech, acclamation, tumult, is heard, seen, and felt on every side, and donothing? Shall State after State go out, and not warn us of danger?Shall Senators and Representatives, patriotic, eloquent, venerable, tell us, again and again, of danger in their States, and we condescendto make no reply?

Sir, there is other business to be done here besides the mere ordinarybusiness of the Government; besides the voting of supplies, and theraising of means by which to buy them. We have questions here to-day, as I believe, of peace and war, and I have waited long to see somemode of their solution. I repeat, I go for this proposition, and agreeto submit it to the vote of the people, not because I believe it thebest that can be done. I believe, however, that, to-day being two daysfrom the close of this session, it is all I can do. When my people askme, on my return, "Sir, have not States gone out?" I will say, "Yes. ""Do not more threaten it?" if that is the word (I trust it is not thebest one), I say, "Yes. " They say, "Sir, do you believe they will doit?" "On my honor and on my conscience, " I say, "if something is notdone, yes. " They then ask, "What have you done?" Mr. President, whathave we done? I believe that is the question the country will ask ofus; and I, for one, will vote for this proposition, that I may be ableto respond. 

Mr. GREEN:--Mr. President, I regard the consideration of this questionas one of the most important which has ever been presented to theSenate since I have been a member of it. The Union is in danger; thefate of the country is at stake; and whatever the Senate or the Houseof Representatives or Congress combined can do, ought to be done tosave the country. I have very little faith or hope, and I wouldexpress the reason why. But as little as there is, I will cling to thelast remaining straw, and sink with it grasped fast in my hands, if Ihave no other resource. This country is of too much importance to me, to my family, to my friends, to my State, to my associates everywhere, to give up without a struggle. That struggle may prove to befruitless; it may prove to be unavailing. The taunts and jeers thrownout are calculated to stir up ire and ill-feeling; I shall pass themby with disregard. I choose to sacrifice my feelings, and to makemyself a burnt-offering on the altar, if I can do any thing to savethe country. 

What, then, shall we do? These propositions, presented by what iscalled the Peace Conference, are not to be compared to thepropositions of the Senator from Kentucky; and I will not vote for asingle one of them, while I will vote for his. They amount to asacrifice of my honor, and a destruction of the rights of my State. Iam permitted to say that the representatives from my State in thePeace Conference condemned them all, while they are willing to go forthe proposition of the Senator from Kentucky. We cannot stand by this, and we will not. 

Let us not deceive each other; let us not undertake to practice asystem of deception which will sound pleasant to the ear, but will bebitter to the taste. I will not do it. Here is a positive prohibitionof slavery north of 36° 30´, and then a doubtful question whether itis recognized south of 36° 30´. The Senator from Kentucky thinks itis; but I will not act upon a doubt. We have had too many doubtsheretofore, and out of those doubts have grown many difficulties. Ishall never permit, so far as my action is concerned, another questionof doubt. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Did heunderstand me as admitting that it was a doubtful recognition ofslavery?

Mr. GREEN:--Not at all. I said expressly that the Senator fromKentucky contended that it did amount to a recognition, but othersdenied it, and that made it a question of doubt. I will notmisrepresent anybody if I know it. Now, sir, I will not act upon aquestion which admits of doubt. We have passed along in our career forso many years that we have arrived at a point when we must understandeach other distinctly and unequivocally, and I will not leave a singlepoint open to equivocation. It must be expressly settled, and settlednot only in express words, not only in unmistakable language; but I gofurther than that; it must emanate from the hearts of a peopledisposed to stand by it; and if they will not stand by it, I will notassociate with them. 

I want to preserve this Union; I want to maintain the constitutionalrights of all classes, North and South; but to give me a mere writtenguarantee on parchment, and file it in the office of the Secretary ofState, with a predetermination in the hearts and minds of the northernpeople inculcated and instructed to violate it, I cannot live with, and I will not. I would rather go where I naturally belong, withsouthern men; but if the true-hearted, the patriotic, and thehonorable portion of the North will reverse this inculcated spirit ofhostility to southern institutions, and bring them up to the markwhere they will recognize constitutional guarantees, then I say, "Hail, thou my brother, we can go together;" but never till that comesto pass. We have approached that period in our country's history whenthere should be no cheating or attempt to cheat. We must understandeach other, and make a permanent, lasting Union, or a permanent, lasting, peaceful separation. 

This proposition presented by the Peace Conference, as it is called, Ithink the merest twaddle--and I use the term with entire respect tothe members--the merest twaddle that ever was presented to a thinkingpeople. The proposition of the Senator from Kentucky has some sense init. If he chooses to desert his own, I shall not complain of him; forI know that warm, patriotic impulses move him in all his action; but Icannot accept the other, and I shall vote against every one of itsprovisions. When it is said to me that the territory south of 36° 30´has adopted slavery--that New Mexico has--I must reply to Senatorsthat they misunderstand the law. New Mexico has never adopted slavery. New Mexico has done this: she has provided remedies for redress ofwrongs, including wrongs affecting slave property; but she has neverestablished slavery; nor has Utah. Utah has never even recognized itby implication. Utah passed a law of this character: apprentices boundto service for a period of years may be held there; but when theirservitude has expired, according to their articles of apprenticeship, they are free; so that the law of Utah absolutely, if it has anyeffect, prohibits slavery. 

Senators overlook these facts. I take the broad and the bold and theunmistakable ground, not that the Constitution establishes slaveryanywhere, but that the Constitution, extending over a Territory, willprotect me in all my rights not prohibited by a local competentauthority; that my rights are to take any property which I own in anypart of the Union, Yankee clocks from the North, polar bears from theRocky Mountains, mules from the Middle States, and slaves from theSouth; and that, unless there is a competent local authority toprohibit my rights in these respective classes of property, I am to beprotected. The second step is that there can be no local authority aslong as the territorial condition remains, competent to prohibitslavery in any Territory. 

These are my positions; and hence, so far from this extraordinaryposition that slavery is local being true, the reverse is true. It maybe local in the United States, but so far from its being local to theTerritory in the United States, the reverse is true. Talk aboutfreedom being national, and slavery local! I have a right to passthrough Pennsylvania, and my right of transit is as perfect this dayas it was when Pennsylvania was a slave State. .. . 

I have been anxious from the beginning of this session to stave offpublic action, to hold the public pulse still, and give an opportunityfor reaction of northern sentiment. I want no reaction south. It hasbeen my only hope, and my last hope, and that hope has failed. .. . 

These resolutions are intended to lull old Virginia, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky, until we are hand-cuffed and tied fast, andthen action is to commence. They are all designed simply to lull usinto a fancied security; but if we are wise betimes, and look forwardto coming events, we will at once strike the blow, and separate from aConfederation which denies us peace, denies us protection, denies usour constitutional rights, and seek them in some other association ofStates. .. . 

Now, Mr. President, I want all these propositions voted down, and Ihope my friend from Kentucky will revive his propositions and bringthem up again. There is some vitality in them; there is some point inthem; but as for these wishy-washy resolutions, that amount tonothing, it is impossible that any Senator here will, for a moment, entertain the idea of supporting them. The Peace Conference! And thesmallest peace that ever I have heard of. Let the Senator adhere tohis original propositions; let the Senator bring them up and pressthem upon the attention of the Senate. That is as far backing down asI will go. It is a little more than I want; but still, as a lasteffort to save the Union, I would go that far. Talk about thesemeasures! These measures that have no vitality--these measures thatamount to a total surrender of every principle--I never will vote for;and let the consequences of the future be what they may, I stake myfaith and reputation upon the vote I intend to cast. 

Mr. WADE:--I move that the Senate adjourn. 

Mr. LANE:--I hope the Senator will give me the floor before he makesthat motion. 

Mr. TRUMBULL:--I ask the Senator from Oregon to yield to me a moment. 

Mr. LANE:--For a motion to adjourn, I will. 

Mr. TRUMBULL:--Yes, sir; I desire the floor with a view to make thatmotion. It is apparent that no good is to come out of the discussionof the proceedings of this Peace Conference. It is a proposition gotup for the purpose of satisfying the Border States; and the BorderStates, Missouri and Virginia, say they will have none of it. Thefirst section is a proposition establishing slavery--

Mr. MASON:--I rise to a question of order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from Illinois will pause. TheSenator from Virginia rises to a question of order, which he willstate. 

Mr. MASON:--I understand the motion to adjourn has been made. 

Mr. TRUMBULL:--I have not made the motion yet. I stated that I wouldmake that motion, and I was merely going to give the reason. TheSenator from Oregon will have the floor to-morrow. I was stating thereason why I should make the motion to adjourn, which I intend to makein the course of a minute, and I merely made that statement to showthat there was no object in sitting here and punishing ourselves inregard to resolutions which manifestly cannot command the assent ofthis body. I now move that the Senate adjourn. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I call for the yeas and nays on that motion. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

And the Senate refused to adjourn, and, for special business, thepeace propositions were set aside. The same day they were introduced, as follows:

Mr. LANE:--Mr. President, my object in getting the floor, was to givethe reason why I cannot vote for the resolution now before the Senate. You are aware, sir, that I did vote for the propositions of theSenator from Kentucky to amend the Constitution, with the hope, ifthey could be adopted, that peace, perhaps, might be restored to thecountry; but those propositions have been superseded, and the Senatorfrom Kentucky himself says that he is willing to sacrifice, on thealtar of his country, as he terms it, his own propositions, and takethe amendments which are proposed to the Constitution presented by thePeace Congress to the Senate. The resolutions proposed by thedistinguished Senator from Kentucky were as low down as I could go. They did not secure to every State that right they have under theConstitution, as I understand it; but the resolution now before theSenate, to speak modestly, as I look at it, with all due respect tothe great men who met here to consider this matter, who deliberatedfor many days, and presented this as the result of theirdeliberations, is a cheat, a deception, a humbug--nothing that anyState can take as a final settlement of the questions that are nowgiving trouble to this country, nothing that can settle permanentlythose difficulties. We must have something more definite, somethingmore certain, or there can be no Union even of the States that nowremain in the Union, as I believe. 

Mr. GREEN:--Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Does the Senator from Oregon give way?

Mr. LANE:--Only for an adjournment. 

Mr. GREEN:--I rise to make that motion, that the Senate do nowadjourn. 

So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate by a vote--23 to22--adjourned. 

_March 2d. _--Senator LANE having secured the floor, made the followingspeech on the report of the Peace Conference:

Mr. LANE:--Mr. President, I hope I shall be permitted to proceedwithout interruption, and I trust not to consume much time. While Ihad the floor yesterday, I stated some of my objections to theproposed amendments to the Constitution which are now before us. Theyare: that they do not do justice to the whole country--that they donot do justice to all the States. I have always held that theterritory is common property; that it belongs to all the States; thatevery citizen of every State has an equal right to emigrate to, andsettle in, the common Territories; and that any species of property, recognized as such in any State of the Confederacy, should have a likerecognition in the Territories, and be guaranteed, protected, andsecured in its full integrity, to the owner thereof. That this shouldbe so, was the intent of the revolutionary fathers who shaped andframed the Constitution; and it was this principle, more, perhaps, than any other, which called into being that noble compact, which hasso long been a bond of Union and goodness between all the States. Itis the very life-blood and vitality of the Constitution. It is theligament that has held us together heretofore, and which, if cut now, will result only in hopeless and immutable disruption. I have neverdeviated a single iota from this correct doctrine. Had we lived up tothis equitable principle--the foundation upon which the Constitutionrests, upon which only this Union can be maintained--we should havehad no trouble in this country to-day. It is not my fault that troubleand dissatisfaction prevail; it is not my fault that secession hastaken place, and that further secession will take place, unlessCongress shall recognize this great principle of justice, of right, and of equality. That is the doctrine upon which this Union rests; andit must be maintained, or the connection will be severed. 

While upon this question, Mr. President, I may be permitted to alludeto my course in the Senate last session, and I shall do so verybriefly, upon a series of resolutions introduced by the Senator fromMississippi [Mr. DAVIS]--a series of resolutions that were consideredin this body, after having been previously maturely and deliberatelyadopted by a caucus composed of the Democratic Senators, and agreedupon by them, as setting forth the principles necessary to bemaintained in order to secure the existence and perpetuity of thisConfederacy. It has been charged upon this floor that, on the 25th dayof May last, I voted against the right of protection to slave propertyin the Territories. In order that the Senate may know how I voted, andthat I may show you and every other man that I stood then as I standto-day, and as I have always stood upon this question, I will readsome short extracts from the discussion upon this series ofresolutions. The fourth resolution was in these words:

 "_Resolved_, That neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly nature, possesses the power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common Territories, but it is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford for that, as for other species of property, the needful protection; and if experience should at any time prove that the judiciary does not possess power to insure adequate protection, it will then become the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency. "

Now mark! this resolution states that all the property of all thepeople of any State, whether slave or otherwise, has an equal right toprotection; and if experience should at any time prove that thecourts had not the power to afford that protection, then it was theduty of Congress to enact such laws as were necessary to protect everyman in his legal and rightful property, no matter of what descriptionor characteristic. Sir, not long since, upon this floor, a Senator washardy enough to say that I voted against protecting property inTerritories; and he desired to know what had happened that Statesshould be concerned; what had occurred to alarm the States that wereseceding from the Union? I will show you, sir, very briefly, what Isaid upon that question then; and I will repeat it now, for I havenever changed my sentiments on this subject. No living man can assert, and in so doing tell the truth, that I ever uttered a word against theequality of the States, and their equal right in the common territoryof our common country; and any charge that I voted then to refuseprotection to property in the territory _is false_. I have always heldthat the territory belonged to all; that it was acquired, as I knew, at the expense of the Southern States as well as of the Northern; andupon the battle-fields where I had witnessed the good conduct ofNorthern and Southern troops, I found the soldier from the SouthernStates pouring out his blood as freely, and certainly in very muchlarger quantity--for there were very many more from the SouthernStates who participated in the battles of our country in the war whichresulted in the acquisition of territory, than there were from theNorthern States. Then, so far as the acquisition is concerned, it isjoint, and it was for the joint benefit of all portions of thecountry. Consequently, I have held, and I hold now, that theTerritories should be so appropriated. And when those resolutions wereup last winter, I said what I will now read:

 "I only desire to say, in relation to the series of resolutions, a portion of which I have already voted in favor of, that I shall vote in favor of the rest; for the whole of them together meet with my hearty approbation. They assert the truth; they assert the great principle that the constitutional rights of the States are equal; that the States have equal rights in this country under the Constitution; and, as I understand it, they must be maintained in that equality. These resolutions only assert that principle; and I say that it is a misfortune to the country, in my opinion, that the principles laid down in these resolutions had not been asserted sooner. They ought to have been asserted by the Democratic party in plain English ten years ago. If they had been, you would have had no trouble in this country to-day; the Democratic party would have been united and strong, and the equality and constitutional rights of the States would have been maintained in the territory, and in all other things; squatter-sovereignty would not have been heard of, and to-day we should be united. It is the fault of the Democratic party in dodging truth, in dodging principle, in dodging the Constitution itself, that has brought the trouble upon the country and the party that is experienced to-day. "

I believe, if we had asserted and maintained these great truths tenyears ago, and placed ourselves upon them boldly, as it was our dutyto have done, we would have no trouble in this country to-day; butinstead of declaring the great truths enunciated in these resolutions, we went off upon issues unbecoming the Democratic party. A portion ofour leaders wandered and went astray, and asserted that the people ofa Territory had the right to prohibit slavery whenever, in theirjudgment, it ought to be prohibited; a power which Congress even doesnot possess, and consequently cannot confer upon a TerritorialLegislature, unless the creature becomes greater than the creator. Itwas this kind of trouble, and this sort of heresy introduced into theDemocratic party, that has broken it up, and brought the disastersupon our country which we experience to-day. I say, then, let theblame fall upon the guilty; I am innocent of it; for I have held butone doctrine upon this question from the beginning to the presenthour, and I shall hold that doctrine to the end. In the speech fromwhich I have already read, I also used the following language:

 "Sir, it appears to me to be very singular indeed, that any man can hold that the territory of this country belongs to a portion of the people, and that the people of one portion of the Union can go there and enjoy their property, when the people of another portion cannot enjoy the right of property in that territory--territory common to the whole country; territory that was earned or acquired by the common blood and common treasure of all; territory that is sustained by the common treasure of all; and to say that all shall not have an equal right there, is to deny a fact so plain, a principle so just, a right so manifest, that I can hardly see how any man who professes to be a Democrat can deny it, or how he can attempt to embarrass the adoption of the correct principles announced in these resolutions. I shall therefore vote against all the amendments, and every thing that is offered to obstruct their passage, upon the ground that they assert justice, that they assert truth, that they assert the equality and constitutional rights of all the States, which principle must be maintained, or this Union cannot be preserved. "

That was my doctrine then, it is the doctrine which I have held andadvocated for twenty years. It is the doctrine I hold now; and I sonotified the Senator from Tennessee, who arraigned me here as votingagainst protecting property, and who did me willful and grossinjustice in it--for I voted for it and he voted against it. That isto say, I voted against the resolution introduced by Mr. CLINGMAN, declaring "that slave property did not need protection in theTerritories, " while the Senator from Tennessee voted for it; and whenthe motion was made to reconsider the vote adopting it in lieu of thefourth resolution of the DAVIS series, I voted to reconsider, and theSenator from Tennessee voted against it, showing clearly that he wasagainst affording that protection to slave property which the fourthresolution provided for. Did I not maintain the truth? Was I notprophetic in the announcement that I made in this Senate Chamber then?I said, that unless this great principle of justice, of equality, ofthe right of every man to the common territory should be maintained, this Union would be broken up. This great principle has not beenmaintained, but the Union has been destroyed. 

But, sir, to go to the votes. It will be borne in mind, and everySenator on this floor will bear me out in my statement, that while theDAVIS resolutions--the series of which I speak--were up, variouspropositions were made to amend them, and I voted against allamendments. There are Senators here at this moment who will sustain mewhen I say that, when in caucus and we had under consideration thisseries of resolutions, I said, and said it boldly and in plain terms, that if every man from every Southern State of this Union would comehere and say, for the sake of peace, if you please, or any otherreason, he was willing to abandon his equality, his right in thecommon territory, then, if alone, I would stand and protest againstit; protest that he had no right to surrender a constitutional right;that none but a coward would do it; that every man had a right in thecommon territory; that it was his privilege, and he should neversurrender it with my permission. On the other hand, I said that ifevery Northern man in the Senate Chamber--nay, but even every Northerncitizen--expressed a desire to surrender his right, his equality, hisprivilege, to go to the common Territories with his property, I shouldenter my solemn protest against it, and insist that he had aconstitutional right to go there, which he should never surrender withmy consent. Then, how any man could assert that I ever entertained theopinion that slavery did not need protection from aggression, is to methe strangest, falsest thing in nature. I said, as I have shown you, that I had voted against all amendments, and would continue to voteagainst all amendments, or any attempt whatsoever calculated toobstruct the passage of the resolutions; for they asserted the rightof the people to go to the Territories, asserted the power of thecourt to protect them in the possession of their property, and that ifthe court failed to protect them, Congress should afford the necessaryauthority to do so. 

But, sir, allow me to observe, there was a resolution that I nevervoted for, and that no man can charge me with ever having voted for. Senators will recollect--and whoever has read the proceedings of theSenate will recollect--that an amendment was offered as a substituteto the fourth resolution, in these words:

 "That the existing condition of the Territories does not require the intervention of Congress for the protection of property in slaves. "

I did not vote for that resolution; but the Senator from Tennesseedid. That amendment was adopted in lieu of the fourth resolution ofthe series that I have read, which insured protection to slaveproperty in the Territories. It was adopted not entirely by Democraticvotes; and that there may be no mistake, I will read what the Senatorfrom Massachusetts said when he moved a reconsideration:

 "I wish simply to say that I voted for that resolution because I believed the condition of the Territories requires no such law now or ever, and I do not believe in the enactment of any such law; but my friends on this side of the Chamber have put that resolution in the series; and for myself, I do not wish to be responsible for any portion of these resolutions, and I therefore wish the vote to be reconsidered. "

This was the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, when he foundthat the Republicans, united with some Democrats, had stricken out thefourth resolution of the series, and inserted this as a substitute. Isaid to Mr. WILSON on that occasion:

 "I desire merely to tender my thanks to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts. The series of resolutions, as introduced by the honorable Senator from Mississippi, are germane one to the other. They are a declaration of principles by the Democratic party. This amendment, as the Senator has said correctly, has been fastened on the Democratic resolutions by the votes of the Republican Senators. I feel grateful, indeed, to the Senator for making the motion to reconsider. I hope the vote will be reconsidered, and the resolution voted down. "

The motion was put, and on the yeas and nays the vote wasreconsidered. I voted for the reconsideration, and I voted against theamendment when it was adopted as a substitute for the fourthresolution. Among those who voted in the affirmative forreconsideration were Messrs. BENJAMIN, BROWN, CHESNUT, CLAY, DAVIS, FITZPATRICK, GREEN, GWIN, HAMMOND, HARLAN, HUNTER, IVERSON, JOHNSON ofArkansas, and LANE. Among those who voted against it, I find JOHNSONof Tennessee. I did not vote to continue in the series a resolutionthat refused protection to all the people in the common Territories. Portions of the Journal have been paraded to show the vote on Mr. BROWN'S amendment to Mr. CLINGMAN'S amendment. I said, in severalspeeches, that I should vote against all amendments, because theseries had been considered not only here, but in a caucus composed ofthe Democratic Senators of this body, and we had agreed to take themas a whole, and to vote them through altogether if we had the strengthto do so. I voted against every proposition to amend. I voted againstMr. BROWN'S, and I voted against Mr. CLINGMAN'S, and I voted againstevery other amendment that was calculated to weaken or embarrass thepassage of the resolutions. Yet I am represented here as having votedagainst affording protection to slave property in the Territories! Iask again, if any Senator, if any man who can read, can say that thefourth resolution, for which I did vote and for which I struggled andcontended, does not declare that slave property shall be protected inthe common Territories of our country. 

Could any thing be stronger than the fourth resolution? Could any mandesire a more direct declaration of principles than that? Upon theyeas and nays I voted for it. I voted against the amendment that wasadopted, and afterwards reconsidered. How, then, can a man arraign mebefore the country as having said upon oath, on the 25th of May last, that slave property should not be protected in the common Territorieswith other property? I have always held that all property should beprotected, slave as well as other property; that it should have thesame protection as, and no more protection than any other property. That they do not secure all this, is the objection I have to theamendments to the Constitution proposed by the Peace Conference. Theyare ambiguous, loose, and deceptive. I do not know that the people cancomprehend them. There will be no certainty under them; and theywould, if adopted, result in endless trouble and litigation. I trustno amendments will ever be made to the Constitution, unless they aremade upon principles of right, justice, and equality, so that therecan be no mistake in construing them hereafter. If we amend theConstitution, let us do it with a view to the peace of the country, with a view to the harmony of the country, with a view to the securityof every interest, and of every State in the Union. If we could dothat, and this day amend the Constitution so as to provide expresslythat every State should have equal rights in the Territories andelsewhere within the Union, this Confederacy would last forever, theStates that have left us would come back, and we should have then agreat and a lasting Union indeed. Without it, we never can have apermanent Union. We must do something that is clearly right, or theStates that have left us will never return. They never ought toreturn, unless they can have the right of equality secured to them bythe Constitution. I claim for my State just that which she is entitledto, and not a particle more. I would concede to the Southern States, that to which they are entitled, and not a particle more. That, theymust have, or there can be no peace, no union, no harmony, nosecurity, and no perpetuity of this Confederacy. Such amendments tothe Constitution, securing these objects and principles, areindispensable to the maintenance of the Government as it was formed. 

Then why not do right? Why not every southern man ask just that whichhe is entitled to, and no more? He ought to be content with nothingshort of what he is entitled to; and if he be, he is untrue to hissection and his constituents; untrue to the people whose servant heis; and untrue to the institutions of the country; for the country canexist only upon the triumph of such principles. He who is unwilling todeal fairly by the North and the South, is a man who is guilty ofshattering and ruining the Confederacy; destroying the peace andharmony and success of this great experiment of ours. 

Mr. President, in the State of Connecticut the Democracy assert thecorrect principle, and they charge the trouble in the country to theright quarter. I stated, on a former occasion, that the Democracy ofold Connecticut would never join the Republican party in any attemptto coerce the Southern States; and I am now authorized by their owndeclaration to say again, what I said before, that they, like theDemocracy of Oregon and of every other Northern State, will never joina party that has refused justice; that has refused equality and right;that has refused to protect property in the Territories, or whereverthe jurisdiction of the United States extends, in putting down thosewho contended for their rights and for the equality to which they wereentitled. Sir, the loyal Democracy of this country fully understandthe question, and they assert the right. 

Now, sir, these great principles were not carried out. The platform onwhich the Democracy presented their candidates for President andVice-President was not heeded, though based upon the Constitution. Iwill say to the Senator who has boasted of his efforts in Tennessee inbehalf of the BRECKINRIDGE ticket, that I shall notice that hereafter;but I have only to say now, that, for the sake of the country, I wouldto God the ticket had succeeded. We should then have had thoseprinciples endorsed upon which the Government is established, and thecountry would have been at peace. For that alone I wished it tosucceed. 

