WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, February 26th, 1861.

The Conference, pursuant to adjournment, was called to order at eleven o’clock.

Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. GURLEY.

The PRESIDENT informed the Conference that in consequence of the length of the Journal of yesterday, the Secretary had not been able to write it out, and that it would be necessary to omit the reading thereof this morning.

Mr. McCURDY: There was a vote taken in the confusion near the close of the session last evening, in which Connecticut, according to the minutes of the Secretary, appears to have voted in the negative. It was upon the amendment of Mr. ORTH, declaring that the slave should be free whenever his master had accepted payment for him. On that amendment the vote of Connecticut was Yea. As the vote is recorded Nay by mistake, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BRONSON: The motion to reconsider is not necessary. Connecticut can record her vote as she wishes to have it stand. It will not change the result.

The PRESIDENT: I think the motion is in order, if made by Connecticut.

Mr. BATTELL: I will move to reconsider. I voted with the majority.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina: No individual delegate can make such a motion. States vote here, not individuals. I submit that the motion is out of order, unless made by a majority of the delegation.

Mr. BALDWIN: The question is not complicated at all; neither is the motion out of order. A majority of the delegation from Connecticut cast the vote of that State in favor of Mr. ORTH’S amendment. By mistake that vote was recorded against the amendment. The same majority whose vote is made to do them injustice by a mistake for which its members are not responsible, now moves to reconsider the vote.

The question was then taken upon Mr. McCURDY’S motion, and resulted as follows:

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

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

And the motion prevailed, and the vote was reconsidered.

The PRESIDENT: The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by Mr. ORTH. On this amendment the vote will be taken by States.

Mr. WHITE: I consider this amendment as entirely unnecessary. The result which it seeks to attain is only the announcement of a well-understood provision of the common law. By the common law, if an action is brought for a trespass, and judgment recovered for that trespass, and the damages under that judgment paid, the property which is the subject of the action, and which may have originally been wrongfully taken, becomes transferred; the damages take the place of the property, the defendant has paid for his wrongful act, or, in other words, has paid for the property. The same principle applies to the case of the fugitive slave who is rescued from the custody of the law, when his owner has consented to accept payment for him. The legal right of the owner in the slave is satisfied by such payment; the money takes the place of the slave. But if this were not so, we ought not to encumber the Constitution with such provisions. Congress will undoubtedly make the proper provision both for the protection of the slave and his master. Congress will not permit payment to be made for a slave, and then suffer him to go back to bondage. This would be both unlawful and unjust. I can see no necessity for adopting the amendment.

Mr. ORTH: I understand there is some difference of opinion between members of the Conference as to the effect of the phraseology of my amendment. I will change that phraseology, and make the amendment read as follows:

“And such fugitive, after the master has been paid therefor,
shall be discharged from such service.”

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky: I am opposed to this amendment upon every ground. I would rather see some direct scheme of emancipation adopted and inserted in the Constitution. Adopt this amendment, and the result is inevitable. It would amount to emancipation upon the largest possible scale. Our slaves would escape, you would rescue and pay for them, and that would be the end of them. Why not leave it to Congress to pass the necessary laws upon this subject? The adoption of this amendment would destroy all hope that our labors would be acceptable to the South. I say again, we had better establish emancipation at once.

Mr. DENT: If this amendment is to be adopted, I hope we shall at the same time reconsider the vote by which we rejected the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, requiring the payment by the county, city, or town wherein the slave is rescued from the custody of the law. This provision would make the General Government pay for the crimes of a few citizens in one section. In that case the General Government ought to own the negro. It has paid for him, and the property in him ought to be transferred.

Mr. WILMOT: There is nothing in this. We do not wish to have the Government own the negro. It is bad enough to have individuals own slaves. We do not propose to turn the Government into an extensive slave owner.

But let me ask the gentleman seriously, who is to own the negro, in such a case, after he has been paid for? Certainly not the former owner, because his right is gone. This amendment only states a conclusion of law; the right of the owner being gone, the negro is free.

Mr. CHASE: I think a single word will settle this. By the Constitution as it now stands, the escaped fugitive is not discharged from service or labor. The original section, as proposed, requires that the slave should be paid for, when he is rescued. Now, he might be rescued three or four times. Shall he be paid for as often? Do gentlemen claim that his owner shall receive compensation more than once? I cannot see why gentlemen interested in slavery should object to this amendment.

Mr. RIVES: I think if gentlemen would look at this proposition seriously, there would be no difference of opinion among us. Such a proposition would foist into the Constitution a most injurious, pernicious, and troublesome doctrine. By the most ultra abolitionists of the free States the power of emancipating our slaves has been disclaimed. From the organization of the Government, no such right has been claimed by any respectable party or body of men. The question arose in the first Congress, I think, upon the petition of the Quakers of Pennsylvania. It was decided almost unanimously against the power, even when exercised by Congress. But there is no need of multiplying or citing precedents. From that time to this, no political party has claimed the power of emancipation. Such is the universal doctrine now.

The right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia is now claimed by some. I think that is the doctrine of Mr. CHASE. But upon what argument is it founded? Simply this: That the States, by the act of cession, have surrendered this power to Congress. This is the only argument I have ever heard in favor of the right, even in the District.

But this amendment proposes a most comprehensive scheme of emancipation. It accomplishes emancipation in every one of the slave States. It amounts to forcible emancipation upon the principle of compensation.

The point has been well stated by gentlemen who have preceded me. Place this in the Constitution, and there is an end of returning fugitives. The very courts will act upon it. They will say that if any one will come forward and pay the value of a slave when arrested, all the requirements of the Constitution are satisfied, and he shall go free.

What is the object of our Conference? Why are we here? We are here to bury out of sight all the causes of our difference and trouble. And yet you propose to insert a new principle into our fundamental law, which, however you may look upon it, will be regarded at the South as totally inconsistent with our independence. Our people will not consent to it.

There is another view which I would suggest. This is eminently a matter of legislative regulation. If the slave is paid for, Congress will at once recognize the impropriety and injustice of permitting the owner to receive payment for, and also receive his slave. Congress may say with great propriety that the owner shall give a bond to return the money upon the restoration of his slave. I hope no principle will be implanted in the Constitution which will be more troublesome more productive of difficulties than any which has heretofore been made the subject of discussion.

Mr. EWING: If we do any thing of this kind, perhaps we had better say that if the owner accepts compensation for his slave, he shall execute a deed of manumission. This will make it a matter of consent on the part of the owner. Put the amendment in that form and I will vote for it.

Mr. COALTER: This amendment would offer a most powerful inducement to our slaves to run away. It would be dangerous in the extreme. When a fugitive has been paid for, and thus emancipated, he can come back and settle by the side of his master. What effect would that have upon the rest of his slaves? Would they not attempt the same thing? It may be said that the States can pass laws which will prevent their return. But this power will not be exercised. I know many free negroes in the slave States who are respectable persons, who own property, and have their social and domestic ties. These examples are bad. A fugitive who has been set free is not a safe man to return and settle as a free negro among those who were his co-slaves.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH: By this amendment you are inaugurating a system of covert emancipation to which the South can never submit. We protest against its adoption. The argument upon which you seek to sustain it is a false one. How can the owner receive the full value of his rescued slave when he himself, as a citizen and tax-payer, pays a part of the price?

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina: I move to amend this amendment by adding thereto these words:

“And the negro when thus emancipated shall not be permitted
to leave the State in which the emancipation takes place.”

We know from past experience what the abolitionists of the free States would do under such a provision as this in the Constitution. There will be an underground railroad line along every principal route of travel. There will be depots all along these lines. Canoes will be furnished to ferry negroes over the Potomac and Ohio. JOHN BROWN & CO. will stand ready to kill the master the very moment he crosses the line in pursuit of his slave. What officer at the North will dare to arrest the slave when JOHN BROWN pikes are stacked up in every little village? If arrested, there will be organizations formed to rescue him, and you may as well let the “nigger” go free at once. You are opening up the greatest scheme of emancipation ever devised.

Mr. BACKUS: I move to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. ORTH by the substitution of the following:

“And the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner
from further claim to said fugitive.”

It is claimed that this is a scheme of emancipation. It is nothing of the sort. It is not intended that the owner shall be obliged to accept compensation for his slave. That is left optional with him. He may take it or not as he likes. The effect of accepting compensation would be just the same as if he sold his slave to the North. The gentleman from Virginia raises a curious objection; that the owner does not receive a full compensation because he pays a portion of it himself. Well, I suppose the owner would pay the one hundred and thirty-millionth part of the price! Does not the same objection lay against the payment of any tax whatever? It is asked, Does this payment transfer the legal title to the slave? Well, it probably goes to the party who pays for it. If the payment is made in a free State, where slavery is not tolerated, the title would not pass at all. I submit to our friends from the South, whether they wish to have the Government become a slave-trader, to set it up as a huckster of slaves in the shambles. My amendment imposes the responsibility upon Congress. I have no doubt Congress will legislate properly upon the subject.

