Chapter 62

_Fourth:_ That the Convention never "decided that no person could vote who was not present." Whatever was done, was done between the delegation and Mr. Tyler. No order was taken by the Convention, but, on the contrary, the objection on the part of the minority of the delegation was that "the Convention had no control or authority in the matter."

What caused this departure from the course of proceedings prescribed by the resolution does not clearly appear. The delegation did not rescind the resolution; the Convention did not reverse it. I do not understand that my associates consider it a nullity--certainly they could not have so considered it when it was passed. I have not sufficient evidence that they changed their minds within ten minutes, or that they have changed them yet. That the resolution was not a nullity, but an authoritative act, binding upon every member of the delegation, until duly reconsidered, I believed then, and believe still.

I submit, therefore, that my reason for attending court, at its opening, was not only sufficient but imperative; and if I had not yielded to it, I should have incurred the reproach of my clients, and the censure of all right-thinking men; that before I left the Convention, I did not only all that could have been done, but all that was necessary, to make the vote of New York certain against the proposed amendments of the Constitution; and that the omission to record the vote of New York as it was ordered, was owing not to any act or omission of mine, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some of them, to prevent an expression of the opinion of the majority, and to the failure of my associates of the majority to execute in my absence what had been resolved when I was present.

It is certainly with regret that I write this note. My preference was for a statement in which we all could join, but my associates refused to enter into any joint relation of the facts.

I hope, also, it will not be inferred from any thing I have written, that I do not regret the omission to record New York as voting against what appeared to me an unwise and pernicious proposition. Though the importance of the vote has been greatly magnified, and the result in my opinion would not have been different if the vote of New York had been counted, as I believe some of the States not voting would, if necessary, have voted in the affirmative; and even if it had been otherwise, I think the action of the Convention was of no importance whatever; yet, I should wish this State, of which we are so proud, to appear always, even in a matter of ceremony, on the side of Freedom; ever loyal to the Constitution as it is, but against placing there a guaranty to slavery beyond the guarantees of our fathers.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

NEW YORK, _March 20th, 1861._

* * * * *

I.--_Extract from the Minutes of the New York Delegation, kept by their Secretary._

"WEDNESDAY, _February 27th, 1861._

"New York delegation met in the room, and Mr. Wadsworth moved that the New York delegation vote No on each of the sections of the committee's report. Messrs. Corning, Bronson, Granger, Wool, and Dodge opposed, urging that the vote of New York be given on each section as it was called. The majority overruled, and decided to have the Chairman declare that New York voted No on each section.

"The question on the first section being called, Mr. King stated that one of the members of the delegation being called away to the United States Court, the delegation had taken a vote before he left, and he appealed to the justice of the Convention to have it so cast, stating that the vote of the delegation had been so cast on the previous day.

"The Convention decided that no person could vote who was not present.

"The delegation was divided."

* * * * *

II.--_Letter from the Chairman of the Massachusetts Delegation._

"WASHINGTON, _March 8th, 1861._

"MY DEAR SIR:--Your favor of the 6th instant is before me. After alluding to the fact that 'my seat in the Peace Convention was at the table directly under the President's chair, between him and the New York delegation,' you desire me to inform you what took place, on the occasion of the vote of New York being called on the morning of the 27th February. What I observed was this:

"When the vote of New York was called for, Governor King rose and stated in substance that you had a short time before left the Convention to argue a case in the Supreme Court, which had been assigned for that morning, and asked the permission of the Convention to give the vote of the State in your absence, the same as though you were present. To this one of the Commissioners, Mr. Corning I think it was, objected, saying that the vote of New York was to be given as her Commissioners who were present should decide, and that the Convention had no control or authority in the matter. Some conversation was then had between the Commissioners who favored and those who opposed the pending proposition, which I did not hear with sufficient distinctness to understand, and in a minute or two Governor King announced that the vote of New York was divided.

"This is the substance of what occurred, so far as I observed it.

"With great respect, your friend,

"J.Z. GOODRICH.

"To David Dudley Field, Esq., New York."