I will say only a word, now, as to the amendments proposed to theConstitution. I had the pleasure of listening, yesterday, to thedistinguished Senator from Kentucky. I know his patriotism and hisdevotion to the Union. I know his willingness to take any thing, however small, however trifling, however little it might be, thatwould, in his opinion, give peace to the country. Sir, I am actuatedby no such feeling. We should never compromise principle nor sacrificethe eternal foundations of justice. Whenever the Democratic partycompromised principle it laid the foundation of future troubles foritself and for the country. When we do, then, amend the Constitution, it ought to be in the spirit of right and justice to all men and toall sections. I voted for the Senator's propositions, and I will do soagain, if we can get a vote, because there is something in them;something that I could stand by; but there is nothing in theamendments proposed by the Peace Conference. He proposed to establishthe line of 36° 30´, and to prohibit slavery north of it and protectit south of it, in all the present territory, or of the territory tobe hereafter acquired. In that proposition there was something likejustice and right; but there is nothing in the amendments proposed bythe Peace Conference that any man, North or South, ought to take. Theyare a cheat; they are a deception; they are a fraud; they hold out afalse idea; and I think, with all due respect to the Senator--for Ihave the highest regard for him personally--that he is too anxious toheal the trouble that exists in the country. He had better placehimself upon the right and stand by it. Let him contend, with me, forthe inalienable and constitutional rights of every American citizen. Let him beware of "compromising" away the vital rights, privileges, and immunities of one portion of the country to appease the graceless, unrelenting, and hostile fanaticism of another portion. Let him laborwith me, to influence every State to mind its own affairs, and to keepthe Territories entirely _free_ to the enterprise of all, with equalsecurity and protection--without invidious distinctions--to theproperty of every citizen. Thus, and only thus, can we have peace, happiness, and eternal Union. 

I could not avoid noticing the anxiety of the Senator from Kentucky toaccept any thing, and the readiness of the Senator from Oregon topledge his people--"my people"--to any thing that he chooses. Now, Iknow there are many free people in the State of Oregon. They generallydo as they please. They have no master. No man owns them; and no mancan claim to control them. But this I am warranted in asserting--for Iknow long, well, and intimately, the gallant men of Oregon--that theywill not be found ready or inclined, at the Senator's and his mastersbeck, to imbrue their hands, in a godless cause, in fraternal gore. 

Mr. President, the principles asserted in the resolutions adopted bythe Senate, last winter, have not been carried out. We see theconsequences. We see a dissevered country and a divided Union. Anumber of the States have gone off, have formed an independentGovernment; it is in existence, and the States composing it will nevercome back to you, unless you say in plain English, in your amendmentsto the Constitution, that every State in the future Union has an equalright to the Territories and all the protection and blessings of thisGovernment--never! I tell you, sir, although some foolish men and somewicked ones may say I am a disunionist, I am for the Union upon theprinciples of the Constitution, and not a traitor. None but a cowardwill even think me a traitor; and if anybody thinks I am, let him testme. This Union could exist upon the principles that I have held andthat are set forth in the DAVIS resolutions; but upon no othercondition can it exist. Then, sir, disunion is inevitable. It is notgoing to stop with the seven States that are out. No, sir; my word forit, unless you do something more than is proposed in this proposition, old Virginia will go out too--slothful as she has been, and tardy asshe seems in appreciating her own interests and her rights, and kindand generous as she has been in inviting a Peace Congress to agreeupon measures of safety for the Union. The time will come, however, when old Virginia will stand trifling and chicanery no longer. Neitherwill North Carolina suffer it. None of the slave States will endureit; for they cannot separate one from the other, and they will not. They will go out of this Union and into one of their own; forming agreat, homogeneous, and glorious Southern Confederacy. It is and ithas been, Senators, in your power to prevent this; it is and it hasbeen for you to say (you might to-day, as it is the last day, say so), whether the Union shall be saved or not. I know, that gallant OldDominion will never put up with less than her rights; and if shewould, I should entertain for her contempt. I should feel contempt forher if she were to ask for any thing more than her rights; and so Iwould if she were to put up with any thing less than herconstitutional rights. Then, sir, secession has taken place, and itwill go on unless we do right. 

Mr. President, in the remarks which I made on the 19th of Decemberlast, in reply to the Senator from Tennessee, I took the ground that aState might rightfully secede from the Union when she could no longerremain in it on an equal footing with the other States; in otherwords, when her continuance as a member of the Confederacy involvedthe sacrifice of her constitutional rights, safety, and honor. Thisright I deduced from the theory of equality of the States, upon whichrests the whole fabric of our unrivalled system of government--unrivalled, as it came from the hands of its illustrious framers--a model asperfect, perhaps, as human wisdom could devise, securing to all theblessings of civil and religious liberty, when rightly understood andproperly administered; but like all other Governments, and evenChristianity itself, a most dangerous engine of oppression when, having fallen into the hands of persons strangers to its spirit, andunmindful of the beneficent objects for which it was framed, it isperverted from its high and noble mission to the base uses of aselfish or sectional ambition, or a blind and bigoted fanaticism. Isaid, on that occasion--referring to this fundamental principle of ourGovernment, the equality of the States--that "as long as this equalitybe maintained the Union will endure, and no longer. " I might hereundertake to enforce, by argument and the authority of writers on thenature and purposes of our Government, this, to me, self-evidentproposition. But I deem it unnecessary to consume the time of theSenate in discussing that branch of the subject. 

I propose, Mr. President, to confine what I have to say in regard tothe right of secession to the question, Who must judge whether suchright exists, and when it should be exercised? According to the theoryof every despotic Government, of ancient or modern times, there is nosuch right. A province of an empire, how much soever oppressed, isheld by the oppressor as an integral part of his dominions. The yoke, once fastened on the neck of the subject, is expected, howevergalling, to be worn with patience and entire submission to thetyrant's will. This is the theory of despotism. What are its fruits?We have seen, in modern times, some of the bloodiest strugglesrecorded in history growing out of the assertion by one party, and thedenial by the other, of this very right. Hungary undertook to "secede"from the Austrian empire. Her right to do so was denied. Sheconstituted an integral part of the empire--a great "consolidated"nation, as some consider the United States to be. Being an integralpart of the empire, according to the theory of the AustrianGovernment, she must so remain forever. Austria not having the powerto enforce an acquiescence in this doctrine, Russian legions werecalled to her aid; and Hungary, on whose gallant struggle forindependence the liberty-loving people of this country looked with somuch admiration and sympathy, soon lay prostrate and bleeding at thetyrant's feet. You may call this attempt of Hungary to regain herindependence revolution. That is precisely what Austria called it. Icall it an effort on her part to peaceably secede--to peaceablydissolve her connection with a Government which, in her judgment, hadbecome intolerably unjust and oppressive. Her oppressors told her itwas not her province but theirs, to judge of her alleged grievances;that to acknowledge the right of secession would strike a fatal blowat the integrity of the empire, which could be maintained only byenforcing the perfect obedience of each and every part. 

We have, in the recent struggle of the Italian States, an instructivecommentary on the now mooted questions of secession and coercion. Indeed, history, through all past ages, is but a record of the effortsof tyrants to prevent the recognition of the doctrine, that a peopledeeming themselves oppressed might peaceably absolve themselves fromallegiance to their oppressors. When our Government was formed, ourfathers fondly thought that they had made a great improvement on thedespotic systems of modern Europe. They saw the infinite evilresulting from coercing the unwilling obedience of a subject to aGovernment which he abhorred and detested. They accordingly declaredthe great truth, never enunciated until then, that "Governments deriveall their just power from the consent of the governed. " A Governmentwithout such consent they held to be a tyranny. 

Now, Mr. President, this brings us to the very point in issue. Who isto determine whether this consent is given or withheld? Must it bedetermined by the ruler? If so, the proposition just stated is anabsurdity. Clearly it was the meaning of those who enunciated thisgreat truth, that the subjects of a Government have the right todeclare or withhold their consent; otherwise no such right exists. They, and they only, must judge whether their rights are protected orviolated. If protected, every consideration of interest and safetyimpels them to consent to live under a Government which secures theblessings they desire. If, on the other hand, in their judgment, theirmost sacred rights are violated, interest and honor, and the instinctof self-preservation, all conspire to impel them to withhold theirconsent; which being withheld, the Government, as far as they areconcerned, ceases. 

Here I would call the attention of the Senate to the first of theKentucky resolutions of 1798-'99, written by Mr. JEFFERSON, in whichhe says distinctly, that the parties to a political compact must judgefor themselves of the mode and measure of redress, when they considerthe compact violated and their rights invaded:

 "_Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party; that this Government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its power; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. "

Here Mr. JEFFERSON asserts that a State aggrieved shall judge not onlyof the mode, but the measure of redress. Is this treason? If themeasure of redress extends to secession, how can the Senator fromTennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] do less than denounce the great apostle ofliberty--as Mr. JEFFERSON has been called--a traitor?

No less clear and explicit on this point, is the language of Mr. MADISON. Being chairman of a committee to whom the subject wasreferred--the resolutions having been returned by several of theStates--he says in his report:

 "It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the parties to the Constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. "

In the remarks which I made on the 19th of December last, I referredto the fact that Virginia, in accepting the Constitution, declaredthat the powers granted under that instrument "being derived from thepeople of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the sameshall be perverted to their injury or oppression. " I referred, also, to the fact that New York had adopted the Constitution upon the samecondition and with the same reservation. I may here quote the languageof Mr. WEBSTER, distinctly recognizing the right of the people tochange their Government whenever their interest or safety require it. He says:

 "We see, therefore, from the commencement of the Government under which we live, down to this late act of the State of New York"--

To which he had just referred--

 "one uniform current of law, of precedent, and of practice, all going to establish the point that changes in Government are to be brought about by the will of the people, assembled under such legislative provisions as may be necessary to ascertain that will truly and authentically. "

If the people of a State, believing themselves oppressed, undertake toestablish a Government, independent of that to which they formerlyowed allegiance, and the latter interferes with the movement, andemploys force to prevent such a consummation, no one who acknowledgesthe great truth that the basis of all free government is the "consentof the governed, " will deny that such interference is an act ofusurpation and tyranny. Those only who borrow their ideas of politicaljustice from the despotic codes of Europe, and are more imbued withthe spirit of METTERNICH and BOMBA than of JEFFERSON and MADISON, willattempt to justify, palliate, or excuse such violation of the sacredrights of the people. I have observed that often the noisiestchampions of popular rights are the first to trample those rightsunder foot. The word "freedom" is continually on the tongues ofgentlemen on the other side of the Chamber; and I believe the Senatorfrom Tennessee has been suspected of a decided leaning to agrarianism, so zealous has he been in advocating the rights, so entirely devotedis he to the interests of the "dear people. " But now, when the_people_ of the seceding States have pronounced, in tones of thunder, the fiat which absolves them from allegiance to a Government whichthey no longer respect or love, these same gentlemen all lift theirhands in horror, roll up the whites of their eyes, as did old LordNORTH many years ago, and exclaim "Treason!" "Treason!" Then, boilingwith patriotic rage, they rise up and declare that "this treason mustbe punished; the laws must be enforced. " History tells us that thiswas the language of King GEORGE and Lord NORTH when the coloniesrenounced their allegiance to the mother country. The former of theseworthies, we are told, spent much of his life in a state of mentaldarkness--in other words, he was a lunatic. The other received fromnature a narrow intellect, and inherited prejudices common to thearistocracy of that period and of all other periods of the world'shistory. Their errors were the natural offspring of incapacity and thefalse teaching received in their youth. While, therefore, we cannotadmire or approve their conduct, these circumstances incline us moreto sorrow than to anger, disarm our resentment, and dispose us toforgive what, under other circumstances, would deserve the severestcensure. 

But what excuse can we find for the peculiar champions of popularrights in this Chamber; these zealous servants of the people, foreverringing in our ears, "Let the voice of the people be heard; respectthe will of the people; _vox populi vox Dei_!" Sir, I say too, let thevoice of the people be heard and respected. And I think, for the sakeof consistency with all my past professions as a Democrat, I am boundto respect the declared will of the sovereign States which, forreasons satisfactory to themselves, have seceded from the Union andestablished a separate and independent Government. Whatever the causesmay have been which impelled them to a separation from the otherStates, I am bound to respect the expression of their sovereign will;and I heartily reprobate the policy of attempting to thwart that willunder the pretence of "punishing treason" and "enforcing the laws. " Weare told that the design is to attempt nothing more than to collectthe revenue in the ports of the seceded States. To say nothing of thejustice or injustice of the attempt so to do, I ask Senators from theNorth, and the Senator from Tennessee, _will it pay_? Will it not be adeclaration of war against the seceding States, involving the peopleof all the States in a long and bloody conflict, ruinous to bothsections? Are their ethics not the ethics of the school-boy pugilist, "Knock the chip off my shoulder"?

One of the framers of the Constitution [Mr. MADISON], whoseexpositions of that instrument all classes, all parties, haveheretofore received, and still receive, or pretend to receive, withprofound deference and respect, has left on record his views of theinjustice, impracticability, and inefficacy of force as a means ofcoercing States into obedience to Federal authority. 

Among the statesmen of the Revolution--those who participated in theformation of our Government--there was no one who had such exaltednotions of the power and dignity of the Federal Government, as thegreat HAMILTON. He was a consolidationist. The advocates of coercionmight naturally expect to obtain "aid and comfort" from the recordeddeclarations of one of his peculiar political faith. But anexamination of his writings will show, that instead of favoringcoercion, instead of being the advocate of force, he was the advocateof leniency and conciliation towards refractory States, and deprecateda resort to force as madness and folly. 

If the great names of MADISON and HAMILTON have not sufficient weightto restrain the madness of those who urge a coercive policy againstthe seceding States, then, indeed, I see no escape from that mostdreadful of all calamities which can befall a nation--civil war. Ifthose in this Chamber who talk so flippantly of war, had seen, as ithas been my lot to see, some of its actual horrors, they might, perhaps, heed the warnings and respect the counsels of the sages andpatriots whose language I have quoted. They would at least refrainfrom ungenerous insinuations against the patriotism of those northernDemocrats, who, like myself, reprobate the policy of coercion asdestructive of the peace, the prosperity, and happiness of every partof the country, north as well as south. 

But to return to the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. In thepamphlet report of his speech, page 7, JEFFERSON is quoted; but theconcluding part of the quotation is repeated in the _Globe_ report andnot in that of the pamphlet. That part is:

 "When two parties make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it. "

JEFFERSON is here quoted to show that the Confederation has a power toenforce its articles on delinquent States. But the citation isunfortunate for the Senator from Tennessee. He had just previouslyasserted that Vermont and other States had, by personal liberty bills, violated the Constitution. Well; can he tell us how Virginia and SouthCarolina could enforce the Constitution on Vermont in that respect? Itcannot be done. What follows? Why, as Mr. WEBSTER said at CaponSprings, "a compact broken by one party is broken as to all. " Hence, according to the doctrines of JEFFERSON and WEBSTER as to the actualcase which, according to the Senator, has occurred, the compact havingbeen broken, the Southern States have a right to retire--are absolvedfrom further obligations under the constitutional compact. 

The Senator complains that I replied at all, as I was a northernSenator, and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last election fora high office. Now, I was, as I stated at the time, surprised at theSenator's speech--because I understood it to be for coercion, as Ithink it was by almost everybody else, except, as we are now told, bythe Senator himself; and I still think it amounted to a coercionspeech, notwithstanding the soft and plausible phrases by which hedescribes it--a speech for the execution of the laws and theprotection of the Federal property. Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right, this Government has no laws in that State to execute, nor has it anyproperty in any such State that can be protected by the power of thisGovernment. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrasesof "executing the laws" and "protecting public property" for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession, _i. E. _, that thisGovernment dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of itsreal purposes, and of their consequences. No, sir; the policy is toinveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the designin smooth and ambiguous terms. 

Now, sir, I want it distinctly understood, as I have already shown, that during the last session I stood firmly by the DAVIS resolutions. I voted against every amendment. I voted against an amendment that hevoted for, because I believed it was partial, and did not do justice. 

But the Senator from Tennessee proceeded with an air and tone of greattriumph to bring forward my vote on the amendments proposed to theDAVIS resolutions. I think I have said all that it is necessary for meto say upon that subject. I have shown that I have voted for themunder all circumstances, and against every amendment. Thoseresolutions assert the right of property in the Territories, and thatwhen the courts fail to afford protection, then it is the duty ofCongress to come forward and provide that protection. I wished to putslave property upon the same footing as other property. That is whereI then stood, where I now stand, and where I intend to stand. TheSenator asks, with a kind of triumphant air, what has happened sincethat day? Mr. President, I have said that I have done all in my power, by standing firm to the resolutions agreed to by the Democratic party, to afford protection. The Senator misrepresented my vote on thoseresolutions. I never voted against the DAVIS resolutions, nor didtheir substitute ever come up as a separate proposition. It was anamendment to one of that series of resolutions I voted against; and Iwould vote against any thing and every thing that would embarrasstheir passage, for they contained just what I thought was right. 

What has happened since? Why, a thing has happened that never happenedbefore. The denial of any and all protection to slave property in anyand in all the territory; the denial of the right to take slaveproperty to any of them has been proclaimed and affirmed at theballot-box by a majority of the States, and a majority of theelectoral votes of this Union. What has happened? Why, the thing hashappened that has been three times before attempted, and three timesbefore failed; the first attempt having endangered the formation ofthe Union, and the second and third its continuance. The first attemptwas made in 1784, to exclude slavery from all the Territories. It wasabandoned in 1787 by excluding it only from the territory northwest ofthe Ohio, leaving it to colonize that portion southwest of that river. The same thing was again attempted in 1820, as to the territoryacquired from Louisiana; and after a terrible agitation, was abandonedby adopting the Missouri line. The third attempt was made in 1850, asto the territory acquired from Mexico; and then also the Unionnarrowly escaped destruction; but the compromise measures wereadopted. And now it comes again, but in a more formidable way thanever. A President has been elected on that issue; for the first timethe people of the North, after all previous compromises and warnings, have voted on the question, and every Northern State has pronouncedfor the spoliation. 

Mr. President, perhaps the most signal instance of the evils ofcompulsory union between dissimilar people, is that of Ireland andEngland. The people of Ireland--the home and heritage of myancestors--have, as the South has, a representation in the nationalLegislature; but being also, as the South is, in a minority in thatbody, have no power to protect themselves from the aggressions ofEngland. The consequence is, that they have been excluded from thecommon benefits of British legislation, commercially, and evenreligiously, to say nothing of their exclusion from official stationin the empire. And, accordingly, Ireland has been impoverished, degraded, and discontented. She has been trampled upon, outraged, insulted, treated like Cinderella. The people of this country havealways sympathized with the wrongs of Ireland, and her struggles forindependence. Yet there is now a greater difference between the peopleof the South and of the North than between those of England andIreland, and greater antagonism of opinion and feeling. Nevertheless, it is proposed to hold the South in political subjection to the North, and for that purpose to employ naval and military force. 

Sir, I might mention many other cases: the subjection of Greece toTurkey; of Poland to Russia; of the Netherlands to Spain; Italy toAustria. In all these cases we have sympathized with, and, in many ofthem aided, the secession from the common government, by contributionsand individual service. Yet those Governments were not founded onconsent, and there was no compact conceding the right of secession. 

Sir, in conclusion, whether the course the seceding States have seenfit to take be right or not, is a question which we must leave toposterity, and the verdict of impartial history. Our time willprobably be more profitably employed in considering how we shall dealwith secession than in discussing the causes which have produced it. Secession, right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiable, is anaccomplished fact; and it presents to us no less an alternative thanthat of peace or war. Sir, I believe that, in the general ruin whichwould follow coercive measures against the seceding states, allsections, all classes, all the great interests of the country, without any exception, would be involved. How much better, Mr. President, that, in so fearful a crisis as the present, instead ofpassing "force bills, " and preparing for war, instead of "breathingthreatenings and slaughter, " and preparing implements of destructionto be used against our brethren of the South, how much better, I say, for ourselves, for posterity, for the cause of civil libertythroughout the world, that our thoughts should be turned on peace?Peace, not war, has brought our country to the high degree ofprosperity it now enjoys. The energies of the people up to this timehave been directed to the development of our boundless resources, tothe mechanic arts, to agriculture, mining, trade, and commerce withforeign nations. Banish peace, turn these mighty energies of thepeople to the prosecution of the dreadful work of mutual destruction, and soon cities in ruins, fields desolate, the deserted marts oftrade, the silent workshops, gaunt famine stalking through the land, the earth cumbered with the bodies of the dying and the dead, willbear awful testimony to the madness and wickedness which, from thevery summit of prosperity and happiness, are plunging us headlong intoan abyss of woe. 

Sir, in God's name, let us have peace! If we cannot have it in theUnion, as it existed prior to November last, let us have it bycultivating friendly relations with those States which have dissolvedtheir connection with that Union, and established a separategovernment. Though we and they may not, and, perhaps, in the nature ofthings, cannot live harmoniously under the same Government, it is ourinterest, no less than theirs, that we should at once endeavor toestablish between our Government and theirs those amicable relationswhich should ever exist between two neighboring Republics. War, withits attendant horrors, being thus happily averted, the people of eachRepublic will be left at liberty to pursue, undisturbed, their severalvocations. A mutually advantageous commerce will grow up between thetwo nations; treaties, such as regulate our intercourse with theCanadas, will be formed; confidence in all branches of business willbe restored; a new impetus given to every variety of industry; themarch of improvement accelerated, and the cause of humanity, ofcivilization, and of Christianity, advanced throughout the world. Thepeople of Europe, accustomed to refer the settlement of theirslightest differences to the bloody arbitrament of the sword, willbehold with silent wonder and amazement the spectacle of a greatpeople unable to agree in reference to one of their peculiar domesticinstitutions, peacefully separating, as did the patriarchs of old;resolving themselves into two distinct political communities, nothostile, discordant, belligerent; but each, animated with a spirit ofgenerous rivalry toward the other, pursuing a more successful andprosperous career in its own chosen path, than when, united under thesame Federal head, they painfully sought together the same commondestiny. 

Mr. President, we are living at a day and at a time when a Northernsectional party have obtained possession of the power of this greatGovernment, who have declared in their platform, in their speecheseverywhere, and in their press, that slavery shall never go intoanother foot of territory; that no other slave State shall ever beadmitted into this Union; that slavery shall be put in the course ofultimate extinction. We have the announcement of the party that thefoot of a slave shall never press the soil of one of the Territories;that no new slave State shall be admitted; and, in addition to that, that no slave State shall go out of the Union. Who ever saw such aparty as that? Who ever knew any thing like it in the world before?They will not let slavery go into the Territories; they will not let aslave State come in; and they will not let one go out! They will notlet them go out because they could not carry out their programme ofplacing slavery in the course of ultimate extinction. They want tokeep the slave States in for their benefit--to foot the bills, to paythe taxes--that they may govern them as they see fit, and rule themagainst their will. Well, sir, I wish to say one word to that party, in all kindness; for I shall not trouble them again on this subject. Ishall be a private, independent citizen before long. But I will say tothat party, they had better change their tactics; they had betterchange front, and do it speedily. Let them place themselves upon thehigh ground of right and justice, and adopt such amendments to theConstitution as will not only hold old Kentucky, which has producedthe greatest "compromiser" of us all--that good old State where I wasraised, and that I am proud of--but the other Southern States also. Iam afraid Republicanism will not do this. I know those old Kentuckypeople from terrace to foundation. They will endure much--verymuch--peaceably and quietly; but if they are goaded too far; if, byrepeated wrongs, they are compelled to fight, then I would say totheir enemy "beware!" There are chivalry and patriotism in Kentuckywhich is neither in the power of accident nor nature to subdue. Youhad better not press them too far. Do not drive them to the goal oflast resort. Give them justice while you have it in your power to doso. Satisfy them that ultimately they shall have equality in thisbroken Government, or Union, if you will. But, sir, I leave thepatching up of the Constitution to the distinguished Senator fromKentucky and other gentlemen, especially my friend from Pennsylvania[Mr. BIGLER], who has labored harder to patch up the Constitutionthan any man I ever knew, except my friend from Kentucky, and I wishhim God speed in the work. Let it be upon just principles; let it beright; let us have justice; and I shall be content. 

Now, Mr. President, I have paid all the attention to the attempt thatwas made to place me in the wrong that I deem necessary. I can onlynow repeat, in the conclusion of my speech, that neither the Senatorfrom Tennessee, nor any other Senator, nor can any man, tell the truthand say that I have, by any vote, word, or act of mine, at any time oron any occasion, refused protection to all property alike in theTerritories. I have made it a point always. Indeed, the doctrine ofthe equal right of property, whether slave or any other, in theTerritories, and its equal right to protection, is as strong in me aslife itself. I have never uttered a word against that principle; but Ihave said, upon all occasions, that that doctrine must be maintained, or this Union could not stand. I have fought for it; but as I said inthe outset, while I deeply deplore the condition of the country, ithas been caused by no act of mine. And with this remark, I part withhim, who, in imitation of Esau, seeks to sell his birthright. I would, if there was time, give a little advice to all sides, to every Senatoron this floor. I would say: Senators come up to the great importanceof this question; meet it; adopt, by a two-thirds vote--as we could doif Senators would deal rightly--amendments to the Constitution, placing all the States upon an equality in the Territories, and onevery other question; submit them to the people; and by suchamendments I believe we could prevent, or stop, a further rupture ofthis Union. 