Now let me say one word to gentlemen, friends of the South, in all kindness. I have appreciated your position, and it has influenced my action. I have not refused to give you any reasonable guarantees, and I shall not refuse them. But I submit to you, whether it is in good taste for you to declare that, if we do not yield all these little points to you, the Government is to be broken up; that that is the only alternative?

Mr. GUTHRIE: I hope this amendment will be adopted. As a Southern man, I declare that it is acceptable to me. Let us adopt it, and end the matter. [Cries of “Agreed.”]

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri: I have a very serious objection to putting any bid in the Constitution to induce slaves to run away. I firmly believe that if this amendment should ever become a part of the Constitution, it would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery. The State of Missouri is surrounded on three sides by free States. When one of our slaves escapes and crosses the border, he finds himself at once among a people, some of whom will vindicate his freedom with their lives. I am willing to leave this whole subject to Congress. Congress will not permit the owner to get his money, and also retain his slave. In the name of God I ask that no such provision may be put into the Constitution!

Mr. MOREHEAD: I will agree to this. The difference between the two is as wide as the poles.

The vote was then taken upon the amendment as amended, and resulted as follows:

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

NOES. Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia 3.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Messrs. CLAY, of Kentucky, DENT and ROMAN, of Maryland, STEPHENS and TOTTEN, of Tennessee, dissented from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. BRONSON: It is evident under the rules, as they now stand, that this debate is not to close within a month. I move to amend the rules as follows:

“Before reaching the final question on the plan to be
submitted to Congress, no member shall be allowed to speak
more than three minutes on any proposition.”

Mr. SEDDON: I rise to a question of order. I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New York is not in order.

Mr. GUTHRIE: I move to lay the amendment on the table.

The motion of Mr. GUTHRIE prevailed without a division.

Mr. FIELD: I move to add an additional section to the report, as follows:

SECTION 8. The Union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligation of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

In offering this amendment as an additional section, I propose very briefly to state the reasons for its adoption. I shall not anticipate any of the objections that may be urged against it, for, as I understand the rule, I shall have the right to speak in reply. I will only state one or two arguments in favor of the article.

We have been discussing the means of removing the symptoms of the disease called secession. This amendment attacks the disease itself. The doctrines of CALHOUN, originated and advocated by him, have now been taken up by his followers, who are striking at the very foundation of our Government. The doctrine of the North is, that no State can secede from the Union. This amendment asserts that doctrine. Before we begin to amend, we ought to know whether we have any Constitution to amend. The people of my section wish to know whether we can compel obedience of a State, if every man in it undertakes to refuse obedience. They believe that power to exist in the Constitution now. If there is any doubt about it, they wish that power distinctly asserted.

Mr. EWING: I move to lay the amendment on the table at present, without affecting the section of the report under consideration.

Mr. FIELD: This motion is debatable.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New York is not an amendment; that it is an addition, and may be laid on the table without affecting the remainder of the report.

Mr. BRONSON: We have now gone through with the propositions, and are ready to take a final vote upon them. Mr. FIELD’S amendment is properly an addition, and relates entirely to other subjects. Laying that on the table does not carry the whole subject there.

The motion of Mr. EWING prevailed by the following vote: Ayes, 11; Noes, 10.

Messrs. MEREDITH, WILMOT, and CHASE dissented from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. FIELD: I now offer it as an amendment to the 7th section.

Mr. BRONSON: I rise to a point of order. My colleague has proposed this amendment as an additional section, and it has been laid upon the table. He now proposes to put the same thing in another place. That is certainly not in order.

Mr. FIELD: I now offer it distinctly as an amendment to the 7th section, to avoid the quibbling by which a direct vote was avoided before. It may as well be understood that other than slave States have certain rights upon this floor, and that those rights will be asserted. I wish gentlemen to understand that I shall resist, as well as I may, every attempt to avoid or dodge this question.

The PRESIDENT: In the opinion of the Chair it is not in order.

Mr. FIELD: Then I offer one-half the amendment as follows: “The Union of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble.”

Mr. WICKLIFFE: Is it necessary to put this into the Constitution? Does not the gentleman think the Constitution prohibits secession now? If so, let him offer a resolution to that effect, and I will vote for it.

Mr. DENT: I rise to a point of order. The amendment is not germane to the section.

The PRESIDENT: That is entirely a matter of opinion. The Chair cannot rule out an amendment on that ground.

Mr. FIELD: If gentlemen will give us a square vote on my proposition, I will not debate it.

Mr. GUTHRIE: I believe every word that is stated in that proposition. It is all in the Constitution now; but the South thinks differently, and this is one of the great obstructions in our path. There is not a man here who does not believe that this provision is already in the Constitution. I hope, therefore, that we shall vote at once, and vote it down.

Mr. EWING: The amendment proposed, implies the existence of the right of secession, under the present Constitution. I do not believe in that, and shall therefore vote against it.

Mr. FIELD: I desire to obtain a clear vote upon this question, and not have it pass off upon any technical points. I will withdraw my amendment, and now move to amend the 7th section by striking out the whole of it, and inserting in its place the following:

“No State shall withdraw from the Union without the consent of all the States, given in a Convention of the States, convened in pursuance of an act passed by two-thirds of each House of Congress.”

Mr. GOODRICH: I do not quite like the language of the amendment, for it might seem to give the implication of a right to secede. I move the following as a substitute:

“And no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligations of obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina: There is no objection on my part against the gentleman from New York taking any course he pleases, and as much time as he likes; but I should regret extremely to have this amendment adopted, and to have the Constitution made practically to assert a right of secession. I have denied that right always in my State, in public and in private. I am aware that on this point I differ from the general sentiment of the South, and I hold there is no right of secession, and on the part of the General Government no right of coercion. I claim that a State has no right to secede, because that right is not found in the Constitution, and the theory of the Constitution is against it.

The PRESIDENT: I think the amendment of Mr. GOODRICH is not in order.

Mr. FIELD: As suggested by a friend, I will modify my motion, and state it in this way, which certainly will avoid all these objections:

“It is declared to be the true intent and meaning of the
present Constitution, that the Union of the States under it
is indissoluble.”

Mr. COALTER: Does the gentleman mean this as a substitute for the entire report of the committee, for all that we have hitherto done?

Mr. FIELD: Certainly not.

Mr. COALTER: We have not met here for any such purpose as that indicated in the present amendment. We are not here to discuss the question of secession. We are here because the Border States are alarmed for their own safety. We wish them to remain in the Union. The purpose of our consultations is to make an arrangement under which they can stay in the Union. If we do not confine ourselves to that purpose, and leave these questions alone, our differences may be submitted to a greater than any human judge. I hope, in Heaven’s name, they will not be submitted to the arbitrament of battle. No practical good whatever can come from debating this amendment. I move to lay it on the table; but if that motion will have the effect to carry the whole report on the table, I will not make it.

Mr. CRISFIELD: I shall vote against this amendment. I believe the Constitution is endowed with sufficient authority to accomplish its own preservation, and to carry into execution its own laws; and, believing so, I deny the right of secession, but the right of revolution is a natural right possessed by every people. They may revolutionize their governments when they become oppressive. The Constitution was adopted as the logical consequence of this idea. There is no use now in discussing the abstract question of secession. We must treat the present condition of the Gulf States as a revolution in fact accomplished. We must meet them fairly. I vote against this amendment, and wish to stand right upon the record. If the history of this Convention is to be written, I do not wish to be handed down to posterity as one who favors the right of secession, which I believe to be a radical error.

Mr. WILMOT: Pennsylvania is agreed in principle upon the doctrine of this amendment. I believe the whole North agrees also that the right of secession cannot be conceded, but my colleagues and myself differ essentially as to the manner in which we shall make our doctrine most effective. I think the true way is, to vote for this plain proposition, and not vote against it.

Now, all the North agrees that there is no right under the Constitution to interfere with slavery where it exists. No one has ever asserted such right, or believed in it. We are now asked to give a declaratory provision on that subject to give it in order to quiet the slave States. One of my colleagues Mr. POLLOCK was willing to give that declaratory clause, which was necessary. I went with him in that; I now ask him to go with me, not against a mere shadow, but against what is the doctrine of a large portion of the people of the slave States; a doctrine of that proportion which proposes to overthrow the Constitution of the country. It is a demoralizing doctrine. My colleague proposes to vote against it. Did my colleague believe that any one proposed to interfere with slavery in the States?

Mr. POLLOCK: No, I do not believe there was any such intention entertained by any considerable party. But there was an apprehension upon this subject in the slave States, caused by the action of a few radical men at the North. I was willing to vote for a declaratory resolution to quiet that apprehension.

Mr. WILMOT: This amendment points to something more than an apprehension. It deals with an existing fact. Seven States have already gone out of the Union, asserting that the principal allegiance of their people is to the State, and not to the General Government. I think it high time that the Constitution was made unequivocal upon this subject of secession.

