WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, February 22d, 1861.

The Conference was called to order by President TYLER, at 10 o’clock A.M., and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. SUNDERLAND.

The Journal of yesterday was read, corrected, and approved.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: It will be necessary that some plan be adopted to defray the expenses of the Conference, and of printing the Journal. I move the appointment, by the President, of a committee of three to take those subjects into consideration.

The motion was adopted, and the President appointed Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, Mr. POLLOCK, and Mr. GRANGER as such committee.

Mr. HITCHCOCK: I have an amendment in three sections which I shall offer to the report of the committee. I ask that it may be read, laid on the table, and printed.

The motion was agreed to, and the amendment read as follows:

Strike out Section 3, and insert the three following:

SEC. 3. Congress shall have no power to regulate, abolish, or control within any State the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof, touching persons held to service or labor therein.

SEC. 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any person held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, under the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to impair any rights pertaining to that relation under the laws now in force within the said District, while such relation shall exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of said State, and of those to whom the service or labor is due, or making to them just compensation therefor; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit members of Congress, and officers of the Federal Government whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them, retaining, and taking away persons so held to service or labor; nor the power to impair or abolish the relations of persons owing service or labor in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and Territories where such relations are established or recognized by law.

SEC. 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor or service in any State or Territory of the United States, to any State or Territory thereof, where the same obligation or liability to labor or service is established or recognized by law; and the right during such transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or labor than on land.

Strike out Section 7, and insert:

SEC. 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases where the marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous assemblage, or where, after arrest, such fugitive shall be rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such service or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the same, the United States shall pay to such party the full value of such service or labor.

Mr. TURNER: I offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That the time fixed upon to commence voting upon
the questions before this Convention, be postponed until
Monday, February 25th, at 12 o’clock M.

I am as desirous as any member of the Conference can be for action. Illinois is a Border State, and she feels, in common with the Border States, a deep interest in the questions we are discussing here. But I think a false issue has arisen, and that it ought to be corrected. This issue has been forced upon us, and it will go to the country unless corrected. Very little time has yet been occupied by Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, but we wish and we ought to be heard.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri, moved to lay the resolution upon the table.

The vote was taken by States, with the following result:

AYES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia 10.

NOES. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio and
Vermont 10.

Mr. TURNER: I see the resolution does not meet with favor. I will withdraw it.

Mr. CHASE: I offer the resolution again. I wish to appeal to this Conference in the name of peace, not to press this vote to-day. We have been discussing general questions. There has been little or no discussion touching the merits of the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Do gentlemen suppose that if it is pressed through in this way, it will meet with favor when it comes before the country? Let me assure you, gentlemen, that you will not give the country peace by such a course.

There is a prospect that all sections of the Union may yet be induced to agree to a General Convention. The floor is so parcelled out that the Western States cannot be heard. Why do you force the vote in this manner? Two-thirds of Congress must concur, or these propositions cannot go to the people. The same two-thirds can suspend the rule at any time. There is no necessity for passing these propositions to-day. I regret that the proposition of Mr. WICKLIFFE, limiting the speeches to thirty minutes, has not prevailed. It was withdrawn.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: No! It was laid on the table by enemies.

Mr. POLLOCK: I have the floor. I will occupy it only thirty minutes, with the understanding that those who follow will do the same. We still have time for six speeches.

Mr. CHASE: I have but little more to say. When we have a rule, we know what it is. A general understanding will amount to nothing. I have insisted that it was inexpedient to press these matters to a decision before the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN; but when overruled I have cheerfully submitted. I now appeal to gentlemen to yield, and let us take the final vote on Monday.

One word now as to a General Convention. I have faith in that, and believe we can agree to call one. The idea was started by Kentucky, and promptly followed by Illinois. I have seen a copy of the “Louisville Journal,” which strongly advocates it. It is practicable, and the country will assent to it.

Mr. HOUSTON: The delegates from Delaware desire that the vote should be taken to-day. We have not discussed these propositions, and do not wish to discuss them. We want action.

Mr. BACKUS: I concur in the views of the gentleman from Delaware. Discussion, so far, has tended very little toward harmony or unanimity. I am in favor of closing the general debate to-day. But I do protest against that part of the resolution we have adopted, which limits the discussion of an amendment to five minutes, and confines the reply to the committee. We ought not thus to be restricted and choked down. I will not move to amend the resolution now under discussion. It will answer my purpose to give notice that I shall move to amend the five-minute rule.

Mr. COOK: We ought to have an opportunity to present the views of Illinois. As yet we have had none. We cannot justify ourselves to our people unless we do.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: I move to lay the whole subject on the table. I want to test the question. Debate and discussion change the mind of no one. We have now been here eighteen days, and the country is expecting a decision.

The vote upon Mr. WICKLIFFE’S motion was called by States, and resulted as follows:

AYES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia 9.

NOES. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont 11.

Mr. BACKUS: I now offer my proposition as a substitute for Mr. CHASE’S resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That the resolution heretofore passed, limiting debate on amendments that shall be offered to the report of the Grand Committee, be so amended as to allow the delegates who may desire, to speak not exceeding ten minutes on each amendment.

Mr. CHASE: I do not wish to seem unreasonable. As my resolution meets with objection, I will withdraw it in favor of the one adopted by my colleague.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: Have gentlemen calculated how many hours this will take? It will amount to a total defeat of all action. We could not get through by the middle of next month.

Mr. EWING: I favor the resolution. All should have a fair chance.

Mr. HOUSTON: I move to amend, giving each delegate ten minutes.

Mr. WILMOT: I object to that very strenuously. Many delegations are divided. I hope the resolution will pass as it is.