In a reply to the speech of Senator LANE of Oregon, the followingremarks on secession, coercion, the Territorial question, and thePeace Conference propositions, are furnished by

Senator JOHNSON, of Tennessee:--Mr. President, it is painful for me tobe compelled, at this late hour of the session, to occupy any of thetime of the Senate upon the subject that has just been discussed bythe Senator from _Oregon_. Had it not been for the extraordinaryspeech he has made, and the singular course he has taken, I shouldforbear from saying one word at this late hour of the day and of thesession. But, sir, it must be apparent, not only to the Senate but tothe whole country, that, either by accident or by design, there hasbeen an arrangement that any one who appeared in this Senate tovindicate the Union of these States should be attacked. Why is it thatno one, in the Senate or out of it, who is in favor of the Union ofthese States, has made an attack upon me? Why has it been left tothose who have taken both open and secret ground in violation of theConstitution, for the disruption of the Government? Why has there beena concerted attack upon me from the beginning of this discussion tothe present moment, not even confined to the ordinary courtesies ofdebate and of senatorial decorum? It is a question which lifts itselfabove personalities. I care not from what direction the Senator comeswho indulges in personalities toward me; in that, I feel that I amabove him, and that he is my inferior. [Applause in the galleries. ]Mr. President, they are not arguments; they are the resort of menwhose minds are low and coarse. Cowper has well said:

 "A truly sensible, well-bred man Will not insult me; no other can. "

Sir, have we reached a point at which we cannot talk about treason?Our forefathers talked about it; they spoke of it in the Constitutionof the country; they have defined what treason was; is it an offence, is it a crime, is it an insult to recite the Constitution that wasmade by WASHINGTON and his compatriots? What does the Constitutionsay:

 "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. "

There it is defined clearly that treason shall consist only in levyingwar against the United States, and adhering to and giving aid andcomfort to their enemies. Who is it that has been engaged inconspiracies? Who is it that has been engaged in making war upon theUnited States? Who is it that has fired upon our flag? Who is it thathas given instructions to take our arsenals, to take our forts, totake our dock-yards, to take the public property? In the language ofthe Constitution of the United States, have not those who have beenengaged in it been guilty of treason? We make a fair issue. Show mewho has been engaged in these conspiracies, who has fired upon ourflag, has given instructions to take our forts and our custom-houses, our arsenals and our dock-yards, and I will show you a traitor. [Applause in the galleries. ]

Mr. President, if individuals were pointed out to me who were engagedin nightly conspiracies, in secret conclaves, and issuing ordersdirecting the capture of our forts and the taking of ourcustom-houses, I would show who were the traitors; and that beingdone, the persons pointed out coming within the purview and scope ofthe provision of the Constitution which I have read, were I thePresident of the United States, I would do as THOMAS JEFFERSON did, in1806, with AARON BURR; I would have them arrested, and, if convicted, within the meaning and scope of the Constitution, by the Eternal GOD Iwould execute them. Sir, treason must be punished. Its enormity andthe extent and depth of the offence must be made known. The time isnot distant, if this Government is preserved, its Constitution obeyed, and its laws executed in every department, when something of this kindmust be done. 

The Senator from Oregon, in his remarks, said that a mind that itrequired six weeks to stuff could not know much of any thing. Heintimated that I had been stuffed. I made my speech on the 19th ofDecember. The gentleman replied. I made another speech, and now he hasreplied again; and how long has he been "stuffing"? How often has hebeen "stuffed"? [Laughter. ] He has been stuffed twice; and if thestuffing operation was as severe and laborious as the delivery hasbeen, he has had a troublesome time of it, for his travail has beengreat and the delivery remarkable. [Laughter. ]

We know how the Senator stands upon popular or squatter sovereignty. On that subject he spoke at Concord, New Hampshire, where hemaintained that the inhabitants of the Territories were the bestjudges; that they were the very people to settle all these questions;but when he came here, at the last Congress, he could make a speech inwhich he repeated, I cannot tell how many times, "the equality of theStates, the rights of the States in the Union, and their rights out ofthe Union;" and he thus shifted his course. If the conflict betweenhis speech made in Concord in 1856, and his speech made here on the25th day of May last, can be reconciled, according to all rules ofconstruction, it is fair to reconcile the conflict. If the discrepancyis so great between his speech made then and his speech on the 25th ofMay last, of course the discrepancy is against him; but I am willingto let one speech set off the other, and to make honors easy, so faras speech-making is concerned. 

Then, how does the matter stand? There is one speech one way, andthere is another speech the other way. Now, we will come to thesticking point. You have seen the equivocation to-day. You have seenthe cuttle fish attempt to becloud the water and elude the grasp ofhis pursuer. I intend to stick to you here to-day, as close and astight as what I think I have heard called somewhere "Jew David'sAdhesive Plaster. " How does your vote stand as compared with yourspeeches? Your speeches being easy, I shall throw in the scale againstyou the weight of what you swore. How does that matter stand? I intendto refer to the record. By referring to the record, it will be foundthat Mr. CLINGMAN offered the following as an amendment to the fourthresolution of the series introduced by Mr. DAVIS:

 "_Resolved_, That the existing condition of the Territories of the United States does not require the intervention of Congress for the protection of property in slaves. "

What was the vote on the amendment proposed to that resolution by Mr. BROWN, to strike out the word "not. " I want the Senator's attention, for I am going to stick to him, and if he can get away from me he hasgot to obliterate the records of his country. How would it read, tostrike out the word "not. "

 "That the existing condition of the Territories of the United States does require the intervention of Congress for the protection of property in slaves. "

Among those who voted against striking out the word "not, " whodeclared that protection of slavery in the Territories by legislationof Congress was unnecessary, was the Senator from Oregon. When wasthat? On the 25th day of May last. The Senator, under the oath of hisoffice, declared that legislation was not necessary. Now where do wefind him? Here is a proposition to amend the Constitution, to protectthe institution of slavery in the States, and here is the propositionbrought forward by the Peace Conference, and we find the Senatorstanding against the one, and I believe he recorded his vote againstthe other. 

But, let us travel along. We have only applied one side of thisplaster. The Senator voted that it was not necessary to legislate byCongress for the protection of slave property. Mr. BROWN then offeredthe amendment to the resolution submitted by Mr. DAVIS, to strike outall after the word "resolved, " and to insert in lieu thereof:

 "That experience having already shown that the Constitution and the common law, unaided by statutory enactment, do not afford adequate and sufficient protection to slave property--some of the Territories having failed, others having refused, to pass such enactments--it has become the duty of Congress to interpose, and pass such laws as will afford to slave property in the Territories that protection which is given to other kinds of property. "

We have heard a great deal said here to-day of "other kinds, " andevery description of property. There is a naked, clear proposition. Mr. BROWN says it is needed; that the court and the common law do notgive ample protection; and then the Senator from Oregon is calledupon; but what is his vote? We find, in the vote upon this amendment, that but three Senators voted for it; and the Senator from Oregonrecords his vote, and says "no, " it shall not be established; andevery Southern man, save three, voted against it also. When was that?On the 25th day of May last. Here is an amendment, now, to protectand secure the States against any encroachment upon the institutionwithin the States; and there the Senator from Oregon swore that nofurther legislation was necessary to protect it in the Territories. Well, his speeches in honors being easy, and he having sworn to it inthe last Congress, I am inclined to take his oath in preference to hisspeeches, and one is a fair set-off against the other. Then, all theamendments being voted down, the Senate came to the vote upon thisresolution:

 "That if experience should at any time prove that the judicial and executive authority do not possess means to insure adequate protection to constitutional rights in a Territory, and if the territorial government should fail or refuse to provide the necessary remedies for that purpose, it will be the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency, within the limits of its constitutional powers. "

Does not the resolution proceed upon the idea that it was notnecessary then; but if, hereafter, the Territories should refuse, andthe courts and the common law could not give ample protection, then itwould be the duty of Congress to do this thing? What has transpiredsince the 25th day of May last? Is not the decision of the court withus? Is there not the Constitution carrying it there? Why was not thisresolution, declaring protection necessary, passed during the lastCongress? The Presidential election was on hand. 

I have been held up and indirectly censured, because I have stood bythe people; because I have advocated those measures that are sometimescalled demagogical. I would to GOD that we had a few more men here whowere for the people in fact, and who would legislate in conformitywith their will and wishes. If we had, the difficulties and dangersthat surround us now, would be postponed and set aside; they would notbe upon us. But in May last, we could not vote that it was necessaryto pass a slave code for the Territories. Oh, no; the Presidentialelection was on hand. We were very willing then to try to get northernvotes; to secure their influence in the passage of resolutions; and tocrowd some men down, and let others up. It was all very well then; butsince the people have determined that somebody else should bePresident of the United States, all at once the grape has got to bevery sour, and gentlemen do not have as good an opinion of the peopleas they had before; we have changed our views about it. They have notthought quite as well of us as we desired they should; and if I couldnot get to be President or Vice-President of all these United States, rather than miss it altogether, I would be perfectly willing to bePresident of a part; and therefore we will divide--yes, we willdivide. I am in favor of secession; of breaking up the Union; ofhaving the rights of the States out of the Union; and as I signallyfailed in being President of all, as the people have decided againstme, we have reached that precise point of time at which the Governmentought to be broken up. It looks a little that way. 

I have no disposition now, in concluding what little I am going tosay, to mutilate the dead, or add one single additional pang to thetortures of the already politically damned. I am a humane man; I willnot add one pang to the intolerable sufferings of the distinguishedSenator from Oregon. [Laughter. ] I sought no controversy with him; Ihave made no issue with him; it has been forced upon me. How many haveattacked me; and is there a single man, North or South, who is infavor of this glorious Union, who has dared to make an assault on me?Is there one? No; not one. But it is all from secession; it is allfrom that usurpation where a reign of terror has been going on. 

I repeat, again, the Senator has made a set-to on me. I am satisfiedif he is. I am willing that his speech and mine shall go to thecountry, and let an intelligent people read and understand, and seewho is right and who is wrong on this great issue. 

But, sir, I alluded to the fact that secession has been brought aboutby usurpation. During the last forty days, six States of thisConfederacy have been taken out of the Union; how? By the voice of thepeople? No; it is demagogism to talk of the people. By the voice ofthe freemen of the country? No. By whom has it been done? Have thepeople of South Carolina passed upon the ordinance adopted by theirConvention? No; but a system of usurpation was instituted, and a reignof terror inaugurated. How was it in Georgia? Have the people therepassed upon the ordinance of secession? No. We know that there was apowerful party there, of passive, conservative men, who have beenoverslaughed, borne down; and tyranny and usurpation have triumphed. Aconvention passed an ordinance to take the State out of theConfederacy; and the very same convention appointed delegates to go toa congress to make a constitution, without consulting the people. Sowith Louisiana; so with Mississippi; so with all the six States whichhave undertaken to form a new Confederacy. Have the people beenconsulted? Not in a single instance. We are in the habit of sayingthat man is capable of self-government; that he has the right, theunquestioned right, to govern himself; but here, a government has beenassumed over him; it has been taken out of his hands, and atMontgomery a set of usurpers are enthroned, legislating, and makingconstitutions and adopting them, without consulting the freemen of thecountry. Do we not know it to be so? Have the people of Alabama, ofGeorgia, of any of those States, passed upon it? No; but aConstitution is adopted by those men, with a provision that it may bechanged by a vote of two-thirds. Four votes in a convention of six, can change the whole organic law of a people constituting six States. Is not this a _coup d'état_ equal to any of Napoleon? Is it not ausurpation of the people's rights? In some of those States, even ourStars and our Stripes have been changed. One State has a palmetto, another has a pelican, and the last that I can enumerate on thisoccasion, is one State that has the rattlesnake run up as an emblem. On a former occasion I spoke of the origin of secession; and I tracedits early history to the garden of Eden, when the serpent's wile andthe serpent's wickedness beguiled and betrayed our first mother. Afterthat occurred, and they knew light and knowledge, when their Lord andMaster turned to them, they seceded, and hid themselves from hispresence. The serpent's wile, and the serpent's wickedness, firststarted secession; and now, secession brings about a return of theserpent. Yes, sir; the wily serpent, the rattlesnake, has beensubstituted as the emblem on the flag of one of the seceding States;and that old flag, the Stars and the Stripes, under which our fathersfought and bled and conquered, and achieved our rights and ourliberties, is pulled down and trailed in the dust, and the rattlesnakesubstituted. Will the American people tolerate it? They will beindulgent; time, I think, is wanted, but they will not submit to it. 

A word more in conclusion. Give the Border States that security whichthey desire, and the time will come when the other States will comeback; when they will be brought back--how? Not by the coercion of theBorder States, but by the coercion of the people; and those leaderswho have taken them out will fall beneath the indignation and theaccumulating force of that public opinion which will ultimately crushthem. The gentlemen who have taken those States out are not the men tobring them back. 

I have already suggested that the idea may have entered into someminds, "if we cannot get to be President and Vice-President of thewhole United States, we may divide the Government, set up a newestablishment, have new offices, and monopolize them ourselves when wetake our States out. " Here we see a President made, a Vice-Presidentmade, cabinet officers appointed, and yet the great mass of the peoplenot consulted, nor their assent obtained in any manner whatever. Thepeople of the country ought to be aroused to this condition ofthings; they ought to buckle on their armor; and, as Tennessee hasdone (GOD bless her!), by the exercise of the elective franchise, bygoing to the ballot-box under a new set of leaders, they willrepudiate and put down those men who have carried these States out andusurped a Government over their heads. I trust in GOD that the oldflag of the Union will never be struck. I hope it may long wave, andthat we may long hear the national air sung:

 "The star-spangled banner, long may it wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

Long may we hear old Hail Columbia, that good old national air, playedon all our martial instruments! long may we hear, and never repudiate, the old tune of Yankee Doodle! Long may wave that gallant old flagwhich went through the Revolution, and which was borne by Tennesseeand Kentucky at the battle of New Orleans, upon that soil the right tonavigate the Mississippi near which they are now denied. Upon thatbloody field the Stars and Stripes waved in triumph; and, in thelanguage of another, the Goddess of Liberty hovered around when "therocket's red glare" went forth, indicating that the battle was raging, and watched the issue; and the conflict grew fierce, and the issue wasdoubtful; but when, at length, victory perched upon your Stars andyour Stripes, it was then, on the plains of New Orleans, that theGoddess of Liberty made her loftiest flight, and proclaimed victory instrains of exultation. Will Tennessee ever desert the grave of him whobore it in triumph, or desert the flag that he waved with success? No;we were in the Union before some of these States were spoken intoexistence; and we intend to remain in, and insist upon--as we have theconfident belief we shall get--all our constitutional rights andprotection in the Union, and under the Constitution of the country. [Applause in the galleries. ]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH in the chair):--It will become theunpleasant but imperative duty of the Chair to clear the galleries. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:--I have done. 

[The applause was renewed, and was louder and more general thanbefore. Hisses were succeeded by applause, and cheers were given andreiterated, with "three cheers more for JOHNSON. "]

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Sergeant-at-Arms will immediately clearthe galleries, and the order will not be rescinded. 

The order having been executed by clearing the galleries and lockingthe doors leading to them, the Presiding Officer announced that thebusiness of the Senate would be proceeded with. 

The Senate, having disposed of several bills, was about to take actionon a proposed amendment to the House resolutions, when the PeaceConference amendments were adverted to as follows:

Mr. MASON:--Now, I desire to say a word. There was a commission fromtwenty or twenty-one States summoned here by the State of Virginia totake into consideration the state of the country, and they haveproposed an elaborate amendment to the Constitution, which they askthis body, in connection with the other House, to refer to the States. That has been under consideration for two days; no vote has been takenupon it; and the Senator from Illinois now proposes to postpone thatin order to give precedence to a resolution from the House ofRepresentatives proposing to amend the Constitution by prohibitingCongress from interfering with slavery in the States. His motion is, at this stage of the session, to put aside any further considerationof this amendment to the Constitution proposed by that PeaceConference, presented in the impressive manner in which it was done bythe honorable Senator from Kentucky, in order to give precedence tothis joint resolution of the House on this the last day of thesession. Sir, I shall vote against giving it that precedence. I thinkit is due not only to those honorable gentlemen who came here and havesubmitted to us the result of their labors that we should give it thatprecedence, but I feel that it is due to the State of Virginia, whoinvited the Conference, that no precedence should be given over it. For that reason, I shall vote against it. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I am glad to find that the Senator from Virginia hasbecome such a warm advocate of the report of the Peace Conference. Howmany hours is it since we heard him denounce it as unworthy theconsideration of Southern men or of this country? How long is it sincethese denunciations were ringing in our ears? We do not hear thepraises of the Peace Conference sounded until we are about to get avote on another proposition to pacify the country; and for fear we mayhave a vote that will quiet the apprehensions of the Southern Statesin respect to the designs of the North to change the Constitution, soas to interfere with slavery in the States, we find now that the PeaceConference is to be pushed forward, to defeat this. Sir, if he is afriend of the proposition of the Peace Conference, let him act with meand sit as long as I will in urging it upon the Senate. I am for both;but this one is within our reach. We can close this much in fiveminutes. We should have had it passed before this time, if the Senatorfrom Virginia had not interposed objections. If the amendment to theConstitution which furnishes guarantees to the border slave Statesfail, it will be the result of the efforts of the Senator fromVirginia. My object is to take that up; we can dispose of it in a veryfew minutes; and then, when we have secured thus much, we will proceedimmediately to take up the report of the Peace Conference; and I tellthe Senator from Virginia he will find me standing here adhering to itas long as he will; and when the vote comes, I think I shall show thatI am as friendly to it as he; and that I have as much respect for andappreciation of the services of the great men who reported it. 

Mr. MASON:--The Senator from Illinois and I construe our duties in avery different way. I have no parliamentary ends to obtain here bydexterous motions to give preference. The Senator has never heard meexpress the slightest approbation of these resolutions from the PeaceConference. On the contrary, he has heard me point out, with whateverability I might, the objections that would compel me to vote againstthem. I intend to vote against them; but I deem it due to thecharacter of these resolutions, and the way in which they were broughtbefore the Senate, that their precedence should not be taken fromthem, and that we should have the first vote upon them. The Senatorfrom Illinois will not find me taking back one word that I have saidof objection to the resolutions that came from the Peace Conference;but I protest against their precedence being taken from them--a matterwhich has engaged the attention of the Senate for the last two hoursto effect it. Now that it is done, I shall vote against the motion togive precedence. The resolutions of the Peace Conference should not bethrust aside by this resolution of the House; but that is the motionnow before us, to thrust aside these resolutions in order to giveplace to the resolution of the House, and I shall vote against it. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I shall pursue, on this occasion, the course I havepursued throughout. My object is to attain a great end, and, ifpossible, to give entire satisfaction to the country, and restore itto peace and quiet, or to go as far in that direction as it is in mypower to go. I shall vote to take up the resolution of the House, because we can act upon it immediately. I am an advocate of theresolutions from the Peace Conference. I have shown it; I haveexpressed it, and my determination to vote for them, and so I will;but I confess that I feel somewhat as the gentleman from Illinoisdoes--surprised at the great zeal with which gentlemen want to keep upthese propositions merely to strike a blow at others, claiming aprecedence for a thing they mean to trample and spit upon. 

Mr. MASON:--It has precedence, if the Senator will allow me, and hetook it from it. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--And he wants to continue that precedence. Sir, theway to manifest respect for their proposition is to vote for it. I donot understand this sort of proceeding on the part of gentlemen whodesire to afford any means of pacification to the country. I am forthis resolution of the House of Representatives; and I hope the Senatewill vote to take it up. We can act upon it, and we can vote upon it, and we know well that we cannot pass these propositions of the PeaceConference. There are but two hours more of session in the otherHouse--from ten to twelve o'clock on Monday morning. I cannot indulgein a hope, sanguine as I have been throughout, of the passage of thoseresolutions; and, indeed, the opposition here, and the opposition onthis [the Democratic] side of the Chamber to those resolutions, areconfirmation strong as Holy Writ that they cannot pass. Do gentlemenwant to press them forward in order to prevent a vote on thisresolution of the House? I hope not. I hope the motion of thegentleman from Illinois will prevail, and that we shall take up theHouse resolution. 

Mr. BAYARD:--Mr. President, I have forborne to take any part in thisdiscussion about the merits of any of these propositions before theSenate, nor do I intend to do so now. I shall reserve what I may haveto say to another occasion. I shall not occupy the time of the Senatenow. I shall vote against this motion, because, while I feel I do noinjustice to others, I must necessarily exercise my own opinions. Iconsider the resolution passed by the House of Representatives as notworth the paper on which it is written, for the purpose of adjustingthe difficulties in this country. I shall not detain the Senate by anyattempt to give the reasons. Sufficient for me to state the ground ofmy objection, why I shall not vote to give preference to a resolutionwhich, as it stands, I think will lead to no attainable result asregards peace or quiet in the country. As regards the otherpropositions, for which it is sought to be substituted, I express noopinion now, except to say, they are not exactly those that I shouldhave preferred; but that I would gladly and willingly vote to adoptthe distinct resolutions offered originally by the Senator fromKentucky. As to attaining a vote and disposing of this Houseresolution at once, of course, as I do not attach any importance tothe measure, if passed, for the purpose for which it is to be passed, that would be a sufficient answer; but further, it will not stopdebate, and it cannot prevent amendments. Amendments may be made; onesubstitute after another may be offered, and you can be led intodebate quite as much as on the other. I would rather see the otherproposition discussed; and on the whole, not thinking the particularresolution of the House entitled to preference as being of any greatimportance, I am not disposed to give it precedence. 

Mr. SEBASTIAN, in speaking on the House resolutions, said: "It is nowpast four o'clock in the morning of the 4th of March, and it isevident, from obvious causes, that it is utterly impossible that anyexpression of preference for any other resolution than this can nowhave any effect, or receive even the notice of the House ofRepresentatives. "

At different stages of the proceedings of the Senate, in proposing andvoting in relation to various amendments, the following among otherthings said and done, occurred with reference to the Report of thePeace Conference:

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas:--I beg leave to offer as an amendment, and Ipresume it will be the last, the propositions submitted by the PeaceConference. I offer them not with a belief that they will be acceptedor sustained at all. I should be glad to see even that step taken bythe party who are to have, and who, in point of fact, do havepossession of this Government. I offer them for the purpose ofobtaining a vote upon them. I offer them, stating frankly that I shallnot vote for them. I offer them with the conviction that there isbetween the Representatives on the other side of the Chamber, andthose on the southern side, an irreconcilable difference; and it oughtto be proclaimed, and it ought to be made frank and unmistakable. Ioffer it because it evolves truth. There is nothing left here to thisSenate, on this the last night of the session, but this: to declare tothe American people what is true, in order that they may know it, andmay prepare themselves to meet it; that they may prepare, if they can, to reconcile it with peace, or to reconcile it to themselves; to standby all the sorrowful consequences that shall otherwise come. This isthe reason why I present this amendment. I believed when I voted forthem that the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky were fair, were just to the people of the South, and to my own State among thatnumber; and it is but honest that I should say now in presenting thisamendment, that I consider these propositions a thousand fathomsbeneath the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky. 

It is in that condition that I offer this amendment. I hope Senatorswill have the courage and the nerve, if they have faith in and regardfor their constituents, to whom they have taught their doctrinesheretofore, to adhere to them and to stick to them now; and while theywill vote against this amendment, I will stand by them also and voteagainst it, as one person who for fourteen years has represented hisState in one or the other branch of this Congress. In saying this, Isay it as the last act of my political life, and it is one upon whichI put my faith, and on which I would put the last hope I have onearth. I know from the bottom of my soul that I am not averse to thecontinuation and the preservation of the present Union of States, which I have always considered sanctifies the continent of NorthAmerica to peace and to prosperity forever. I feel from the bottom ofmy heart that whenever it shall be divided, it will be given up, frompetty causes, and from petty irritations and misapprehensions, to thecontingencies of war and the contingencies of blood and disaster, which have followed the divisions and separations of every othercontinent in the whole wide world. 

Then, Mr. President, I offer this amendment from the conviction thatcommon honesty of purpose, and the common frankness of men of nerveand of honor, will give us one vote to show that there is among us anirreconcilable difference, or that will give hope to those who, likethe Senator from Kentucky, it seems to me, can hope against hope, thatthere is something to be done. I cannot believe that any thing isgained by this resolution. I cannot conceive that the proposition ofthe House gives security to my people. I will not stop to comment uponit, and to show why it is that I cannot vote for it. I sincerely hopethat we may have a vote of the Senate upon the amendment I now offer;and I call for the yeas and nays upon it. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:--I wish merely to repeat again, before theyeas and nays are called on this amendment, that I shall vote againstthis, as I have voted against all preceding amendments, with thedistinct understanding that I am not committed for or against anyproposition contained in those amendments. I hope we shall vote themall down. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I will merely state that when we have disposed of thisresolution, I hope we shall take up the Peace Conference propositionsimmediately, and get through with them. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN (when his name was called):--I desire to say that, although preferring this amendment, I shall vote against it, as I haveagainst all others, in order to pass it as it came to us from theHouse. 

Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas:--I should like to have made a furtherexplanation; but I will not do it. I vote "nay. "

The result was then announced--yeas 3, nays 34; as follows:

 YEAS. --Messrs. Foot, Nicholson, and Pugh--3. 