Mr. PRICE: I occupy even a few minutes of time with much reluctance. Time is precious to us too precious to be used in debate. I believe in the doctrine of the gentleman from New York. That is the doctrine of my State; but I believe in a great many other things which it is not necessary to insert in the Constitution. We came here to treat a fact, a great fact. There is a Southern Confederacy there is a President DAVIS there is a Government organized within the Union hostile to the United States. I came here, as the gentleman from Illinois has said, to act as if I had never given a vote or united with a political party. I say, with my colleague, that when the country is in danger my political robes hang loosely upon my shoulders.

There is an element in this Conference which, from the first day of our session, has opposed any action. Its policy has been to distract and divide our counsels, to put off every thing, to prevent all action. How different this is from what I expected when I came here. Shall we sit here debating abstract questions when State after State is seceding? I hope not. I trust the patriotic spirit which animates a majority of this Conference will to-day send forth a proposition which will restore peace to the country. We all agree to the principle contained in this amendment; but if we adopt it and make it a part of the Constitution, we could never, under it, bring back the seceded States. They will not admit the principle. What is to be gained, then, by adopting it? Why will gentlemen insist upon propositions which will nullify our action? New Jersey occupies high constitutional ground. She is ready to do any thing that is fair, and she goes for these propositions of the majority because they are fair. She will adopt these, and I believe every State will adopt them New York as quickly as any. I do not think the gentleman properly represents the wishes of his constituents. He misrepresents them. Let us act, then, promptly, and act now. Every moment is precious. I know the trembling anxiety with which the country is awaiting our action. Do not let us sit here like the great Belshazzar till the handwriting appears on the wall. Let us set our faces against delay. Let us put down with an indignant rebuke every attempt to demoralize our action or destroy its effect.

Mr. BUCKNER: I move to amend the amendment of Mr. FIELD, by adding the following:

“But this declaration shall not be construed so as to give the Federal Government power or authority to coerce or to make war directly or indirectly upon a State, on account of a failure to comply with its obligations.”

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: I hope the gentleman from New York will withdraw his resolution. The view of this Convention is against secession, and we all know that the Union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble. We know just as well that it is not necessary to assert this principle now. It is not expedient to assert it. We want to get back the seceded States. If we are earnest in this, is it best to call them traitors? I ask the gentleman whether the rejection of his proposition will not tend to weaken the Government and the Union? It will stand as a naked vote of rejection; the reasons why we vote against it will not go before the world.

Mr. BRONSON: With the exception of a few minutes between eleven and twelve o’clock, a few nights since, I have not occupied the time or attention of the Conference. I will not now occupy but a few minutes. I came here to do something. I supposed we could accomplish something. We learned very soon after our arrival here that my colleague was opposed to any amendment of the Constitution. The same is true of several of my colleagues; perhaps a majority of them are here to do nothing. I supposed that something ought to be done to quiet the country. Instead of that an amendment is now offered asserting that we do not believe in the right of secession, that we do believe that these States which have seceded have done wrong. Suppose we do not believe in secession, what relevance has that to the present subject? Such an amendment may be used to delay or embarrass our action. There are a good many ways to defeat the project, a good many ways to suppress secession. My colleague looks to force alone. He proposes to bring back the seceded States by force. I contemplate the use of force in this connection with horror. It can never be used successfully.

We are here to agree upon something which will give peace to the country. Our committee has submitted a report which they think will accomplish that. My colleagues are skilful; they know how many ways there are to accomplish their purposes. One way to defeat any action here is by making long speeches, by loading down the propositions of amendment to the Constitution with other amendments, which will make the whole thing offensive to the country.

I stand here for my country. I would leave politics and political parties in the back ground. I would vote for nothing here which is not pertinent to the Constitution, and which will not help us in our attempts to quiet the apprehensions of our fellow-citizens. My colleague now brings forward a proposition which may be true in itself, but it is not pertinent and amounts to nothing. I am sorry he is not in his seat to hear what I have to say. He shot his arrow, and, I understand, has left for New York.

I am ready to vote down his proposition. I wish to see it voted down. I am prepared to take all the consequences of voting it down, here and elsewhere. But I have drawn an amendment myself which I offer in lieu of his. Permit me to read it:

“While we do not recognize the constitutional right of any State to secede from the Union, we are deeply impressed by the fact that this Government is not maintained by force, but by unity of origin and interest, inducing fraternal feelings between the people of different sections of the country; and our labors have been directed to the end of giving a new assurance to our brethren, North, South, East, and West, of our determination to stand firmly by all the compromises of the Constitution.”

I think we can vote for this amendment. It denies the right of secession as explicitly as the amendment of my colleague. But it has no coercion about it, and it asserts, as I understand it, the true principle upon which our Government is founded. I offer it as an expression of my own views. I have sat here for eight or ten days and have voted, except in a few instances, with the delegation from my own State. There is a bare majority of that delegation against the propositions of the committee. That majority ordinarily casts the vote of our State. I cannot express my views by my votes, and for that reason I undertake to express them in this amendment.

Mr. KING: Like my colleague, I have taken but little part in the discussions in this Conference. I cannot be justly charged with having occupied time unnecessarily, as I have spoken on but one occasion, and then very briefly. I would not speak now if I did not sincerely believe this amendment to be eminently proper for the consideration of this body.

Myself and the majority of my colleagues differ from the majority of the Conference. That difference is an honest difference of opinion. It is based upon principle. If we consulted policy only, it would give us pleasure to yield to the wishes of the majority. But our first duty is to our constituents, and we must represent their opinions here. We should do it because our opinions coincide with theirs; and it was because we entertained these opinions that we were selected to represent New York in this body. When we are called upon to vote, we shall vote to carry out those opinions; and even when we differ from some of our colleagues, we are entitled to the same consideration from this body that they are. We do not intend to be driven from our position by threats or by intimidation. We believe that it is eminently proper for this Conference to express its decided convictions upon the question of secession. We are told here that secession is a fact. Then let us deal with it as such. I go for the enforcement of the laws passed in pursuance of the Constitution. I will never give up the idea that this is a Government of the people, and possessing within itself the power of enforcing its own decrees. This I shall never do. This Conference could perform no nobler act than that of sending to the country the announcement that the union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble, and that secession is but another term for rebellion.

The gentleman from New Jersey says we misrepresent our constituents. How does he know that? Who gave him the right to place himself between our constituents and ourselves to sit in judgment upon us? He will find that statement a very adventurous one. I should know something about New York and the people of New York. I have lived in that State all my life. I have been honored by the confidence and support of my fellow-citizens. Let me assure the gentleman that I know the people of that State far better than he. We will undertake to answer to our constituents; let him answer to his.

I will occupy no farther time. I wish to live in peace and harmony with our brethren in the slave States. But I wish to put upon the record here a statement of the fact that this is a Government of the people, and not a compact of States.

Mr. PALMER: It is no part of my business or duty to vindicate the motives or conduct of the gentleman from New York, who is charged by one of his colleagues with interposing his amendment only for the purpose of delay. But that amendment meets my approval, and will have my support without regard to such imputations. Of what consequence are the gentleman’s motives to us if his motion is right and proper? Are we to be gravely told that secession and treason are not proper subjects for our consideration? To be told this when every mail that comes to us from the South is loaded with both these crimes? Sir, we have commenced wrong. The first thing we ought to have done was to declare that these were crimes, and that we would not negotiate with those who denied the authority of the Government, and claimed to have thrown off their allegiance to it. Far better would it be for the country if, instead of debating the question of slavery in reference to our Territories, we had set to work to strengthen the hands of the Government, and to put down the treason which threatens its existence.

You, gentlemen of the slave States, say that we of the North use fair words, that we promise fairly, but you insist that you will not rely upon our promises, and you demand our bond as security that we will keep them. I return the statement to you with interest. You, gentlemen, talk fairly also give us your bond! You have been talking fairly for the last dozen or twenty years, and yet this treason, black as night, has been plotted among you, and twelve years ago one of your statesmen predicted the very state of things which now exists. I am willing to give bonds, but I want our action in this respect to be reciprocal. I want your bond against secession, and I ask it because seven States in sympathy with you have undertaken to set up an independent Government have placed over it a military chieftain who asserts that we, the people of the United States, are foreigners, and must be treated with as a foreign nation.

You charged JOHN BROWN with treason. You convicted and executed him; and yet among you are thousands of men guilty of treason, beside which that of JOHN BROWN was paltry and insignificant. If we are to act at all, gentlemen, we must act upon reciprocal terms. I am willing to make every reasonable concession. Will you do the same? Will you, gentlemen of the South, declare that you will stand by the Union, and brand secession as treasonable? If you will, you must vote for this amendment.

Mr. HOWARD: I am sure no member of this Conference could have listened to the remarks of the two gentlemen who have last spoken without the deepest regret. It has been intimated here that Maryland will secede unless she secures these guarantees. I do not know whether she will or not. I know there is danger that she will.