Mr. HACKLEMAN: I approve of the rule as it now stands. Practically, it gives ten minutes.

Mr. RANDOLPH: I move to lay the resolution on the table. We adopted the rule unanimously.

Mr. WILMOT: The motion is not in order. We have once voted not to table the resolutions.

Mr. HOUSTON: I will withdraw my motion, at the instance of the gentlemen around me.

Mr. CHASE: The question is upon the adoption of the resolution offered by Mr. BACKUS. I have accepted it in place of the one offered by myself.

The PRESIDENT: It is subject, at any time, to a motion to lay on the table.

Mr. RANDOLPH: That is my motion.

The motion to lay the resolution of Mr. BACKUS on the table was lost by the following vote the vote by States being requested by Mr. CHASE:

AYES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia 10.

NOES. Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and
Vermont 10.

Mr. GUTHRIE: I presume we all desire to know the result of our labors. I regret to see so much feeling manifested. Perhaps some of us had better take the benefit of the prayers of the church on Sunday. Some of us wish to get our propositions to Congress at an early hour. Those who oppose us those determined to defeat action, can speak on until the fourth of March. I hope such is not their intention.

Mr. TUCK: If the rule is abused, the Convention will stop the abuse.

At this point there were loud calls of “question,” and the President put the question to vote, viva voce.

The PRESIDENT: I think the Noes clearly have it.

Mr. CHASE: A vote by States was called for by several members.

Mr. BARRINGER: Is this resolution intended to give the right of reply? If so, we shall have a half-hour speech upon every amendment.

Mr. BACKUS: If any member wishes to divide his time, he can do so; but he can only occupy ten minutes in all. We are called to deliberate, as well as to act. We are asked if we wish to stave off final action? I answer, No. I want speedy action. But at the same time let us have deliberation. I wish to give a vote that my constituents will approve.

The PRESIDENT: The vote will be taken by States.

The resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont 11.

NOES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia 9.

Mr. HALL offered the following, which was read, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed:

Amendment to Section 3 of the Committee’s Report, to come in after the words “retaining and taking away persons so bound to labor:” “but the bringing into said District of persons held to service for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pass all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor shall Congress have,” &c.

The PRESIDENT: The Conference will proceed to the order of the day, and Mr. POLLOCK has the floor:

Mr. POLLOCK: Brevity is always a virtue. I intend to practice that virtue now. I would not make a single observation, if I did not feel that by keeping silence I should neglect my duty. As it is, I do not intend to occupy the time of the Conference more than twenty minutes.

When the committee upon the subject invited Pennsylvania to furnish a block for the Washington Monument in this city, they asked also for a motto, to be inscribed upon it, which should express some idea characteristic of Pennsylvania. What was the motto selected in behalf of that great State? Did we go to Germantown and invoke the memories of the mighty dead? Did we ask the motto of Valley Forge? No, brothers, no! Pennsylvania stood by the side of the grave of Penn, the man of peace, and in his example she found her motto, and it stands inscribed upon her contribution to that monument to the Father of his Country to-day. There may it stand forever. “Pennsylvania was founded by deeds of Peace.” How noble the sentiment! How characteristic of that Commonwealth!

Animated by the same sentiment, filled with the same spirit, herself asking nothing, requiring nothing, Pennsylvania comes into this Conference and says to every delegate here, “Peace, Brothers, Peace.” She is not for war. She believes that the power of kindness is far greater than that of the sword; that in the affection of brother toward brother there is greater strength than in all the iron contained in all her thousand hills and mountains. She comes here at the instance of a sister. She heard the voice of that sister asking for consultation, and she obeyed it. She is here, and in the right spirit.

A word now as to the motive of Virginia in calling the States together. Some object that Virginia comes bearing the olive branch on the point of the bayonet. Not so, sir. She is placed in a peculiar position, and I appreciate it. She does not make use of threats. These exist only in the imagination of gentlemen. I am willing to meet her here upon the very ground she takes, and unite with her in saying, “Our Union as it is, now and forever.” We are here taking counsel, not with traitors, not with secessionists, but with lovers of the Union.

The people love the Union; they will not give it up. They are true. My heart almost leapt from my bosom when that telegraph message was read from Missouri a few days ago. Tennessee has taken up the cry, “Union for ever,” The nation is troubled. All nations are, at times. But our troubles are not insurmountable. We are all here together to settle them. Why not settle them, and give peace to the Union, and joy to the hearts of the people?

We can settle our difficulties. The right feeling animates gentlemen from both sections. Where was the heart in this Conference that did not start with emotion, when, some days ago, that glorious old patriot from North Carolina (Mr. RUFFIN) told us of his devotion to the Union? Who did not honor and respect him? Old men and young men wept as they listened. Friends! Countrymen! I come here from a Border State. These States have a vital interest in the result, therefore we speak earnestly. Let us say to the angry passions of the country, “Peace, be still!”

The Border States are united; they have common interests. Beside the hearthstones of each, sit wives, and children, and families, connected with each other by ties of blood, of interest, of social intercourse. We are one. Is Maryland or Delaware ready to say that either will part company from Pennsylvania? No! We are brethren come weal, come wo, we will stand by each other, and we will stand by the Union.

Gentlemen say there will not be war, if we do not agree. I wish I could think so, but I cannot. But if war should come, let me ask the gentlemen from New York who think principles are standing in their way, will you take the risk? Will you see the soil of Pennsylvania drenched with blood? Can you risk all this hereafter, when you can avoid it by accepting a proposition that involves no sacrifice of principles? Never in my whole life have I felt the weight of official responsibility as I feel it now. God grant that war may be averted from the country!

