discussion about the merits of any of these propositions before the
Senate, nor do I intend to do so now. I shall reserve what I may have
to say to another occasion. I shall not occupy the time of the Senate
now. I shall vote against this motion, because, while I feel I do no
injustice to others, I must necessarily exercise my own opinions. I
consider the resolution passed by the House of Representatives as not
worth the paper on which it is written, for the purpose of adjusting
the difficulties in this country. I shall not detain the Senate by any
attempt to give the reasons. Sufficient for me to state the ground of
my objection, why I shall not vote to give preference to a resolution
which, as it stands, I think will lead to no attainable result as
regards peace or quiet in the country. As regards the other
propositions, for which it is sought to be substituted, I express no
opinion now, except to say, they are not exactly those that I should
have preferred; but that I would gladly and willingly vote to adopt
the distinct resolutions offered originally by the Senator from
Kentucky. As to attaining a vote and disposing of this House
resolution at once, of course, as I do not attach any importance to
the measure, if passed, for the purpose for which it is to be passed,
that would be a sufficient answer; but further, it will not stop
debate, and it cannot prevent amendments. Amendments may be made; one
substitute after another may be offered, and you can be led into
debate quite as much as on the other. I would rather see the other
proposition discussed; and on the whole, not thinking the particular
resolution of the House entitled to preference as being of any great
importance, I am not disposed to give it precedence.
Mr. SEBASTIAN, in speaking on the House resolutions, said: "It is now
past four o'clock in the morning of the 4th of March, and it is
evident, from obvious causes, that it is utterly impossible that any
expression of preference for any other resolution than this can now
have any effect, or receive even the notice of the House of
Representatives."
At different stages of the proceedings of the Senate, in proposing and
voting in relation to various amendments, the following among other
things said and done, occurred with reference to the Report of the
Peace Conference:
Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas:--I beg leave to offer as an amendment, and I
presume it will be the last, the propositions submitted by the Peace
Conference. I offer them not with a belief that they will be accepted
or sustained at all. I should be glad to see even that step taken by
the party who are to have, and who, in point of fact, do have
possession of this Government. I offer them for the purpose of
obtaining a vote upon them. I offer them, stating frankly that I shall
not vote for them. I offer them with the conviction that there is
between the Representatives on the other side of the Chamber, and
those on the southern side, an irreconcilable difference; and it ought
to be proclaimed, and it ought to be made frank and unmistakable. I
offer it because it evolves truth. There is nothing left here to this
Senate, on this the last night of the session, but this: to declare to
the American people what is true, in order that they may know it, and
may prepare themselves to meet it; that they may prepare, if they can,
to reconcile it with peace, or to reconcile it to themselves; to stand
by all the sorrowful consequences that shall otherwise come. This is
the reason why I present this amendment. I believed when I voted for
them that the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky were fair,
were just to the people of the South, and to my own State among that
number; and it is but honest that I should say now in presenting this
amendment, that I consider these propositions a thousand fathoms
beneath the propositions of the Senator from Kentucky.
It is in that condition that I offer this amendment. I hope Senators
will have the courage and the nerve, if they have faith in and regard
for their constituents, to whom they have taught their doctrines
heretofore, to adhere to them and to stick to them now; and while they
will vote against this amendment, I will stand by them also and vote
against it, as one person who for fourteen years has represented his
State in one or the other branch of this Congress. In saying this, I
say it as the last act of my political life, and it is one upon which
I put my faith, and on which I would put the last hope I have on
earth. I know from the bottom of my soul that I am not averse to the
continuation and the preservation of the present Union of States,
which I have always considered sanctifies the continent of North
America to peace and to prosperity forever. I feel from the bottom of
my heart that whenever it shall be divided, it will be given up, from
petty causes, and from petty irritations and misapprehensions, to the
contingencies of war and the contingencies of blood and disaster,
which have followed the divisions and separations of every other
continent in the whole wide world.