I agree that there is no right of secession. I think that secession is revolution. But the right of revolution always exists. It has always been maintained by statesmen North and South. It was admitted by WEBSTER in his reply to HAYNE. I would read a quotation from his speech if time was not so valuable.

Yes, gentlemen, we are all in danger. The storm is raging; Virginia has hung her flag at half-mast as a signal of distress. If Virginia secedes our State will go with her, hand in hand, with Providence as our guide. This is not intended as a threat. GOD forbid! It is a truth which we cannot and ought not to conceal.

Why will not New York and Massachusetts for once be magnanimous? Why will they not follow the glorious example of Rhode Island? If they will, I should still have hope. But if those two great States are against us, I can see nothing but gloom in the future.

Mr. SMITH: I hope the true state of the question will not be lost sight of. The first question is on the motion of the gentleman from Missouri, to amend the proposition of my colleague. On that I rise to a point of order. The motion of the gentleman from Missouri is a distinct proposition, and inconsistent with that offered by Mr. FIELD.

The PRESIDENT: I do not think the point of order is well taken.

The question upon agreeing to the amendment of Mr. BUCKNER was then taken by States, with the following result:

AYES. Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and
Virginia 5.

NOES. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and
Kansas 15.

So the amendment was lost.

Mr. BRONSON: My motion is now in order as an amendment. I insist that the question should be taken upon its adoption.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: Does the gentleman propose to put this into the Constitution? If the gentleman wishes to publish it as his speech, I will agree to it.

The question on the adoption of Mr. BRONSON’S motion was taken viva voce, and the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT: The question now recurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York Mr. FIELD.

Mr. RIVES: I hope the Conference will pardon me for saying a few words upon this motion. I feel so sensibly the gravity of the consequences involved in the result of this vote, that I ask for a few minutes only in which to beseech the Conference not to act now upon a mere abstraction.

Gentlemen, what have we come here for? We have come at a time when the Government of our country is in great peril; and after a long session of diligent labor, and when we are just upon the point of arriving at the satisfactory adjustment of our differences, we have these abstract questions thrust upon us. They do not belong here. They ought not to be considered here. They would better befit a debating society than an assembly of statesmen met to consider constitutional questions. The gentleman (Governor KING) of New York announces his theory that this is a Government of the people and not a compact of the States. While I should agree with him upon his conclusions, we should differ widely as to the premises from which they are derived. It is a compact. All the authorities say so; and like any other compact, it is one from which each independent party may withdraw.

Now, what is this proposed amendment but an abstraction? In theory, the union of the States under the Constitution is indissoluble. But how is it in fact? It is now a fact that the Union is disrupted, is dissolved, because certain of the States composing it have withdrawn. But this is no time to discuss these questions. While we are talking about abstractions, we are wasting our time. I do not propose to enlarge upon the observations I have already submitted. But I beseech you, one and all, recognizing every member of the Conference as a brother of a common family, that now, after the labor of three weeks, and upon the very verge of adjustment, you should not destroy all we have done by interposing questions of this kind. Do not let us be seen engaged in the idle labor of Sisyphus. Do not let us now, just as we are about placing on the top of the mountain the block of constitutional adjustment, suffer that block to rebound. Dismiss the amendment with, I pray you earnestly, all questions of this sort, and let us proceed to the practical matters involved in the report, and its adoption.

Mr. NOYES: If my colleague who offered this amendment, was not at this time absent, I should not address the Conference at all. I should like, however, to know what possible dangerous consequence we may anticipate from the adoption of this clause. Whether this Union is a compact of the States or a Government of the people, is equally unimportant in this connection. In either case it is not to be broken up at pleasure. If it is claimed either that the right exists already if it is apprehended that the people themselves may assert the right to overthrow the Constitution and destroy the Government at pleasure we should not, by all means, pass this amendment.

The slave power has now had possession of the Government in all for more than fifty years. A President has been elected belonging to the opposing party. For that cause alone, and without claiming or assigning any other, the slave States, under the powerful protection of Virginia, have come here for guarantees. We are told, over and over again, that seven States have left the Union. There is a fact with which we have to deal. On our side, we are merely dealing with apprehensions. If you have a right to guarantees to quiet your apprehensions, have we not a right to insist that secession shall be put down and condemned by an explicit clause of the Constitution? It is this claim of the right of secession which has brought all the trouble upon the country. We are right in our claim that it should be dealt with in this Conference. If we, as delegates, should prove faithless to our trust, should yield you all the guarantees you ask, and should insist upon nothing on our side, such action would not avail you any thing.

The North and the people of the North must be satisfied upon this point. Much has been said here about the right of revolution. I do not propose to discuss that right. At all events that is not a right which depends upon the Constitution, or grows out of it. If it exists at all, it is higher than, and above all Constitutions. The statement in this amendment does not controvert the right of revolution. It is simply a statement that the Union of the States, under the Constitution, is indissoluble. I regard the adoption of this amendment as both expedient and essential.

Mr. TURNER, of Illinois: I do not think this amendment very important either way. If this is intended as a mere declaration of the purposes of the Constitution, it may be well enough. But will the assertion that such is the purpose of the Constitution preserve that instrument and the Government under it? No, sir. We may call spirits from the vasty deep; but the question is, will they come?

If the right of secession exists at all, it is not confined to the South. If it is conceded at all, it must be conceded in much broader terms in terms that are common to all the States. This amendment secures to the States no practical benefit. I protest against being bound to harmonize on all abstract questions. This is an abstraction. Gentlemen schooled in deduction could spend weeks in argument over it.

The vote was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. FIELD, and resulted as follows:

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

NOES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
and Virginia 11.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

Mr. GUTHRIE: I now submit that we ought to take the vote on the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Connecticut. I trust we are through with speeches, and hope we shall now get to some result. We may as well vote upon all these propositions within the next hour.

Mr. SOMES: I desire to move an amendment by adding the following, to be numbered

SECTION 8. “That the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall not be abridged; but that the people of any Territory of the United States shall be left perfectly free to discuss the subject of slavery.”

Mr. BRONSON: I move to lay that amendment on the table.

Mr. SOMES: Is not that motion debatable?

The PRESIDENT: It is not debatable.

The motion to lay the amendment offered by Mr. SOMES upon the table, prevailed by the following vote:

AYES. Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas 13.

NOES. Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont 5.

Thus the amendment was laid upon the table.

Mr. VANDEVER: I move to amend the report by the addition of the following section:

“The navigation of the Mississippi River shall remain free to the people of each and all the States; and Congress shall provide by law for the protection of commerce on said river against all interference, foreign or domestic.”

The importance of this proposition can be seen at once. It is one in which the whole country is interested, especially that portion of it in which I reside, which is drained by the upper waters of the Mississippi and Missouri. On this subject we have our apprehensions, and they are better founded, too, than any which I have heard from the South. We believe that our right to the navigation of this great national highway is imperilled. I submit whether we are to be cavalierly treated in this matter, and whether a subject of so much importance is to be laid upon the table? We may at all events, with perfect propriety, go this far, and make it, under the Constitution, the duty of Congress to protect the free navigation of the Mississippi River by law. We want it understood that the navigation of that river should be free and unobstructed, and that the faith of the nation is pledged to enforce that right. HENRY CLAY once stated that nothing upon earth could induce him to agree to any thing that should impede the free navigation of that river. I assert and repeat his declaration. We of the Northwest ask that this right should be guaranteed to us.

Mr. CRISFIELD: I am as anxious for the free navigation of the Mississippi River as the gentleman. I wish simply to say that it is made the duty of the people of Iowa, and of other States bounded by this river, to protect that right of navigation. But the amendment is not germane to the report of the committee. I move to lay it on the table.

The motion of Mr. CRISFIELD prevailed by the following vote:

AYES. Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New
Jersey, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia 14.

NOES. Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
and New York 6.

So the amendment was laid on the table.

Mr. BALDWIN: I move that my substitute be taken up, and ask that it may be read.

It was read as follows:

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

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

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

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

I propose to avail myself of the privilege of a short reply to the arguments against my proposition; and in order that I may occupy as little time as possible, I have reduced my reply to writing. At the risk of repeating some of the remarks I made at the opening of the discussion, I wish to recur to the facts on which my report is based.

The resolution which I have moved to substitute, recommends to the several States to unite with Kentucky in her application for the calling of a Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.

On the 28th day of January, seven days before the assembling of this Conference Convention, the Governor of Kentucky transmitted to the President of the United States the joint resolutions of the General Assembly of that Commonwealth, “recommending a call for a Convention of the United States,” with a request that the President would lay the same before Congress; and on the 5th of February, the day after the assembling of this Convention, they were, by a special message of the President, communicated to Congress, with the expression of great satisfaction in the performance of that duty, and of confidence that Congress would bestow upon those resolutions the careful consideration due to the distinguished and patriotic source from which they proceeded, as well as to the great importance of the subject which they involve. The resolution requesting the call of a Convention I have already read to the Conference.