 NAYS. --Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bigler, Bingham, Bright, Chandler, Clark, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Hunter, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, King, Latham, Mason, Morrill, Polk, Rice, Sebastian, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilkinson, and Wilson--34. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Other amendments--of which some were approved and some rejected--wereoffered to the joint resolutions, and, finally, the proposals ofamendments to the Constitution from the Conference Convention wereagain brought forward in this manner:

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I intend to be perfectly consistent in my course onthis subject. I look upon the result of the deliberations of the PeaceCongress, as they call it here, as affording the best opportunity fora general concurrence among the States and among the people. Idetermined to take it in preference to my own proposition, and sostated to many of the members of that Convention. I now propose thepropositions agreed to by them as a substitute for my own. 

I came here this morning, without the least expectation of any votebeing taken on this proposition of mine. It has never been in acondition before where I was prepared to offer amendments to it. I hadamendments which I intended to propose, not intending to make materialchanges, as I supposed, in substance and effect, but changing thephraseology, particularly of the first article, in which I propose tosubstitute an amendment, to declare merely that the _status_ ofpersons held to servitude or labor under the laws of any State shallcontinue with the laws thus unchanged, as long as the Territoryremains under a territorial government; and when it forms aconstitution, to come into the Union as a State, to be received withor without slavery. All my papers and the amendments which I preparedare at my room, not here. That is the condition of the thing. 

Mr. HUNTER:--The resolution stands now as several States haveinstructed for it, and I hope we shall have a vote on it. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I now move to substitute the resolutions of the PeaceConvention. I have declared that I would do this; that I would abandonmy own resolutions, and take that proposed by the Peace Conference. 

Mr. HUNTER:--Then I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment of theSenator from Kentucky. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Does the Chair understand the Senator fromKentucky to offer as an amendment to the resolution now before theSenate, the resolution of the Peace Conference?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Yes, sir. 

Mr. HUNTER:--That is an amendment, and on that I ask for the yeas andnays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I wish to say a word in explanation; of course Ishall make no speech at this hour. I have examined the propositionsoffered by that Convention; they contain, in my judgment, everymaterial provision that is contained in the resolution called theCRITTENDEN resolution. The resolution that I offered contained nothingsubstantial that has not been adopted by the Convention, except in oneparticular, and that particular is this: they reject so much of theresolution offered by me as embraced future acquired territory. Theysaid it was enough to settle in regard to the territory we now hold;and they have substituted a provision which, I think, ought to beperfectly satisfactory, as to acquisition of future territory. Theysay none shall be acquired, unless it be by a two-thirds vote of theSenate, which two-thirds vote shall include a majority of the Senatorsfrom the slaveholding States, as well as a majority of the Senatorsfrom the North. That gives ample security to the South; it gives amplesecurity to the North. No territory can be acquired without theapprobation of both sections of the Union, and having this in theirpower, they can then make any previous arrangement in regard toslavery that they please, before the acquisition of territory. That isthe way they dispose of future acquisitions. I prefer it to thedisposition made in the resolutions which I submitted to the Senate. Itherefore offer them, and for other reasons: out of deference to thatgreat body of men selected on the resolution of Virginia, and invitedby Virginia herself. The body having met, and being composed of suchmen, and a majority of that Convention concurring in theseresolutions, I think they come to us with a sanction entitling them toconsideration; therefore I have moved them. 

Mr. GWIN:--I hope the substitute will not be adopted. The very reasonthe Senator has given in favor of it, with reference to theacquisition of future territory, I think should be the cause of itsbeing voted down. I am sure Senators from Northern States should notvote for such an amendment as this; because the first acquisition, ifwe get any at all, will be the very kind of acquisition that theNorthern States want. It is well known that if we had had the samecounsels in 1854 that we had in 1803, we should have acquired thewhole Russian Pacific territory to Behring Straits. If THOMASJEFFERSON had been President, we should have got the whole of thePacific possessions of Russia, as we got Louisiana from France, on thesame principle; and I believe the first acquisition of territory weshall get will be the Russian possessions to Behring Straits. I hopethis amendment of the Constitution will not be voted for by those whoare in favor of acquiring territory, especially which will give ussuch important advantages on the Pacific Ocean. I am utterly opposedto restricting all acquisition hereafter; especially on the Pacificcoast of the United States, both north and south. I hope thisamendment will be voted down. 

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I was exceedingly anxious to get a separate and distinctvote, first on the Peace Conference propositions, and then on theCRITTENDEN proposition, as perfected by the Senator from Kentucky. Ihave announced several times to-night, that that was my purpose; butafter what the Senator from Kentucky has said about his obligations tothe Peace Conference, to give priority to their proposition, I mustfollow him, although I should be delighted if we could makearrangements for separate votes. I prefer his perfected amendment tothe Peace Conference proposition; but still, I cannot separate fromhim on this question, when he thinks he is bound to bring it forward. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll on the amendment. 

Mr. NICHOLSON (when his name was called):--I greatly prefer theresolution of the Senator from Kentucky, because it is unequivocal, unambiguous in its language, and embraces future as well as presentterritory; but I am willing, if that cannot be got, to vote for theother; and I do not concur in the criticisms that have been made on itto the full extent, though there are features in it to which I verymuch object. I shall, therefore, vote "nay" on this proposition. 

Mr. POWELL:--As I have before announced, I have paired with theSenator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CAMERON]. If I were not paired, Ishould vote "nay. "

Mr. GWIN:--He would vote with you, if he were here. 

Mr. POWELL:--I cannot tell; he is not here. 

The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 28, as follows:

 YEAS. --Messrs. Crittenden, Douglas, Harlan, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Morrill, and Thomson--7. 

 NAYS. --Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bingham, Bright, Chandler, Clark, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Gwin, Hunter, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilkinson, and Wilson--28. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

No. IV. 

[The action of both houses of Congress in relation to the PeaceConference, and the propositions of amendments therein adopted, wouldseem to form a portion of its history. I shall endeavor to furnishtheir action so far as it can be separated from other mattersconnected with the propositions presented. Immediately after theadoption of the resolutions of Virginia, under which the Conferencewas called, and on the 28th of January, 1861, the followingproceedings took place in the House of Representatives of the UnitedStates. ]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, }WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _January 28th, 1861. _ }

The SPEAKER, Hon. WM. PENNINGTON, laid before the House a message fromthe President of the United States, which was read by the Clerk, asfollows:

 _To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:_

 I deem it my duty to submit to Congress a series of resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Virginia, on the 19th inst. , having in view a peaceful settlement of the exciting questions which now threaten the Union. They were delivered to me on Thursday the 24th inst. , by ex-President TYLER, who has left his dignified and honored retirement, in the hope that he may render service to his country in this its hour of peril. These resolutions, it will be perceived, extend an invitation "to all such States, whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally formed, and consistently with its principles, so as to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights, to appoint Commissioners to meet, on the 4th day of February next, in the City of Washington, similar Commissioners appointed by Virginia, to consider, and, if practicable, agree upon some suitable adjustment. "

 I confess I hail this movement, on the part of Virginia, with great satisfaction. From the past history of this ancient and renowned Commonwealth, we have the fullest assurance that what she has undertaken she will accomplish, if it can be done by able, enlightened, and persevering efforts. It is highly gratifying to know that other patriotic States have appointed, and are appointing Commissioners to meet those of Virginia in council. When assembled, they will constitute a body entitled, in an eminent degree, to the confidence of the country. 

 The General Assembly of Virginia have also resolved "that ex-President JOHN TYLER is hereby appointed by the concurrent vote of each branch of the General Assembly, a Commissioner to the President of the United States; and Judge JOHN ROBERTSON is hereby appointed, by a like vote, a Commissioner to the State of South Carolina, and the other States that have seceded or shall secede, with instructions respectfully to request the President of the United States and the authorities of such States to agree to abstain, pending the proceedings contemplated by the action of this General Assembly, from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms between the States and the Government of the United States. "

 However strong may be my desire to enter into such an agreement, I am convinced that I do not possess the power. Congress, and Congress alone, under the war-making power, can exercise the discretion of agreeing to abstain "from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms" between this and any other Government. It would, therefore, be a usurpation for the Executive to attempt to restrain their hands by an agreement in regard to matters over which he has no constitutional control. If he were thus to act, they might pass laws which he should be bound to obey, though in conflict with his agreement. 

 Under existing circumstances, my present actual power is confined within narrow limits. It is my duty at all times to defend and protect the public property within the seceding States so far as this may be practicable, and especially to employ all constitutional means to protect the property of the United States, and to preserve the public peace at this the seat of the Federal Government. If the seceding States abstain "from any and all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms, " then the danger so much to be deprecated will no longer exist. Defence, and not aggression, has been the policy of the administration from the beginning. 

 But while I can enter into no engagement such as that proposed, I cordially commend to Congress, with much confidence that it will meet their approbation, to abstain from passing any law calculated to produce a collision of arms pending the proceedings contemplated by the action of the General Assembly of Virginia. I am one of those who will never despair of the Republic. I yet cherish the belief that the American people will perpetuate the Union of the States on some terms just and honorable for all sections of the country. I trust that the mediation of Virginia may be the destined means, under Providence, of accomplishing this inestimable benefit. Glorious as are the memories of her past history, such an achievement, both in relation to her own fame and the welfare of the whole country, would surpass them all. 

 JAMES BUCHANAN. 

The "series of resolutions" referred to, and transmitted in PresidentBUCHANAN'S message to Congress, are in the body of this book on pages9 and 10. 

The following communication by the Governor of Virginia to the GeneralAssembly thereof, was also submitted with the President's Message:

 _The Commonwealth of Virginia, to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting:_

 Know you, that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, having, by joint resolution, adopted on the 19th instant, and hereto attached, appointed ex-President JOHN TYLER a Commissioner to the President of the United States to carry out the instructions conveyed in said resolution: therefore, I, JOHN LETCHER, Governor, do hereby announce the said appointment, and authenticate the same. 

 In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and [L. S. ] caused the great seal of the State to be affixed, in the City of Richmond, this 20th day of January, Anno Domini 1861. 

 JOHN LETCHER. 

 By the Governor: GEORGE W. MUNFORD, _Secretary of the Commonwealth. _

Mr. STANTON:--I move that that message be printed, and referred to theStanding Committee on Military Affairs. 

Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:--I move as an amendment to that motion, that it bereferred to the special committee of five. 

Mr. HOWARD, of Michigan:--I would suggest that whatever committee themessage is referred to, ought to have power to report it back at anytime; otherwise it will be locked up where the House cannot controlit. 

Mr. BURCH:--The gentleman from Virginia only yielded the floor for thereading of the message, and is now entitled to the floor. 

The SPEAKER:--It is proper that the message should be disposed of insome way. 

Mr. STANTON:--If the House will allow me, I will move that themessage be referred to the Standing Committee on Military Affairs, with power to report on it at any time. 

The SPEAKER:--That motion is not in order. A motion has been made torefer the message to the Committee on Military Affairs, and thegentleman from New York moves, as an amendment, that it be referred tothe special committee of five. 

Mr. BOCOCK:--If there is to be any debate on this motion, it should beallowed to go over until my colleague (Mr. PRYOR) makes his speech. 

Mr. STANTON:--I move the previous question. 

Mr. CURTIS:--The question should first be taken on the motion to referto the Committee on Military Affairs. 

The SPEAKER:--That statement is correct. The question is on referringthe message to the Military Committee. 

Mr. BOCOCK:--I am bound to interpose on behalf of my colleague, whosays he only yielded to have the message read. 

Mr. STANTON:--The previous question is demanded, and that will put anend to the matter at once. 

Mr. MILLSON:--I think the question deserves some little consideration. I therefore move to postpone the further consideration of thePresident's message till to-morrow. 

Mr. STANTON:--Very well; let that course be taken. 

The motion was agreed to. 

 * * * * *

After the report of the Peace Conference had been transmitted to theHouse of Representatives, and while the joint resolutions were underconsideration, several ineffectual attempts were made to get thelabors of the Conference before the House. Here is one of the first:

Mr. MAYNARD:--It is known, I suppose, to most members of the House, informally and unofficially, that what is known as the PeaceConference, to which the country has been looking for several days, has concluded its labors and dissolved. [Cries of "Order!"] I desireto make a proposition. 

Mr. BINGHAM, and others objected. 

Mr. MAYNARD:--I have a right to make a proposition. 

Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--I call the gentleman to order, andinsist upon the enforcement of the rules. 

Mr. MAYNARD [amid loud cries of "Order!"] moved to postpone the voteupon the pending propositions until to-morrow after the morning hour. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

And again, the same day, February 27th, the following effort was made:

Mr. McCLERNAND:--I wish to state that I understand there is on theSpeaker's table a communication from the president of the PeaceConference. I ask the unanimous consent of the House that it be takenup and read. 

Mr. LOVEJOY:--I object. 

So action was further delayed. 

_March 1st, 1861. _--When a communication from the Navy Department cameup for consideration in the House, the motion to postpone the specialorder brought out the following action on the communication of thePeace Conference:

The SPEAKER:--There is a communication, which has been for some timelying upon the Speaker's table, from the president of the PeaceConference. The Chair thinks it is right that it should be taken up. 

Mr. LOVEJOY:--I object. 

Mr. GROW:--I call for the regular order of business. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair has not thought proper to present it until thepropositions of the Committee of Thirty-three had been disposed of;but he thinks it right that they should now be presented. 

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania:--I object, on behalf of John Tyler, whodoes not want them in. [Laughter. ]

Mr. McCLERNAND:--I move to suspend the rules. 

Mr. GROW:--I call for the regular order of business. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair thinks he ought to have the privilege ofpresenting these papers. 

Mr. GROW:--I rise to a question of order. The territorial business isthe special order. I am entitled to the floor; and I submit that itcannot be taken from me by any motion to suspend the rules. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair thinks the motion to suspend the rules is inorder. 

Mr. GROW:--The Chair can hardly understand my question of order. It isthat the territorial business is the special order, made so by asuspension of the rules. While that is pending, therefore, by theuniform decision of the House, no motion can be entertained to suspendthe rules. 

The SPEAKER:--The territorial business was made the special order forthe two succeeding days after the propositions reported by theCommittee of Thirty-three had been disposed of. 

Mr. BOTELER:--I want to know if there is any business, or can be anybusiness, that should take precedence of these propositions of thePeace Conference?

Mr. LOVEJOY:--Yes, sir; there are ten thousand things that should takeprecedence. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair decides that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. McCLERNAND] has the floor, and is entitled to make the motion tosuspend the rules. 

Mr. GROW:--Do I understand the Chair to decide that the business ofthe Territories does not come up to-day?

The SPEAKER:--The Chair is of opinion that, under a strictconstruction of the rule, it would properly come up to-morrow. 

Mr. GROW:--I appeal from the decision of the Chair. 

Mr. HATTON: I move to lay that appeal on the table. 

Mr. HICKMAN:--Upon that motion, I call for tellers. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois:--Before the House divides upon the appeal, I desire the Chair to state precisely what the point of order is thatwe are to vote upon. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair decided that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. McCLERNAND] had the floor, and was in order in moving to suspend therules for the purpose of receiving the communication the Chair desiredto lay before the House. From that decision an appeal was taken, and amotion made to lay the appeal on the table. The question is now uponthe latter motion. 

Mr. GROW:--I rise to a question of order again. The Chair has notstated my question of order correctly. My point of order was, that thebusiness of the Territories was set down as a special orderimmediately after the disposal of the business of the Committee ofThirty-three. 

Mr. HATTON:--I call the gentleman from Pennsylvania to order. 

Mr. GROW:--I have the right to state my point of order. 

The SPEAKER:--The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point oforder. 

Mr. GROW:--It is, that the Territorial business having been made thespecial order, comes up now as the regular order of business. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair decides that the gentleman from Illinoisobtained the floor, and had the right to submit the motion to suspendthe rules. 

Mr. GROW:--He had no right to take the floor from me for any suchpurpose. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair overrules the question of order. 

Mr. GROW:--And from that decision I take an appeal. 

The SPEAKER:--The appeal is already pending; and a motion has beenmade to lay the appeal on the table. 

Mr. GROW:--I call for tellers on the motion. 

Tellers were ordered, and Messrs. ADRAIN and GROW were appointed. 

The House divided; and the tellers reported--forty-seven in theaffirmative. 

Mr. HOWARD, of Michigan:--I move that the House adjourn. 

Before the vote had been taken on the motion, the hour of fivearrived; and

The SPEAKER declared the House had taken a recess until seven o'clock. 

 * * * * *

EVENING SESSION. 

The House reassembled at seven o'clock P. M. 

COMMUNICATION OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE. 

Mr. GROW:--What is the regular order of business?

The SPEAKER:--The Chair had decided that the gentleman from Illinois[Mr. McCLERNAND] was entitled to the floor, to move that the rules besuspended to receive a communication from the Peace Conference. Fromthat decision the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GROW] appealed; anda motion was made to lay the appeal on the table. 

Mr. McCLERNAND:--I think we can perhaps agree to an arrangement thatwill be satisfactory to gentlemen upon both sides, by which anydifficulty upon the question of order can be avoided. If gentlemenupon that side of the House will allow the propositions to bepresented, we are willing that they shall be referred, and the Housethen proceed to the consideration of the territorial business. 

Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois:--I hope that will be done. 

Mr. LOVEJOY:--I object to the reception of the proposition. 

Mr. HICKMAN:--There are but few members present. I move that there bea call of the House. 

The motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. HICKMAN:--I ask the Chair for his judgment whether there is aquorum present or not. 

The SPEAKER:--In the opinion of the Chair, a quorum is not present. 

Mr. McCLERNAND:--I inquire whether there is any objection to thepropositions of the Peace Conference being taken up and referred?

Mr. LOVEJOY:--I certainly object in _toto coelo_ to any suchproposition. 

Mr. BOTELER:--I desire to ask this question: can any member object tothe reception of a communication from the Peace Congress?

Mr. LOVEJOY:--It is not a Peace Congress at all. There is no such bodyknown to this House. 

Mr. BOTELER:--I merely ask the question for information, for I do notprofess to be familiar with the rules; I desire to know whether theobjection of a single member can defeat the reception of such aproposition, especially when that single member is known not to be aconservative man, but a man opposed to all compromises?

The SPEAKER:--The Chair will suggest that a great deal of time will besaved by having a call of the House, as there is evidently no quorumpresent. 

A call of the House was taken. A quorum having appeared, the Houseproceeded to dispose of several special orders, when, on a motion ofpostponement, it returned in this wise to the Peace Conference:

Mr. LOGAN:--I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone. 

The yeas and nays were not ordered. 

The special order was then postponed. 

Mr. McCLERNAND:--I now move to suspend the rules of the House, for thepurpose of receiving the memorial of the Peace Congress, whichassembled lately in this city. 

Mr. GROW:--To be received? What for?

Mr. McCLERNAND:--For reference I suppose. 

Mr. BURNETT:--No; but to get it in, and put it upon its passage. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair understood the proposition to be, that therules should be suspended, in order that the paper should be receivedfor reference. 

Mr. McCLERNAND:--I withdraw that part of the proposition. 

Mr. SICKLES:--If it be received, it is then in the power of the Houseto do with it what it pleases. 

Mr. GROW:--The understanding was that the motion should be made forthe suspension of the rules only to receive the proposition. 

Mr. SICKLES:--That is all right. When the paper gets in, the House cando with it what it may deem fit. 

Mr. LOVEJOY:--I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. SHERMAN:--Is it proposed to act on the memorial of the PeaceCongress?

Mr. SICKLES:--If it comes before the House, it will be for us to saywhat disposition shall be made of it. [Cries of "Call the roll!"]

Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--This motion is merely for thesuspension of the rules to receive the proposition, and this, therefore, may be considered a test vote. [Cries of "Call the roll!"]

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative--yeas 93, nays 67; as follows:

 YEAS. --Messrs. Charles F. Adams, Green Adams, Adrain, Aldrich, William C. Anderson, Avery, Barr, Barret, Bocock, Boteler, Brabson, Branch, Briggs, Bristow, Brown, Burch, Burnett, Campbell, Horace F. Clark, John B. Clark, John Cochrane, Corwin, James Craig, John G. Davis, De Jarnette, Dunn, Etheridge, Florence, Foster, Fouke, Garnett, Gilmer, Hale, Hall, Hamilton, J. Morrison Harris, John T. Harris, Haskin, Hatton, Hoard, Holman, William Howard, Hughes, Jenkins, Junkin, William Kellogg, Killinger, Kunkel, Larrabee, James M. Leach, Leake, Logan, Maclay, Mallory, Charles D. Martin, Maynard, McClernand, McKenty, McKnight, McPherson, Millson, Millward, Laban T. Moore, Moorehead, Edward Joy Morris, Nelson, Niblack, Nixon, Olin, Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps, Porter, Pryor, Quarles, John H. Reynolds, Rice, Riggs, James C. Robinson, Sickles, Simms, William N. H. Smith, Spaulding, Stevenson, William Stewart, Stokes, Thomas, Vance, Webster, Whiteley, Winslow, Woodson, and Wright--93. 

 NAYS. --Messrs. Alley, Ashley, Bingham, Blair, Brayton, Buffinton, Burlingame, Burnham, Carey, Case, Coburn, Colfax, Conway, Burton Craige, Dawes, Delano, Duell, Edgerton, Eliot, Ely, Fenton, Ferry, Frank, Gooch, Graham, Grow, Gurley, Helmick, Hickman, Hindman, William A. Howard, Hutchins, Irvine, Francis W. Kellogg, Kenyon, Loomis, Lovejoy, McKean, Morrill, Morse, Palmer, Perry, Potter, Pottle, Christopher Robinson, Royce, Ruffin, Sedgwick, Sherman, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, Tappan, Tompkins, Train, Vandever, Van Wyck, Wade, Waldron, Walton, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Wells, Wilson, Windom, and Woodruff--67. 

So (two thirds not voting in favor thereof) the rules were notsuspended. 

During the vote, Mr. WOODSON said:--I rise for information. What are we voting on?[Cries of "Order!"] I cannot for my life imagine how this can beregarded as a test vote. I will vote to receive the proposition of thePeace Conference; but on its passage I will vote against it. 

The SPEAKER:--The motion is, to suspend the rules for the reception ofthe memorial. 

Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--I understood the gentleman fromIllinois to state that this was a test vote. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair cannot undertake to decide whether it is atest vote or not. 

Mr. JOHN COCHRANE stated that his colleagues, Mr. CLARK B. COCHRANEand Mr. LEE, were paired. 

Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--I would have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to permit this resolution to come before the House, but Iunderstood the gentleman from Illinois to proclaim that this was atest vote. Utterly opposed to any such wishy-washy settlement of ournational difficulties, I vote "no. "

Mr. CURTIS stated that he was paired with Mr. ANDERSON, of Missouri. 

Mr. FOSTER:--While I am willing to vote for the reception of thememorial of the Peace Congress, of which I was a member, still I amunwilling to be considered as favoring their proposition. Is this votea test vote on that proposition?

The SPEAKER:--The Chair does not think that it is; but each gentlemanwill decide for himself. 

Mr. HALE:--I am willing to receive this memorial in courtesy to thePeace Conference; and not regarding this as a test vote, I vote "ay. "

Mr. LEACH, of Michigan, stated that he had paired with Mr. ENGLISH, orhe would have voted in the negative. 

Mr. LEAKE (when his name was called) said that he regarded this_thing_ as a miserable abortion, forcibly reminding one of the oldfable of the mountain and the mouse; nevertheless, he was willing tolet the mouse in, in order to have the pleasure of killing it. 

Mr. RUFFIN:--As it is announced that this is a test vote, I amcompelled to vote "no. " Otherwise, I would have been willing to letthe matter be brought before the House for its consideration. 

Mr. JENKINS:--Who can make this a test vote? Certainly no man in thisHouse. This is a vote to receive the memorial, and nothing more. 

Mr. WILSON stated that Mr. VALLANDIGHAM was paired with Mr. BEALE. 

Mr. JUNKIN stated that his colleague, Mr. MONTGOMERY, was detained athome by illness. 

Mr. NIXON stated that his colleague, Mr. STRATTON, was detained at hisroom by illness, and that if he were present, he would vote to receivethe memorial of the Peace Conference. 

Mr. ELY stated that his colleague, Mr. LEE, was detained at his roomby indisposition. 

Mr. PENDLETON stated that his colleague was detained at his room byindisposition. 

Mr. CAMPBELL stated that his colleague, Mr. SCRANTON, was absent fromthe Hall because of illness. 

Mr. POTTER:--As this is a test vote, I vote "no. "

Mr. BRAYTON:--I understand this to be a test vote, and therefore vote"no. "

Mr. HOARD:--These papers are not before us. They are not printed, andwe cannot be supposed to know any thing of them; and I would ask, therefore, how they can be regarded as a test vote? I vote "ay. "

Mr. BOCOCK:--Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the Peace Conference, called as it was by my State, I vote to receive this report. Butunless the report, as it appears in the papers, can be amended, itcannot receive my approval. 

Mr. SHERMAN:--I vote against this, simply because we have no time toconsider it. 

Mr. HINDMAN:--I vote against suspending the rules, because I desire todefeat the proposition of the Peace Conference, believing it to beunworthy of the vote of any Southern man. 

Mr. COX (not being within the bar when his name was called) askedleave to vote. 

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, objected. 

Mr. GARNETT:--Mr. Speaker, intending and desiring to express myabhorrence of these insidious propositions, conceived in fraud andborn of cowardice, by giving a direct vote against them, yet fromrespect for the conference which reported them, I am willing toreceive them, and therefore now vote "ay. "

Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia:--I vote "ay, " because I am in favor of theresolutions as a peace measure. 

