Part 36
Mr. GROESBECK:--I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary. Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within the District cannot be taken from the owner under any authority of Congress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensation would in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, or elsewhere. Under the Constitution, slavery cannot be abolished without compensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in the subject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolish slavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner.
Mr. SEDDON:--The owner should always have compensation, it is true; but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property in slaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalent for the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself the question whether he will part with his property upon receiving suitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this right would be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is a farther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The North denies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensation also, unless compelled to make it under the Constitution. The North holding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolish the institution without paying for it.
Mr. GROESBECK:--I am willing to amend Section 4 of the substitute I offer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relation without making compensation, and the section may be thus considered.
Mr. DODGE:--I wish to support the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK; and let me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; we should use language which common men can understand, and which does not require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have some confidence in each other.
Mr. BARRINGER:--There is another entire and important omission in Mr. GROESBECK'S proposition: there is no provision whatever for the Territories.
Mr. DENT:--I think the Conference had much better adhere to the section reported by the committee as it has been already amended. We have all read and studied that section. We understand it. A State that will not adopt the whole of the section will not adopt any part of it, and so there is no use in severing the subjects provided for. I am opposed to the adoption of the substitute. We understand the original article better than we can any other.
Mr. WILMOT:--I think the original proposition the best; the word "regulate" has been struck out of it, leaving only the words "impair or abolish."
Mr. McCURDY:--I ask leave to revive my motion. I regret having withdrawn it. I think I have the right to renew it now.
The PRESIDENT (Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair):--The motion of the gentleman from Connecticut is out of order.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I understand we are now considering the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. GROESBECK). If so, I move to insert in his proposition after the word "abolish" the words "or impair."
Mr. GROESBECK:--I think the amendment improves it. I will accept it.
Mr. CHASE:--There is, certainly, a misunderstanding as to the effect of the vote laying the amendment offered by Mr. HITCHCOCK upon the table: it was offered as a substitute to the third section; if it did not carry the whole section to the table, then motions to amend that section are in order. In that view, I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is in order either way: to amend the article proposed by the committee, or to amend the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK.
Mr. RANDOLPH:--I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is entirely out of order; it has once been passed by informally.
Mr. CLEVELAND:--Is it not in order at any time to make a motion which will render the proposed substitute more perfect?
Mr. McCURDY:--I do not wish my proposition ruled out upon any technical construction of rules. I will now move it as an addition to the third section.
Mr. FOWLER:--I move to reconsider the vote adopting the motion proposed by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. HALL).
Mr. FIELD:--I oppose the motion. The amendment is both proper and necessary. It can certainly do no harm to the South; and if the South wishes to be fair, it will not object to it.
Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I oppose the reconsideration of the vote adopting Mr. HALL'S amendment, and I will state very shortly the reason why. If the doctrine is to be established here, that the report of the committee is too sacred to be touched--too perfect to be made subject to amendment--let us know it. It will relieve myself, and I think many others, from farther attendance here; and I wish to say now, that if we are to sit here, such considerations must not be presented in future.
Mr. FOWLER:--I will withdraw my motion.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I certainly wish some one would renew the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment. I do not like to do it myself, but I think if that amendment were reconsidered, we would fix upon some terms that would be satisfactory to all sides.
Mr. AMES:--I do not see the necessity for adopting Mr. McCURDY'S proposition. I think it amounts to nothing. It is simply a prohibition in the Constitution against the exercise of a right which no one wishes to exercise. I oppose it because it is unnecessary.
Mr. McCURDY:--I certainly do not wish to insist upon an unnecessary amendment. If the third section, as reported by the committee, is adopted, it declares that the right of transportation, &c., _shall exist_. Under this, if no amendment is adopted, slaves may be bought and sold in any of the waters of the free States.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--What difficulty or damage does the gentleman propose to obviate by his amendment?
The PRESIDENT:--The Chair has already decided that the proposition of Mr. McCURDY is not in order.