There are, sir, but two modes provided by the people of the United States for altering the fundamental law of their Government, both of which are specified in the fifth article of the Constitution:

1. Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem
it necessary, shall PROPOSE amendments to the Constitution;
or,

2. On the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for PROPOSING amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures, or by Conventions in three-fourths of the States.

The first mode is recommended by the majority of the committee, in the expectation that Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, will propose, on the request of this Convention, for ratification by the States, the several amendments they have reported.

The second mode is the one proposed by the Legislature of Kentucky, and which, in accordance therewith, I have moved to substitute for the recommendation of the committee.

There are now but few days remaining before the termination of the functions of the present Congress. If it were within the fair scope and interest of the constitutional provision that Congress should act, in the proposing of amendments, on the recommendation of this Conference Convention, no one, I think, can reasonably expect them to consider and deliberately act on such recommendation during the few remaining days of the present Congress. Other questions, of engrossing interest, now pending before them, and the acts of necessary legislation at the close of the session, will prevent it. It must, therefore, go over to the next Congress. Assuming that during the term of that Congress the amendments recommended by this Convention shall, by two-thirds of both houses, be deemed necessary, and be proposed to the States for ratification; there would probably be no earlier final action by the requisite number of States, than in the mode proposed by Kentucky, and recommended by the resolution which I have moved to substitute for the mode of amendment reported by the committee. But the great objection, in my mind, to the mode of amendment contemplated by the majority report, is that it is not in accordance with either the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. The people of the United States intended, when they adopted the Constitution under which we have for more than seventy years enjoyed a higher degree of prosperity than has fallen to the lot of any other people, that it should remain in full force and unchanged, except in one of the two modes prescribed in that sacred instrument for its own amendment.

It is a Constitution which binds the people of every State, as the supreme law of the land, until it can be changed by the action, in the first instance, of those who are sworn to support it. No amendments can, consistently with the letter or the spirit of the Constitution, be proposed by Congress, unless two-thirds of both houses, acting under the responsibility of their official oaths, shall “deem them necessary.” No interference or pressure by any extraneous body unknown to the Constitution, was contemplated, or can be allowed with safety to the people, to impair the exercise of this function under all the responsibilities and official sanctions that properly appertain to it. The judgment of two-thirds of both houses of Congress in regard to the necessity of the amendments, must precede their proposal to the States for ratification.

The Government of the United States, in its sphere of duties, is supreme. The State Governments, when they consented to its formation by the people of the United States, surrendered so much of their separate sovereignties as was essential to its strength and efficiency. To that extent we became one people. This Government, for all national purposes, took the place of the State Governments, as well in regard to the paramount allegiance as to the duty of protection of the people of every State in the enjoyment of all their federal rights. Its powers can neither be enlarged nor diminished, except in the constitutional mode, without violating the rights of the States as well as of the people.

Any attempt from without, by combinations and associations not responsible to the people, to coerce or overawe Congress, or in any way to impair the free and deliberate exercise of its judgment in proposing amendments “as deemed necessary” by Congress, is a palpable violation of the privileges of the people. They elected the members of the House of Representatives with the intention that they should freely and deliberately, under their official oaths, propose amendments, or not, to the Constitution, as they might deem necessary, and not at the dictation of States even, who cannot themselves propose amendments, but can only require of Congress to call a Convention of all the States for that purpose. Much less can a convention of delegates from the Legislatures, or the Executive of a part only of the States a body unknown to, and unauthorized by, the Constitution assume to exercise, or dictate to Congress the exercise of this high prerogative.

WE do not represent the people of the United States. This Government, for every purpose for which it was established, is a separate, and in some sense a foreign government to the States. It operates directly on the people, and is itself their true protector in all their Federal rights.

Any number of States, less than two-thirds, have no more right to call into action the power of Congress either to call a Convention, or to propose amendments, than the individual members of their Legislatures in their private capacities; and Congress might as well, and probably would, treat our interference with their official duties as an usurpation; as much so as if we should seek to interfere with the appropriate duties of the Legislatures of Virginia or Massachusetts. And, sir, I cannot but regard it, so far as the free action of Congress should be influenced by the recommendations of this body, as in the nature of a revolutionary proceeding for which there is no sufficient cause or justification. Sir, all the States are not here represented. All have not even had an opportunity to be here. And yet we are endeavoring to influence the action of Congress in a manner which may deeply affect their interests. If, under any circumstances, a body so convened, would have a right to act upon Congress, by the expression of our opinions as a Convention of States, ought not all to have an opportunity to participate in our deliberations? Most certainly they ought.

But it is said some of the States are threatening to secede from the Union; others have seceded, and must be induced to come back, by the speedy action of Congress on the amendments recommended by the committee. Does the Constitution authorize amendments under such circumstances, with less care and deliberation than in time of peace and tranquillity?

This Government, sir, cannot recognize the fact that States have seceded. It is not a Government over States, but over the people of the United States, irrespective of the State in which they live. This Government, and not the States, protects them in their Federal rights, and requires allegiance and obedience from the people in every State, to the Constitution and laws of the United States as the supreme law of the land, any thing in the laws or ordinances of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. It is the people and not the States that are governed by that law, within the sphere of its constitutional operation.

I have said that the course proposed by the majority of the committee is, in my judgment, not only against the letter, but the spirit of the Constitution. The State of Kentucky, ever patriotic and conservative, must have so regarded it, when, instead of asking Congress to propose the amendments they desired, they requested their sister States to unite with them in an application in the mode prescribed by the Constitution to Congress to call a Convention for that purpose.

Our fathers, who framed that Constitution, and the people of the United States, who ratified it, set it forth in the preamble as their first great purpose “to form a more perfect Union.” They intended to establish thereby a Government of perpetual obligation and of self-sustaining vigor. They did not contemplate the necessity of amendments for any other causes than such as, after calm, deliberate, undisturbed consideration should be judged necessary. They did not intend that it should be exposed to the danger of hasty action under the influence of excited passions or timid and groundless apprehension. They would not trust the entire people even with the right of amendment, except in the mode prescribed, with all the delays incident to that mode; and then only by the action, in every stage of the proceeding, of persons bound by solemn oath to support it.

The Constitution, in prescribing the modes of proposing amendments, endeavored to provide against irregular combination of a part only of the States to effect them. Hence it prohibited all agreements or compacts between the States; and it made no provision for the recognition of any action by a convention, except when called on the recommendation of two-thirds of the States applying to Congress, by separate action of their Legislatures, for that purpose.

Any interference with the duty of Congress by such a body as we are, representing only a portion of the States in any form, and some of us only the executives of the States from which we come, would be as much at variance with the Constitution as with the counsel of that illustrious American I will not say Virginian for WASHINGTON belonged to his whole country in the Farewell Address which he dedicated to the people of the United States on his retirement from the public service, and which ought to be cherished in the heart of every patriot. In addition to what I have already read from that address let me read this passage:

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive to this fundamental rule, and of fatal tendency.”

Let me read it again. “All obstructions,” &c. “All combinations,” &c.

This address is replete with words of true wisdom. Let us heed them; for they are eminently adapted to the present occasion. There is no exigency which should be allowed to overawe Congress in the performance of its constitutional duties. No State intervention, no combination or association of representatives of States in a manner unknown to the Constitution, can be recognized as authoritative by those to whom, on their own responsibility, the people of the United States have conferred their national interests and the guardianship of their fundamental law. “We owe,” in the language of the illustrious statesman of Kentucky, “a paramount allegiance to the Government of the United States a subordinate one to our State.”

Sir, while I am willing to perform all my constitutional duties all my fraternal duties toward the people of every section of our common country, I, for one, feel bound to abstain from any encroachment on the duties which the Constitution of my country has delegated to others to be performed, in the modes, and with the responsibilities, which the people for their own security have deemed it proper to prescribe.

With these opinions, I should be unfaithful to my own convictions of duty, and recreant to the trust which has devolved on me as a citizen of the United States, and by inheritance from an ancestor who took a part in the deliberations of the Convention which framed our Constitution, and to whose public services, you, sir, so kindly alluded at the opening of the Conference, were I to unite with the majority of the committee in urging upon Congress the amendments they have proposed.

Entertaining as I do for the members of the committee who have concurred in that report a profound respect, it has been with a feeling of unaffected diffidence and self-distrust that I have ventured to express my sentiments on this occasion. But as I must act on my own convictions of duty, which are in harmony with those of my associates from Connecticut, so far as in the brief period which has elapsed since the report was submitted I have had opportunity to ascertain them, I felt bound to make known to the Convention the reasons which will govern my action.

The vote was then taken by States on the substitute proposed by Mr. BALDWIN, and the substitute was rejected by the following vote:

AYES. Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont 8.

NOES. Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Virginia, and Kansas 13.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

The following gentlemen disagreed to the vote of their respective
States:

Mr. BRONSON, of New York; Mr. GRANGER, of New York; Mr. DODGE, of New York; Mr. CORNING, of New York; Mr. ORTH, of Indiana; Mr. HACKLEMAN, of Indiana.

Mr. SEDDON: I suppose it is now in order for me to move my substitute for the report of the majority of the committee.