Then, Mr. President, I offer this amendment from the conviction that
common honesty of purpose, and the common frankness of men of nerve
and of honor, will give us one vote to show that there is among us an
irreconcilable difference, or that will give hope to those who, like
the Senator from Kentucky, it seems to me, can hope against hope, that
there is something to be done. I cannot believe that any thing is
gained by this resolution. I cannot conceive that the proposition of
the House gives security to my people. I will not stop to comment upon
it, and to show why it is that I cannot vote for it. I sincerely hope
that we may have a vote of the Senate upon the amendment I now offer;
and I call for the yeas and nays upon it.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:--I wish merely to repeat again, before the
yeas and nays are called on this amendment, that I shall vote against
this, as I have voted against all preceding amendments, with the
distinct understanding that I am not committed for or against any
proposition contained in those amendments. I hope we shall vote them
all down.
Mr. DOUGLAS:--I will merely state that when we have disposed of this
resolution, I hope we shall take up the Peace Conference propositions
immediately, and get through with them.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRITTENDEN (when his name was called):--I desire to say that,
although preferring this amendment, I shall vote against it, as I have
against all others, in order to pass it as it came to us from the
House.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Arkansas:--I should like to have made a further
explanation; but I will not do it. I vote "nay."
The result was then announced--yeas 3, nays 34; as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Foot, Nicholson, and Pugh--3.
NAYS.--Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bigler, Bingham, Bright,
Chandler, Clark, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas,
Durkee, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harlan, Hunter, Johnson
of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, King, Latham,
Mason, Morrill, Polk, Rice, Sebastian, Sumner, Ten Eyck,
Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilkinson, and Wilson--34.
So the amendment was rejected.
Other amendments--of which some were approved and some rejected--were
offered to the joint resolutions, and, finally, the proposals of
amendments to the Constitution from the Conference Convention were
again brought forward in this manner:
Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I intend to be perfectly consistent in my course on
this subject. I look upon the result of the deliberations of the Peace
Congress, as they call it here, as affording the best opportunity for
a general concurrence among the States and among the people. I
determined to take it in preference to my own proposition, and so
stated to many of the members of that Convention. I now propose the
propositions agreed to by them as a substitute for my own.
I came here this morning, without the least expectation of any vote
being taken on this proposition of mine. It has never been in a
condition before where I was prepared to offer amendments to it. I had
amendments which I intended to propose, not intending to make material
changes, as I supposed, in substance and effect, but changing the
phraseology, particularly of the first article, in which I propose to
substitute an amendment, to declare merely that the _status_ of
persons held to servitude or labor under the laws of any State shall
continue with the laws thus unchanged, as long as the Territory
remains under a territorial government; and when it forms a
constitution, to come into the Union as a State, to be received with
or without slavery. All my papers and the amendments which I prepared
are at my room, not here. That is the condition of the thing.
Mr. HUNTER:--The resolution stands now as several States have
instructed for it, and I hope we shall have a vote on it.
Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I now move to substitute the resolutions of the Peace
Convention. I have declared that I would do this; that I would abandon
my own resolutions, and take that proposed by the Peace Conference.
Mr. HUNTER:--Then I call for the yeas and nays on the amendment of the
Senator from Kentucky.
The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Does the Chair understand the Senator from
Kentucky to offer as an amendment to the resolution now before the
Senate, the resolution of the Peace Conference?
Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Yes, sir.
Mr. HUNTER:--That is an amendment, and on that I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I wish to say a word in explanation; of course I
shall make no speech at this hour. I have examined the propositions
offered by that Convention; they contain, in my judgment, every
material provision that is contained in the resolution called the
CRITTENDEN resolution. The resolution that I offered contained nothing
substantial that has not been adopted by the Convention, except in one
particular, and that particular is this: they reject so much of the
resolution offered by me as embraced future acquired territory. They
said it was enough to settle in regard to the territory we now hold;
and they have substituted a provision which, I think, ought to be
perfectly satisfactory, as to acquisition of future territory. They
say none shall be acquired, unless it be by a two-thirds vote of the
Senate, which two-thirds vote shall include a majority of the Senators
from the slaveholding States, as well as a majority of the Senators
from the North. That gives ample security to the South; it gives ample
security to the North. No territory can be acquired without the
approbation of both sections of the Union, and having this in their
power, they can then make any previous arrangement in regard to
slavery that they please, before the acquisition of territory. That is
the way they dispose of future acquisitions. I prefer it to the
disposition made in the resolutions which I submitted to the Senate. I
therefore offer them, and for other reasons: out of deference to that
great body of men selected on the resolution of Virginia, and invited
by Virginia herself. The body having met, and being composed of such
men, and a majority of that Convention concurring in these
resolutions, I think they come to us with a sanction entitling them to
consideration; therefore I have moved them.