Mr. CHASE appealed from the decision of the Chair, and upon the appeal the decision was sustained.
Mr. FIELD:--I understand this decision cuts off both the amendments offered by Mr. HALL and Mr. McCURDY; that compels us to vote against the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK.
Mr. CHITTENDEN:--The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. HALL, has been accepted. It stands as the order of the Conference, and cannot be rescinded except by a vote. I sustain the decision of the Chair, because, by every rule of parliamentary law, it was correct. But one thing farther. It is now perfectly in order to move Mr. McCURDY'S proposition, or any other, as an _addition_.
The PRESIDENT:--Most clearly so.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not discover any particular objection to the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK. If it had been reported by the committee, I should have preferred it; but the South is willing to take the section as it stands, and prefers the original to any substitute.
Mr. NOYES:--I am against the substitute, for it destroys the effect of the amendments offered by Messrs. HALL and McCURDY.
The vote was then taken upon Mr. GROESBECK'S amendment, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, and Indiana--7.
NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas--12.
And it was rejected.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I feel that my mission here is ended, and that I may as well withdraw from the Conference. I seem to be unable to impress gentlemen with the necessity of accomplishing any thing. The report of the committee is not satisfactory to the South; it is even doubtful whether they will adopt it; certainly they will not, if it is cut to pieces by amendments. I may be compelled to sacrifice my property, or go with the secessionists. At my time of life, I do not wish to do either.
Mr. McCURDY:--I regret that my amendment produces so much feeling, but I think, at all events, we should prevent the sale of slaves in the free States; it should be prevented beyond any possibility. I renew the offer of my amendment.
Mr. EWING:--If the laws of New York will permit the sale of slaves within the limits of that State, then we should prohibit the sale in the Constitution as proposed; but so long as that State has power to pass a law prohibiting it, there is no necessity for the amendment. The owner is only permitted to touch with his slaves, under certain circumstances, at the ports of free States.
Mr. RUFFIN:--It is impossible that slaves can be sold in a free State under the section reported by the committee. We propose to give the right of touching at those ports as a privilege, but we give no right of sale there. The laws of a free State could not be evaded in this way. Each State is supreme within its own limits; that supremacy would not be aided by this proviso.
Mr. TURNER:--Suppose a slave owner is compelled to stop at the port of Cairo, through stress of weather or any other cause, and he dies there, are his slaves set free by his death? Does not the law of actual domicil prevail? I think they will be regarded as slaves, and that under this provision they might be administered upon and sold as a part of his estate.
Mr. POLLOCK:--I think we may obviate all difficulty by inserting after the words "landing in case of distress," the words "but not for traffic or sale."
Mr. TUCK:--I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is not proper or best to encumber these propositions with amendments that are not necessary.
Mr. LOGAN:--Every State has the right to regulate transit within its own limits to suit itself. The proposed amendment gives no rights except such as are expressly named: "a right, during transportation, of touching at the ports, and of landing in case of distress." The right of the State to regulate transit is left unimpaired.
Mr. HOWARD:--There is one principle of law which will settle this question at once: property that is held under State laws must be transferred by the operation of State laws alone. Slaves are held and transferred by the specific laws of the States in which they are held.
Mr. PALMER:--The right of sale cannot possibly arise out of the right to touch during transportation at a port, or the right to land in case of distress. I cannot see the slightest occasion or necessity for the adoption of Mr. McCURDY'S amendment.
Mr. McCURDY'S amendment was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and Iowa--7.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--14.
Mr. POLLOCK'S amendment was then adopted without a division.
Mr. VANDEVER:--I wish to propose an amendment by way of proviso:
"_Provided_ nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent any State from prohibiting the introduction as merchandise of persons held to service or labor, or to prevent such State from prohibiting the transit of persons so held to service or labor through its limits."