Let the lightning this day flash to the extreme limits of the Union, the glad tidings that we have settled these questions. The message would be received with gratitude and thanksgiving. Our friends in the Border States say, “We love the Union, we wish to stay in it; we do not wish to be driven out.” Can you not, will you not, do something for them? Let us trust this matter to the people. I am not afraid to trust the people of Pennsylvania. New York and Massachusetts, trust yours!

We talk calmly of war, but we forget its calamities. Let us remember that we should not sacrifice one life for this paltry abstraction. Let us remember how great are the miseries of war. Let us think of the rush of angry armies, of the widows and orphans, of the sorrow and desolation that war always leaves in its path.

Christian men! remember that our great Saviour was a Prince of Peace that he came to conquer with peace, not with the sword. “The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”

Disunion is a crime against every thing. Above all, it is a crime against GOD. Christians, pause and reflect. Let me entreat you to help us save this country from disunion.

I speak earnestly. We Pennsylvanians are upon the border. Our soil must be the battle ground. Upon us will the heavy trouble fall. Once more I say, let us trust the people. They are always right. They will do something; and honest men, sincere men, tell us that unless something is done, the border slave States cannot be retained in the Union.

I am not here as a party man, but as an American citizen, and a citizen of Pennsylvania. I am here to perform my duty to the whole country, if I can find out what that duty is.

Our friends say there is great apprehension at the South that the Republican party meditates unconditional interference with Southern rights. I do not believe for a moment that there is any ground for such an apprehension. But, nevertheless, it exists. Acting upon it, several States have withdrawn from the Union. We must deal with it in the best way we can. If we can satisfy our southern brethren, in the name of peace let us do it. I labored for the election of Mr. LINCOLN, but I never understood that hostility to slavery was the leading idea in the platform of his party. Pennsylvania had other interests other reasons very powerful, for supporting him. There was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise ruinous discriminations in the Tariff the corruption of the Government the villanous conduct of its high officers; these and other considerations gave Mr. LINCOLN more strength in Pennsylvania than the slavery question.

There are sentiments and opinions at the North that must be respected. There are sentiments and opinions at the South that must be respected; but there are no differences that cannot be honorably adjusted. The only practicable way that I can discover is to adopt the plan reported by the committee, and secure its submission to the people.

How can we do greater honor to this glorious day, which gave the immortal WASHINGTON to his country and to the world, than by marking it on the calendar as the day that secured the safety and perpetuity of the American Union?

Mr. SUMMERS: The Committee on Credentials have examined the case of Mr. J.C. STONE, who is commissioned as a delegate from Kansas, and are of opinion that he is duly accredited.

Mr. FIELD: I understand that he was appointed by Mr. BEEBE, the Secretary of the Territorial Government.

Mr. CLAY: There is a provision in the Kansas Act authorizing the Secretary to perform all the duties of the Governor in his absence.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH: I represent an old and honored Commonwealth. I speak, remembering the maxing that “a soft answer turneth away wrath.” But I should disregard my duty if I did not reply to what was said a few days ago, in arraignment in unfair and improper arraignment, of Virginia.

Virginia occupies no menacing position, no attitude of hostility toward the Union or her sister States. Virginia knows that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” She knows, too, that there is good policy in the maxim, “in peace prepare for war.” Her action is only such as is dictated by a prudent foresight. How unkind, then, are such taunts against Virginia, the mother of us all. She comes here in a paternal spirit; she desires to preserve the Union; she disdains to employ a menace; she knows that she never can secure the cooperation of brave men by employing menaces. No! She wishes to use all her efforts to perpetuate the reign of peace.

Another says we are seeking to secure an amendment of the Constitution by the employment of unconstitutional means, and that this meeting is a revolutionary mob that these eminent men of the country assembled here, constitute a mob. No, sir! No!

Mr. BALDWIN: If the gentleman from Virginia refers to me, he quite misunderstood me. I said only that the action proposed here was not contemplated by the Constitution, and was revolutionary in its tendency.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH: I cannot for my life so consider it. This is merely an advisory body. We are here to devise an adjustment, and to lay it before Congress. We are exercising the right of petition, and that is a sacred right. Is this revolutionary? No, sir! You would insist that Congress should receive a petition, although that body had no right to act upon it. If so, how much more should our petition be received, when we seek to preserve the Union, and when the Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to act in such a case.

The gentleman from Vermont said last evening, that a pledge from the South to abide by the result would be a condition precedent to the submission of the proposition at all, and yet he says he cannot pledge Vermont. Why, then, does he ask us to pledge Virginia?

Mr. CHITTENDEN: I am not willing to be misunderstood. I thought my language was plain. What I said was, that no one could pledge the free States for or against these propositions; but I did say we could pledge them to abide by the Union, whatever the result might be. That is the pledge we ask from the South.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH: Well, that is a pledge we have no authority to give. We cannot accept these propositions as a boon from any section. We must have them as a right, or not at all.

But let me address myself at once to the momentous question. It seems that we can agree upon every thing but this question of slavery in the Territories. So far as that subject is concerned, Virginia has declared that she will accept the Crittenden resolutions. She and her southern sisters will stand upon and abide by them. If gentlemen will come up to this basis of adjustment with manly firmness, the electric wires will flash a thrill of joy to the hearts of the people this very hour. Why not come up to it like men?

The Supreme Court has already established the rights of the South, so far as this question is concerned, upon a basis which is satisfactory. Under the Dred Scott decision, the people of the South have the right to go into any portion of the Territory with their slaves. You, gentlemen of the North, will not abide by that decision. You have declared in your platform that it is a miserable dogma. How can we be satisfied with such a guarantee for our rights as that?