Mr. TUCK: I also have a substitute to offer. I shall not discuss it.

Mr. SEDDON: The substitute which I propose embodies the CRITTENDEN resolutions, with the modifications suggested by Virginia. These are principally confined to the first section, which is made to apply to our future as well as our present territory. I have modified the form of the substitute in several particulars, and now offer it without farther introduction. These are the amendments which I understand the delegation from Virginia is instructed to insist upon:

JOINT RESOLUTIONS

PROPOSING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES.

WHEREAS, serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas, it is eminently desirable and proper that those dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: therefore,

Resolved, by this Convention, that the following articles are hereby approved and submitted to the Congress of the United States, with the request that they may, by the requisite constitutional majority of two-thirds, be recommended to the respective States of the Union, to be, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the States, valid and operative as amendments of the Constitution of the Union.

ARTICLE 1. In all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36 deg. 30’, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory now or hereafter acquired south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress; but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance; and when any territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legislative power: and whereas it is the desire of this Convention, as far as its influence may extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore,

1. Resolved, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution of said laws.

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

3. That the act of the eighteenth of September, eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount, in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave to summon to his aid the posse comitatus, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue.

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

The substitute offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:

AYES. Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia 4.

NOES. Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Vermont, and Kansas 16.

Mr. DENT dissented from the vote of Maryland.

Mr. HOUSTON: I wish to explain the vote of Delaware. She has endorsed the CRITTENDEN resolutions. She would accept the mode of adjustment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia. She has adhered to her opinions as long as she thinks it fit or expedient to do so. Under these circumstances Delaware feels it her duty to vote for the report of the majority. As we desire to harmonize conflicting opinions, and to arrive at a fair settlement, we have voted against Mr. SEDDON’S amendment.

Mr. CRISFIELD: Like Delaware, Maryland prefers the CRITTENDEN plan of adjustment. That we think is now impossible. But that plan does not differ very widely from the report of the majority. Certainly not enough to warrant us in risking the Union, when we can get the one and cannot have the other. For this reason Maryland votes “No” on Mr. SEDDON’S proposition.

Mr. CLAY: I gave notice some days ago that I should offer as a substitute the CRITTENDEN resolutions pure and undefiled without the crossing of a “t” or the dotting of an “i.” I now offer them as follows, and demand a vote by States:

WHEREAS, the Union is in danger; and owing to the unhappy divisions existing in Congress, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for that body to concur, in both its branches, by the requisite majority, so as to enable it either to adopt such measures of legislation, or to recommend to the States such amendments to the Constitution as are deemed necessary and proper to avert that danger; and whereas, in so great an emergency, the opinion and judgment of the people ought to be heard, and would be the best and surest guide to their representatives: Therefore,

Resolved, That provision ought to be made by law, without delay, for taking the sense of the people, and submitting to their vote the following resolutions as the basis for the final and permanent settlement of those disputes that now disturb the peace of the country and threaten the existence of the Union.

And that whereas serious and alarming dissensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights and security of the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States; and whereas, it is eminently desirable and proper that those dissensions, which now threaten the very existence of this Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions, which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States: Therefore,

Resolved, That the following articles be, and hereby are, proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States:

ARTICLE 1. In all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36 deg. 30’, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited, while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress; but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance; and when any Territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of representation of the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new States may provide.

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

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

ARTICLE 4. Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by the sea; and the right of transit by the owners with their slaves in passing to or from one slaveholding State or Territory to another, between and through the non-slaveholding States and Territories, shall be protected.

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

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

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

SEC. 2. The United States shall have power to acquire, from time to time, districts of country in Africa and South America, for the colonization, at expense of the Federal Treasury, of such free negroes and mulattoes as the several States may wish to have removed from their limits and from the District of Columbia, and such other places as may be under the jurisdiction of Congress.

And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legitimate power; and whereas it is the desire of this Convention, as far as its influence may extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions: Therefore,

1. Resolved, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt, by rescue of the slave or other illegal means, to hinder of defeat the due execution of said laws.

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

3. That the act of the eighteenth of September, eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount, in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrant for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave to summon to his aid the posse comitatus, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance, or danger of resistance or rescue.

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

The question on agreeing to said amendment resulted in the following vote:

AYES. Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Virginia 5.

NOES. Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont 14.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. DENT: I desire to dissent from the vote of Maryland.

Mr. EWING: I desire to record the vote of Kansas in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: Leave will be given unless objection is made.

Mr. TUCK: I hold in my hand a substitute which I propose to offer for the report of the committee. I know all the delegates have made up their minds how to vote, and what to vote for. Argument now will amount to but little. But I submit this as indicating to a certain extent the views of the minority here. I shall make no farther remarks, but shall pass it to the Secretary, and I hope the Conference will be patient for five minutes while it is read.

The proposition of Mr. TUCK was read as follows:

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES:

On the 4th day of February, 1861, in compliance with the invitation of the State of Virginia, commissioners from several other States met the commissioners of that State in Conference Convention, in the City of Washington. From time to time, commissioners from other States appeared, appointed as were those who first appeared, some by the Legislatures, and some by the Governors of their respective States, until, on the 23d instant, twenty-one States were then represented. The Convention thus constituted claims no authority under the Constitution and laws; but deeply impressed with a sense of existing dissensions and dangers, proceeded to a careful consideration of them and their appropriate remedies, and having brought their deliberations to a close, now submit the result to the judgment of their fellow-citizens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3d. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land, to which every citizen owes faithful obedience; and it is therefore respectfully recommended to the Legislatures of the several States to consider impartially whatever complaints may be made of acts as inconsistent therewith, by sister States or their citizens, and carefully revise their statutes, in view of such complaints, and to repeal whatever provisions may be found to be in contravention of that supreme law.

4th. Resolved, That this Convention recommend to the Legislatures of the several States of the Union to follow the example of the Legislatures of the States of Kentucky and of Illinois, in applying to Congress to call a Convention for the proposing of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, pursuant to the fifth article thereof.

Mr. CHASE: I have not thought it best to occupy much of the time of the Convention in discussing the propositions presented for its decision. I have indeed been impressed with an idea that a decision upon these propositions just now may be premature.

I have already stated to the Conference that the delegates from Ohio act under resolutions of the General Assembly of that State, one of which requires them to use their influence in procuring an adjournment of this body to the 4th of April next. It is the wish of that State that opportunity may be given for full consideration of any constitutional amendment that may be proposed here, and especially to avoid precipitate action under apprehensions of resistance to the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN on the 4th of next month.

I have already submitted resolutions in accordance with the views of the Legislature, and intended, at the proper time, to ask a vote upon the proposed adjournment. On consultation with my colleagues, however, I find a majority of them averse to postponement; and, in view of the fact that the resolution of the Legislature is not imperative in its terms, and especially in consideration of the assurances constantly given here by delegates from slaveholding States that, whatever may be the result of our deliberations, no obstruction or hindrance will be opposed to the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN, I have determined to forbear urging a vote.

Upon the respective merits of the propositions of the committee, and the proposed amendments, I have not much to say. But what I do say will be said in all seriousness.

I do not approve the confident pledges made here of favorable action by the people of either section, or of any State, upon whatever propositions may receive the sanction of this Conference. The people of the free States, so far as my observation goes, do not commit their right of judgment to anybody. They generally exercise it themselves, and be assured they will exercise it freely upon any proposition coming from this body. Whatever our actions may be here, every proposition to amend the Constitution must come before the people. They will discuss it, and must adopt it before it can become a part of the fundamental law. Dismiss, then, the idea that all that is necessary to secure amendments acceptable to a particular interest or section is to secure for them the sanction of a majority in this hall.

The result of the national canvass which recently terminated in the election of Mr. LINCOLN has been spoken of by some as the effect of a sudden impulse, or of some irregular excitement of the popular mind; and it has been somewhat confidently asserted that, upon reflection and consideration, the hastily-formed opinions which brought about that election will be changed. It has been said, also, that subordinate questions of local and temporary character have augmented the Republican vote, and secured a majority which could not have been obtained upon the national questions involved in the respective platforms of the parties which divide the country.

I cannot take this view of the result of the Presidential election. I believe, and the belief amounts to absolute conviction, that the election must be regarded as the triumph of principles cherished in the hearts of the people of the free States. These principles, it is true, were originally asserted by a small party only. But, after years of discussion, they have, by their own value, their own intrinsic soundness, obtained the deliberate and unalterable sanction of the people’s judgment.

Chief among these principles is the restriction of slavery within State limits; not war upon slavery within those limits, but fixed opposition to its extension beyond them. Mr. LINCOLN was the candidate of the people opposed to the extension of slavery. We have elected him. After many years of earnest advocacy and of severe trial, we have achieved the triumph of that principle. By a fair and unquestionable majority we have secured that triumph. Do you think we, who represent this majority, will throw it away? Do you think the people would sustain us if we undertook to throw it away? I must speak to you plainly, gentlemen of the South; it is not in my heart to deceive you. I therefore tell you explicitly that if we of the North and West would consent to throw away all that has been gained in the recent triumph of our principles, the people would not sustain us, and so the consent would avail you nothing. And I must tell you farther, that under no inducements whatever will we consent to surrender a principle which we believe to be so sound and so important as that of restricting slavery within State limits.

