WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, February 20th, 1861.

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

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

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

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

Mr. FIELD: I rise to debate that motion.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: Then I withdraw it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1st. For what they do contain.

2nd. For what they do not contain.

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

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

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

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

Mr. MOREHEAD: Not to save the Union?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found yesterday upon my table a pamphlet bearing the title of “The Governing Race.” It contains a sublime passage from LONGFELLOW’S poem of “The Ship,” which, as it closes the pamphlet, shall also close my observations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every rebel will rejoice at our inaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The chair was here taken by Mr. ALEXANDER.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH: Certainly.

On motion of Mr. CLEVELAND the Conference adjourned to ten o’clock to-morrow.