* * * * *

III.--_Letter to the Secretary of the Convention._

"NEW YORK, _March 4th, 1861._

"DEAR SIR:--Was any resolution passed by the Convention on Wednesday, the 27th of February, respecting the right of New York to vote, or affecting the vote of that State in the absence of any of her Commissioners? On one side I am told that there was such a resolution passed, or vote taken, in my absence; on the other side, I am told that there was not. If one was passed, will you do me the favor to give me a copy of it, and oblige

"Yours truly,

"DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, Esq., &c., &c."

* * * * *

IV.--_The Secretary's Answer._

No. 135, WILLARD'S, WASHINGTON, _March 5th, 1861._

"DEAR SIR:--I have your letter. When New York was called, the inquiry was made whether an absent member could vote, stating that one member of that delegation was absent. The President stated that an absent member could not vote. New York was stated divided, and did not vote.

"Respectfully, &c.,

"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT."

* * * * *

V.--_Extract from the Journal of the Convention._

"_February 27th, 1861._

"The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the following vote:

"YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9.

"NAYS.--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--8.

"So the section was adopted.

"On calling New York, the members stated that one of their number was absent, and the delegation were divided. Inquiry was made of the President whether an absent member could vote. The President decided he could not, without general leave.

"New York, Indiana, and Kansas were divided."

* * * * *

_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_

The undersigned beg leave to submit a reply to the statement of Mr. D.D. Field, to the report of the majority of the Commissioners to the Conference Convention at Washington, respecting his absence on the final vote in that body, on the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The fact of his absence is admitted by Mr. Field, and attempted to be defended at great length, but Mr. Field has omitted to state that, by the 14th Rule of the Convention, "no member should be absent from the Convention, so as to interrupt the representation of the State, without leave." Mr. Field neither asked nor obtained leave of absence, and hence, under the rule, he failed to discharge his duty, both to the Convention and his colleagues. Mr. Field does not state that he made any application to the court for a temporary postponement of his case, in view of the important vote then about to be taken in Convention. But, on the contrary, argues to show that his duty to his client was paramount to his duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question involving constitutional principles. After Mr. Field had stated, in the presence of his colleagues in the Convention, that he was obliged to go immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States, he was urged by those who agreed with him in opinion, to remain, and give the vote of the State against the proposed amendments, and was repeatedly told that his absence would divide the vote; this was so stated to him, by the minority of the Commissioners, and that it would be so claimed by them before the Convention. He refused to remain, and with the full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the question about to be taken, he left the Convention, and thus defeated the vote of his State. We who remained in our places, felt deeply the embarrassment, and the remarks which were made in consequence of Mr. Field's withdrawal. We had steadily, up to that time, sustained with him, our own, and what we believed to be the sentiment of the State, in favor of freedom, and were, therefore, entirely unprepared for such a determination on his part. Nor is our surprise lessened by the manner and the certificates by which he has at great length attempted to defend his course on this occasion. The vote of New York was not declared until after the vote which had been previously taken in its delegation had been stated, nor until an appeal had been made to the Convention, and refused by its President, to enable his colleagues to protect its vote in the absence of the Chairman of the delegation. By his absence the vote of New York stood 5 to 5, and it was under the decision of the Convention alone, that the vote was declared to be divided. Mr. Field has stated that the omission to record the vote of New York against the amendments was not owing to any act or omission of his, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some of them, to prevent the expression of the opinion of the majority. The objection was made after notice to him that it would be made, and the Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost by his absence. Nor is the opinion of Mr. Field entitled to consideration when he imputes to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was afterwards rendered null, by his absence. They did adhere to it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been previously agreed to. Mr. Field states, and truly, that his colleagues refused to unite in a joint relation of the facts of the case. They refused, because they were not satisfied with his course, and would not be responsible for it in any way. Up to the moment of his leaving the Convention, Mr. Field had manifested great zeal and ability in sustaining and defending the principles which a majority of the delegation desired to advocate, and his failure at the last, and decisive vote, was as unexpected as it was indefensible.