There are some things, however, which I think the people are willing to do. In all my relations with them, and these relations have been somewhat intimate, I have never discovered any desire or inclination on the part of any considerable number, to interfere with the institution of slavery within the States where it exists. I do not believe that any such desire anywhere prevails. All your rights have been respected and enforced by the people of the free States. More than this: even your claims have been enforced, under repulsive circumstances, and, in my judgment, beyond right and beyond constitutional obligation. When and where have the people of the free States, in their representatives, refused you any right? When and where have they refused to confer with you frankly and candidly when you imagined your rights to be in danger? They have been, and still are, patient and forbearing. They do not believe that you need any new constitutional guarantees. You have guarantees enough in their voluntary action. But, since you think differently, they send us hither to meet you, to confer with you, to consider the questions which threaten the Union, to discuss them freely and decide them fairly.

Now, gentlemen, what do we ask of you? Do we ask any thing unreasonable in the amendment which has been submitted? We simply ask that you say to your people that we of the free States have no purpose, and never had any purpose, to infringe the rights of the slave States, or of any citizen of the slave States. And that our devotion to the Government and the Constitution is not inferior to that of any portion of the American people. By uniting with us in the declaration we propose, you tell your people at home that no considerable party, that no considerable number of persons, in the free States, has any wish or purpose to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists, or with any of your rights under the Constitution. You can say this with absolute truth, and with entire confidence. In all the action of the delegates who favor this amendment, in all our private consultations, every heart has been animated by a most anxious desire to maintain the Union and preserve the harmony of the Republic. No word has been uttered indicating the slightest wish to avoid any obligation of the Constitution, or to deprive you of any right under it. All concur in desiring to give effect to the Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance of it. The same sentiments animate the people of the free States. Congress has declared, with the almost unanimous concurrence of the members from the free States, against national interference with slavery in the slave States. The Chicago Convention most emphatically asserted the same doctrine. It has been reiterated over and over again by the Legislatures of the free States, and by great and small conventions of their people. Is it, then, too much to ask you to unite with us in a declaration that all fears of aggression entertained by your people are groundless? Such a declaration will go far to insure peace; why not make it?

You profess to be satisfied with slavery, as it is and where it is. You think the institution just and beneficial. The very able gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SEDDON), who commands the respect of all by the frankness and sincerity of his speech, has said that he believes slavery to be the condition in which the African is to be educated up to freedom. He does not believe in perpetual slavery. He believes the time will come when the slave, through the beneficent influences of the circumstances which surround him, will rise in intelligence, capacity, and character, to the dignity of a freeman, and will be free.

We cannot agree with you, and therefore do not propose to allow slavery where we are responsible for it, outside of your State limits, and under National jurisdiction. But we do not mean to interfere with it at all within State limits. So far as we are concerned, you can work out your experiment there in peace. We shall rejoice if no evil comes from it to you or yours. [Mr. CHASE’S time having expired, he was unanimously invited to proceed.]

Aside from the Territorial question the question of slavery outside of the slave States I know of but one serious difficulty. I refer to the question concerning fugitives from service. The clause in the Constitution concerning this class of persons is regarded by almost all men, North and South, as a stipulation for the surrender to their masters of slaves escaping into free States. The people of the free States, however, who believe that slaveholding is wrong, cannot and will not aid in the reclamation, and the stipulation becomes therefore a dead letter. You complain of bad faith, and the complaint is retorted by denunciations of the cruelty which would drag back to bondage the poor slave who has escaped from it. You, thinking slavery right, claim the fulfilment of the stipulation; we, thinking slavery wrong, cannot fulfil the stipulation without consciousness of participation in wrong. Here is a real difficulty, but it seems to me not insuperable. It will not do for us to say to you, in justification of non-performance, “the stipulation is immoral, and therefore we cannot execute it;” for you deny the immorality, and we cannot assume to judge for you.

On the other hand, you ought not to exact from us the literal performance of the stipulation when you know that we cannot perform it without conscious culpability. A true solution of the difficulty seems to be attainable by regarding it as a simple case where a contract, from changed circumstances, cannot be fulfilled exactly as made. A court of equity in such a case decrees execution as near as may be. It requires the party who cannot perform to make compensation for non-performance. Why cannot the same principle be applied to the rendition of fugitives from service? We cannot surrender but we can compensate. Why not, then, avoid all difficulties on all sides, and show respectively good faith and good will by providing and accepting compensation where masters reclaim escaping servants and prove their right of reclamation under the Constitution? Instead of a judgment for rendition, let there be a judgment for compensation, determined by the true value of the services, and let the same judgment assure freedom to the fugitive. The cost to the National Treasury would be as nothing in comparison with the evils of discord and strife. All parties would be gainers.

What I have just said is, indeed, not exactly to the point of the present discussion. But I refer to this matter to show how easily the greatest difficulties may be adjusted if approached in a truly just, generous, and patriotic spirit.

I refer to it also in order to show you that, if we do not concede all your wishes, it is because our ideas of justice, duty, and honor forbid, and not because we cherish any hostile or aggressive sentiments. We will go as far as we can to meet you come you also as far as you can to meet us. Join at least in the declaration we propose. Your people have confidence in you. They will believe you. The declaration, made with substantial unanimity by this Conference, will tranquillize public sentiment, and give a chance for reason to resume its sway, and patriotic counsels to gain a hearing.

Do you say that after all what we propose embodies no substantial guarantees of immunity to slavery through the perversion of Federal powers? We reply that we think the Constitution as it stands, interpreted honestly and executed faithfully, is sufficient for all practical purposes; and that you will find all desirable security in the legislation or non-legislation of Congress. If you think otherwise, we are ready to join you in recommending a National Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution in the regular and legitimate way. Kentucky, a slave State, has proposed such a Convention; Illinois, a free State, has joined in the proposition. Join us, then, in recommending such a Convention, and assure us that you will abide by its decision. We will join you and give a similar assurance.

This, gentlemen, is the proposition we make you to-day. It is embodied in the amendment just submitted. Is it not a fair proposition? It is a plain declaration of facts which cannot reasonably be questioned, and a plain submission of all disputed questions to the only proper tribunal for the settlement of such questions that of the American people, acting through a National Convention.

The only alternative to this proposition is the proposition that the present Congress be called upon to submit to the States a thirteenth article embodying the amendments recommended by the committee. In order to the submission of these amendments to the States by Congress, a two-thirds vote in each House is necessary. That, I venture to say, cannot be obtained. Were it otherwise, who can assure you that the new article will obtain the sanction of three-fourths of the States, without which it is a nullity? As a measure to defeat all adjustment, I can understand this proposition. As a measure of pacification, I do not understand it. There is, in my judgment, no peace in it. Gentlemen here, of patriotism and intelligence, think otherwise. I am sorry that I cannot agree with them.

Gentlemen say, if this proposition cannot prevail, every slave State will secede; or, as some prefer to phrase it, will resort to revolution. I forbear to discuss eventualities. I must say, however, and say plainly, that considerations such as these will not move me from my recognized duty to my country and its Constitution. And let me say for the people of the free States, that they are a thoughtful people, and are much in earnest in this business. They do not delegate their right of private judgment. They love their institutions and the Union. They will not surrender the one nor give up the other without great struggles and great sacrifices. Upon the question of the maintenance of an unbroken Union and a whole country they never were, and it is my firm conviction they never will be divided. Gentlemen who think they will be, even in the worst contingency, will, I think, be disappointed. If forced to the last extremity, the people will meet the issue as they best may; but be assured they will meet it with no discordant councils.

Gentlemen, Mr. LINCOLN will be inaugurated on the 4th of March. He will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of the whole of all the United States. That oath will bind him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed throughout the United States. Will secession absolve him from that oath? Will it diminish, by one jot or tittle, its awful obligation? Will attempted revolution do more than secession? And if not and the oath and the obligation remain and the President does his duty and undertakes to enforce the laws, and secession or revolution resists, what then? War! Civil war!

Mr. President, let us not rush headlong into that unfathomable gulf. Let us not tempt this unutterable woe. We offer you a plain and honorable mode of adjusting all difficulties. It is a mode which, we believe, will receive the sanction of the people. We pledge ourselves here that we will do all in our power to obtain their sanction for it. Is it too much to ask you, gentlemen of the South, to meet us on this honorable and practicable ground? Will you not, at least, concede this to the country?

The question on agreeing to said amendment resulted in the following vote:

AYES. Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont 9.

NOES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
and Virginia 11.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. WILMOT: I wish now to offer an amendment which embraces an unconditional proposition for the call of a Convention.