Mr. MAYNARD:--Believing these propositions eminently wise and just, Iwill let my vote stand in the affirmative. 

Mr. BURNETT:--I hope the Chair will enforce the rules. 

The SPEAKER:--I am trying to, all I can; and I hope gentlemen willkeep their seats and preserve order. 

Mr. DE JARNETTE:--I vote "ay, " with the hope of having an opportunityto vote against the propositions of the Peace Conference. 

Mr. BOTELER:--I vote "ay, " to introduce these propositions, because Ibelieve it to be my duty to do every thing, consistent with honor, topreserve the peace and save the Union of my country. 

Mr. COX:--I desire to ask a question of the Chair. 

The SPEAKER:--The Chair will hear you. 

Mr. COX:--I desire to know whether or not it will be in order to moveto suspend the rules to enable me to have my vote recorded?

Mr. SPEAKER:--No, sir. 

Mr. COX:--I would like very much to have it recorded in favor of thesepeace propositions. I vote "ay, " if there is no objection. 

Mr. HINDMAN:--Consent is not given to the gentleman from Ohio to havehis vote recorded. 

The SPEAKER:--It is not received. 

Mr. ROBINSON, of Rhode Island:--Believing that this is a test vote, Ichange my vote, and vote "no. "

Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:--I wish to know whether the vote of my colleague, CLARK B. COCHRANE, is recorded. 

The SPEAKER:--It is not. 

Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:--I think he has retired from the House on accountof sickness in his family; and I believe he is laboring for the Unionin other quarters. 

Mr. MILLSON:--I desire to vote. 

Objection was made. 

Mr. MILLSON:--I am entitled to vote, having been absent upon acommittee of conference. I vote "ay. "

Mr. HINDMAN:--Is the gentleman entitled to vote under the rules of theHouse?

Mr. BARR:--Objection comes too late. 

The SPEAKER:--It has been usual to allow gentlemen to vote under suchcircumstances. 

Mr. HICKMAN:--Do the rules allow him to vote?

The SPEAKER:--The Chair supposes that is the rule of the House. 

Mr. HINDMAN:--I ask to have the rule read. 

Mr. MILLSON:--No rule of the House could take away the right of amember to vote when he is absent by order of the House. If the rulesdeprived a member of the right to vote under such circumstances, itwould be void. 

The result was announced as above recorded. 

Mr. McCLERNAND:--This vote divides the Republican party, and soundsits death knell. 

No. V. 

REPORTS OF DELEGATES TO STATES. 

_Report of the Peace Commissioners to the Legislature of Virginia. _

 _To His Excellency_ JOHN LETCHER, _Governor of Virginia:_

 The undersigned Commissioners, in pursuance of the wishes of the General Assembly, expressed in the resolutions of the 19th day of January last, repaired in due season to the City of Washington. They there found, on the 4th day of February, the day suggested in the overture of Virginia for a Conference with the other States, Commissioners to meet them from the following States, viz. : Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. Subsequently, during the continuance of the Conference, at different periods, appeared likewise Commissioners from Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Maine, Iowa, and Kansas. So that before the close twenty-one States were represented by Commissioners, appointed either by the Legislatures or Governors of the respective States. 

 The undersigned communicated the resolutions of the General Assembly to this Conference, and, both before its committee appointed to recommend a plan of adjustment, and the Conference itself, urged the propositions known as the CRITTENDEN resolutions, with the modification suggested by the General Assembly of Virginia, as the basis of an acceptable adjustment. 

 They were not adopted by the Conference, but in lieu thereof, after much discussion, and the consideration of many proposed amendments, the article with seven sections, intended as an amendment to the Constitution, was adopted by sections (not under the rules, being voted on as a whole), and by a vote of the Conference (not taken by States), was directed to be submitted to Congress, with the request that it should be recommended to the States for ratification, which was accordingly done by the President of the Conference. 

 The undersigned regret that the Journal showing the proceedings and votes in the Conference has not yet been published or furnished them, and that consequently they are not able to present it with this report. As soon as received it will be communicated to your Excellency. 

 In the absence of that record it is deemed appropriate to state that on the final adoption of the first section, two of the States, Indiana and Missouri, did not vote, and New York was divided, and that the votes by States was, ayes 9, nays 8--Virginia, by a majority of her Commissioners, voting in the negative. 

 The other sections were adopted by ranging majorities (not precisely recollected), and on the fifth and seventh sections the vote of Virginia was in the negative. The plan, when submitted to Congress, failed to receive its recommendation, and as that body, having adjourned, can take no further cognizance of it, the undersigned feel the contingency has arrived on which they are required to report, as they herein do, the result of their action. 

 Respectfully, JOHN TYLER, G. W. SUMMERS, W. C. RIVES, JAS. A. SEDDON. 

The above report having been read and ordered to be printed, Mr. SUMMERS stated that the reason it was not signed by JudgeBROCKENBROUGH, the other Virginia Commissioner, was because thatgentleman was not in Richmond. Mr. SUMMERS presented a communicationin which Judge BROCKENBROUGH stated his views at length on thepropositions adopted by the Convention, and it was printed, by vote ofthe Legislature, in connection with the report. 

After reviewing the different sections of the propositions adopted bythe Peace Conference, Judge BROCKENBROUGH, in his letter, states thatthe said propositions, _as an entirety_, would have received his vote, and therefore the vote of Virginia, in the Peace Conference, if it hadbeen submitted to a vote in that form. 

 * * * * *

_Reports of the New York Commissioners to the Legislature of thatState. _

MAJORITY REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE PEACE CONVENTION. 

_March 23d, 1861. _

_To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New York:_

The Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Legislature of theState of New York to meet Commissioners from other States in the Cityof Washington on the fourth day of February, 1861, upon the call ofthe State of Virginia, by resolutions passed by the General Assemblyof that State on the nineteenth day of January, 1861. 

A copy of the Journal of the Convention is submitted herewith, fromwhich it will be seen that prior to the presence of the Commissionersfrom New York, that body had been completely organized, rules of orderadopted which excluded all persons other than members from witnessingits deliberations, forbidding any publication or other communicationof its proceedings, and the taking of any entry from its Journalwithout leave; in short, requiring all its debates and acts to be keptsecret. A committee had also been organized of one from each State tobe appointed by the Commissioners from such State, to which theVirginia resolutions were referred, "with all other propositions forthe adjustment of existing differences between the States, withauthority to report what they might deem right, proper, and necessaryto restore harmony and preserve the Union;" and this committee hadbeen in session two days before your Commissioners were enabled toappoint any one of their number upon it. This was done on the eighthof February by the appointment of Mr. Field. 

William E. Dodge, one of your Commissioners, took his seat in theConvention on the seventh day of February, 1861, and Messrs. Field, Noyes, Wadsworth, Corning, King, and Wool, on the eighth of February, Mr. Smith on the eleventh, and Judges James and Bronson on the twelfthday of February, and Mr. Granger, who was appointed in the place ofJudge Gardiner, who declined, on the eighteenth day of February, 1861. 

It was deemed advisable by your Commissioners that the proceedings ofthe Convention should be open to the public and the press, and hencethey advised and concurred in resolutions introduced for that purpose, which were laid on the table on the motion of a Commissioner from theState of New Jersey. On a subsequent day they also concurred in aresolution authorizing the employment of a stenographer, to "preserveaccurate notes of the debates and other proceedings of 'theConvention, ' which notes should not be communicated to any person, norshall copies thereof be taken, nor shall the same be made public untilafter the final adjournment of this Convention, except in pursuance ofa vote authorizing their publication;" but this was refused, and theresolution laid on the table on motion of a Commissioner from theState of Pennsylvania, by a vote of eleven to eight, all the SlaveStates represented voting against it, with the addition of the Statesof Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Before theConvention closed its session, the following states, twenty-one inall, were represented in the Convention: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, RhodeIsland, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Kansas. With theconcurrence of a majority of your Commissioners, Mr. Field offered inthe committee of one from each State, on the fourteenth of February, the following proposition:

 "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;"

but it was rejected by a majority of the committee, and formed no partof its report. 

That committee made its report on the fourteenth of February, unaccompanied by any written observations, in the shape of anamendment to the Constitution of the United States, in the followingwords:

 ARTICLE 1. In all the 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 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. 

 ART. 2. Territory shall not be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty, nor except for naval and commercial stations and depots, unless such treaty shall be ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate. 

 ART. 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State or Territory of the United States, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons bound to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing with them to the City of Washington, retaining, and taking away persons so bound to labor; nor the power to interfere with, or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation by land, sea, or river, of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage; and the right during transportation of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist, nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons bound to labor than on land. 

 ART. 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due. 

 ART. 5. The foreign slave-trade and the importation of slaves into the United States and their Territories from places beyond the present limits thereof, are forever prohibited. 

 ART. 6. The first, third, and fifth articles, together with this article of these amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States. 

 ART. 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal or other officers, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies, or when after such arrest such fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of such fugitive. 

Mr. Field, the member of the committee from New York, dissented fromthis report, as also did Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, and Mr. Crowninshield, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Seddon, of Virginia. 

This report was under discussion, and various amendments were proposedto it until the twenty-seventh day of February, a majority of yourCommissioners steadily opposing all its provisions except thatprohibiting the foreign slave-trade, and most of such majority beingopposed to the submission, by the Convention, of any amendment of theConstitution of the United States at the present time, and in thepresent excited state of the public mind. During the consideration ofthe report various independent propositions were made by the consent, and with the concurrence of your Commissioners; among which was one byMr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, presented on the fifteenth of February, in the form of a minority report from the committee upon the plan ofadjustment, which concluded with a resolution, "That the Conventionrecommend to the several States to unite with Kentucky in herapplication to Congress to call a Convention for proposing amendmentsto the Constitution of the United States, to be submitted to theLegislatures of the several States or to Conventions therein, forratification, as the one or other mode of ratification may be proposedby Congress;" and this proposition, after being discussed at length, was lost on the twenty-sixth of February, by a vote of thirteen Statesagainst to nine in its favor, a majority of your Commissioners castingthe vote of New York in favor of it. 

A proposition somewhat similar, embracing an address to the people ofthe United States, and containing a resolution for calling theConvention, was also submitted to the Convention, with the likeconcurrence of a majority of your Commissioners, by Mr. Tuck of NewHampshire, on the eighteenth of February, and on the twenty-sixth wasalso defeated by a vote of eleven States against nine. 

It will be seen, therefore, that your Commissioners, with those fromseveral other States, offered to unite in a call for a Convention, tobe convened in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States; andthat the slave States uniting with several of the free States, uniformly opposed, and at last defeated it. 

On the twenty-third of February Mr. Vandever, of Iowa, offered thefollowing resolution:

 "_Resolved_, That whatever may be the ultimate determination upon the amendment to the Federal Constitution, or other propositions for the adjustment approved by this Convention, we, the members, recommend our respective States and constituencies to faithfully abide in the Union. "

A motion to lay it upon the table prevailed by a vote of eleven tonine, a majority of your Commissioners voting in the negative. 

On the twentieth of February, Mr. Field, one of your Commissioners, atthe instance of a majority of them, offered, as an amendment to theConstitution to be adopted by the Convention, and proposed with anyother amendments, that it should recommend the following:

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

On the twenty-sixth of February, after several ineffectual attempts toget rid of the proposition, on points of order, it was negatived by avote of eleven States against ten, a majority of your Commissionerscasting the vote of New York in its favor. 

Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, moved the following as an amendment tothe seventh article, on the twenty-first of February. 

 "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 or riotous assemblies in his person or property, or in the deprivation by violence of his rights secured by this Constitution. "

A motion was made to insert the word "white" before "citizen, " but itfailed by a vote of eleven to ten; and on the twenty-fifth of Februarythe entire amendment was defeated by a vote of eleven to eight; yourCommissioners, by a majority, casting the vote of New York in itsfavor. 

Several other propositions upon other subjects were also submitted tothe Convention, as will appear by the Journal; but it is not deemednecessary to refer to them more particularly, except, that on theeighteenth of February, Mr. Reid, of North Carolina, proposed to amendthe first section of the committee's report by inserting after theword "line" in the seventh line thereof, the words "involuntaryservitude is recognized; and property in those of the African raceheld to service or labor, in any of the States of the Union, whenremoved to such territory, shall be protected, " and which was lost bya vote of seventeen States against to three for it. On thetwenty-sixth of February, he also moved to insert in the same section, after the words "common law, " the words, "and such rights shall beprotected by all departments of the Territorial Government during itscontinuance, " which the President ruled out of order, as the sectionhad been previously gone through in detail, and was only before theConvention on its final passage. 

The Report of the Committee on a plan of adjustment, alreadymentioned, came up for consideration on its final passage, after manyamendments had been made to it, as will appear by the Journal, on thetwenty-sixth of February, in the following form, and was ultimatelythus adopted, by the votes stated at the end of each section:

 ARTICLE XIII. 

 SECTION I. In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said Territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts according to the course of the common law. 

 When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, 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 servitude, as the constitution of such State may provide. 

 YEAS. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9. 

 NAYS. --Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--8. 

 DIVIDED. --New York and Kansas--2. 

 NOT VOTING. --Indiana. 

 SEC. II. No territory shall be acquired by the United States except by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary for the ratification of such treaty. 

 YEAS. --Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11. 

 NAYS. --Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Vermont--8. 

 DIVIDED. --New York and Kansas--2. 

 SEC. III. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, nor without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to interfere with, or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage, and the right during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in, or through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic against the laws thereof; nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to labor or service than on land. The bringing into the District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places as merchandise, is prohibited. 

 YEAS. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Caroline, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--12. 

 NAYS. --Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont--7. 

 DIVIDED. --New York and Kansas--2. 

 SEC. IV. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such labor or service is due. 

 YEAS. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia--15. 

 NAYS. --Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire--4. 

 DIVIDED. --New York and Kansas--2. 

 SEC. V. The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor, into the United States and the Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof. 

 YEAS. --Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas--16. 

 NAYS. --Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Virginia--5. 

 SEC. VI. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section of these amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States. 

 YEAS. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--11. 

 NAYS. --Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--9. 

 DIVIDED. --New York. 

 SEC. VII. Congress shall provide by law, that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblies, or when after arrest such fugitive was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. 

 YEAS. --Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--12. 

 NAYS. --Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Missouri, and Vermont--7. 

 DIVIDED. --New York. 

 NOT VOTING. --Massachusetts. 

When the question was first taken on the first section, it was lost bya vote of eleven States against it to eight in its favor, a majorityof your Commissioners casting the vote of New York against it. Amotion was immediately made to reconsider, which was advocated by Mr. Granger, one of the Commissioners from New York, and was carried by avote of fourteen States for, to five against it--a majority of theCommissioners from New York again casting its vote in the negative, and the Convention adjourned. On the next day it again came up on itsfinal passage, and was then carried by a vote of nine States for, toeight against it--the vote of New York not being given. Why it was notgiven is left by the Commissioners to be stated by Mr. Field, on hisown responsibility. (_See note_, p. 596. )

The vote of New York was not given upon any of the sections except thefifth, for the reason already stated; but upon that section we allvoted Aye, as all her Commissioners then present were in its favor. 

After the several votes had been taken, it was objected that the wholearticle should be put to a vote upon the question of its finaladoption before it could be regarded as properly passed, but thePresident of the Convention decided that this was not necessary, andno such vote was taken. At the close of the discussion on this subjectyour Commissioners were prepared to cast the vote against the entirearticle, if any question had been taken upon it as a whole, as amajority of your Commissioners think it should have been. 

Soon after the adoption of these proposed amendments to theConstitution, and after voting down and laying on the table variouspropositions made by a minority in the interest of freedom and thefree States, the Convention adjourned--having adopted an address toCongress requesting that body to submit the amendment, to Conventionsof the several States, for ratification, according to the Constitutionof the United States; and they were accordingly communicated toCongress on the same day. In the Senate, they were referred to acommittee, and were recommended for adoption by a majority of thatcommittee; but Messrs. Seward and Trumbull, a minority of thecommittee, reported against the amendments, and in favor of a NationalConvention; thus following out and approving the proposition which hadbeen made in the Convention by your Commissioners, and the entireminority of that party, nearly three weeks before, and for which themajority which controlled it, if it had chosen to do so, could at anytime have obtained an unanimous vote. The amendment of the Convention, however, failed to secure the approval of either branch of Congress. 

The labors of your Commissioners having thus terminated, it is due tothose whom they represented, and to themselves, that the majorityshould state briefly the reasons why the proposed amendments to theConstitution did not meet their approbation. 

_First. _--In their judgment, no amendment of that sacred instrument inthe interest, and for the purpose of the extension and perpetuation ofthe slave power--an interest which has wielded the whole politicalpower of the United States during almost the entire existence of theGovernment--was either expedient or necessary. They preferred itshould remain and continue just as it came from the hands of ourrevolutionary fathers; a Constitution establishing freedom and notslavery. 

_Second. _--The Convention would scarcely listen to, much less adopt, any amendment in the interest of freedom or of free labor, or of therights of citizens of the free States; the only one of thatcharacter--that in relation to securing to the citizens of each Statethe privileges and immunities of citizens of the severalStates--having been voted down as a direct proposition when offered byMr. Wilmot, and only adopted in an indirect way at the end of thesection requiring payment to be made by Congress for rescued slaves. In like manner the absolute right of secession in every State asinherent under the Constitution of the United States was claimed toexist by members of the Convention from the slave States, accompaniedby a denial of any right in the General Government to coerce obedienceto it, or to enforce the laws for the collection of revenue. Andalthough all the delegates from the slave States did not take thisground, yet in several instances a majority of the delegates fromseveral of them did so, and the States themselves generally votedagainst all propositions to the contrary. The article proposed by yourCommissioners denying the right of nullification and secession wasdefeated in accordance with these views; so that in effect slaveStates, and such of the free States as voted with them, would notconsent so to amend the Constitution as to deny the right ofnullification and secession, even if all the guarantees demanded bythe slave interest were accorded to it. In addition, many of thedelegates from the slave States declared that it was the fixeddetermination of those States to stand by the States that had secededfrom the Union, and to aid them in resisting it, even if suchguarantees were given; and that they would resist any attempts tocoerce them, or to enforce the revenue, or any other laws within theirlimits, without their consent. In other words, they claimed a right toremain in the Union under the Constitution, with its new guarantees ofslavery, and yet to obstruct the operations of the Government, toprevent the execution of the laws, and to aid those who were in openrebellion against, and had made war upon it. Under these circumstancesyour Commissioners did not deem it consistent with justice, or therespect due to their own State, to give their assent to any of theproposed amendments, except that prohibiting the slave-trade--and eventhat, in their opinion, was unnecessary, as no enlightened legislativebody would dare to propose to reëstablish that infamous traffic. 

_Third. _--By the first section of the proposed amendments, slavery is_constitutionally_ established in all of the territory south of theline of 36° 30´, and all control over it by Congress or theterritorial legislatures is absolutely taken away during itsterritorial condition. In effect, there is to be no law for slavery, its permanency and existence being provided for, except the will ofthe master and the present odious slave code of New Mexico. These arefastened upon every inch of the soil of that immense region, beyondeven the power of the people to remove them, however much they maydesire to do so, prior to the formation of a State government. Slaverymust therefore be the normal condition of the territory, while theState is in the process of formation and organization; and theinevitable result must be, that free labor and free institutions willbe excluded, and no free State formed within its limits. As theterritory was free from the blight of slavery when acquired, yourCommissioners could not assent to its being changed into slave soil byan amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

_Fourth. _--The second section of the proposed amendments gives to theslave States an absolute negative upon the acquisition of freeterritory in every possible mode by which it can be acquired; and ingiving reciprocally the same right to free States as to acquiringslave territory, also fetters the operations of the General Governmentboth in peace and war, depriving it to some extent of the exercise ofperfect sovereignty, and at the same time sanctioning, andperpetuating in the organic law, an odious discrimination in favor ofan institution peculiar to the slave States, and at variance with thehumane principles of the age. The free States do not need any suchveto power in their favor, and the slave States would not demand itexcept to maintain and preserve for slavery a balance of powerhitherto claimed, and to some extent exercised by them, for which theysecure by this amendment a constitutional perpetuation. Nowell-founded objection seems to exist in regard to the acquisition offree territory, unless it be that it is obtained in order to convertit into slave soil; and your Commissioners could not consent to giveto a single interest, that of slavery, a negative upon suchacquisitions. They have always regarded slavery as a localinstitution, depending solely upon the laws of the States in which itwas permitted for its existence; and they did not deem it expedient orjust to recognize it as, or elevate it to, the rank of a positivegovernmental power, by clothing it with the right to interrupt one ofthe ordinary and most essential functions of the Government. Slavery, except as a limited basis of representation, has now no politicalpower or authority under the Constitution; the wise and good men whoframed that instrument cautiously withheld it in all other respects;and your Commissioners find in the history of the aggressions of theslave interest, only additional reasons for confining it within itsoriginal limits. 

_Fifth. _--To so much of the third article as declares that theConstitution nor any amendment of it, shall be so construed as to giveCongress the power to regulate, abolish, or control slavery within anyState, there was no objection, as it has never been seriously claimedthat any such power was given; but this provision is connected with somany objectionable, not to say odious ones, that your Commissionersfelt themselves bound to vote against it. These surrender all thepower of Congress over the District of Columbia, and over other placeswithin its exclusive jurisdiction, in respect of slavery and itsultimate extinction, however much the people of the United States inthe progress of civilization and humanity may desire it; and by thesixth section this provision is made unalterable without the consentof all the States. The influences produced by the existence of slaveryat the National Capital, upon public men and public measures, are wellknown; and while they may be tolerated, as they have been, without anydesire to exercise the power of eradicating the cause of the evil, still a sound policy requires that the power should not be abandoned. Connected with this surrender of a well-defined and necessary power, are other provisions in regard to the transit of slaves through thefree States; in effect, permitting the carrying on of the internalslave-trade through these States, unless they pass laws forbidding it. This trade through the free States is not made dependent upon theconsent of the States, but is made lawful without dissent; and theresult is, that if this amendment shall be adopted, every free Statewill find it necessary to legislate for its exclusion, or to permitand regulate the transit by its own laws. These laws would be deemedodious by the slave States, and would produce dissatisfaction andirritation. Besides, in most of the free States, the normal legalcondition of every person is that of freedom; this constitutionalprovision would at once change the local law of the State, and operateas a positive recognition of slavery in the absence of any newenactment. Thus, every free State would find itself compelled to adopta slave code, more or less extensive in its character, regulating orexcluding the inter-state slave-trade. Taking this in connection withthe fourth section, authorizing the States to legislate upon thesubject of fugitive slaves, and by their judicial and ministerialofficers to enforce their delivery, contrary to the decision of theSupreme Court of the United States, which declares all suchinterference on the part of the States unconstitutional, it isapparent that the legislatures of all the free States would be besetby hordes of persons in the interest of the slave power for thepassage of laws protecting slavery within their limits. No means, however impure, would be omitted to obtain them; and it is easy to seethat a slave code upon the subject of transit of fugitives, more orless stringent in its character, would soon find its way into everystatute book. When the States now free abolished slavery within theirown limits, they intended to get rid of the evil entirely, not only inpractice but as a necessity of legislation; these provisions compel areturn to it, and involve the adoption of new laws for its regulationor exclusion. 

_Seventh. _ [Transcriber's Note: should be "Sixth"]--The sixth sectionmakes most of the amendments which give a constitutional protection toslavery, unalterable without the consent of all the States. It alsoincludes the second section of the fourth article, which provides that"representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among theseveral States according to their respective members, " includingthree-fifths of all slaves, &c. ; and that portion of the fourtharticle which requires the delivering up of fugitive slaves. Thus, apreference is given to the slave interest over every other; these mayall be affected by a constitutional amendment, ratified or adopted bythree-fourths of the States; but the slave clauses are to remain, except by universal consent, fixed and immovable. No such protectionis given to freedom; none to the property of free men, unless it bewhat is called property in slaves; none to the freedom of the press;none to the religion of the citizen, or to the rights of conscience. These rights, more sacred than any other, are deemed of lessimportance, and are secured by less guarantees than the right to holda fellow man in bondage and to traffic in his flesh. Moreover, thethree-fifth representation of slaves, and only the same rate of directtaxation, are perpetual by the same rigid provision. This not onlygives to the slave States a representation of three-fifths of theirslave property, but it secures to them an exemption from taxation onthe same property to the extent of two-fifths. But no propertywhatever, in the free States constitutes a basis of representation, and all of it is liable to, and may be taxed. Unequal and unjust aswas this discrimination in favor of the slave States, still as itformed a part of the original Constitution, it should be maintained;but when it is sought to extend it to new States, and to make itunchangeable without the consent of all the States, the attempt shouldbe resisted by every freeman. There are other property interests moreimportant than that of slavery, but none of them have been so arrogantas to claim such exclusive privileges and perpetuation. 

_Finally. _--Other objections of a grave character might be stated, butit is not deemed necessary. The great purpose of the Convention was toamend the Constitution of the United States, so as to recognize andprotect slaves as property. As a direct proposition this wasnegatived, but the same end was sought to be attained by indirectmeans, and its friends exulted in having accomplished it. Such is theobvious effect of these amendments. If adopted, slaves must everywherein the Union be regarded as property, and entitled to the same legalprotection as other property. The necessary result will be, that allState laws forbidding the bringing of slaves within their limits, willbe void, the sovereignty of the States in that respect will bedestroyed, and the National Constitution will recognize and protectproperty in man. 