Mr. GWIN:--I hope the substitute will not be adopted. The very reason
the Senator has given in favor of it, with reference to the
acquisition of future territory, I think should be the cause of its
being voted down. I am sure Senators from Northern States should not
vote for such an amendment as this; because the first acquisition, if
we get any at all, will be the very kind of acquisition that the
Northern States want. It is well known that if we had had the same
counsels in 1854 that we had in 1803, we should have acquired the
whole Russian Pacific territory to Behring Straits. If THOMAS
JEFFERSON had been President, we should have got the whole of the
Pacific possessions of Russia, as we got Louisiana from France, on the
same principle; and I believe the first acquisition of territory we
shall get will be the Russian possessions to Behring Straits. I hope
this amendment of the Constitution will not be voted for by those who
are in favor of acquiring territory, especially which will give us
such important advantages on the Pacific Ocean. I am utterly opposed
to restricting all acquisition hereafter; especially on the Pacific
coast of the United States, both north and south. I hope this
amendment will be voted down.
Mr. DOUGLAS:--I was exceedingly anxious to get a separate and distinct
vote, first on the Peace Conference propositions, and then on the
CRITTENDEN proposition, as perfected by the Senator from Kentucky. I
have announced several times to-night, that that was my purpose; but
after what the Senator from Kentucky has said about his obligations to
the Peace Conference, to give priority to their proposition, I must
follow him, although I should be delighted if we could make
arrangements for separate votes. I prefer his perfected amendment to
the Peace Conference proposition; but still, I cannot separate from
him on this question, when he thinks he is bound to bring it forward.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll on the amendment.
Mr. NICHOLSON (when his name was called):--I greatly prefer the
resolution of the Senator from Kentucky, because it is unequivocal,
unambiguous in its language, and embraces future as well as present
territory; but I am willing, if that cannot be got, to vote for the
other; and I do not concur in the criticisms that have been made on it
to the full extent, though there are features in it to which I very
much object. I shall, therefore, vote "nay" on this proposition.
Mr. POWELL:--As I have before announced, I have paired with the
Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. CAMERON]. If I were not paired, I
should vote "nay."
Mr. GWIN:--He would vote with you, if he were here.
Mr. POWELL:--I cannot tell; he is not here.
The result was announced--yeas 7, nays 28, as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Crittenden, Douglas, Harlan, Johnson of
Tennessee, Kennedy, Morrill, and Thomson--7.
NAYS.--Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bingham, Bright, Chandler,
Clark, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Gwin, Hunter,
Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian,
Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilkinson, and
Wilson--28.
So the amendment was rejected.
No. IV.
[The action of both houses of Congress in relation to the Peace
Conference, and the propositions of amendments therein adopted, would
seem to form a portion of its history. I shall endeavor to furnish
their action so far as it can be separated from other matters
connected with the propositions presented. Immediately after the
adoption of the resolutions of Virginia, under which the Conference
was called, and on the 28th of January, 1861, the following
proceedings took place in the House of Representatives of the United
States.]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, }
WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _January 28th, 1861._ }
The SPEAKER, Hon. WM. PENNINGTON, laid before the House a message from
the President of the United States, which was read by the Clerk, as
follows:
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States:_
I deem it my duty to submit to Congress a series of
resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Virginia, on the
19th inst., having in view a peaceful settlement of the
exciting questions which now threaten the Union. They were
delivered to me on Thursday the 24th inst., by ex-President
TYLER, who has left his dignified and honored retirement, in
the hope that he may render service to his country in this
its hour of peril. These resolutions, it will be perceived,
extend an invitation "to all such States, whether
slaveholding or non-slaveholding, as are willing to unite
with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present
unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution
was originally formed, and consistently with its principles,
so as to afford to the people of the slaveholding States
adequate guarantees for the security of their rights, to
appoint Commissioners to meet, on the 4th day of February
next, in the City of Washington, similar Commissioners
appointed by Virginia, to consider, and, if practicable,
agree upon some suitable adjustment."