But it is said that this part of the Dred Scott decision is only an obiter dictum; that the question was not presented by the record. This is not so. As was said by Governor WICKLIFFE, the other day, there were two questions in that case. The judgment of the court was upon them both, and both were presented by the record.

We know that the dominant party has elected a President on a purely sectional issue, and in deadly hostility to our institutions. We believe, from all the indications of the times, that our institutions are utterly insecure. Therefore we ask these guarantees. Give them to us, and from that time you will restore peace and quiet to the country. You at once attach the Border States firmly to you forever. I hope you will do so; but I tell you that the Border States cannot be retained unless you will consent to give such guarantees as will bring back the seceded States, and unite us all in a glorious confederation.

Sentiments have been uttered here that grate harshly on the minds of Southern gentlemen. It is said that this is a war of ideas. If so, then there is certainly that irrepressible conflict about which we have heard so much. But it is not true that slaves exclude free labor. Come to the harvest homes of Western Virginia. There you will see the union of white and black labor see the two races working harmoniously together. The mechanics are white, the field hands are black. Those only make such assertions who know nothing about it.

You insist at the North that slavery is a sin. If it is as you claim it to be, a sin, the sum of all villanies, then we may as well separate. We cannot live together longer.

If we cannot have the aid of other sections, the Border States must take the subject into their own hands, and settle it for themselves. These States, with one exception, have shown a most excellent spirit. Let them all come up to the work to-day; on this natal day of WASHINGTON, of whom it was said that nature had denied him children, in order that he might be indeed the Father of his Country. New Jersey has most nobly responded, through her distinguished sons, but especially through the voice of that eloquent man, who swept with a master hand the chords of the human heart, in his remarks here, and tones of heavenly music responded to the touch.

The whole nation stands on tiptoe awaiting the final result of the action of this Conference. All sections are ready to make sacrifices, but sacrifices are not required. Let us act, and then go home. A grateful people will bind the wreath of victory around your brows, for “Peace hath her victories not less than War.”

We make no appeal to the sympathies of gentlemen. We ask you to do justice, simple justice to the South. Do it, and you will do honor to yourselves. Give us the guarantees we ask, and my word for it, you will see the seceded States coming back one by one, and we shall see ourselves once more a happy and a united people!

Mr. WILMOT: It is not my purpose to enter upon the wide field that has been opened in this debate. I did not intend to speak at all. I know well the position I occupy before the country. I am regarded by those who do not know me as an extreme man. I am, if I know myself, a man of moderation, and, I trust, of firmness. I make these remarks because the time has come when I must separate from my delegation. I concede every thing to their patriotism, good intentions, and integrity. But I must separate from them in the votes they are about to give.

We are called here to consider the condition of the country. It is said that condition requires our interference that such interference is necessary. The country has just passed through one of those conflicts which are incidental to our form of Government. It has borne the trial, and I think it is safe.

Those who insist that certain things shall be done, place us in a delicate position. You say that you do not object to the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN, but you refuse to permit his principles to be carried into effect. We say that we have not merely elected Mr. LINCOLN, but we have decided the principles upon which his administration shall be conducted. You refuse to permit this, and say that you will leave us and revolutionize, unless we consent to a counter resolution.

The contest in which we are now engaged is not a new one. It is of twelve or fifteen years’ standing. It assumed new proportions when we acquired Texas. Texas, under the laws of Mexico, was then free. We insisted that slavery should not be recognized there. You claimed that it should that slavery should go into all the common Territories of the Union. You succeeded. You procured what you claim is a decision of the court in your favor. But the people would not give the question up. The issue was formed Slavery or Freedom; and on that issue we went into the late election. It was well understood in all its bearings. It was discussed and argued upon both sides and all sides, and the people determined the question against the South. In my section of the country there was no change. In all the excitement of a Presidential contest, I do not know of twenty votes that were changed. The opinions of the people were formed before; now they have declared them.

My first allegiance is to the principles of truth and justice. Convince me that your propositions are right, that they are just and true, and I will accept them. I will sustain them to the end. If they are wrong and I now believe them to be I will never sustain them, and I will show my faith in GOD by leaving the consequences with Him.

Any substantial change in the fundamental principles of government is revolutionary. Yours may be a peaceable one, but it is still a revolution. The seceded States are in armed revolution. You are in direct alliance with them. You say the Government shall not retake the forts, collect the revenue, and you ask us to aid you in preventing the Government from doing its duty.

Permit this, and the judgment of the world will be that we have submitted to the inauguration of your principles as the principles of the Government. It would exhibit a weakness from which the country could never hope to recover. These are reasons satisfactory enough to me. I cannot vote for the first article.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: Do you wish to get the seceded States back?

Mr. WILMOT: Certainly I do.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: How do you propose to do it?

Mr. WILMOT: I cannot say that I have any special way. It is their duty to return. There are better methods of coercing them than to march our army on to their soil. Now I understand it is your purpose to intrench slavery behind the Constitution.

Mr. RUFFIN: Certainly. That is true in a certain portion of the
Territories.

Mr. WILMOT: I thought I was not mistaken. The Government has long been administered in the interest of slavery. The fixed determination of the North is, that this shall be no longer.

Mr. HOUSTON: Will the gentleman hazard the assertion that such has been the policy of Tennessee, Maryland, or Delaware?

Mr. WILMOT: I did not intend to say more than that such has been the general policy of the Government. Another objection to the proposed amendment is its ambiguity. Its construction is doubtful, when it should be plain. Don’t let us differ when we go home. If we do we shall settle nothing. Some will claim that the first article does not furnish a slave code. Others will claim that it does, and such I think is a fact. I am also opposed to the second article. I do not think it is right thus to bind posterity. I am opposed to the third article, except the first clause. If you think there is really a purpose at the North to interfere with slavery in the States, I am willing a declaratory amendment should be adopted prohibiting such interference. I like that of Mr. FIELD much better. I can go for that with all my heart.