We do not believe that the people of the State of New York will, underany pressure of circumstances, however grave, recognize a claim sorepugnant to humanity, so hostile to freedom. 

We commend to your honorable body the careful consideration of theseproposed constitutional amendments. We believe that they will, ifadopted, engraft upon our Constitution the odious doctrine of propertyin man; that they will extend slavery over a vast domain once free;that they will change the whole spirit and character of our organiclaw, making that to protect and foster slavery which was intended toestablish freedom; making that irrevocable and perpetual which theframers of the instrument intended should be temporary. 

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD, WM. CURTIS NOYES, JOHN A. KING, JAMES S. WADSWORTH, A. B. JAMES, JAMES C. SMITH. 

 * * * * *

NOTE OF MR. FIELD. 

The following statement shows why the vote of New York was not givenupon the first question taken in the Peace Convention, on thetwenty-seventh of February. The Journal represents the vote asdivided. _It was not divided. _ The vote was ordered to be cast, _andshould have been cast_ in the negative. 

On Tuesday, the day preceding, a message came to me from the clerk ofthe Supreme Court of the United States, that the Court was waiting forme in a case which had stood upon the docket since December, 1859, andwas now for the first time reached in its order. The case was of greatimportance, for upon its result depended the closing or reopening of alitigation which I had conducted for nineteen years, which hadembraced in its different forms more than eighty suits, and in thecourse of which the Courts of the State and of the United States hadcome into direct conflict. All the tribunals of the State of New York, where the question had been raised, had decided against my clients. The Supreme Court of the United States, by a majority of two, had oncedecided in their favor. 

The present case was to determine whether the Court would adhere toits former decision. The stake of my clients was therefore immense, and I was their only counsel. 

The case being called after my arrival in Court, the Chief Justiceobserved that, as it was too late to begin that day, the argumentwould proceed first the next morning, at eleven o'clock, unless theAttorney-General should claim precedence in another case. Then, thinking that the Convention would close its business during the day, I hastened back, and the question being soon taken, I cast the vote ofthe State against the proposition before the Convention, and it wasrejected by 11 to 8. 

A reconsideration was moved and carried, and an adjournment taken tohalf-past seven in the evening. At that hour I returned to theConvention, but to my disappointment, and in spite of my efforts, itadjourned to the next morning at ten o'clock, a majority of myassociates voting for the adjournment. 

The next morning I endeavored to procure a meeting of the delegationbefore ten o'clock, that I might obtain a formal instruction to theChairman in my absence to cast a vote of the State against theproposed amendments. Not being able, however, to obtain the earlierattendance of all the members, I waited till they appeared in the hallof the Convention, and there, shortly before eleven o'clock, I calledthem together, and, all being present, a resolution, in contemplationof my absence, was moved and carried, that "the Chairman declare thatNew York voted No on each section. " Thereupon requesting Mr. King toact as temporary Chairman in my absence, and when New York was calledto cast the vote in the negative, pursuant to the resolution, I leftthe hall and drove to the Capitol as rapidly as possible, that I mightbe present at the opening of the Court. 

Was it reasonable, nay, was it possible, that I should do otherwise?It is known to be a rule of the Supreme Court not to postpone anargument for other engagements of counsel. If neither counsel ispresent, the case goes to the foot of the docket, to be reached againonly after two or three years; if one of the counsel only appears, hemakes an oral argument, and a printed brief is submitted on the otherside. In my view, it would have been trifling with the rights of myclients either to submit their case on a printed brief or to postponeit for two years. I had no one to send to the Court in my place. Todespatch a letter with an excuse was a liberty I did not feeljustified in taking, and if taken, it might fail of its object, as theCourt, when informed of the circumstances, must have believed that nomember of the delegation would take advantage of my absence if hecould, and that he could not if he would, since the vote had beenalready determined in a meeting of the delegation, and thatdetermination could not be reconsidered or changed without thedesertion to the minority of one of the majority. 

But whatever might be the opinion of others, my duty appeared tomyself extremely plain. There was nothing to be done in the Conventionbut the merely ministerial duty of declaring what had already beendetermined, which duty could certainly be performed by another aswell as myself, while, on the other hand, no one but myself could actin Court for my clients. It is true that some of my associatesexpressed to me their apprehension that the minority might appeal tothe Convention, and that the Convention might arbitrarily overrule thedelegation; but I answered them as I repeat now, that neither theminority of the delegation nor the Convention itself had any right tointerpose. We were not asking a favor, but exercising a right. Whethera person not present could vote was not the question. Persons did notvote except on unimportant questions and by general consent. Statesvoted; the vote of each State was delivered by its Chairman, whocollected the voices of his delegation and announced the result. Therewas nothing in the reason of the thing, nothing in any rule or usageof the Convention, which required the voices of the delegation to becollected at the instant of announcing the result. They might becollected one minute beforehand, or, as in the present instance, tenminutes, or twice ten minutes. All that could be required was, thateach member should give his own judgment upon the particularproposition, and the sum of these judgments it was the sole provinceof the Chairman to make known. There could be no occasion for theirstanding by his side while he performed this duty unless he neededtheir support or they feared his weakness. 

I have said that there was no rule of the Convention which ordered thematter otherwise; on the contrary, the rule as to the mode ofvoting--the 18th--was as follows:

 "18. MODE OF VOTING: All votes shall be taken by States, and each State to give one vote. The yeas and nays of the members shall not be taken, or published--only the decision by States. "

On the twenty-first of February, Mr. Dent, of Maryland, moved theadoption of the following 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, of Ohio, offered the following as a substitute for Mr. Dent's rule. 

 "The yeas and nays of the Commissioners 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. Chase's substitute was rejected, and Mr. Dent's rule adopted. 

The usage of the Convention may be understood by a single example. TheMaine delegation consisted of her two Senators and six members of theHouse of Representatives. One member only attended for the greaterpart of the Convention, and cast the vote of the State. Indeed it wasa frequent practice for members to absent themselves and leave theirassociates to act for them. 

The State of New York had, moreover, decided for herself in whatmanner her Commissioners should speak for her, by declaring in thejoint resolution of the Senate and Assembly that they should casttheir "votes to be determined by a majority of their number, " not themajority of those who should happen to be present at a particularinstant on the floor of the Convention, but a majority of the wholenumber. Suppose, upon a question being put, the delegation had met forconsultation, and by a formal resolution determined that the vote ofthe State be No; then, instructing their Chairman to cast the voteaccordingly, had separated, and all but the Chairman retired from thehall, could he thereupon have changed the vote to Aye, because hedisagreed with the majority and alone remained on the floor? Or couldthe Convention have refused this vote of the State? And if not, howis that question different from the one here?

It was, therefore, I must think with good reason, assumed by me when Ileft the hall, that if the question should be put in my absence, whichby the way I considered uncertain, as the debate then going on mightlast for hours, and I hoped still to find some means of deferring myargument to the next day, I might certainly depend on the vote of NewYork being declared again as it had been declared before, neverdoubting for a moment the ability and the will of my associates todefend against all opposition the rights of the State, their ownrights, and mine. 

On my arrival at the Court I did not succeed in my desire to defer myargument to the next day; but had I done so, it would have made nodifference, as the vote in the Convention must have been called beforeI reached the Capitol. 

What occurred in my absence I can only know from report. Fivedifferent statements are given: one by Mr. King in a published letter, another by the secretary of the delegation in the minutes kept by him, the third by the chairman of the Massachusetts delegation, who had thebest opportunity to observe what was passing, the fourth by thesecretary in a correspondence with me, and the fifth in the publishedJournal of the Convention. 

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 wholedelegation were together, regularly convened, in contemplation of myabsence, was to "declare that New York voted No. "

_Second:_ That instead of confining himself to that duty, he beganimmediately upon my departure, and before the vote was demanded, toask anew, "what vote should be given?" and when the vote was demanded, instead of voting No, "stated the case to the Convention, and askedpermission to cast the vote as before. "

_Third:_ That Mr. King's colleagues, though they had just resolved, inexpectation of my absence, that he should "declare that New York votedNo, " yet "before New York was called, " and of course before anyintimation from the Convention or its President, in answer to hisquestion, "What vote shall be given?" replied, "that in Mr. Field'sabsence, the vote was divided, " and directed him so to declare. 

_Fourth:_ That the Convention never "decided that no person could votewho was not present. " Whatever was done, was done between thedelegation and Mr. Tyler. No order was taken by the Convention, but, on the contrary, the objection on the part of the minority of thedelegation was that "the Convention had no control or authority in thematter. "

What caused this departure from the course of proceedings prescribedby the resolution does not clearly appear. The delegation did notrescind the resolution; the Convention did not reverse it. I do notunderstand that my associates consider it a nullity--certainly theycould not have so considered it when it was passed. I have notsufficient evidence that they changed their minds within ten minutes, or that they have changed them yet. That the resolution was not anullity, but an authoritative act, binding upon every member of thedelegation, until duly reconsidered, I believed then, and believestill. 

I submit, therefore, that my reason for attending court, at itsopening, was not only sufficient but imperative; and if I had notyielded to it, I should have incurred the reproach of my clients, andthe censure of all right-thinking men; that before I left theConvention, I did not only all that could have been done, but all thatwas necessary, to make the vote of New York certain against theproposed amendments of the Constitution; and that the omission torecord the vote of New York as it was ordered, was owing not to anyact or omission of mine, but to the efforts of the minority of thedelegation, or some of them, to prevent an expression of the opinionof the majority, and to the failure of my associates of the majorityto execute in my absence what had been resolved when I was present. 

It is certainly with regret that I write this note. My preference wasfor a statement in which we all could join, but my associates refusedto enter into any joint relation of the facts. 

I hope, also, it will not be inferred from any thing I have written, that I do not regret the omission to record New York as voting againstwhat appeared to me an unwise and pernicious proposition. Though theimportance of the vote has been greatly magnified, and the result inmy opinion would not have been different if the vote of New York hadbeen counted, as I believe some of the States not voting would, ifnecessary, have voted in the affirmative; and even if it had beenotherwise, I think the action of the Convention was of no importancewhatever; yet, I should wish this State, of which we are so proud, toappear always, even in a matter of ceremony, on the side of Freedom;ever loyal to the Constitution as it is, but against placing there aguaranty to slavery beyond the guarantees of our fathers. 

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD. 

NEW YORK, _March 20th, 1861. _

 * * * * *

I. --_Extract from the Minutes of the New York Delegation, kept bytheir Secretary. _

"WEDNESDAY, _February 27th, 1861. _

"New York delegation met in the room, and Mr. Wadsworth moved that theNew York delegation vote No on each of the sections of the committee'sreport. Messrs. Corning, Bronson, Granger, Wool, and Dodge opposed, urging that the vote of New York be given on each section as it wascalled. The majority overruled, and decided to have the Chairmandeclare that New York voted No on each section. 

"The question on the first section being called, Mr. King stated thatone of the members of the delegation being called away to the UnitedStates Court, the delegation had taken a vote before he left, and heappealed to the justice of the Convention to have it so cast, statingthat the vote of the delegation had been so cast on the previous day. 

"The Convention decided that no person could vote who was not present. 

"The delegation was divided. "

 * * * * *

II. --_Letter from the Chairman of the Massachusetts Delegation. _

"WASHINGTON, _March 8th, 1861. _

"MY DEAR SIR:--Your favor of the 6th instant is before me. Afteralluding to the fact that 'my seat in the Peace Convention was at thetable directly under the President's chair, between him and the NewYork delegation, ' you desire me to inform you what took place, on theoccasion of the vote of New York being called on the morning of the27th February. What I observed was this:

"When the vote of New York was called for, Governor King rose andstated in substance that you had a short time before left theConvention to argue a case in the Supreme Court, which had beenassigned for that morning, and asked the permission of the Conventionto give the vote of the State in your absence, the same as though youwere present. To this one of the Commissioners, Mr. Corning I think itwas, objected, saying that the vote of New York was to be given as herCommissioners who were present should decide, and that the Conventionhad no control or authority in the matter. Some conversation was thenhad between the Commissioners who favored and those who opposed thepending proposition, which I did not hear with sufficient distinctnessto understand, and in a minute or two Governor King announced that thevote of New York was divided. 

"This is the substance of what occurred, so far as I observed it. 

"With great respect, your friend, "J. Z. GOODRICH. 

"To David Dudley Field, Esq. , New York. "

 * * * * *

III. --_Letter to the Secretary of the Convention. _

"NEW YORK, _March 4th, 1861. _

"DEAR SIR:--Was any resolution passed by the Convention on Wednesday, the 27th of February, respecting the right of New York to vote, oraffecting the vote of that State in the absence of any of herCommissioners? On one side I am told that there was such a resolutionpassed, or vote taken, in my absence; on the other side, I am toldthat there was not. If one was passed, will you do me the favor togive me a copy of it, and oblige

"Yours truly, "DAVID DUDLEY FIELD. 

"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, Esq. , &c. , &c. "

 * * * * *

IV. --_The Secretary's Answer. _

No. 135, WILLARD'S, WASHINGTON, _March 5th, 1861. _

"DEAR SIR:--I have your letter. When New York was called, the inquirywas made whether an absent member could vote, stating that one memberof that delegation was absent. The President stated that an absentmember could not vote. New York was stated divided, and did not vote. 

"Respectfully, &c. , "CRAFTS J. WRIGHT. "

 * * * * *

V. --_Extract from the Journal of the Convention. _

"_February 27th, 1861. _

"The question on the adoption of said section resulted in thefollowing vote:

"YEAS. --Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9. 

"NAYS. --Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, NewHampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--8. 

"So the section was adopted. 

"On calling New York, the members stated that one of their number wasabsent, and the delegation were divided. Inquiry was made of thePresident whether an absent member could vote. The President decidedhe could not, without general leave. 

"New York, Indiana, and Kansas were divided. "

 * * * * *

_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_

The undersigned beg leave to submit a reply to the statement of Mr. D. D. Field, to the report of the majority of the Commissioners to theConference Convention at Washington, respecting his absence on thefinal vote in that body, on the proposed amendments to theConstitution of the United States. The fact of his absence isadmitted by Mr. Field, and attempted to be defended at great length, but Mr. Field has omitted to state that, by the 14th Rule of theConvention, "no member should be absent from the Convention, so as tointerrupt the representation of the State, without leave. " Mr. Fieldneither asked nor obtained leave of absence, and hence, under therule, he failed to discharge his duty, both to the Convention and hiscolleagues. Mr. Field does not state that he made any application tothe court for a temporary postponement of his case, in view of theimportant vote then about to be taken in Convention. But, on thecontrary, argues to show that his duty to his client was paramount tohis duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a questioninvolving constitutional principles. After Mr. Field had stated, inthe presence of his colleagues in the Convention, that he was obligedto go immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States, he wasurged by those who agreed with him in opinion, to remain, and give thevote of the State against the proposed amendments, and was repeatedlytold that his absence would divide the vote; this was so stated tohim, by the minority of the Commissioners, and that it would be soclaimed by them before the Convention. He refused to remain, and withthe full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the question aboutto be taken, he left the Convention, and thus defeated the vote of hisState. We who remained in our places, felt deeply the embarrassment, and the remarks which were made in consequence of Mr. Field'swithdrawal. We had steadily, up to that time, sustained with him, ourown, and what we believed to be the sentiment of the State, in favorof freedom, and were, therefore, entirely unprepared for such adetermination on his part. Nor is our surprise lessened by the mannerand the certificates by which he has at great length attempted todefend his course on this occasion. The vote of New York was notdeclared until after the vote which had been previously taken in itsdelegation had been stated, nor until an appeal had been made to theConvention, and refused by its President, to enable his colleagues toprotect its vote in the absence of the Chairman of the delegation. Byhis absence the vote of New York stood 5 to 5, and it was under thedecision of the Convention alone, that the vote was declared to bedivided. Mr. Field has stated that the omission to record the vote ofNew York against the amendments was not owing to any act or omissionof his, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or someof them, to prevent the expression of the opinion of the majority. Theobjection was made after notice to him that it would be made, and theConvention sustained it, hence the vote was lost by his absence. Noris the opinion of Mr. Field entitled to consideration when he imputesto the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming andadhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, andwhich was afterwards rendered null, by his absence. They did adhere toit, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty tohave been present, and to have thus given effect to that which hadbeen previously agreed to. Mr. Field states, and truly, that hiscolleagues refused to unite in a joint relation of the facts of thecase. They refused, because they were not satisfied with his course, and would not be responsible for it in any way. Up to the moment ofhis leaving the Convention, Mr. Field had manifested great zeal andability in sustaining and defending the principles which a majority ofthe delegation desired to advocate, and his failure at the last, anddecisive vote, was as unexpected as it was indefensible. 

JOHN A. KING, WM. CURTIS NOYES, A. B. JAMES, JAS. S. WADSWORTH, JAS. C. SMITH. 

NEW YORK, _March 28th, 1861. _

 * * * * *

_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_

Informed by the newspapers of this morning that five of my associatesin the Peace Convention, after waiting nearly three weeks, madeyesterday to the Legislature a communication purporting to be ananswer to the note which I thought it my duty to append to the report, explaining why the vote of New York was not given at a particulartime, I beg leave to submit the following in reply:

I do not perceive that my associates impugn a single statement of factcontained in my note. My engagement in Court, the importance of theengagement, the necessity for my keeping it, the meeting of thedelegation in contemplation of it, their resolution directing how thevote should be cast in my absence, the neglect so to cast it, are all, by silence, admitted. Nor do I perceive any denial of the propositionthat the delegation had a right to pass the resolution, which thusbecame binding on all its members until reconsidered and reversed. 

Perhaps I ought to make one exception to this use of admissions. Myassociates apparently wish to have it believed, yet hesitate toassert, that the Convention made a decision respecting the right tovote. In one place they say, "that an appeal had been made to theConvention, and refused by its President;" in another, that "it wasunder the decision of the Convention alone that the vote was declaredto be divided;" and in a third, that the objection of the minority wasmade after notice to me that it would be made, and the "Conventionsustained it, hence the vote was lost, " by my absence. They shouldhave reflected that there could have been no "decision of theConvention" if the appeal to it was "refused by its President. " Thetruth beyond question is, that although my associates imagined thatthe Convention decided something, it did in fact decide nothing. 

My associates say further, that I argue to show that my duty to myclient was paramount to my "duty as Commissioner of the State of NewYork, in a question involving constitutional principles. " This is anidle calumny. My note can be read as well as theirs; and in generalwill be read by the same persons, and there is not a word in it tojustify or excuse their assertion. I never thus argued. I claimed thatI had two duties to perform, and that I performed both. I did notclaim that my duty to my State was subordinate to any other dutywhatever. 

When my associates assert that their Chairman left the Convention"with full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the vote about tobe taken, " if they mean that I knew or supposed that they intended toreverse their own action, or that Mr. King would not announce the voteas it had been resolved, or would declare the vote divided, or thatthey would support him in it, or that the Convention would overrulethe delegation, then they assert what they could not know to be true, and what is not true in fact. My note sets forth what I was told, andwhat I replied. 

My associates argue that I failed to discharge my duty, because I didnot obtain leave of the Convention before going into the SupremeCourt. Though I do not remember to have heard before of leave grantedby a deliberative body to a member to go out for half an hour, or forone or two hours, I will observe, by this Convention absence wasexpressly allowed, if it did not "interrupt the representation of theState. " My associates do indeed claim that, when I left the hall, theState ceased to be represented, ten Commissioners only remainingbehind. The argument of this strange position appears to be, that aState is not represented when its vote can be divided, and that thevote of New York was divided. Here is a double fallacy. To say thatthe vote was divided, begs the question. It was not divided so long asthe resolution passed by the delegation remained valid, and itsvalidity is not denied. The other part of the proposition is equallyfallacious. A State is represented when there are in the bodydelegates authorized to represent it, whatever be their number. Thearguments of my associates seem to be, that a State could only berepresented in the Peace Convention by odd numbers, and that if itsent eight or ten representatives, it would have no representatives atall. 

But what shall I say to the following sentences:--"Nor is the opinionof Mr. Field entitled to consideration, when he imputes to themajority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering tothe vote which had been taken when all were present, and which wasafterwards rendered null by his absence. They did adhere to it, andendeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have beenpresent, and to have thus given effect to that which had beenpreviously agreed to. " Would any one imagine that the authors werespeaking of a vote, given in expectation of my absence, and todetermine what should be done when I was away? The vote was takenbecause I was to be absent, and directed the Chairman how to act inthat event, but it is nevertheless pretended that the moment I becameabsent, the vote became null. They might better have said that thevote would have become null, or rather that there would have been nooccasion for it in case of my continued presence. Then they say thatthey adhered to it. How did they adhere? The resolution directed theChairman to cast the vote in the negative. He did not obey theresolution. His associates and mine did not insist that he should. Nobody prevented his answering "no, " when the vote was called. Noreason has ever been given for his not so answering. That he shouldinstead have entered voluntarily into a discussion with Mr. Tyler onthe subject, and that his associates should have looked quietly on, can only be accounted for by supposing them indifferent or bewildered. 

It is not an agreeable task to write thus of old friends; but I mustdefend myself when attacked, and defence cannot always be madepleasant to an assailant. 

My late friends profess to think me responsible for the loss of thevote of New York on a certain occasion. I think them responsible forit. Which side is right the Legislature and the people of the Statewill judge. 

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD. 

NEW YORK, _April 11th, 1861. _

 * * * * *

_Report of a Minority of the Commissioners of New York. _

IN SENATE, _March 25th, 1861. _

The undersigned, constituting a minority of the Commissioners, appointed by the Legislature of the State of New York, underresolutions responsive to those of the State of Virginia, referred toin the report of the majority of the Commissioners of said State ofNew York, admitting the correctness of the record of the proceedingspresented by said majority, but differing from them in much of thereasoning which they present, respectfully report:

That they entered upon the duties assigned to them, earnestly desiringto carry out the patriotic spirit of said resolutions as thereinexpressed, which said original resolutions are herein embodied as apart of this report:

NEW YORK. 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners from this State tomeet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation ofVirginia. _

WHEREAS, the State of Virginia, by resolutions of her GeneralAssembly, passed the nineteenth instant, has invited such of theslaveholding and non-slaveholding States as are willing to unite withher, to meet at Washington, on the fourth of February next, toconsider, and if practicable, agree on some suitable adjustment of ournational difficulties; and whereas, the people of New York, while theyhold the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, as it is, contains all needful guarantees for the rights of the States, arenevertheless ready, at all times, to confer with their brethren uponall alleged grievances; and to do all that can justly be required ofthem to allay discontent; therefore, _Resolved_, That David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. Wadsworth, James C. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, AddisonGardner, Greene C. Bronson, Wm. E. Dodge, Ex-Governor John A. King, and Major-General John E. Wool, be and are hereby appointedCommissioners on the part of this State, to meet Commissioners fromother States, in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of Februarynext, or so soon thereafter as Commissioners shall be appointed by amajority of the States of the Union, to confer with them upon thecomplaints of any part of the country, and to suggest such remediestherefor as to them shall seem fit and proper; but the saidCommissioners shall at all times be subject to the control of thisLegislature, and shall cast five votes to be determined by a majorityof their number. 

_Resolved_, That in thus acceding to the request of Virginia, it isnot to be understood that this Legislature approve of the propositionssubmitted by the General Assembly of that State, or concede thepropriety of their adoption by the proposed Convention. But whileadhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, New York willnot reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringing togetherthe men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an honorablesettlement of our national difficulties, and the restoration of peaceand harmony to the country. 

_Resolved_, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of theforegoing resolutions to the Executives of the several States, andalso to the President of the United States, and to inform theCommissioners without delay of their appointment. 

_Resolved_, That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to thehonorable the Senate, with a request that they concur therein. 

The foregoing resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly by avote of seventy-three ayes to thirty-nine noes, and in the Senate by avote of nineteen to twelve, those in the negative, in both Houses, being all members of the dominant party, and those in the affirmativecomposed of the members of the opposition, and of those Republicanswho were supposed to be prepared to meet the State of Virginia andother sister States, in the spirit of the resolutions adopted by theStates of Virginia and New York. 

A single point in the record, to which reference has been made, requires some consideration before proceeding to the reasoning of amajority of the Commissioners upon the propositions finally adopted bythe Convention. The majority of the Commissioners state that most ofsaid majority were opposed to the submission by the Convention of anyamendments of the Constitution of the United States at the presenttime, and in the present excited state of the public mind. 

Not only was that ground assumed by a majority of the New YorkCommissioners, but some of their number argued with great abilityagainst the danger of touching that sacred instrument, consecrated bymemories so dear to every patriot heart. 

The propositions, presented as amendments, were clear anddistinct--their adoption would in no manner disturb the generalharmony of the Constitution; yet, strangely enough, to an ordinarymind, the majority of the Commissioners who found such danger inadopting the specific amendments proposed, voted with a united actionfor a General Convention to remodel the entire Constitution--exposedto all the hazards that must attend such a Convention--by whose actiona form of government might be presented, in which could not be found asingle trace of that Constitution for which they professed such highveneration. 