I confess I hail this movement, on the part of Virginia, with
great satisfaction. From the past history of this ancient and
renowned Commonwealth, we have the fullest assurance that
what she has undertaken she will accomplish, if it can be
done by able, enlightened, and persevering efforts. It is
highly gratifying to know that other patriotic States have
appointed, and are appointing Commissioners to meet those of
Virginia in council. When assembled, they will constitute a
body entitled, in an eminent degree, to the confidence of the
country.
The General Assembly of Virginia have also resolved "that
ex-President JOHN TYLER is hereby appointed by the concurrent
vote of each branch of the General Assembly, a Commissioner
to the President of the United States; and Judge JOHN
ROBERTSON is hereby appointed, by a like vote, a Commissioner
to the State of South Carolina, and the other States that
have seceded or shall secede, with instructions respectfully
to request the President of the United States and the
authorities of such States to agree to abstain, pending the
proceedings contemplated by the action of this General
Assembly, from any and all acts calculated to produce a
collision of arms between the States and the Government of
the United States."
However strong may be my desire to enter into such an
agreement, I am convinced that I do not possess the power.
Congress, and Congress alone, under the war-making power, can
exercise the discretion of agreeing to abstain "from any and
all acts calculated to produce a collision of arms" between
this and any other Government. It would, therefore, be a
usurpation for the Executive to attempt to restrain their
hands by an agreement in regard to matters over which he has
no constitutional control. If he were thus to act, they might
pass laws which he should be bound to obey, though in
conflict with his agreement.
Under existing circumstances, my present actual power is
confined within narrow limits. It is my duty at all times to
defend and protect the public property within the seceding
States so far as this may be practicable, and especially to
employ all constitutional means to protect the property of
the United States, and to preserve the public peace at this
the seat of the Federal Government. If the seceding States
abstain "from any and all acts calculated to produce a
collision of arms," then the danger so much to be deprecated
will no longer exist. Defence, and not aggression, has been
the policy of the administration from the beginning.
But while I can enter into no engagement such as that
proposed, I cordially commend to Congress, with much
confidence that it will meet their approbation, to abstain
from passing any law calculated to produce a collision of
arms pending the proceedings contemplated by the action of
the General Assembly of Virginia. I am one of those who will
never despair of the Republic. I yet cherish the belief that
the American people will perpetuate the Union of the States
on some terms just and honorable for all sections of the
country. I trust that the mediation of Virginia may be the
destined means, under Providence, of accomplishing this
inestimable benefit. Glorious as are the memories of her past
history, such an achievement, both in relation to her own
fame and the welfare of the whole country, would surpass them
all.
JAMES BUCHANAN.
The "series of resolutions" referred to, and transmitted in President
BUCHANAN'S message to Congress, are in the body of this book on pages
9 and 10.
The following communication by the Governor of Virginia to the General
Assembly thereof, was also submitted with the President's Message:
_The Commonwealth of Virginia,
to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting:_
Know you, that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, having, by joint resolution, adopted on the 19th
instant, and hereto attached, appointed ex-President JOHN
TYLER a Commissioner to the President of the United States to
carry out the instructions conveyed in said resolution:
therefore, I, JOHN LETCHER, Governor, do hereby announce the
said appointment, and authenticate the same.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and
[L.S.] caused the great seal of the State to be affixed, in the
City of Richmond, this 20th day of January, Anno Domini
1861.