As to the foreign slave trade we ask nothing. The laws are well enough as they are, if properly enforced. Besides, you make too much of it. You will claim hereafter that this formed one part of the compromise. It will amount to nothing.

Mr. BARRINGER: But the South wants the foreign slave trade prohibited.

Mr. WILMOT: Do not the statutes prohibit it? Why not enforce them?

Mr. BARRINGER: We had rather have the prohibition in the Constitution.

Mr. WILMOT: I am opposed also to abrogating the power of Congress over the District of Columbia. I hope to see slavery abolished in the District.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania abide by the decision in the Dred Scott case?

Mr. WILMOT: Certainly, so far as it decides what is in the record.

Mr. SEDDON: You will not permit it to settle the principle?

Mr. WILMOT: I will not, any more than Virginia would accede to the decision upon the Alien and Sedition Laws. I will be frank and go farther. If the Court had undertaken to settle the principle, I would do all I reasonably could to overthrow the decision.

Mr. SEDDON: My voice has failed me to-day, and I do not know that I can speak in audible tones, but I will try.

I understand the gentleman who last addressed us to say, that there are to be incorporated into the administration of the Government two new principles: one is, that there shall be no slavery in the territories; the other is, that the action of the Government shall be on the side of freedom. And furthermore, that slavery is to be regarded as a purely local institution, and that slaves are not to be regarded as property anywhere except in the slave States. Now, that was just the way in which I interpreted the action of the North in the last election, and it is precisely this view which has led to the secession of the States. The gentleman well understands that a different view of their rights under the Constitution prevails among the Southern people. Will he also understand and recognize the fact, that the Supreme Court has clearly given the sanction of its opinion to the Southern construction?

Mr. WILMOT: Ought not the action of the Government under WASHINGTON to be a precedent of some weight in our favor?

Mr. SEDDON: I cannot accede to that. Now the North has inaugurated this policy. We of the South say it is a subversion of the Constitution. The gentleman must as freely admit that the party just coming into power must of necessity be a Northern party. It can have no affiliation with any party at the South. Now I ask, can we, as a matter of policy or justice, whose rights are so vitally involved, sit by and see this done? Slavery is with us a democratic and a social interest, a political institution, the grandest item of our prosperity. Can we in safety or justice sit quietly by and allow the North thus to array all the powers of the Government against us?

The hour of one o’clock having arrived, the PRESIDENT announced that under the resolutions adopted by the Conference, general debate must cease, and the Conference would proceed to vote upon the report of the General Committee, and various amendments proposed thereto.

Mr. FIELD: I rise to a question of privilege. What was done by the Conference with the credentials of the gentleman from Kansas?

The SECRETARY: The practice heretofore has been, to consider a gentleman a member, when the Committee on Credentials report in his favor.

Mr. FIELD: Then I move to reconsider the action of the Conference in this case.

Mr. PRICE: I rise to a question of order. The committee have reported in favor of Mr. STONE, and that is conclusive.

The PRESIDENT: I think the Conference has a right to pass upon the credentials.

Mr. FIELD: I have a serious objection to the admission of the gentleman from Kansas. He holds the commission of the Secretary of the Territory alone, from a man who has never been appointed Governor. It is very irregular. It looks as though the gentleman was sent here only for the purpose of giving the vote of Kansas to certain propositions.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri: The delegate comes here with an appointment under the seal of the State of Kansas. The act admitting Kansas provides that all the territorial officers shall exercise jurisdiction until others are elected. I think it is in very bad taste for the gentleman from New York to question the regularity of the appointment.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: I make a point of order. We have decided to proceed to the vote at this time.

The PRESIDENT: I think this is a privileged question.

Mr. HOUSTON: I respectfully appeal from the decision of the
PRESIDENT.

Mr. MOREHEAD: I move to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. FIELD: I ask for a vote by States.

The PRESIDENT: It is somewhat difficult to decide what motion has precedence. What was the motion of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. FIELD: I moved a reconsideration of the action of the Convention admitting Mr. STONE. Let us have a vote on that motion. It is as good a test as any.

Mr. MOREHEAD: I insist that the question is upon my motion to lay the whole subject on the table.

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. MOREHEAD, with the following result:

AYES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and
Virginia 10.

NOES. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont 9.

Mr. CLAY: I would ask, as a matter of courtesy, not to say of common decency, that Mr. STONE may be permitted to state how and why he came here.

Mr. STONE, of Kansas: I understand that I was appointed by the Secretary of Kansas, who was at the time the Acting Governor. I understand that the appointment was made in accordance with the Enabling Act of Kansas. I am not inclined to argue my right to a seat in the Conference.

Mr. FIELD: I wish to ask the gentleman only one question. Was not Governor ROBINSON actually in possession of his office before the delegate received his appointment, and is he not in such possession now?

Mr. STONE: He was, and is.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I call for the reading of the fourth Rule.

The fourth Rule was read by the Secretary, as follows:

4TH RULE. A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without special leave, upon the same question; and not a second time, before every other who has been silent shall have been heard, if he chooses to speak upon the subject.

Mr. FIELD: In order to bring the subject fairly before the Conference, I will put my motion in the form of a resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That the credentials of Mr. STONE, who desires to act as a Commissioner from Kansas, be referred back to the Committee on Credentials, with instructions to that committee to report the facts concerning his appointment, and whether it proceeded from the Territorial Secretary.

Mr. SUMMERS: I wish the Committee on Credentials to stand right with the Conference. We accepted the commission of the Acting Governor as prima facia correct.

Mr. VANDEVER: I wish to offer a resolution.