Mr. FIELD:--This does not cover Mr. McCURDY'S proposition at all. Is there any secret purpose here to bring into the Constitution a provision which will permit the sale of slaves in free States? If there is not, why not say plainly that the States shall have the exclusive right to determine who shall and who shall not cross its borders, and what shall be the subject of sale or traffic within them?
Mr. GUTHRIE:--The States have all the powers which are not expressly delegated under the Constitution to be exercised by Congress. Congress has no power, except such as are expressly conferred upon them. The power to prohibit the sale of slaves rests somewhere. It has not been conferred upon Congress; it must remain in the State.
Mr. SMITH:--The argument of the gentleman from Kentucky seems to me very inconsistent with his report in other respects.
Mr. HOWARD:--The Border States are trying to get back the seceded States. We hope they will come back. We expect the adoption of this report to offer a strong inducement to them to return to the Union. It will not offer such inducement if its general effect is ruined by amendments.
The vote upon Mr. VANDEVER'S amendment resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and Iowa--7.
NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Kansas--14.
So the amendment was not agreed to.
Mr. CLAY:--I have already stated that the State of Kentucky is prepared to adopt the CRITTENDEN amendment; that amendment will be satisfactory to the Border States. The longer we remain here the more I become satisfied that the CRITTENDEN amendment will meet with more general favor than any other; therefore I ask the consent of the Conference to introduce the CRITTENDEN amendment as a substitute for the committee's report.
The consent of the Conference was not given to Mr. CLAY'S proposition.
Mr. GROESBECK:--I move to amend the third section by inserting after the words "in case of distress shall exist," the words "but not the right of transit in any other State or Territory without its consent."
We must certainly do something to cover this difficulty; if we omit the subject entirely, we shall leave much opportunity for cavil on this question when the question goes to the people.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I move to amend the amendment by substituting in place of the words "without its consent," the words "against its dissent."
Mr. GROESBECK:--I will accept the amendment.
The amendment of Mr. GROESBECK was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio--10.
NOES.--Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois--8.
Mr. ALEXANDER, of New Jersey, dissented from the vote of that State.
Mr. GRANGER moved that when the Conference adjourn it adjourn to half-past seven o'clock this evening.
The vote upon Mr. GRANGER'S motion was taken by States, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--13.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri--6.
So the motion was adopted.
On motion of Mr. CHASE the Conference adjourned.
* * * * *
EVENING SESSION--SEVENTEENTH DAY.
WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _February 25th, 1861._
The Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair.
Mr. SMITH, of New York:--I move that a committee of two be appointed by the PRESIDENT to arrange for the printing of the Journal.
The motion of Mr. SMITH was adopted, and the PRESIDENT appointed as such committee, Mr. SMITH, of New York, and Mr. HOWARD, of Maryland.
The Conference then proceeded to the consideration of the order of the day, being the third section of the article reported by the committee.
Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I move to amend the third section by striking out the words "or Territory of the United States," occurring after the words "within any State."
I think we shall make the amendment more satisfactory by limiting the prohibition to States alone; still leaving the power in Congress to be exercised in conformity with the other provisions that regulate slavery in the Territories.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I have the same objection to this as to other amendments. It may not be important, but I do not want to commence by adopting amendments at all.
The question was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. HITCHCOCK, and was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Kansas--10.
NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--9.
Mr. SUMMERS:--I now desire to call up for consideration the amendment proposed by myself on the evening of the 23d instant. The state of the case is this: Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, moved an amendment to my proposition, which was accepted; my amendment was then rejected by a vote of the Conference, and on the 25th the Conference reconsidered the vote by which the amendment was rejected. I will not now repeat what I said, when the amendment was offered, in favor of its adoption. I would only call the attention of gentlemen to the remarks I then made, and say in addition, that I earnestly hope the Conference will now adopt the amendment. It will make the proposition much more acceptable to the South, and, certainly, not more objectionable to the North. The amendment is offered to the second section, and is as follows:
"No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty."
The amendment of Mr. SUMMERS was adopted by the following vote:
AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12.
NOES.--Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas--6.