JOHN LETCHER.
By the Governor:
GEORGE W. MUNFORD,
_Secretary of the Commonwealth._
Mr. STANTON:--I move that that message be printed, and referred to the
Standing Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:--I move as an amendment to that motion, that it be
referred to the special committee of five.
Mr. HOWARD, of Michigan:--I would suggest that whatever committee the
message is referred to, ought to have power to report it back at any
time; otherwise it will be locked up where the House cannot control
it.
Mr. BURCH:--The gentleman from Virginia only yielded the floor for the
reading of the message, and is now entitled to the floor.
The SPEAKER:--It is proper that the message should be disposed of in
some way.
Mr. STANTON:--If the House will allow me, I will move that the
message be referred to the Standing Committee on Military Affairs,
with power to report on it at any time.
The SPEAKER:--That motion is not in order. A motion has been made to
refer the message to the Committee on Military Affairs, and the
gentleman from New York moves, as an amendment, that it be referred to
the special committee of five.
Mr. BOCOCK:--If there is to be any debate on this motion, it should be
allowed to go over until my colleague (Mr. PRYOR) makes his speech.
Mr. STANTON:--I move the previous question.
Mr. CURTIS:--The question should first be taken on the motion to refer
to the Committee on Military Affairs.
The SPEAKER:--That statement is correct. The question is on referring
the message to the Military Committee.
Mr. BOCOCK:--I am bound to interpose on behalf of my colleague, who
says he only yielded to have the message read.
Mr. STANTON:--The previous question is demanded, and that will put an
end to the matter at once.
Mr. MILLSON:--I think the question deserves some little consideration.
I therefore move to postpone the further consideration of the
President's message till to-morrow.
Mr. STANTON:--Very well; let that course be taken.
The motion was agreed to.
* * * * *
After the report of the Peace Conference had been transmitted to the
House of Representatives, and while the joint resolutions were under
consideration, several ineffectual attempts were made to get the
labors of the Conference before the House. Here is one of the first:
Mr. MAYNARD:--It is known, I suppose, to most members of the House,
informally and unofficially, that what is known as the Peace
Conference, to which the country has been looking for several days,
has concluded its labors and dissolved. [Cries of "Order!"] I desire
to make a proposition.
Mr. BINGHAM, and others objected.
Mr. MAYNARD:--I have a right to make a proposition.
Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--I call the gentleman to order, and
insist upon the enforcement of the rules.
Mr. MAYNARD [amid loud cries of "Order!"] moved to postpone the vote
upon the pending propositions until to-morrow after the morning hour.
The motion was not agreed to.
And again, the same day, February 27th, the following effort was made:
Mr. McCLERNAND:--I wish to state that I understand there is on the
Speaker's table a communication from the president of the Peace
Conference. I ask the unanimous consent of the House that it be taken
up and read.
Mr. LOVEJOY:--I object.
So action was further delayed.
_March 1st, 1861._--When a communication from the Navy Department came
up for consideration in the House, the motion to postpone the special
order brought out the following action on the communication of the
Peace Conference:
The SPEAKER:--There is a communication, which has been for some time
lying upon the Speaker's table, from the president of the Peace
Conference. The Chair thinks it is right that it should be taken up.
Mr. LOVEJOY:--I object.
Mr. GROW:--I call for the regular order of business.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair has not thought proper to present it until the
propositions of the Committee of Thirty-three had been disposed of;
but he thinks it right that they should now be presented.
Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania:--I object, on behalf of John Tyler, who
does not want them in. [Laughter.]
Mr. McCLERNAND:--I move to suspend the rules.
Mr. GROW:--I call for the regular order of business.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair thinks he ought to have the privilege of
presenting these papers.
Mr. GROW:--I rise to a question of order. The territorial business is
the special order. I am entitled to the floor; and I submit that it
cannot be taken from me by any motion to suspend the rules.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair thinks the motion to suspend the rules is in
order.