The undersigned will now consider the reasons presented by a majorityof the Commissioners against the proposition: The majority declarethat the Convention would not listen to, much less adopt anyamendments in the interests of freedom, or of free labor, or of therights of citizens of the free States, the only one of that character, that in relation to the securing to the citizens of each State theprivileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States, &c. , &c. As the undersigned have no recollection of the propositions towhich reference would seem to be made, other than that embraced in thelast clause, which they have quoted, they would call the attention ofthe people of the State of New York to this subject, as one deeplyinteresting in its character, and upon which it is supposed that thereis very little difference of opinion. As this statement is thrown outby a majority of the Commissioners, in a manner to carry a belief thatthe harsh and cruel enactments which deprive colored citizens of theNorth of the privileges they claim in Southern States under theConstitution, it may be well for our people to consider that suchenactments are not confined to the States fostering the institution ofslavery, but exist and are enforced in some States making peculiarclaim to love for freedom and the rights of man. The State of Illinoishas a code of laws against free colored persons, citizens of otherStates, as severe as those of South Carolina or Louisiana. These lawshave been recently enforced, and yet the North does not hear one wordof the wrongs inflicted upon colored citizens of other States foundwithin the borders of Illinois. 

It will be recollected that the Constitution first presented by theState of Oregon, contained a clause prohibiting free colored personsfrom residing within that State. That Constitution received the votesof both the Senators from New York--each expressing his views of thatinstrument, yet the public censure has not fallen upon either of thosegentlemen, by reason of such action. Nor is it necessary to go beyondthe election polls of this State, claiming its fifty thousand majorityfor the cause of freedom and of equal rights--and yet counting fromthe ballot box an hundred thousand majority against securing theprivilege of suffrage to colored persons, upon the same conditionsthat it is secured to whites. These facts are presented with the hopethat they may create a spirit of charity in the public mind towardthose States whose peculiar position renders such harsh legislationcertainly not more censurable than it is in free States. 

The undersigned differ entirely from the majority of theCommissioners, as to the action of the Convention upon subjectsinteresting to the North. It is known to all that Virginia, Kentucky, and it is believed all the Southern Border States instructed theirdelegates to insist on the Crittenden propositions, a material featureof which was, that in all future acquired territory, south of 36° 30´, slavery should be permitted; and yet when this material clause wasfound repugnant to the Northern sentiment, a distinguishedCommissioner from Maryland moved to limit it to _present_ territory, which proposition was adopted. Surely this was an important surrenderto Northern sentiment that should not have been forgotten. 

The majority say, that by the first of the proposed amendments, slavery is constitutionally established in all the territory south ofthe line of 36° 30´, as if such recognition of slavery there was nowfor the first time to be established by the proposed amendment. Themajority of these Commissioners are counsellors of eminent ability, and yet, for some reason not easily comprehended, they have seen fitto ignore a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whichdeclares that slavery can be carried into all the Territories of theUnited States, whether south or north of the line of 36° 30´. Thefamous Dred Scott decision, to which reference is here made, was oftenreferred to in the debates of the Convention, and was insisted upon bymany gentlemen, holding views and opinions similar to those of amajority of the New York Commissioners, as affording all theprotection that the South could require, and claiming that theproposed amendment was unnecessary, by reason of such protection. 

The Territory of New Mexico was declared open to slavery by thecompromise act of 1850. The public mind of the North was deeplyagitated upon that subject. A distinguished statesman, who was removedfrom earth before his eyes were forced "to rest upon a dismemberedConfederacy, " was violently assailed for declaring that slavery couldwork no practical evil in New Mexico; and yet the recent census hasvindicated that assertion, showing that in the ten years that havepassed since that compromise, only twenty-four slaves were to be foundin what the majority of the committee are pleased to call the "immenseregion" of New Mexico; more than half of whom were servants of armyofficers, to be removed when they should be ordered to other stations. 

The Territorial Legislature of New Mexico has declared the existenceand passed laws for the protection of slavery throughout that entireTerritory, while the proposed amendment of the Constitution wouldexclude it from all that portion of said Territory north of 36° 30´. 

The undersigned are not only ready to vindicate their votes for thatproposed amendment, but claim that such an amendment to theConstitution would be a great gain to the cause of freedom; takingfrom the action of the Dred Scott decision, and of the TerritorialLegislation, all territory north of 36° 30´; and they challenge acomparison of their votes, with the course of those who preferred toleave this question subject to the action of that decision, and to thelegislation to which reference is made. 

The _second_ section of the proposed amendments, touching the futureacquisition of territory, met the approval of the undersigned, ascertainly not less important to the North than to the South. Thehistory of our country shows how hastily the assumed powers ofCongress have been exercised upon this question, and at this momentpresents a startling example, of a State of vast territory, acquiredby a joint resolution of Congress, sustained at an enormous expense, and now withdrawing from the Confederacy, seizing upon and applying toits own use all the Government property found within its borders. Every reflecting citizen can determine for himself where there is themost danger to the cause of humanity, and whether territory is moreprobably to be acquired from the North, and consecrated to freedom, orfrom the Southwest, upon which these exciting contests might berevived. 

This proposed amendment is presented with entire confidence for thedecision of our people. 

As the majority of the Commissioners do not dissent from the generalprinciples of the _third_ article, but object to some of itsprovisions, the undersigned would remark that the principal differencebetween them and the majority would seem to be whether Congress shallbe denied the power of abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation. Ever sincethe formation of the Government, this has been a subject upon whichthe friends of freedom have been divided. In the opinion of theundersigned, this question should be permanently settled. 

The power of removing slaves from one section of the country toanother, is secured by this section, but cannot be exercised againstthe wishes of the State through which slaves would otherwise be taken. The power to touch at ports, shores, and landings, with vessels havingon board persons held in bondage, and of landing, in case of distress, is embraced in this proposed amendment, the latter clause of whichwill, certainly, receive the approval of every friend of humanity. Theundersigned do not join in the fears expressed by the majority, that aresort to "impure means" could ever secure from the Legislature of NewYork any laws upon these subjects, not entirely consistent with thehonor and dignity of the State. 

The _Fourth_ proposition was adopted by a vote so large as to makecomment here unnecessary. 

As the _Fifth_ proposition received the unanimous vote of yourCommissioners, it requires no comment. 

The _Sixth_ proposition is upon a subject that has been discussed eversince the formation of the Government, and need not be dwelt upon. 

The _Seventh_ proposition presented itself with such force to theConvention as to receive a strong vote, but seven States declaringagainst it. It will be seen that this section requires Congress toprovide by law for securing to citizens of each State the privilegesand immunities of citizens in the several States. 

Many other propositions were presented to the Convention, some ofwhich received the full concurrence of the undersigned; to others theywere opposed, and those who shared in the deliberations of theConvention do not doubt, and will not deny, that propositions werepresented whose only object and effect could be to embarrass itsproceedings. 

The action of the Convention failed to secure at the hands of Congressthe legislation necessary to present it to the people of the differentStates, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. Still it is inthe power, and the undersigned trust will be in the disposition of therepresentatives of the people of New York, in both Halls of itsLegislation, to present them for the acceptance or rejection of herpeople. 

Whatever differences of political opinion may exist, there can be butone mind as to the present critical condition of our country, or thatit is the duty of every citizen to give all the aid in his power, tosustain an administration that has entered upon its complicated dutiesunder circumstances of more embarrassment than have ever beforeexisted in our country's history. 

The undersigned not only as deeply regret, but as severely condemn, the action of those States who have attempted to withdraw from theUnion, as do the majority of the Commissioners who opposed theadoption of the measures of conciliation presented by the PeaceConvention. 

Those who are conversant with the political action of the secedingStates, will have observed how strong is their desire to draw theSouthern Border States into this new Confederacy. With each of thoseBorder States are large bodies of active politicians, constantlyinfluencing the public mind, and misrepresenting, to a great extent, the opinions and designs of those who have wrought out this revolutionin the national administration. The public mind is fearfully agitatedupon these issues, and the refusal of the Legislature of New York topresent the propositions of the Peace Convention, for the suffrages ofher people, will greatly diminish the power of the Union men of theBorder States to sustain themselves in their present trying position. 

It is believed that Virginia is about to submit these propositions toher people; let New York, who so nobly responded to the call ofVirginia, show that she, too, will be governed by the wishes of _her_people, and that if those ties which have so long held these powerfulStates in the bonds of brotherhood, must be severed, it shall be doneonly by the verdict of their people as recorded in the ballot box. 

FRANCIS GRANGER, ERASTUS CORNING, GREENE C. BRONSON, WM. E. DODGE. 

 * * * * *

_Report of the Rhode Island Peace Commissioners. _

_To the Honorable General Assembly of the State of Rhode Island:_

The undersigned Commissioners on the part of this State, appointedupon the request of the State of Virginia, to meet Commissioners fromthe other States to confer upon the best mode of adjusting the unhappydifferences which now disturb the peace of the country, respectfullybeg leave to report:

That on the 4th day of February last, at Washington, the day and placenamed for the opening of the Conference, they met Commissioners fromother States, and remained with them in conference until the 27th dayof February, at which time twenty-one States were represented, whenhaving agreed by a majority of States to submit to Congress, to be byCongress submitted to conventions in the several States, the annexedarticle in amendment to the Constitution of the United States, theConvention finally adjourned. 

This article, it will be seen, applies the old line of 36° 30´ ofNorth latitude to all the present Territory of the United States, prohibiting slavery north of that line, whilst it recognizes andsecures its existence south of that line during the territorialgovernment, and provides for the formation of new States out of suchterritory with or without slavery as their constitutions may direct. 

As this partition of territory was not disadvantageous, at least tothe free States, as it disposed of the agitation consequent upon arecent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon acelebrated case, and followed a precedent which had given peace to thecountry upon this most dangerous subject of controversy for upwards ofthirty years, your Commissioners gave their assent to it as the bestpractical solution of all difficulties growing out of the territorialquestion. 

New territory is no further dealt with by this article than torequire, except in certain specified cases, a majority of all theSenators from each side of said line, to concur in its acquisition, whether made by act of Congress or by treaty, thus giving to eachclass of States a check upon the cupidity of the others. 

The other sections of the article were designed in general so todefine and limit the rights, powers, and duties of both Congress andthe States, with regard to the subject of slavery, as to preventfurther controversy, and to enable and induce those most opposed inopinion and interest, by the practice of mutual forbearance, to livein peace and amity under the same Federal Government. It is believedthat in no essential particular will this article change the presentactual state of things; its value consisting in the security thereinwhich it gives to all, and in the settlement made by it of present andprobable subjects of controversy. 

In a great practical matter of this sort, your Commissioners deemthese results of far more importance than strict adhesion to anytheory, however plausible in the abstract, and especially than to anyparty declaration of principles of a sectional cast, howevervehemently argued, or numerously adopted on either side. To deal welland wisely with the actual and real, and whilst consulting the pastand looking to the probable future for guidance, to base his action onwhat _is_, comprises the whole duty of a statesman; leaving topolitical philosophers to dream of what might have been, or in theabstract of what ought to be. Reform, it is true, in this way comesslowly, but it comes without the disturbance of material interests, without agitation of human passions, and without the violent outbreakswhich these occasion--hindering and obstructing its progress in thatgrand and orderly procession of moral causes and effects whichexpresses and marks the providence and government of GOD. 

It was apparent to all that, whatever may have been the motive andorigin of the present alarming movement in the extreme SouthernStates, the instrument successfully used to promote it was theagitation of their people upon the safety of the institution of negroslavery in the States and Territories; and various conflictingopinions with regard to the best course to be pursued to allay thisagitation were elicited in the course of this long conference. Extremists were not wanting on the one hand, who seemed inclined toconstrue the anomaly of slavery of the negro race, found in theConstitution of a free people, into a general rule; and who proposedor voted for propositions which they knew could not be accepted, thattheir assertion might aid in the remaining States the cause ofsecession. Extremists were not wanting, on the other hand, who wereopposed to doing any thing upon the subject of slavery, especially atpresent, lest such action should compromise the incomingadministration, and the Republican party, and even the character ofthe Government itself. Without suspecting the purity of the motives ofeither of these extremists, who beyond doubt represented the views oflarge and respectable bodies of men in their different sections, yourCommissioners found themselves equally unable to agree with either. 

They could not ignore the fact that seven States had separatedthemselves from the others and set up a federal government of theirown; and that these were ceaselessly agitating the people of theremaining Southern States by inflammatory speeches, and writingsskilfully addressed to their interests and sympathies, to induce themto join in this new movement. They could not doubt the assurancesgiven to them by able and patriotic men from the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, thatthese attempts upon the loyalty of the people of their States had metat least with partial success; nor, indeed, blind themselves to theevidences of this found in the speeches and votes of individualCommissioners from these very States. Above all, they could not beinsensible to the touching appeals of men, venerable in years, distinguished in public service, and whose reputation for ability andpatriotism was national, to give them something in the shape of aconstitutional security with which to allay the startled fears oftheir constituents, beat back the attacks of _their_ enemies and_ours_, and even bring again to their duty thousands of men in theStates of the extreme South, who had been led astray by the popularfears and impulses of the hour, and who, with the loyal but overborne, might well look to them for support, since no other had been affordedthem in the reign of terror under which they were suffering. In thecircumstances in which the country was placed, it seemed to yourCommissioners that true policy ran in the course of generous impulse;that in this matter we were dealing not with treason, but with themost devoted loyalty which invoked our aid against it; that theconcessions we made, if concessions indeed they were, were made to ourfriends that they might be strong enough to triumph over _their_enemies and _ours_, because the enemies of the country. 

If, as is true, in this view of their duty your Commissioners stood inthe main alone amongst the Commissioners from the Northern States, andranged themselves by the side of the Central States of the Union, uponwhom the weight of the civil strife must come if come it must, theyneed not assure you that no dastardly fears, no feelings of basecompliance, dictated the position thus taken by them. Such motives toaction neither became them nor those whom they represented. It wasbecause of generous faith and earnest sympathy, of ties which nodistance of time or space, and no difference of institutions canweaken; which in our fathers' days and our own led our heroes to_hazard all for all_, and at Guilford Court House, and Eutaw, and atErie, with desperate valor to snatch victory for our common countryout of the very lap of defeat; it was because our little State, with awarm heart and a ready hand, has never failed in counsel or deed tostand with the whole country in all dangers and in extremestdisasters, that your Commissioners conceived that they bestrepresented her by averting danger from those with whom they knew shewould hasten to share it. If it be true that the time has arrived whenour sympathy for an alien and a subject race has extinguished allsympathy for our own, and has hidden from us the ties of a commonorigin, common interests, and of a common glory, then, indeed, are weseparated from our brethren, and the curse of slavery has fallen uponus as well as upon them. Your Commissioners found nothing inthemselves to justify them in attributing such sentiments to thepeople of the State; and unitedly recommend the adoption by you of theamendment to the Constitution proposed by the Conference ofCommissioners, as best fitted to give security and ensure peace to thecountry. 

Among the measures strenuously enforced by some of the Commissioners, in lieu of that adopted by a majority, was the calling of a GeneralConvention. To this measure your Commissioners opposed their mostearnest and determined resistance. As a measure of peace, if for noother reason, because of the long delay which it implied, it would beutterly fruitless. But the possible danger of exposing a Constitution, framed and adopted in the earlier and more conservative days of theRepublic, to be torn in pieces in these times of lawless irreverenceand change, is too great for any wise man willingly to encounter. Thevery equality of the States in the Senate, which was won by therevolutionary sacrifices and valor of the smaller States, now almostforgotten, would, in the judgment of your Commissioners, be therebygreatly endangered; and your Commissioners earnestly represent to yourHonorable body that under no circumstances should this State consentto a measure which might lead to her own extinction. The Constitutionof a great country, adopted, as this was, on account of diversity ofinterests and views, with great difficulty, should be sacred. It mayand should from time to time be amended to suit a change ofcircumstances, but never exposed to the danger of being uptorn. It isthe symbol of our strength, because the ligament of our Union. It hascollected about it the reverence of three generations of our people. It is the only rallying point now for the loyalty of the remainingStates; the only hope of the restoration of the States which have leftus; and, in its main features, it should be, as it was designed to be, perpetual. At no time should a General Convention be invited to invadeit; and, of all times, this, in the judgment of your Commissioners, would be the most dangerous. 

Finally, it will be found upon an inspection of the Journal of thelate Conference of Commissioners, that the undersigned voted againstmany propositions in themselves just and expressive of _their_sentiments and _yours_, because inopportune and useless; and againstothers, because introduced for the very purpose of sowing dissensionamong the Commissioners and to prevent an agreement by majority uponany thing. In this they must ask your candid construction of theirconduct, looking to the crisis, the occasion, the purpose and effectof the matter upon which they were called to act; and theirunwillingness to hazard an agreement upon that deemed by themnecessary, by tacking to it that which, however true, was at leastuseless, and might in the result be dangerous. 

All which is respectfully submitted by

SAMUEL AMES, for self, andALEXANDER DUNCAN, G. H. BROWNE, WILLIAM W. HOPPIN, SAMUEL G. ARNOLD, _Commissioners. _

PROVIDENCE, _March 4th, 1861. _

 * * * * *

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, COUNCIL CHAMBER, }BOSTON, March 25, 1861. }

_To the Honorable the Senate:_

I have the honor to transmit to the General Court, for its use andinformation, a Report just received by me from John Z. Goodrich, Charles Allen, George S. Boutwell, Theophilus P. Chandler, Francis B. Crowninshield, John M. Forbes, and Richard P. Waters, Esquires, whowere appointed Commissioners on the part of Massachusetts, under aResolve passed the fifth day of February last, to attend a Conventionof delegates from the several States of the Union, recently held atWashington. 

And I embrace this opportunity to congratulate the people of theCommonwealth upon the fidelity, judgment, and ability with which theCommissioners, by whom they were represented, conducted their share ofthe duties of that deliberation. 

And I trust that a similar intelligent, manful, and, at the same time, charitable and patriotic adherence to principles, fundamental both inmorals and politics, will characterize the people of Massachusetts, and all their representatives, by whatever experiences of danger ordifficulty their devotion to truth and duty may hereafter be tried. 

I ask leave to call the attention of the General Court, also, to thefact that, as yet, no provision has been adopted for the payment ofthe expenses incident to the service with which the Commissioners werecharged, and to recommend that a suitable appropriation for thatpurpose be made at the present session of the Legislature. 

JOHN A. ANDREW. 

To His Excellency JOHN A. ANDREW, _Governor, &c. , &c. _:

The undersigned, Commissioners appointed by your excellency, inpursuance of certain resolutions passed by the Legislature at itspresent session, to attend a Convention to be held in the City ofWashington, with authority to confer with the General Government, orwith the separate States, or with any associations of delegates fromsuch States, having, agreeably to your excellency's instructions, repaired to Washington and conferred with the delegates of twentyother States of the American Union, now respectfully submit thefollowing report of the proceedings of the said Convention, and of theaction of the Commissioners from Massachusetts. 

The Convention commenced its sessions on the 4th of February, andclosed its deliberations on the 27th of the same month. TheMassachusetts Commissioners repaired to Washington as early aspracticable after their appointment, and presented their credentialson the 8th of February. 

The sessions of the Convention were secret; although repeated effortswere made, with the concurrence of the undersigned, first, to removethe injunction of secrecy, then to admit the public to witness thedeliberations, and then to procure a complete and accurate report ofthe debates and doings. These efforts failed, and the undersigned aretherefore able only to transmit a copy of the Journal of theConvention. [10]

[Footnote 10: An authentic copy of the Journal was not received untilthe 21st instant and the Commissioners did not feel prepared to make areport without an opportunity for consulting it. ]

On the 6th of February a resolution was adopted, upon the motion ofMr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, that a "committee of one from each State beappointed by the Commissioners thereof, to whom should be referred theresolutions of the State of Virginia, and the other Statesrepresented, and all propositions for the adjustment of existingdifficulties between the States. " Mr. Crowninshield representedMassachusetts upon this committee. At the earliest practicable momenthe called for a specific statement of the grievances complained of bythe discontented States of the Union. This call elicited muchdiscussion, but no definite response to the demand was ever madeeither in the committee or in Convention. 

On the 15th of February, Mr. Guthrie, from the committee of one fromeach State, made a report recommending certain amendments to theConstitution of the United States. This report was adopted incommittee by a majority of five States, the delegates from Kansas nothaving then taken their seats in the Convention. 

A copy of this report may be found upon the twenty-second andtwenty-third pages of the Journal. After much discussion and manyamendments, the several sections of the proposed article of amendmentto the Constitution were finally adopted on the last day of thesession. It is to be observed, however, that the report as a wholenever received the sanction of the Convention, although the severalsections of the article of amendment were separately approved by amajority of the States voting; and it may well be doubted whether theentire article would have been adopted by the Convention. 

The first section was adopted by a vote of nine States to eight; fourStates--New York, Indiana, Missouri, and Kansas--not voting. 

The other sections were approved by larger majorities. 

The undersigned declined to vote upon the last section, but the voteof Massachusetts, with the unanimous consent of its Commissioners, wasgiven in the negative upon all the others. This course seemed to bedemanded, whether regard was had to the constitution of theConvention, the circumstances under which it assembled, the nature ofthe propositions submitted, the solution of the difficulties in whichthe Government and people are involved, or to the character and peaceof the country in the future. The two Pacific States, whose loyalty tothe Constitution and the Union is unquestioned, could not have beenrepresented in the Convention. Other States failed to appointCommissioners. The resolutions of the State of Virginia were passed onthe 19th of January; and it was expected that within sixteen daysthereafter the representatives of this vast country would assemble forthe purpose of devising, maturing, and recommending alterations in theConstitution of the republic. As a necessary consequence, the peoplewere not consulted in any of the States. In several, the Commissionerswere appointed by the executive of each without even an opportunity toconfer with the Legislature; in others, the consent of therepresentative body was secured, but in no instance were the peoplethemselves consulted. The measures proposed were comparatively new;the important ones were innovations upon the established principles ofthe Government, and none of them had ever been submitted to publicscrutiny. They related to the institution of slavery; and theexperience of the country justifies the assertion that any propositionfor additional securities to slavery under the flag of the nation, must be fully discussed and well understood before its adoption, or itwill yield a fearful harvest of woe in dissensions and controversiesamong the people. Nor could the undersigned have justified the act tothemselves, if they had concurred in asking Congress to proposeamendments to the Constitution unless they were prepared also toadvocate the adoption of the amendments by the people. 

It is due to truth to say that the Convention did not possess all thedesirable characteristics of a deliberative assembly. It was in somedegree disqualified for the performance of the important task assignedto it, by the circumstances of its constitution, to which referencehas already been made. Moreover, there were members who claimed thatcertain concessions must be granted that the progress of the secessionmovement might be arrested; and on the other hand there were men whoeither doubted or denied the wisdom of such concessions. 

The circumstances were extraordinary. Within the preceding ninety daysthe integrity of the Union had been assailed by the attempt of sixStates to overthrow its authority; seven other States weredisaffected, and some of them had assumed a menacing and even hostileattitude. The political disturbances had been associated with orfollowed by financial distress. 

The Convention was then a body of men without a recognized andascertained constituency, called together in an exigency and withoutpreparation, and invited to initiate measures for the amendment of theConstitution in most important particulars, and all at a moment whenthe public mind was swayed by fears and alarms such as have neverbefore been experienced by the American people. 

In these circumstances the undersigned thought it inexpedient topropose amendments to the Constitution, believing that so important anact should not be initiated and accomplished without the greatestdeliberation and care. Nor could the undersigned satisfy themselvesthat any or all of the proposed amendments would even tend, in anyconsiderable degree, to the preservation of the Union. Althoughinquiries were repeatedly made, no assurance was given that anypropositions of amendment would secure the return of the secededStates; and it was admitted that several of the Border States wouldultimately unite with the Gulf States, either within or without thelimits of the Union, as might be dictated by events yet in the future. Indeed, no proposition was in any degree acceptable to the majority ofdelegates from the border slave States that did not provide for theextension of slavery to the Territories, and its protection andsecurity therein. 

And further, as appears from the Journal, the Convention was notprepared to deny the right of a State to secede from the Union. Mr. Field, of New York, introduced the following proposition, which, onmotion of Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, was laid upon the table:

 "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 obligation of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States. "

After much debate and repeated attempts to avoid a direct vote, thefollowing proposition was rejected:

 "It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the present Constitution that the union of the States under it is indissoluble. "

 AYES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kansas--10. 

 NOES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11. 

On the last day of the session, Mr. Franklin, of Pennsylvania, movedthe adoption of the following resolution:

 "_Resolved_, as the sense of this Convention, that the highest political duty of every citizen of the United States is his allegiance to the Federal Government, created by the Constitution of the United States, and that no State of this Union has any constitutional right to secede therefrom, or to absolve the citizens of such State from their allegiance to the Government of the United States. "

Mr. Ruffin, of North Carolina, moved to postpone the consideration ofthe same indefinitely, and the resolution was thereupon postponed bythe following vote:

 AYES. --Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10. 

 NOES. --Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania--7. 

For these reasons and others the Commissioners from Massachusettssupported the proposition originally made by Kentucky, and introducedby Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, recommending a national convention forthe purpose of revising the Constitution, and of providing for theexigencies likely to arise from the changed and perilous condition ofthe country. This measure offered an opportunity for consideration bythe people, and for careful deliberation by the convention that mightbe constituted for the purpose. It is highly probable that, after thelapse of three-fourths of a century, a convention of delegates fromall the States would by general consent propose amendments to theConstitution; and it is also probable that such a convention would atonce tend to strengthen the feeling of brotherhood among the people ofvarious sections, while the discussion of the principles of theGovernment would render its preservation of paramount concern to all. This measure of peace and union was rejected. 

The undersigned are constrained by the force of many facts andcircumstances to believe that an exciting cause of the presentdifficulties, and a serious obstacle to their removal, is the possibleacquisition of Mexico and Central America. 