JOHN A. KING, WM. CURTIS NOYES, A.B. JAMES, JAS. S. WADSWORTH, JAS. C. SMITH.

NEW YORK, _March 28th, 1861._

* * * * *

_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_

Informed by the newspapers of this morning that five of my associates in the Peace Convention, after waiting nearly three weeks, made yesterday to the Legislature a communication purporting to be an answer to the note which I thought it my duty to append to the report, explaining why the vote of New York was not given at a particular time, I beg leave to submit the following in reply:

I do not perceive that my associates impugn a single statement of fact contained in my note. My engagement in Court, the importance of the engagement, the necessity for my keeping it, the meeting of the delegation in contemplation of it, their resolution directing how the vote should be cast in my absence, the neglect so to cast it, are all, by silence, admitted. Nor do I perceive any denial of the proposition that the delegation had a right to pass the resolution, which thus became binding on all its members until reconsidered and reversed.

Perhaps I ought to make one exception to this use of admissions. My associates apparently wish to have it believed, yet hesitate to assert, that the Convention made a decision respecting the right to vote. In one place they say, "that an appeal had been made to the Convention, and refused by its President;" in another, that "it was under the decision of the Convention alone that the vote was declared to be divided;" and in a third, that the objection of the minority was made after notice to me that it would be made, and the "Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost," by my absence. They should have reflected that there could have been no "decision of the Convention" if the appeal to it was "refused by its President." The truth beyond question is, that although my associates imagined that the Convention decided something, it did in fact decide nothing.

My associates say further, that I argue to show that my duty to my client was paramount to my "duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question involving constitutional principles." This is an idle calumny. My note can be read as well as theirs; and in general will be read by the same persons, and there is not a word in it to justify or excuse their assertion. I never thus argued. I claimed that I had two duties to perform, and that I performed both. I did not claim that my duty to my State was subordinate to any other duty whatever.

When my associates assert that their Chairman left the Convention "with full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the vote about to be taken," if they mean that I knew or supposed that they intended to reverse their own action, or that Mr. King would not announce the vote as it had been resolved, or would declare the vote divided, or that they would support him in it, or that the Convention would overrule the delegation, then they assert what they could not know to be true, and what is not true in fact. My note sets forth what I was told, and what I replied.

My associates argue that I failed to discharge my duty, because I did not obtain leave of the Convention before going into the Supreme Court. Though I do not remember to have heard before of leave granted by a deliberative body to a member to go out for half an hour, or for one or two hours, I will observe, by this Convention absence was expressly allowed, if it did not "interrupt the representation of the State." My associates do indeed claim that, when I left the hall, the State ceased to be represented, ten Commissioners only remaining behind. The argument of this strange position appears to be, that a State is not represented when its vote can be divided, and that the vote of New York was divided. Here is a double fallacy. To say that the vote was divided, begs the question. It was not divided so long as the resolution passed by the delegation remained valid, and its validity is not denied. The other part of the proposition is equally fallacious. A State is represented when there are in the body delegates authorized to represent it, whatever be their number. The arguments of my associates seem to be, that a State could only be represented in the Peace Convention by odd numbers, and that if it sent eight or ten representatives, it would have no representatives at all.

But what shall I say to the following sentences:--"Nor is the opinion of Mr. Field entitled to consideration, when he imputes to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was afterwards rendered null by his absence. They did adhere to it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been previously agreed to." Would any one imagine that the authors were speaking of a vote, given in expectation of my absence, and to determine what should be done when I was away? The vote was taken because I was to be absent, and directed the Chairman how to act in that event, but it is nevertheless pretended that the moment I became absent, the vote became null. They might better have said that the vote would have become null, or rather that there would have been no occasion for it in case of my continued presence. Then they say that they adhered to it. How did they adhere? The resolution directed the Chairman to cast the vote in the negative. He did not obey the resolution. His associates and mine did not insist that he should. Nobody prevented his answering "no," when the vote was called. No reason has ever been given for his not so answering. That he should instead have entered voluntarily into a discussion with Mr. Tyler on the subject, and that his associates should have looked quietly on, can only be accounted for by supposing them indifferent or bewildered.