Mr. GROW:--The Chair can hardly understand my question of order. It is
that the territorial business is the special order, made so by a
suspension of the rules. While that is pending, therefore, by the
uniform decision of the House, no motion can be entertained to suspend
the rules.
The SPEAKER:--The territorial business was made the special order for
the two succeeding days after the propositions reported by the
Committee of Thirty-three had been disposed of.
Mr. BOTELER:--I want to know if there is any business, or can be any
business, that should take precedence of these propositions of the
Peace Conference?
Mr. LOVEJOY:--Yes, sir; there are ten thousand things that should take
precedence.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair decides that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
McCLERNAND] has the floor, and is entitled to make the motion to
suspend the rules.
Mr. GROW:--Do I understand the Chair to decide that the business of
the Territories does not come up to-day?
The SPEAKER:--The Chair is of opinion that, under a strict
construction of the rule, it would properly come up to-morrow.
Mr. GROW:--I appeal from the decision of the Chair.
Mr. HATTON: I move to lay that appeal on the table.
Mr. HICKMAN:--Upon that motion, I call for tellers.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois:--Before the House divides upon the appeal,
I desire the Chair to state precisely what the point of order is that
we are to vote upon.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair decided that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
McCLERNAND] had the floor, and was in order in moving to suspend the
rules for the purpose of receiving the communication the Chair desired
to lay before the House. From that decision an appeal was taken, and a
motion made to lay the appeal on the table. The question is now upon
the latter motion.
Mr. GROW:--I rise to a question of order again. The Chair has not
stated my question of order correctly. My point of order was, that the
business of the Territories was set down as a special order
immediately after the disposal of the business of the Committee of
Thirty-three.
Mr. HATTON:--I call the gentleman from Pennsylvania to order.
Mr. GROW:--I have the right to state my point of order.
The SPEAKER:--The gentleman from Pennsylvania will state his point of
order.
Mr. GROW:--It is, that the Territorial business having been made the
special order, comes up now as the regular order of business.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair decides that the gentleman from Illinois
obtained the floor, and had the right to submit the motion to suspend
the rules.
Mr. GROW:--He had no right to take the floor from me for any such
purpose.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair overrules the question of order.
Mr. GROW:--And from that decision I take an appeal.
The SPEAKER:--The appeal is already pending; and a motion has been
made to lay the appeal on the table.
Mr. GROW:--I call for tellers on the motion.
Tellers were ordered, and Messrs. ADRAIN and GROW were appointed.
The House divided; and the tellers reported--forty-seven in the
affirmative.
Mr. HOWARD, of Michigan:--I move that the House adjourn.
Before the vote had been taken on the motion, the hour of five
arrived; and
The SPEAKER declared the House had taken a recess until seven o'clock.
* * * * *
EVENING SESSION.
The House reassembled at seven o'clock P.M.
COMMUNICATION OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE.
Mr. GROW:--What is the regular order of business?
The SPEAKER:--The Chair had decided that the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. McCLERNAND] was entitled to the floor, to move that the rules be
suspended to receive a communication from the Peace Conference. From
that decision the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. GROW] appealed; and
a motion was made to lay the appeal on the table.
Mr. McCLERNAND:--I think we can perhaps agree to an arrangement that
will be satisfactory to gentlemen upon both sides, by which any
difficulty upon the question of order can be avoided. If gentlemen
upon that side of the House will allow the propositions to be
presented, we are willing that they shall be referred, and the House
then proceed to the consideration of the territorial business.
Mr. KELLOGG, of Illinois:--I hope that will be done.
Mr. LOVEJOY:--I object to the reception of the proposition.
Mr. HICKMAN:--There are but few members present. I move that there be
a call of the House.
The motion was disagreed to.
Mr. HICKMAN:--I ask the Chair for his judgment whether there is a
quorum present or not.
The SPEAKER:--In the opinion of the Chair, a quorum is not present.
Mr. McCLERNAND:--I inquire whether there is any objection to the
propositions of the Peace Conference being taken up and referred?