Mr. BRONSON: This has been voted down already.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: What changes do you gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Ohio wish to make in the report of the committee? Would you adopt that report in a General Convention?

The PRESIDENT: The Chair rules that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania is not in order.

Messrs. WILMOT, CHASE, CORNING, and BRONSON then entered their dissents from their respective States upon the substitute offered by Mr. TUCK.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: I hope now that we may be permitted to take the vote at once upon the report of the majority.

Mr. REID: Before this vote is taken, I deem it my duty to myself and my State to make a remark.

I came here disposed to agree upon terms that would be mutually satisfactory to both sections of the Union. I would agree to any fair terms now, but the propositions contained in the report of the majority, as that report now stands, can never receive my assent. I cannot recommend them to Congress or to the people of my own State. They do not settle the material questions involved; they contain no sufficient guarantees for the rights of the South. Therefore, in good faith to the Conference and to the country, I here state that I cannot and will not agree to them.

Mr. CLEVELAND: If the gentlemen from the South, after we have yielded so much as we have, assert that these propositions will not be satisfactory to the slave States, I, for one, will not degrade myself by voting for them.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: I insist now upon taking the vote.

The PRESIDENT: The rules of the Conference do not require the vote to be taken upon this proposition by sections.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: We have not heretofore adhered to the rules. Let us vote then on the whole as a proposition, and not by sections.

Mr. SEDDON: I think we should take the vote by sections. It is certainly within the discretion of the President to rule that the vote may be so taken. The rules do not apply to an article which is composed of many sections. We certainly should vote upon them separately.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH: I desire now to get the amendment which I have proposed once more before the Conference. I move to amend by adding to the first section a clause which shall provide that

“The rights of the slave States shall be protected by all
the departments of the territorial government during its
continuance.”

By the section as it now stands, the rights of the North are absolute; those of the South should be equally clear. It is true that the section contains a distinct recognition of the relation of master and slave, but this recognition is in negative terms. It is certainly the duty of the territorial legislature and government to protect these rights wherever they are invaded. If this is so, why not declare it in the provision?

Mr. WILMOT: I desire to ask whether this proposition is in order.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH: I insist that it is. I assert the existence of certain rights, and I want these rights protected under the Constitution. Rights without remedies are anomalies of which the law knows nothing.

Mr. WILMOT: I feel constrained to oppose any amendment of this kind.

The PRESIDENT: The Chair is inclined to rule this amendment as not in order.

Mr. RUFFIN: Before the final vote is taken, I wish to say a word by way of explanation. My colleague says he cannot vote for the report of the committee because he does not approve the whole of it. I do not like the first article, but the report as a whole is a great improvement upon the Constitution as it now stands. I think the report ought to go before the people. If we can secure what the report proposes, we are certainly no worse off. I wish to submit it to my people, and thus have them to judge for themselves whether they will adopt it.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina: I would not say a word were it not for the words that have fallen from my colleague Governor REID. I came here to try to save the Union. I have labored hard to that end. I hope and believe the report of the majority, if adopted, will save the Union. I wish to carry these propositions before the people. I believe that the people of North Carolina and of the Union will adopt them. Give us an opportunity to appeal to the generosity of the people of the whole Union. Certainly no Southern man can object to submitting these propositions to the popular vote.

Mr. LOOMIS: I am content to vote for the first article.

Mr. CARRUTHERS: I only desire to say for my State that if you will give us these propositions, Tennessee will adopt them, and it will sink secession beyond any hope of resurrection.

Mr. BARRINGER: I cannot say that I am gratified with the display which I have just witnessed in these appeals from the Conference to the people. We come here to deal with facts, not theories. I do not speak with the confidence of some with respect to the action of some of the people. I know the people of the South, and I tell you this hollow compromise will never satisfy them, nor will it bring back the seceded States. We are acting for the people who are not here. We are their delegates that have come here, not to demand indemnity for the past, but security for the future. This is my opinion. You will see whether I am right or not. We could stand upon the CRITTENDEN proposition or the Virginia alternative. With Virginia in our favor we could have stood upon either. You, gentlemen of the North, might as well have consented to either as to the report which is now presented. I desire the preservation of the Union; I would go for this scheme if that would accomplish it. But it will not. There is great force in the statement of the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. CHASE, in which he says there is no importance to a scheme which goes from this Conference to the States only by a majority of one or two States. If one or two States only, which are here, reject this compromise, it will be rejected entirely. Once more I say it would have been better for all to have stood upon the Virginia alternative.

Mr. STOCKTON: I have not much to say, sir. I rise with a sadness which almost prevents my utterance. I was born at Princeton. My heart has always beat for the Union. I have heard these discussions with pain from the commencement. Shall we deliberate over any proposition which shall save the Union? The country is in jeopardy. We are called upon to save it. New Jersey and Delaware came here for that purpose, and no other. They have laid aside every other motive; they have yielded every thing to the general good of the country.

The report of the majority of the committee meets their concurrence. Republicans and Democrats alike, have dropped their opinions, for politics should always disappear in the presence of a great question like this. Politics should not be thought of in view of the question of disunion. By what measure of execration will posterity judge a man who contributed toward the dissolution of the Union? Shall we stand here and higgle about terms when the roar of the tornado is heard that threatens to sweep our Government from the face of the earth? Believe me, sir, this is a question of peace or war.

In the days of Rome, Curtius threw himself into the chasm when told by the oracle that the sacrifice of his life would save his country. Alas! is there no Curtius here? The alternative is a dreadful one to contemplate if we cannot adopt these propositions and secure peace. It is useless to attempt to dwarf this movement of the South by the name of treason. Call it by what name you will, it is a revolution, and this is a right which the people of this country have derived in common from their ancestors.

Mr. GUTHRIE: I now move that we proceed to take the vote, and propose to take it upon the first section of the report of the majority.

Mr. ELLIS: I move so to amend the rule that when the report is taken up each section and each distinct proposition shall be voted on separately.

The PRESIDENT: I think this motion is out of order, and the question will be taken on the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky for the adoption of the first section, which the Secretary will now read.

SECTION 1. In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of 36 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 involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such State may provide.

The question on agreeing to said section resulted as follows Indiana declining to vote:

AYES. Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee 8.

NOES. Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont,
and Virginia 11.

And the section was not agreed to.

The following gentlemen dissented from the votes of their respective States: Mr. RUFFIN and Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina; Mr. TOTTEN, of Tennessee; Mr. COALTER and Mr. HOUGH, of Missouri; Mr. BRONSON, Mr. CORNING, Mr. DODGE, Mr. WOOL, and Mr. GRANGER, of New York; Mr. MEREDITH and Mr. WILMOT, of Pennsylvania; Mr. RIVES and Mr. SUMMERS, of Virginia; Mr. CLAY and Mr. BUTLER, of Kentucky; and Mr. LOGAN, of Illinois.

The vote was taken in the midst of much partially suppressed excitement, and the announcement of the vote of different States occasioned many sharp remarks of dissent or approval. After the vote was announced, for some minutes no motion was made, and the delegates engaged in an informal conversation.

Mr. TURNER finally moved a reconsideration of the vote.

Mr. GRANGER: To say that I am disappointed by the result of this vote, would fail to do justice to my feelings. I move that the Conference adjourn until half-past seven o’clock this evening. I think it well for those gentlemen from the slave States especially, who have by their votes defeated the compromise we have labored so long and so earnestly to secure, to take a little time for consideration. Gentlemen we have yielded much to your fears, much to your apprehensions; we have gone to the very verge of propriety in giving our assent to the committee’s report. We have incurred the censure of some of our own people, but we were willing to take the risk of all this censure in order to allay your apprehensions. We expected you to meet us in the path of compromise. Instead of that you reject and spurn our propositions. Take time, gentlemen, for reflection. Beware how you spurn this report, and incur the awful responsibility which will follow. Reject it, and if the country is plunged in war, and the Union endangered, you are the men who will be held responsible.

Mr. President, I have been deeply pained at the manner in which some gentlemen have here spoken of the possible dissolution of this Government. When, perchance, the rude hand of violence shall here have seized upon the muniments and archives of our country’s history; when all the monuments of art that time and treasure may here have gathered, shall be destroyed; when these proud domes shall totter to their fall, and the rank grass wave around their mouldering columns; when the very name of WASHINGTON, instead of stirring the blood to patriotic action, shall be a byeword and a reproach then will this people feel what was the value of the Union!

The motion to reconsider was then adopted by a vote of 14 ayes to 5 noes, and the Conference adjourned to seven o’clock and thirty minutes this evening.

EVENING SESSION EIGHTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, February 26th, 1861.

The Conference was called to order pursuant to adjournment by the
President.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: I hope after some of the informal consultations which have been held since the adjournment of the Conference this afternoon, that we may yet be able to bring our minds together, and to adopt the propositions recommended by the committee. It is, however, certain that the vote had better not be taken this evening. I therefore move an adjournment until ten o’clock to-morrow morning.

The motion to adjourn was agreed to; ayes 17, noes 3, and the
Conference adjourned.