Mr. GUTHRIE: All resolutions are out of order.

The PRESIDENT: I think resolutions under the ruling of the Conference cannot now be considered.

Mr. CURTIS: I ask leave for the State of Iowa to vote on the motion to lay the subject of the admission of the delegate from Kansas on the table.

The motion was granted, and Iowa being called, voted No; and the vote stood: Ayes, 10; Noes, 10. And so the motion was lost.

Much discussion here ensued on the subject of the admission of the delegate from Kansas, which was participated in by Messrs. STOCKTON, CLEVELAND, COALTER, and others, when

Mr. STONE observed that he had no desire to force himself into the Conference, and until the question was settled he thought it proper to withdraw.

The resolution offered by Mr. FIELD was adopted without a division.

VOTE ON THE PROPOSITIONS AND AMENDMENTS.

The PRESIDENT: The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the report of the General Committee, and the amendments thereto. The question will be taken on the adoption of the first section reported by the Committee of One from each State, which the SECRETARY will now read.

The SECRETARY read the report as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. GUTHRIE: I hope now the Conference will proceed in the regular way, and that the majority report will be first perfected so far as amendments are concerned, and that then it may be adopted.

Mr. SEDDON: I move to amend the first section by inserting, after the words “in all the present territory south of said line,” the words “including the Cherokee grant,” and I call for a vote by States on the adoption of the amendment I propose. My object is to carry out the instruction of the committee. A small part of the grant lies north of the line. It is better to include the whole.

Mr. BACKUS: I move to amend the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, by substituting the word “excluding” for the word “including,” and on my motion ask a vote by States.

Mr. RUFFIN: I think the gentleman does not understand the effect of his amendment.

Mr. BACKUS: I do not think we ought to regard the Cherokee grant at all.

Mr. FRANKLIN: I think both the amendments important.

Mr. SEDDON: We must recognize the Cherokee Territory, and not divide it. Upon mature reflection, I think the amendment is important.

The vote was taken upon the motion of Mr. BACKUS, and resulted as follows:

AYES. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont 11.

NOES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia 9.

The PRESIDENT: The question is now upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, as amended by the Conference.

Mr. GUTHRIE: I hope the amendment will not be adopted. It is not necessary to the sense of the article. It is cumulative in its effect. We have expressly excluded the Cherokee grant, lest we might seem to overrule the Cherokee treaty by a provision of the Constitution.

The vote was taken by States, on the adoption of the amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON, as amended, with the following result:

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

NOES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia 10.

Thus the amendment was lost.

Mr. PRATT: I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Connecticut.

Mr. FRANKLIN: I now offer as a substitute for the first section, as reported, the following:

Strike out after the words “United States,” in the first
line, and insert as follows:

“Not embraced by the Cherokee treaty, north of the parallel of 36 deg. 30’ of north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the status of persons held to service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the common law. When any territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the constitution of such State may provide.”

Mr. FOWLER: Let us first perfect the original. I move to amend by inserting after the word “prevent,” in the first section, the words “or facilitate.”

Mr. REID: I think we ought to perfect the section before we vote on a substitute. I move to amend it by inserting after the word “line,” after the words “territory south of said line,” the following words: “involuntary servitude is recognized, and property in those of the African race held to service or labor in any of the States of the Union, when removed to such territory, shall be protected and”

I have not expressed my views at large upon the subject of the committee’s report. I have earnestly wished to settle the perplexing questions which now distract the country. I do not rise to make a speech. I have not come here to exact more than the North can honorably grant, nor to deceive the North in the result, if the rights of the South are not protected. Our property is involved in your action. You can afford to be liberal. If you intend to recognize property in slaves, write it down in the bond. If the North wants any protection, name it, and we will put it into the bond. If you fear that slavery may go north of the proposed line, we will give you any assurance to the contrary. But I tell you that on the other side we require reciprocal terms. Nothing else will satisfy the public sentiment. Twelve months hence and we will not take what we now offer to take.

What are we talking about? Every one knows that the African race is better off at the South than it could be elsewhere. We do not wish to disrupt the Union. You are doing it on a mere Northern abstraction. Suppose a foreign power asked you what you were fighting about, what would be your answer?

But I was saying that the only way is for the North to be liberal; to be reciprocal; to make us entirely safe. Our security must be put into the bond and be faithfully preserved. The present status of the States in the Union is deceptive. If I am to remain in the Union, it don’t suit me. If I am to go into a southern confederacy, it is just what I should want. Beware, gentlemen of the North! You are cutting yourselves off from future glory and expansion.

Mr. VANDEVER: The gentleman from North Carolina wants the distinct recognition of slavery in the bond. I would like to refer him to the condition of this question when the Constitution was adopted. The men of that time would not assert such a position. They did not think it proper or necessary. If we adopt his views we attempt to sit in judgment on the men of that day. Mr. CALHOUN understood this matter perfectly, and in one of his speeches refers to the unwillingness of the Convention to recognize slavery specifically. The sentiment of Iowa is that no such recognition ought to be made now. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SEDDON: I consider this an important amendment, and a very just one. The principle upon which we are proceeding is that of partition. We, with our property are prohibited from going north of the line. The exact correlative of that would be, that you should be prohibited from going south with your institutions. That we do not ask. On one side involuntary servitude is prohibited. On the other we simply ask that it may be recognized. We give up two-thirds of the territory altogether. All we ask is protection in the remaining one-third.