Mr. LOVEJOY:--I certainly object in _toto coelo_ to any such
proposition.
Mr. BOTELER:--I desire to ask this question: can any member object to
the reception of a communication from the Peace Congress?
Mr. LOVEJOY:--It is not a Peace Congress at all. There is no such body
known to this House.
Mr. BOTELER:--I merely ask the question for information, for I do not
profess to be familiar with the rules; I desire to know whether the
objection of a single member can defeat the reception of such a
proposition, especially when that single member is known not to be a
conservative man, but a man opposed to all compromises?
The SPEAKER:--The Chair will suggest that a great deal of time will be
saved by having a call of the House, as there is evidently no quorum
present.
A call of the House was taken. A quorum having appeared, the House
proceeded to dispose of several special orders, when, on a motion of
postponement, it returned in this wise to the Peace Conference:
Mr. LOGAN:--I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
The special order was then postponed.
Mr. McCLERNAND:--I now move to suspend the rules of the House, for the
purpose of receiving the memorial of the Peace Congress, which
assembled lately in this city.
Mr. GROW:--To be received? What for?
Mr. McCLERNAND:--For reference I suppose.
Mr. BURNETT:--No; but to get it in, and put it upon its passage.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair understood the proposition to be, that the
rules should be suspended, in order that the paper should be received
for reference.
Mr. McCLERNAND:--I withdraw that part of the proposition.
Mr. SICKLES:--If it be received, it is then in the power of the House
to do with it what it pleases.
Mr. GROW:--The understanding was that the motion should be made for
the suspension of the rules only to receive the proposition.
Mr. SICKLES:--That is all right. When the paper gets in, the House can
do with it what it may deem fit.
Mr. LOVEJOY:--I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SHERMAN:--Is it proposed to act on the memorial of the Peace
Congress?
Mr. SICKLES:--If it comes before the House, it will be for us to say
what disposition shall be made of it. [Cries of "Call the roll!"]
Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--This motion is merely for the
suspension of the rules to receive the proposition, and this,
therefore, may be considered a test vote. [Cries of "Call the roll!"]
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative--yeas 93,
nays 67; as follows:
YEAS.--Messrs. Charles F. Adams, Green Adams, Adrain,
Aldrich, William C. Anderson, Avery, Barr, Barret, Bocock,
Boteler, Brabson, Branch, Briggs, Bristow, Brown, Burch,
Burnett, Campbell, Horace F. Clark, John B. Clark, John
Cochrane, Corwin, James Craig, John G. Davis, De Jarnette,
Dunn, Etheridge, Florence, Foster, Fouke, Garnett, Gilmer,
Hale, Hall, Hamilton, J. Morrison Harris, John T. Harris,
Haskin, Hatton, Hoard, Holman, William Howard, Hughes,
Jenkins, Junkin, William Kellogg, Killinger, Kunkel,
Larrabee, James M. Leach, Leake, Logan, Maclay, Mallory,
Charles D. Martin, Maynard, McClernand, McKenty, McKnight,
McPherson, Millson, Millward, Laban T. Moore, Moorehead,
Edward Joy Morris, Nelson, Niblack, Nixon, Olin, Pendleton,
Peyton, Phelps, Porter, Pryor, Quarles, John H. Reynolds,
Rice, Riggs, James C. Robinson, Sickles, Simms, William N.H.
Smith, Spaulding, Stevenson, William Stewart, Stokes,
Thomas, Vance, Webster, Whiteley, Winslow, Woodson, and
Wright--93.
NAYS.--Messrs. Alley, Ashley, Bingham, Blair, Brayton,
Buffinton, Burlingame, Burnham, Carey, Case, Coburn, Colfax,
Conway, Burton Craige, Dawes, Delano, Duell, Edgerton,
Eliot, Ely, Fenton, Ferry, Frank, Gooch, Graham, Grow,
Gurley, Helmick, Hickman, Hindman, William A. Howard,
Hutchins, Irvine, Francis W. Kellogg, Kenyon, Loomis,
Lovejoy, McKean, Morrill, Morse, Palmer, Perry, Potter,
Pottle, Christopher Robinson, Royce, Ruffin, Sedgwick,
Sherman, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, Tappan, Tompkins,
Train, Vandever, Van Wyck, Wade, Waldron, Walton, Cadwalader
C. Washburn, Elihu B. Washburne, Wells, Wilson, Windom, and
Woodruff--67.