It is not an agreeable task to write thus of old friends; but I must defend myself when attacked, and defence cannot always be made pleasant to an assailant.

My late friends profess to think me responsible for the loss of the vote of New York on a certain occasion. I think them responsible for it. Which side is right the Legislature and the people of the State will judge.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

NEW YORK, _April 11th, 1861._

* * * * *

_Report of a Minority of the Commissioners of New York._

IN SENATE, _March 25th, 1861._

The undersigned, constituting a minority of the Commissioners, appointed by the Legislature of the State of New York, under resolutions responsive to those of the State of Virginia, referred to in the report of the majority of the Commissioners of said State of New York, admitting the correctness of the record of the proceedings presented by said majority, but differing from them in much of the reasoning which they present, respectfully report:

That they entered upon the duties assigned to them, earnestly desiring to carry out the patriotic spirit of said resolutions as therein expressed, which said original resolutions are herein embodied as a part of this report:

NEW YORK.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners from this State to meet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation of Virginia._

WHEREAS, the State of Virginia, by resolutions of her General Assembly, passed the nineteenth instant, has invited such of the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States as are willing to unite with her, to meet at Washington, on the fourth of February next, to consider, and if practicable, agree on some suitable adjustment of our national difficulties; and whereas, the people of New York, while they hold the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, as it is, contains all needful guarantees for the rights of the States, are nevertheless ready, at all times, to confer with their brethren upon all alleged grievances; and to do all that can justly be required of them to allay discontent; therefore,

_Resolved_, That David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S. Wadsworth, James C. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, Addison Gardner, Greene C. Bronson, Wm. E. Dodge, Ex-Governor John A. King, and Major-General John E. Wool, be and are hereby appointed Commissioners on the part of this State, to meet Commissioners from other States, in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of February next, or so soon thereafter as Commissioners shall be appointed by a majority of the States of the Union, to confer with them upon the complaints of any part of the country, and to suggest such remedies therefor as to them shall seem fit and proper; but the said Commissioners shall at all times be subject to the control of this Legislature, and shall cast five votes to be determined by a majority of their number.

_Resolved_, That in thus acceding to the request of Virginia, it is not to be understood that this Legislature approve of the propositions submitted by the General Assembly of that State, or concede the propriety of their adoption by the proposed Convention. But while adhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, New York will not reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringing together the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an honorable settlement of our national difficulties, and the restoration of peace and harmony to the country.

_Resolved_, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the Executives of the several States, and also to the President of the United States, and to inform the Commissioners without delay of their appointment.

_Resolved_, That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the honorable the Senate, with a request that they concur therein.

The foregoing resolutions were passed in the House of Assembly by a vote of seventy-three ayes to thirty-nine noes, and in the Senate by a vote of nineteen to twelve, those in the negative, in both Houses, being all members of the dominant party, and those in the affirmative composed of the members of the opposition, and of those Republicans who were supposed to be prepared to meet the State of Virginia and other sister States, in the spirit of the resolutions adopted by the States of Virginia and New York.

A single point in the record, to which reference has been made, requires some consideration before proceeding to the reasoning of a majority of the Commissioners upon the propositions finally adopted by the Convention. The majority of the Commissioners state that most of said majority were opposed to the submission by the Convention of any amendments of the Constitution of the United States at the present time, and in the present excited state of the public mind.

Not only was that ground assumed by a majority of the New York Commissioners, but some of their number argued with great ability against the danger of touching that sacred instrument, consecrated by memories so dear to every patriot heart.

The propositions, presented as amendments, were clear and distinct--their adoption would in no manner disturb the general harmony of the Constitution; yet, strangely enough, to an ordinary mind, the majority of the Commissioners who found such danger in adopting the specific amendments proposed, voted with a united action for a General Convention to remodel the entire Constitution--exposed to all the hazards that must attend such a Convention--by whose action a form of government might be presented, in which could not be found a single trace of that Constitution for which they professed such high veneration.