A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Part 46

Mr. SEDDON:--Where in the article do you find this right recognized?

It simply prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery within certain limits. Nothing beyond that.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I find the recognition pervading the whole report. The right of transportation, for instance, is secured. Does not that involve, of necessity, a recognition of the right of property? I am sure the South is safe in leaving this question where the report leaves it.

Mr. HOUSTON:--We feel disposed to adhere firmly to the report of the committee. We know the arduous labor they have bestowed upon the subject, and feel that we ought to be satisfied with the result. We do not wish to have our friends put us in a false position. We shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, not because we do not think it is right on principle, but because we think it is unnecessary. The right of property in slaves is protected now wherever that property goes.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I admit that the policy of the Government hitherto has been as the gentlemen claim. If the South could have been satisfied with that, we should never have been sent here--this Convention would never have been called. But we have come together for the reason that we fear the established policy of the Government will be changed by the party now coming into power. We ask for a.s.surances that the old policy should be continued; and we wish to have the obligation to continue it, written down in the bond.

The Chair restated the question, and Mr. SEDDON called for a vote by States.

The vote upon Mr. SEDDON'S amendment resulted as follows:

AYES.--Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Missouri--4.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17.

And the amendment was lost.

Messrs. BUTLER and CLAY, of Kentucky; Messrs. DONIPHAN and JOHNSON, of Missouri; Messrs. HOWARD and DENT, of Maryland, dissented from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. SEDDON:--I now move the following amendment of the same third section. After the words "in case of distress, shall exist," insert the following:

"And the rights of transit by persons holding those of the African race to labor or service, in and through the States not recognizing the relations of persons held to labor or service, in pa.s.sing with them from one State or Territory recognizing such relation, to another, shall be secure."

I only wish to say in reference to this amendment that it secures a right specifically referred to in the resolutions of Virginia under which this Conference is called. On that account I feel bound to offer it, but I will not occupy time in its discussion.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--In the early years of our Government this right was extended by courtesy to the slaveholding States. Since these differences have sprung up, in some States it has been denied--in others, the courtesy still exists. We considered this question thoroughly in committee. We did not wish to put any thing into our report that would operate to excite the prejudices of any section against it, and so lessen the chances of its being adopted. We thought it best not to insert such a provision. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SEDDON:--I call a vote by States.

The amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:

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

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17.

Mr. SEDDON:--One more amendment. I move to amend the third section as follows: after the words "by the laws thereof touching," insert the words "the relations existing between master and slave or."

I shall not detain the Conference for five minutes in the discussion of this amendment. I wish, however, to have the words "master and slave" somewhere inserted in this article, in plain English language, so that the dangerous delusion so prevalent at the North, that the Const.i.tution does not recognize slavery, may be thoroughly and forever removed; so that the Const.i.tution shall, beyond any question, recognize the relation of master and slave; a duplex relation--a relation of person and property. I wish to meet that question fairly and squarely. Let it be thoroughly understood as a relation of person and property. This is what we ask, and this is what we insist upon.

Put this into the Const.i.tution, and you take the shortest and the most effective means of settling the question, and of promoting peace and tranquillity. You strike the axe to the very root of bitterness, whence has sprung all our trouble, all our difficulties. I ask a vote by States.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--What I have already said applies with equal force to this amendment. I will not repeat my objections.

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

AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--18.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--Maryland votes "No," not because she specially objects to the amendment, but she stands by the report of the committee.

Mr. DENT:--I dissent from the vote of Maryland.

Mr. CLAY:--And I from the vote of Kentucky.

Mr. ALEXANDER:--[5]

[Footnote 5: The published Journal states that Mr. ALEXANDER dissented from the vote of New Jersey. My notes do not show that he dissented, and I think the Journal may be erroneous in this particular.]

Mr. HALL, of Vermont:--I move to amend the third section by striking out the word "nor," immediately succeeding the words "persons so bound to labor," and inserting the following:

"But the bringing into said District of persons held to service, for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pa.s.s all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor shall Congress have."

It is well known that much of the agitation upon the question of slavery has formerly arisen from the existence of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. Since the prohibition of 1850, the public mind has been much more quiet, so far as this subject is concerned. I suppose the committee did not intend to change the law of 1850, but I fear their action will not be so understood at the North. I propose to make the matter clear. [Mr. HALL here read the section of the Act of 1850 referring to this subject.] My amendment puts the language of this act into the Const.i.tution. My only purpose is, to have this question left in exactly its present position. Without the amendment, I fear it will be claimed that the article restores the slave-trade in this District. Nothing would more effectually destroy the article at the North.

Mr. WHITE:--The language of the report is clear. It gives no right to sell slaves in the District.

Mr. HALL:--I wish to be understood. The article prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery. _Ergo_, it will be claimed they cannot prohibit the exercise of any of its functions. The construction, to say the very least, will be doubtful. It should not be left in doubt.

Mr. NOYES:--The slave-trade in the District of Columbia has always been a subject of great dissatisfaction. I don't know that it is considered of much importance in the South, but at the North it always has been. Ten years ago it was abolished by act of Congress. I fear that unless the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont is adopted, the effect of the committee's report will be to restore the slave-trade in the District. The section reported by the committee permits any person to bring his slaves into the District; to retain them there as long as he chooses, and to take them away. It recognizes the right of absolute dominion. It secures it effectually. It imposes upon the soil of the District the right of holding, retaining, and taking away the slaves by the owner himself, his agent or a.s.signee.

The slave-trade, in my judgment, is thus restored.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am satisfied that the article reported by the committee is not susceptible of misconstruction, and I hope we shall not mar the report by adopting the amendment. Our intention was only to permit public officers to bring their servants here.

Mr. AMES:--Two words will cure all this difficulty. The insertion of the words "for personal service only."

Mr. GUTHRIE:--We have no intention of reviving the slave-trade in the District. I have no more to say.

Mr. DODGE:--I hope this section will not be left in doubt. When I first read it I said to myself, "This thing will never do; it will bring the slave-trade back to the District."

Mr. AMES:--Will the gentleman from Vermont accept my amendment?

Mr. HALL:--No. I cannot accept it. I offer the amendment in good faith, for I believe it necessary.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--Cannot we avoid the verbiage of the amendment?

Mr. EWING:--I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont, so that I can vote for that proposed by Mr. AMES.

The vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment being taken by States, resulted as follows:

AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--11.

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

And the amendment was adopted.

Messrs. HOPPIN and BROWNE, of Rhode Island, dissented from the vote of that State.