What is the meaning of this proposition as it now stands? Who does not see that its meaning is ambiguous? It requires us to give up territorial protection, and leaves us with nothing but the shred of a right protected by the Federal courts. Once more let me tell you, that in my opinion the South will never consider this a satisfactory adjustment. You say we are protected by the principles of the common law. Who can tell what this will amount to? Assuming the territorial government to be favorable, it could do nothing. You leave it powerless. Suppose a citizen of Virginia emigrates to the territory south of the line with his property. He would have no earthly right except under the laws of Virginia. The power to enforce those laws is a thousand miles away. If we are to make a partition, let it be a partition. As the provision stands, it is the unfairest bargain ever made. It is all on the side of the North. In common fairness and honesty, I submit that the North ought to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ORTH: There is much that is worthy of consideration in the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia. I hope earnestly that we shall not adopt a proposal of amendment that admits of two interpretations. If I could vote for the report of the majority at all, I would throw around it all the protection it needs. This is a new and peculiar species of property which we are now making the Constitution recognize and protect. If the South is entitled to the proposition itself, I think they are entitled to this amendment. After all, it is only making the amendment express just what we know its friends claim it implies.

Mr. GUTHRIE: I would have preferred the direct recognition by express terms of slavery south of the line proposed, and I voted that way in the committee. I suppose, however, that the clause as it stands recognizes the status there, as it now exists that it prevents all interference with the status. Would you prefer to put into the proposition certain express terms which would destroy all chance of its adoption by the people? I do not think the world is governed by ideas alone. It is governed by ideas and material interests. The Constitution of 1787 secured the interests of the slaveholder in the States. This clause does the same in the Territories. No man can be cheated by it unless he cheats himself. Gentlemen favoring the amendment must know that at least it will not improve the prospects of the proposition with the people. Do you wish to break up the Conference? This is an effectual way of doing it.

We ask for this proposition substantially as it stands. The North can give it to us if it chooses. If it will not, then we shall go home and tell our constituents. They must decide for themselves what they will do. This will settle the Territorial question effectually. What more do we want? The additional guarantees? These are provided for in the other clauses.

Mr. CHITTENDEN: I call for a vote by States on Mr. REID’S amendment.

Mr. BARRINGER: I shall vote for the amendment of my colleague. I have occupied no time in the general debate, but now I do desire to say a few words about this amendment, and the proposition to which it is offered. The amendment brings up the very gist of the matter. Differences of opinion exist as to the effect of the clause. The amendment settles them. This is no place to talk about devotion to the Union. To be a Union at all it must be one that recognizes and protects the rights of all. Any other Union is not worth the name; is not worth preserving. We came here, it is true, to save the Union. We came here to devise the means of saving it. Practically the Union is already dissolved. If not dissolved it is disintegrated.

We ask first, additional guarantees for our rights for Southern rights. They must be such as will satisfy our people, and bring back the States that have left the Union. Short of this they will amount to nothing. I know the public opinion of the South on these important questions. I have closely watched its growth. My own convictions as to what it will require are decided. Unless you use language and adopt terms in your proposals of amendment which will satisfy the seceded States which will induce them to return to the Union your labors will have been in vain.

What is our claim? It is this, in short: We claim that every Southern man has the right to go into the Territories with his property, wherever these Territories may be. The Territories belong to both; to the South as well as to the North. We want equality. We have no wish to propagate slavery, but every man at the South does wish to insist upon his right to enter the Territories upon terms of perfect equality with the North, if he chooses to do so. He may not exercise the right, but he will not give it up.

We want a division of the Territories. We want to set up landmarks so that neither we nor our posterity shall dispute hereafter about the line.

North Carolina has instructed us to say to this Conference, that if the CRITTENDEN amendment can be adopted here, we can carry it almost with unanimity. There will be a struggle even with our own people, but we can induce them to adopt it.

We have three hundred miles of border in common with South Carolina. Our trade and our associations are in that direction. It is useless to deny that South Carolina has sympathizers among us in her recent movement. You must consider these things, and give us a chance. We must base our argument on principle; we must stand upon terms of perfect equality.

The proposition needs this amendment. As it stands it is ambiguous. It is worse than that, for its construction will depend on the opinion of a Territorial Judge.

Mr. CRISFIELD: I come from a State that is deeply interested in the subject of slavery. Nevertheless, I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina.

I belong to that class of politicians which believes that the people of every section of the Union have a right to go into all the Territories of the Union, and take with them their property and hold it in safety. But we ought not, in our proposals of amendment to the Constitution, to insist upon what will be repulsive to any section of the Union. I think the amendment is unnecessary that the right we claim is sufficiently protected without it. As it stands, neither Congress nor the Territorial Government has the right to impair the status of the slave. What farther protection do we need? What other can we have? Why should we insist upon the adoption of a new style of language? We ought not to be unreasonable; we ought to content ourselves with the proposition as it stands, and not put expressions into it which will make the whole repulsive to a large section of the country, and which, in all probability, will defeat the whole amendment when it comes before the country. I am not even sure that we could get it there. I doubt whether it would pass Congress.

This is a very serious and important question. We wish to stay the hands of extremists on both sides. We wish to stand by the Union. If war comes, our soil is to be the battle ground. I wish to avoid war. I will insist upon this, and I will consent to no extreme opinions.

Mr. VANDEVER: I do not see why Mr. GUTHRIE cannot accept the proposed amendment. He and the gentleman from North Carolina are both aiming at the same thing. The amendment is certainly the clearest. Do you suppose the people are not going to understand the subject thoroughly? Do you suppose that they will be deceived by any such transparent disguise of words? You do not pay them a very high compliment by such a supposition.