The proceedings of the Convention furnish evidence upon this point. 

The proposition to restore the Missouri Compromise, which guaranteedfreedom north of the parallel 36° 30´ north latitude, but furnished noprotection to slavery south of that line, was rejected by the aid ofthe unanimous support of the slaveholding States. 

The proposition to settle the territorial question by the admission ofNew Mexico as a State, was summarily discouraged by the South in thecommittee. 

The suggestion of one of the Commissioners from Massachusetts, that ifthe Convention would leave the territorial question out of view, thedifficulties concerning the rights and relations of the existingStates might be adjusted, did not meet with a favorable response fromthe slaveholding section of the country. 

It is to be observed further, that the various propositions andamendments which were in any degree acceptable to the slave Statesguaranteed slavery south of said line. 

It did not seem to the undersigned of signal importance, whether thisguarantee was limited to our present territories, or made in words toapply to all future acquisitions. Whenever the line of slave Statesfrom the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean shall be formed, aneffectual barrier will have been raised against the migration offreemen southward. Nor can it be assumed, that either with or withoutconstitutional prohibition, the limits of the republic are not to befurther extended; and if the proposed line be established by theConstitution, the fairest portions of North America will be given upirrevocably to African slavery. Nor is the limitation of the right ofa sovereign State to fix its own boundaries, which involves the rightto acquire territory, consistent with its honor in peace, orcompatible with its dignity and necessities in time of war. TheAmerican people are fully forewarned that it is unwise to rely uponconstitutional prohibitions against the acquisition of territory; norcan such prohibitions always withstand the assaults of a determinedand desperate majority when acting in harmony with the tendencies ofpublic opinion, and the real or supposed necessities of the country. 

With these views, and with this experience in mind, the undersigneddid not regard with favor the provisions contained in the secondsection of the proposed article of amendment. It is also to beobserved that by this section territory may be acquired for _naval andcommercial stations, depots, and transit routes_, without a resort tothe treaty-making power. These provisions seem to be broad enough topermit the summary annexation of Cuba, and portions of Central Americaand Mexico, by a simple law or joint resolution of Congress. 

Thus, these two sections considered together, furnished no additionalsecurities against territorial acquisitions, while they effectuallyestablished and protected slavery in all territory, present andfuture, south of the parallel 36° 30´ north latitude. By the firstsection, the common law was to be so changed, that a condition ofslavery would be assumed in regard to all the African race within theTerritories, and the laws of the several slave States would beenforced against all persons of that race who might be carried fromthe existing slave States into the Territories. The language isambiguous, but this interpretation seems to be warranted; and, in theopinion of the undersigned, the courts would render an interpretationadequate to the result just indicated. It is thus seen that the onlymethod of establishing and protecting slavery in the Territories, isto provide for the execution, within their limits, of the laws of theseveral slave States. 

This section also incorporates into the Constitution of the UnitedStates the existing laws and usages of New Mexico relating to slavery, and renders them irrepealable during the territorial condition. 

By the second section, the Senators are divided into two classes, those who represent the slaveholding, and those who represent thenon-slaveholding States of the Union, and a majority of each class isrequired as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary for theacquisition of territory by treaty. A full exposition of thisproposition would show that it is a complete and dangerous departurefrom the principles of the Government, and sure to effect its completedissolution. When the Senate becomes two separate and distinct bodies, and when the existence of the institution of slavery determines wherethe line of division shall be, then the Government, for all practicalpurposes, is at an end. This proposition was introduced by Mr. Summers, of Virginia; and Virginia, by its delegates, also introducedand supported a kindred proposition, by which "all appointments tooffice in the Territories lying north of the line 36° 30´, as wellbefore as after the establishment of Territorial Governments in andover the same, or any part thereof, shall be made upon therecommendation of a majority of the Senators representing at the timethe non-slaveholding States; and in like manner, all appointments tooffice in the Territories which may lie south of said line of 36° 30´, shall be made upon the recommendation of a majority of the Senatorsrepresenting at the time the slaveholding States. "

We cannot hesitate to declare the opinion, carefully formed, that thispolicy of dividing the Senate into two classes, is fraught withdangers to the country more to be dreaded than the bold and defiantmeasures of those men and States that are arrayed in open hostility tothe Union. This measure is a part of the policy of Mr. Calhoun, bywhich the Government was to be changed, and the executive departmentso divided that nothing could be done without the concurrence of twoPresidents, one representing the slaveholding and one representing thenon-slaveholding States. 

The third section contains several provisions for strengthening andsecuring slavery in the District of Columbia and in the several Statesand Territories. It gives to representatives and others the right tobring their slaves into the District of Columbia, retain, and takethem away, even after slavery may have ceased to exist in thatDistrict by the constitutional action of Congress. It secures theslave-trade between States and Territories in which slavery isestablished or recognized by law or usage, with the right of transitthrough free States, by sea or river, and of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress; reserving, however, to the States and Territories the power to prohibit thetransit of slaves and the sale or traffic therein. Thus thetransportation of slaves would be a right as broad as the limits ofthe republic, unless it should be restrained by the laws of individualStates, which acts might readily be regarded as a breach of comity. 

The fourth section of the article gives to the States the power ofconcurrent legislation with the United States for the rendition offugitive slaves, thus introducing a new topic of agitation into everyState, without in any degree relieving Congress of its duty in thisparticular. 

The fifth section prohibits the foreign slave-trade, and makes it theduty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor. As Congress has already, by the Constitution, full power to regulate the migration orimportation of persons from other countries, there is no reason forsuch constitutional provisions upon the subject. It alone remains toenact proper laws and secure their faithful and prompt execution. 

The sixth section declares that certain sections of the proposedarticle of amendment, and certain provisions of the Constitutionrelating to slavery, shall not be amended or abolished without theconsent of all the States. 

The undersigned, being of opinion that no such stipulation ought to bemade, and that if made, it would not be binding upon the country, didnot hesitate to give the vote of the State against the proposition. 

The seventh and last section of the proposed article of amendment isin the following words:

 "Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblies, or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim of such fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. "

In a Convention duly called and assembled for the revision of theConstitution, the undersigned would have assented to this section; andin declining to vote thereon they intended to so declare to theirassociates from the slaveholding States. 

The undersigned thus set forth the doings of the Convention, and someof the reasons by which their conduct was controlled. It was not theirfortune to concur with the action of the Convention. The concessionsdemanded by the discontented States, seemed to be inconsistent withhonor, justice, and freedom, and calculated to render permanent theexisting causes of disturbance. A Union restored by unmanlyconcessions, would be productive of bitter criminations and lastinghostilities, and would contain within itself the seeds of a violentdeath. 

But the undersigned are bound to say that the differences in theConvention were, in the main, differences of opinion, and not ofpurpose. Loyalty to the Constitution and the Union was general; andthe undersigned do not doubt that the act of Virginia, in inviting aconference with her sister States, will be productive of beneficialresults to the country. 

The Commissioners from Massachusetts were much impressed by the fact, which their personal intercourse with gentlemen from all theslaveholding States brought to their knowledge, that the presentdifficulties of the country were not caused by the pressure ofgrievances supposed to be actually existing; but rather by the fear offuture interference with Southern rights, caused by entiremisapprehension of the purposes of the people of the free States. Misrepresentation of those purposes, proceeding from among ourselves, whether prompted by ignorance of Northern sentiment, or by sinistermotives, are greatly to be deprecated. 

The undersigned entertain no doubt that the intercourse between thedifferent sections of the country, through their representatives inConvention, had a most salutary influence in correcting false views ofNorthern sentiment, and in assuring our brethren of the South thatthere is no purpose among the people of those States, who, uponprinciple, oppose the extension of slavery, to disturb or touch withan unfriendly hand the domestic relations of any other States of theUnion. 

In the present exigency of public affairs, each State should becareful to perform its whole duty freely and faithfully to its sisterStates and to the country; and then may it well and fearlessly demand, whether the Union contain many States or few, that the Governmentshall be administered according to the principles of equality andjustice which characterize the Constitution formed by our fathers, andwhich will prove a sufficient security in all the trials and perils ofour national existence. 

JOHN Z. GOODRICH, CHARLES ALLEN, GEO. S. BOUTWELL, T. P. CHANDLER, F. B. CROWNINSHIELD, J. M. FORBES, RICHARD P. WATERS. 

BOSTON, _March 22d, 1861. _

INDEX. 

ALEXANDER, W. C. Remarks of, 79, 80, 107, 113, 287, 367, 368, 369, 372, 374, 380, 383. Motion by, 300. 

ALLEN, CHARLES. Remarks of, 54, 110, 321, 377. 

AMES, SAMUEL. Amendment by, 359, 385. Remarks of, 368. 

BACKUS, F. T. Motion by, 207. Remarks of, 272, 274, 376. Resolution by, 273. Amendment by, 290, 394. 

BALDWIN, R. S. Report of, 45, 322. Remarks of, 58, 62, 139, 266, 279, 390. Amendments by, 349, 363, 411. 

BARRINGER, D. M. Resolution by, 34. Remarks of, 212, 274, 284, 294, 298, 339, 353, 354, 356, 366, 383, 384, 436. Amendment by, 383. Motion by, 446, 449. 

BATES, D. M. Amendment by, 364. 

BATTELL, ROBINS. Motion by, 389. 

BOUTWELL, GEO. H. Remarks of, 98, 110, 137, 218, 312. 

BROWN, GEO. H. Remarks of, 150. Motion by, 207, 362, 452. Resolution by, 450. 

BRADFORD, A. W. Remarks of, 307. Amendment by, 375. 

BROCKENBROUGH, J. W. Remarks of, 278, 280, 341, 345, 393, 435. Amendment by, 435. 

BRONSON, G. C. Amendment by, 209, 323, 395. Remarks of, 264, 266, 301, 323, 324, 350, 388, 389, 396, 397, 402, 406, 434. Motion by, 409. 

BUCHANAN, JAMES. Letter from, 25. 

BUCKNER, A. H. Amendment by, 401. 

BUTLER, WM. O. Remarks of, 301. 

CARRUTHERS, R. L. Remarks of, 110, 214, 298, 304, 436. Amendment by, 364. 

CHASE, S. P. Motion by, 31, 54, 58. Remarks of, 34, 42, 54, 57, 112, 130, 158, 207, 208, 271, 272, 273, 274, 326, 335, 348, 352, 367, 391, 424, 446. Resolution by, 35, 205, 208. Appeal by, 446. 

CHITTENDEN, L. E. Resolution by, 73. Remarks of, 73, 74, 111, 156, 206, 248, 249, 255, 279, 294, 368. Footnotes by, 156, 259, 324, 345, 358, 397, 417, 441. 

CLAY, J. B. Motion by, 14, 23, 29, 158. Remarks of, 30, 77, 146, 197, 213, 266, 278, 286, 320, 345, 358, 360, 372, 384, 388. Amendment by, 387, 421. 

CLEVELAND, C. F. Remarks of, 80, 105, 214, 367, 434, 448. 

COALTER, J. D. Remarks of, 52, 82, 215, 375, 376, 378, 381, 393, 399. Amendment by, 209, 447. 

COMMITTEE. On organization, 13. On credentials, 13. On State resolutions, 26. 

CONVENTION A. Rules and organization of, 23, 27. 

COOK, B. C. Remarks of, 273, 313, 323. 

CORNING, ERASTUS. Remarks of, 322, 441. 

CRISFIELD, J. W. Motion by, 57. Remarks of, 113, 295, 334, 355, 358, 364, 365, 367, 368, 369, 379, 410, 421. 

CROWNINSHIELD, F. B. Remarks of, 47, 318, 375. Motion by, 379. 

CURTIS, S. H. Remarks of, 70, 71, 287, 298. 

DAVIS, GEORGE. Remarks of, 56. Motion of, 56, 109, 259. 

DENT, J. F. Resolution by, 208. Remarks of, 209, 319, 345, 351, 358, 366, 384, 391, 397, 424. 

DODGE, W. E. Remarks of, 110, 190, 322, 359, 366, 378. Resolution by, 450. 

DONIPHAN, A. W. Remarks of, 312, 378. 

ELLIS, E. W. H. Motion by, 29, 437. Remark of, 442. 

EWING, THOMAS. Motion by, 17, 396. Remarks of, 22, 38, 57, 141, 161, 206, 273, 314, 327, 335, 351, 359, 369, 393, 398, 424, 442. Amendment by, 364. 

FIELD, D. DUDLEY. Remarks of, 47, 110, 130, 157, 158, 161, 167, 168, 169, 170, 278, 285, 286, 287, 336, 339, 353, 362, 367, 368, 371, 397, 398, 399. Motion by, 285. Resolution by, 287. Amendment by, 396, 397, 398. 

FOWLER, ASA. Amendment by, 291, 364. Remarks of, 324, 349, 364, 368. Motion by, 367. 

FRANKLIN, THOS. E. Motion by, 13, 448. Remarks of, 290, 323, 335. Amendment (substitute) by, 291, 323. Resolution by, 446. 

FRELINGHUYSEN, F. T. Motion by, 32, 324. Amendment by, 385. Remarks of, 180, 324, 368, 384, 396, 401. 

GOODRICH, J. Z. Remarks of, 71, 105, 106, 112, 216, 219, 315, 316. Amendment by, 80, 327, 398. Motion by, 206, 328. 

GRANGER, FRANCIS. Remarks of, 120, 254, 328, 354, 355, 376, 377, 438. Motion by, 372. 

GRIMES, J. W. Remarks of, 17. 

GROESBECK, W. S. Amendment by, 325, 365. Remarks of, 365, 366, 367, 372. 

GUTHRIE, JAMES. Remarks of, 21, 22, 28, 32, 66, 70, 79, 82, 102, 104, 105, 208, 209, 274, 287, 289, 290, 293, 299, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328, 334, 337, 339, 349, 350, 351, 357, 359, 360, 361, 369, 371, 373, 374, 381, 385, 395, 397, 409, 440, 448. Resolution by, 21, 79. Motion by, 26, 342, 396, 437, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445. Report of, 31. Amendment by, 43, 337, 346. Preamble by, 348. 

HACKLEMAN, P. A. Remarks of, 273, 308, 344, 384, 442. 

HALL, HILAND. Amendment by, 358. Remarks of, 359. 

HARRIS, B. D. Remarks of, 157, 349. Preamble and resolutions by, 157. 

HITCHCOCK, REUBEN. Remarks of, 29, 56, 147, 302, 346, 349, 362. Amendment by, 270, 346, 373. 

HOPPIN, W. W. Remarks of, 112, 316. 

HOUSTON, J. W. Remarks of, 272, 274, 283, 309, 356, 378, 421. Motion by, 273. Appeal by, 286. 

HOWARD, B. C. Remarks of, 169, 360, 370, 371, 378, 405. 

JAMES, A. B. Remarks of, 140, 300, 304, 324, 348. Amendments by, 348, 375. 

JOHNSON, REVERDY. Motion by, 17, 23. Remarks of, 23, 57, 70, 72, 82, 85, 89, 168, 236, 334. Amendment by, 341. Resolution by, 449. 

JOHNSON, WM. P. Remarks of, 112, 206, 286, 317, 334, 395. 

KENTUCKY GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Resolutions of, 61. 

KING, J. A. Remarks of, 315, 403, 441. 

LOGAN, S. T. Remarks of, 69, 81, 106, 256, 305, 323, 326, 386, 370, 380. Amendments by, 380. 

LOOMIS, A. W. Remarks of, 36, 243, 436, 450. 

McCURDY, C. J. Remarks of, 82, 159, 360, 361, 367, 368, 369, 389. Amendment by, 334, 370. 

McKEENAN, WM. Motion by, 343. Remarks of, 346. 

MEREDITH, WM. M. Motion by, 12. Remarks of, 79. Proposition of, 79. 

MOREHEAD, C. S. Remarks of, 79, 113, 167, 207, 296, 345, 391. 

MOREHEAD, J. M. Remarks of, 110, 150, 306, 355, 359, 375, 377, 378, 389, 395, 398, 435. Motion by, 286. Amendment by, 379, 393. 

MORRILL, L. M. Remarks of, 144, 146, 148, 149. 

NOYES, W. C. Remarks of, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 207, 359, 369, 407. 

ORTH, G. S. Remarks of, 41, 260, 262, 293, 335, 383, 385, 387. Resolution by, 42. Motions by, 383, 385. 

PALMER, J. M. Remarks of, 297, 324, 326, 330, 370, 404. 

POLLOCK, JAMES. Remarks of, 74, 272, 275, 344, 370, 400, 449. Amendment by, 370. 

PRATT, J. T. Remarks of, 290. 

PRICE, E. M. Remarks of, 12, 286, 400. 

RANDOLPH, J. F. Motion by, 21, 30, 43, 274, 301, 449. Remarks of, 42, 74, 111, 113, 158, 206, 316, 326, 340, 348, 349, 367. Resolution by, 112. Appeal by, 349. 

REID, D. S. Amendment by, 80, 291, 361. Remarks of, 81, 82, 209, 289, 297, 361, 435. 

RIVES, W. C. Remarks of, 38, 132, 134, 137, 139, 143, 392, 407. 

ROMAN, J. D. Remarks of, 167, 365, 385. 

RUFFIN, THOMAS. Remarks of, 80, 81, 84, 125, 146, 262, 283, 290, 326, 335, 352, 370, 376, 384, 435, 448. Amendment by, 372. Motion by, 448. 

SECRETARY. Statement of, 285, 345. 

SEDDON, JAMES A. Motion by, 12. Resolution by, 19. Remarks of, 20, 22, 27, 29, 32, 47, 55, 56, 81, 82, 89, 91, 105, 146, 148, 150, 203, 284, 285, 290, 292, 301, 315, 329, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 366, 374, 377, 378, 381, 395, 417, 434. Report of, 47. Amendment by, 48, 51, 289, 328, 350, 351, 352, 356, 357, 377, 418, 447. 

SLAUGHTER, T. C. Remarks of, 442. 

SMITH, J. C. Remarks of, 196, 198, 200, 203, 209, 212, 213, 214, 225, 345, 362, 371, 406. Motion by, 373. 

SOMES, D. E. Amendment by, 409. Remarks of, 409. 

STEPHENS, W. H. Remarks of, 382. 

STOCKTON, R. F. Remarks of, 113, 129, 149, 436. 

STONE, J. C. Remarks of, 287, 288. 

SUMMERS, G. W. Report of, 18, 26, 28, 30, 41, 109, 278. Motion by, 150. Remarks of, 287, 334, 337, 338, 341, 346, 373. Amendment by, 338, 374. 

TUCK, AMOS. Remarks of, 20, 30, 74, 79, 104, 274, 311, 323, 363, 370, 417, 424. Address by, 77, 425. 

TURNER, T. J. Remarks of, 58, 72, 271, 361, 370, 381, 408. Motion by, 82. Resolution by, 271. Amendment by, 328, 380. 

TYLER, JOHN. Remarks of, 14, 17, 22, 25, 26, 31, 41, 55, 130, 275, 288, 290, 301, 323, 325, 330, 334, 335, 337, 344, 346, 350, 362, 389, 390, 450. Decisions by, 29, 77, 79, 82, 112, 113, 148, 274, 286, 316, 322, 348, 349, 397, 398, 406, 434, 435, 437, 441, 444. Amendment by, 328. 

VANDEVER, WILLIAM. Remarks of, 287, 292, 296, 301, 353, 410. Resolution by, 300. Amendments by, 371, 410. 

VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Preamble and resolutions of, 9. 

WHITE, THOMAS. Remarks of, 172, 358, 390. 

WICKLIFFE, C. E. Remarks of, 13, 19, 20, 27, 36, 42, 55, 57, 70, 77, 80, 109, 110, 129, 150, 157, 170, 189, 200, 205, 206, 207, 238, 270, 272, 273, 283, 284, 286, 312, 351, 352, 354, 361, 363, 379, 397, 406, 434, 439, 452. Resolution by, 17, 26, 56, 109, 206. Motion by, 19, 273, 343. Preamble and resolution by, 52. Amendment by, 379. 

WILLARDS, J. H. & H. A. Letter from, 450. 

WILMOT, DAVID. Amendment by, 208, 326, 381. Remarks of, 273, 274, 281, 283, 284, 285, 322, 325, 326, 367, 381, 382, 391, 399, 400, 433, 435. 

WOOD, JOHN. Remarks of, 322, 349. Motion by, 350. 

WOLCOTT, C. P. Remarks of, 323. 

WRIGHT, C. J. Letter from, 33. 

WRIGHT, J. C. Remarks of, 11. 

INDEX TO THE APPENDIX. 

B

Baker, Edward D. , 502, 522, 523, 524, 526. 

Barr, Thomas J. , 583. 

Bayard, J. A. , 566. 

Bigler, William, 474, 476, 477, 478, 481, 483, 486, 487. 

Bingham, K. S. , 468. 

Bingham, J. A. , 575. 

Bocock, Thomas S. , 575, 582. 

Boteler, A. R. , 576, 579, 582. 

Bragg, Thomas, 515. 

Brayton, William D. , 582. 

Buchanan, James, 572. 

Burch, John C. , 574. 

Burnett, Henry C. , 579, 582. 

C

Campbell, James H. , 582. 

Chandler, Zachariah, 469, 471, 480. 

Clark, Daniel, 480, 489. 

Clingman, Thomas L. , 475, 491. 

Cochrane, John, 574, 581, 583. 

Collamer, Jacob, 474, 482, 483, 492, 493, 497. 

Committee, Select, 475. 

Cox, Samuel S. , 582, 583. 

Craige, Burton, 575, 580, 581. 

Crittenden. John J. , 471, 473, 474, 475, 476, 499, 501, 502, 503, 509, 513, 514, 515, 516, 518, 532, 565, 566, 568, 569, 570. 

Curtis, Samuel R. , 575, 581. 

D

De Jarnette, D. C. , 582. 

Delegates, List of, 465. 

Doolittle, James R. , 478, 481, 498. 

Douglas, Stephen A. , 474, 479, 480, 535, 564, 568, 571. 

E

Ely, Alfred, 582. 

Extract from the minutes of the New York delegation, 600. 

Extract from Journal of the Convention, 601. 

F

Fessenden, Wm. P. , 468, 471, 474. 

Field, David Dudley, 596, 601. 

Foster, Lafayette S. , 581. 

G

Garnett, Muscoe, 582. 

Goodrich, J. Z. , 601. 

Green, James S. , 473, 474, 532, 536. 

Grow, Galusha A. , 576, 577. 578, 579. 

Gwin, William M. , 476, 570, 571. 

H

Hale, John P. , 474, 475, 476, 477, 478. 

Hale, James T. , 581. 

Harris, John T. , 582. 

Hatton, Robert, 577. 

Hickman, John, 577, 578, 583. 

Hindman, Thomas C. , 582, 583. 

Hoard, Charles B. , 582. 

Howard, William A. , 574, 578. 

Hunter, R. M. T. , 481, 482, 483, 484, 488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 501, 569, 570. 

J

Jenkins, Albert G. , 581. 

Johnson, Andrew, 470, 556, 568. 

Johnson, Robert W. , 567, 568. 

Joint Resolutions, preamble to, 476, 477, 481. 

Junkin, Benj. F. , 581. 

K

Kellogg, Francis W. , 578. 

L

Lane, Joseph, 535, 536. 

Latham, Milton S. , 475. 

Leach, De Witt C. , 581. 

Leake, Shelton F. , 581. 

Letcher, John, 574. 

Logan, John A. , 579. 

Lovejoy, Owen, 576, 577, 578, 579. 

M

McClernand, John A. , 576, 578, 579, 583. 

Mason, James M. , 470, 473, 474, 477, 479, 502, 506, 510, 514, 516, 518, 535, 564, 565. 

Maynard, Horace, 575, 582. 

Millson, John S. , 575, 583. 

N

Nicholson, A. O. P. , 571. 

Nixon, John T. , 581. 

P

Pendleton, Geo. H. , 582. 

Polk, Trusten, 517, 518. 

Potter, John F. , 582. 

Powell, Lazarus W. , 466, 468, 469, 470, 571. 

Pugh, James L. , 481, 488, 520. 

Puleston, J. Henry, 472. 

R

Reports of Delegations to States: Virginia, 584. New York, 585. Rhode Island, 610. Massachusetts, 613. 

Report, minority, of New York Commissioners, 604. 

Report of Peace Conference, 472, 478. 

Resolutions of States: Tennessee, 454. Ohio, 456. Kentucky, 457. Indiana, 458. Delaware, 458. Illinois, 459. New Jersey, 460. New York, 461. Pennsylvania, 462. Massachusetts, 463. Rhode Island, 464. Missouri, 464. 

Robinson, Christopher, 583. 

Ruffin, Thomas, 581. 

S

Sebastian, William K. , 567. 

Seward, Wm. H. , 476, 477, 478, 481, 482, 483, 487. 

Sherman, John, 580, 582. 

Sickles, Daniel E. , 579, 580. 

Simmons, James F. , 480. 

Stanton, Benjamin, 574, 575. 

Statement to N. Y. Legislature, 601, 603. 

Stevens, Thaddeus, 576. 

Sumner, Charles, 480. 

T

Tyler, John, 471. 

Trumbull, Lyman, 485, 486, 487, 535. 

W

Wade, Benj. F. , 488, 535. 

Washburne, Elihu B. , 577, 582. 

Wilkinson, Morton S. , 523, 524. 

Wilson, James, 581. 

Woodson, Samuel H. , 580. 

Wright, C. J. , 601.