The PRESIDENT:--No further amendment being offered to the second and third sections, the Conference will proceed to the consideration of the fourth section of the report, or any amendments proposed to that section.
None being proposed, the Conference proceeded to the fifth section.
Mr. SEDDON:--I move to strike out the whole of the section. It has been heretofore stated, on behalf of the North, when this section was under consideration, that its adoption was not desirable, inasmuch as existing laws, properly enforced, amount to a sufficient prohibition of the slave-trade. If the North does not desire it, the South does not. I hope the Conference will consent to strike it out.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I think it very important to retain this section; it can, certainly, do no harm. We all agree, North and South, that the foreign slave-trade should not be revived.
The amendment offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:
AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--4.
NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17.
Mr. BRADFORD:--I move to amend the fifth section by inserting after the words "slave-trade," the words "by citizens of the United States."
In proposing amendments to the Constitution, it seems to me improper that we should attempt to bind any but our own citizens. The adoption of the section in this form would seem to imply that we undertook to prohibit the slave-trade in other countries and among citizens of other countries. I desire to see it prohibited, but wish to have the constitutional provision expressed in appropriate terms.
Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I object to this amendment. It would nullify the operation of the section entirely. There are in the United States thousands of persons who are not citizens, but who, under such a provision of the Constitution, would revive the slave-trade and infuse into it a vigor which it never before possessed. It would be better to have no section at all than to permit such an amendment as this. The amendment can bear but one construction. It is intended to prohibit the slave-trade by our own citizens, and expressly to permit it by those who are not citizens.
Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment.
Mr. BRADFORD:--I do not desire to embarrass the action of the Conference, and I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. JAMES:--I move to amend this section by striking out the following words: "from places beyond the limits thereof."
The object of this amendment is apparent, and does not need explanation.
The amendment of Mr. JAMES was agreed to by the following vote:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kansas--17.
NOES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3.
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move that the vote just passed striking out the words "from places beyond the present limits thereof," be rescinded.
I think the action of the Convention in passing this vote was hasty, and not taken upon due consideration. It may be an important question to determine, what are "the present limits thereof." Upon one construction it might prohibit the bringing of slaves from the States which have seceded and left the Union; upon another construction, which assumes that these are still in the Union and does not recognize their secession, it would not cut off the trade between those States and the others. I do not like to have such a question raised.
Mr. BACKUS:--I am against this reconsideration. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose, in this Conference, to recognize the secession of the States at all. I deny the legal power of a State to withdraw itself from the Union without the consent of the others. And beyond this, I do not think the question is raised as the gentleman asserts.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I think the clause is better as it is. By striking out the words "from beyond the present limits thereof," we do not establish any territorial limitation. And whether these States come back or not, no question of territory is raised. But if this reconsideration is carried, and the seceding States do not return to the Union, they will retaliate upon us. In the event of their continued secession we cannot get back from those States those of our slaves who are now temporarily there. We may wish to bring back those slaves, and some of our people may wish to carry ours there.
Mr. GRANGER:--I hope this vote will not be reconsidered. The argument of Judge RUFFIN is conclusive.
Mr. COALTER:--This is likely to be a troublesome question any way. Why not leave it as we have to leave many others--to the discretion of Congress? We certainly do not wish to adopt a provision which will cut off the traffic in slaves between the Gulf States and the others. Nobody is in favor of that, and I am at a loss how to manage this question. The negroes are a portion of the families of Southern men. They are regarded as such in all the transactions of life. Those families may at times become separated. A portion of them may now be in the seceded States, and a portion farther North. Again, it often happens that during one season of the year the planter, with his family and slaves, lives upon the plantation in the Gulf States; and at another season, removes with his family and slaves to a plantation farther North. We do not wish to obstruct a relation or proceeding of this kind. This is not a mere matter of dollars and cents. It is one involving the happiness of families. The blacks themselves are interested in it. I think it better to let the section stand as it does, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of Congress.