I must vote against the amendment, because I am opposed to the principle of protecting slavery in the Territories. Such is the sentiment of the North. If it was not, I should vote for the amendment.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky: As I intend to vote against the amendment, it is due to the Convention that I should state the reasons for my vote. I am in favor of a clear recognition of all the rights of the South, especially of our rights in the Territories. I voted for the CRITTENDEN amendment in the committee. I thought the North ought, in justice to us, to adopt that amendment. We, in this Conference, have selected a Committee of One from each State a committee of able men, and we have placed this subject in their charge. They have consulted together. They have ascertained the views and feeling of the different sections of the country; they have embodied the result of their labors in this report. The question now presented appears to my mind to be this: After all the time and ability they have given to their report in the present distracted and perilous condition of the country, shall I consent to put words into the amendment of the Constitution which they recommend, that will ensure its defeat when it comes before the people?

I know as certainly as that GOD rules in heaven, that unless we come to some satisfactory adjustment in this Conference, a convulsion will ensue such as the world has never seen.

I have been travelling for nearly two months in the seceded States. I believe I understand the temper of their people. I have found there an all-pervading dissatisfaction with the existing state of things, but I have also found great devotion to the Union. I think we can yet save the seceded States. But at least let us save Texas and Arkansas. As it is, black ruin sits nursing the earthquake which threatens to level this Government to its foundations. Can you not feel it, while there is yet time to prepare for the shock? If this giant frenzy of disunion raises its crested head if red battle stamps his foot, the North will feel the shock as severely as the South.

Such is the prospect before us, and near to us, and yet gentlemen say that they will not give one guarantee to avert such dire calamities. Will not the gentleman from New York do one thing to save that Ship of State of which he spoke so eloquently, when she is already among the breakers, and driving so rapidly toward that rocky shore against which her ribs of steel cannot long protect her? We are patriots all we are bound to act together to do something to do our duty, and our whole duty to do what will ultimately preserve the Union.

Mr. PALMER: A few days ago the Conference listened to a deliberate defence of the institution of slavery by its friends from the slave States, in which at least one gentleman from a free State (Mr. EWING) participated. That defence could have had but one object. That object was to place us who do not believe in slavery in such a position that we could not agree to a compromise without endorsing the views then expressed. Gentlemen expect us to give up our opinions and concur with them. I have but one remark to make to all such suggestions. We entertain our opinions on the subject of slavery; we cannot, we will not surrender them.

We are told that this contest must cease, or the Union must perish. I am inclined to think so myself. We stand ready to make any reasonable compromise to save the Union, short of sacrificing our opinions. You, gentlemen of the South, cannot be satisfied unless our capitulation is complete.

I do not assent to much that is said here about the Border States. If the Union is not dissolved until the Border States go to fighting each other, it will last forever.

Mr. REID: If we all mean the same thing, let us put it into the bond. Then there will be no room for misunderstanding or controversy. If you leave this article open to construction, nothing will be settled. The gentleman is mistaken if he supposes that I wish him to adopt my arguments. I do not. If this provision, as it stands, protects slavery in the Territories south of 36 deg. and 30’, why not say so in express terms? I question whether the article, as reported, recognizes property in slaves at all. I wish to settle the question now and forever. I do not wish to have my purpose perverted. I wish to carry home to North Carolina a reasonable story. We have given up all our rights in the territory north of the line. Let the North be reciprocal. What shall I tell my people at home? That I have given away their rights in more than one-half the territory, and have not even secured a provision protecting property in slaves in the remainder?

The vote, on the request of Mr. CHITTENDEN, was taken by States, and resulted as follows:

AYES. Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri 3.

NOES. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, and Iowa 17.

So the amendment was lost.

Mr. CARRUTHERS: Tennessee approves the sentiment of the amendment, but she thinks the requisite security is already given.

Messrs. BUTLER and CLAY, of Kentucky, and Mr. DENT, of Maryland, asked to have their dissent recorded from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. BARRINGER: I wish to make a suggestion in relation to Mr. FRANKLIN’S substitute. I think it is not in order. The Conference has already determined to perfect the committee’s report, before substitutes are to be considered.

Mr. CURTIS: I now move to amend Mr. FRANKLIN’S substitute, by striking out all after the word “prohibit,” in the third line, down to and including the words “common law,” and inserting instead thereof the words, “but this restriction shall not apply to territory south of said line.”

My proposition is offered in good faith, and to show that Iowa is disposed to compromise. I do not say that this is as far as she will go. I have inserted the very words used by our fathers. They prohibited slavery north and tolerated it south of the line. This was the original proposition of Virginia. If there is any thing in its ethics, they are Virginia ethics. Slavery now exists in these Territories. Let it be there. There is slavery in Kansas, Utah, and Nebraska. We cannot help it. It appears to me that the South ought to accept this amendment. It recognizes the opinions of our fathers. This was JEFFERSON’S idea when he drew the ordinance of 1787.

The Constitution does recognize the relation of master and slave, in my opinion. I do not like it, I confess. You in the South do not regard your blacks as slaves in the absolute sense of the term. You have a right in their services, not in their bodies. You recognize them as men in various ways.

Again I say, I do not offer this amendment to embarrass the action of the Conference. It secures slavery south of 36 deg. 30’.

Mr. GUTHRIE: This amendment would not be satisfactory either to the South or myself. In my judgment, it ought not to be adopted. We claim the right under the Constitution as it is, to go into all the Territories of the Union with our property. This right is confirmed to us by the decision of the Supreme Court. There will be no compromise, if we cannot go home to our people and tell them that you concede this right south of 36 deg. 30’. Otherwise, they would throw the propositions in our faces. As it stands, the article gives you security, North. As it would be when this amendment is adopted, it would give the South law and litigation. We want peace. We cannot take this amendment.

Pending the consideration of the amendment offered by Mr. CURTIS, on motion of Mr. JAMES, the Conference adjourned to ten o’clock to-morrow morning.