So (two thirds not voting in favor thereof) the rules were not
suspended.
During the vote,
Mr. WOODSON said:--I rise for information. What are we voting on?
[Cries of "Order!"] I cannot for my life imagine how this can be
regarded as a test vote. I will vote to receive the proposition of the
Peace Conference; but on its passage I will vote against it.
The SPEAKER:--The motion is, to suspend the rules for the reception of
the memorial.
Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--I understood the gentleman from
Illinois to state that this was a test vote.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair cannot undertake to decide whether it is a
test vote or not.
Mr. JOHN COCHRANE stated that his colleagues, Mr. CLARK B. COCHRANE
and Mr. LEE, were paired.
Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina:--I would have no objection, Mr.
Speaker, to permit this resolution to come before the House, but I
understood the gentleman from Illinois to proclaim that this was a
test vote. Utterly opposed to any such wishy-washy settlement of our
national difficulties, I vote "no."
Mr. CURTIS stated that he was paired with Mr. ANDERSON, of Missouri.
Mr. FOSTER:--While I am willing to vote for the reception of the
memorial of the Peace Congress, of which I was a member, still I am
unwilling to be considered as favoring their proposition. Is this vote
a test vote on that proposition?
The SPEAKER:--The Chair does not think that it is; but each gentleman
will decide for himself.
Mr. HALE:--I am willing to receive this memorial in courtesy to the
Peace Conference; and not regarding this as a test vote, I vote "ay."
Mr. LEACH, of Michigan, stated that he had paired with Mr. ENGLISH, or
he would have voted in the negative.
Mr. LEAKE (when his name was called) said that he regarded this
_thing_ as a miserable abortion, forcibly reminding one of the old
fable of the mountain and the mouse; nevertheless, he was willing to
let the mouse in, in order to have the pleasure of killing it.
Mr. RUFFIN:--As it is announced that this is a test vote, I am
compelled to vote "no." Otherwise, I would have been willing to let
the matter be brought before the House for its consideration.
Mr. JENKINS:--Who can make this a test vote? Certainly no man in this
House. This is a vote to receive the memorial, and nothing more.
Mr. WILSON stated that Mr. VALLANDIGHAM was paired with Mr. BEALE.
Mr. JUNKIN stated that his colleague, Mr. MONTGOMERY, was detained at
home by illness.
Mr. NIXON stated that his colleague, Mr. STRATTON, was detained at his
room by illness, and that if he were present, he would vote to receive
the memorial of the Peace Conference.
Mr. ELY stated that his colleague, Mr. LEE, was detained at his room
by indisposition.
Mr. PENDLETON stated that his colleague was detained at his room by
indisposition.
Mr. CAMPBELL stated that his colleague, Mr. SCRANTON, was absent from
the Hall because of illness.
Mr. POTTER:--As this is a test vote, I vote "no."
Mr. BRAYTON:--I understand this to be a test vote, and therefore vote
"no."
Mr. HOARD:--These papers are not before us. They are not printed, and
we cannot be supposed to know any thing of them; and I would ask,
therefore, how they can be regarded as a test vote? I vote "ay."
Mr. BOCOCK:--Mr. Speaker, out of deference to the Peace Conference,
called as it was by my State, I vote to receive this report. But
unless the report, as it appears in the papers, can be amended, it
cannot receive my approval.
Mr. SHERMAN:--I vote against this, simply because we have no time to
consider it.
Mr. HINDMAN:--I vote against suspending the rules, because I desire to
defeat the proposition of the Peace Conference, believing it to be
unworthy of the vote of any Southern man.
Mr. COX (not being within the bar when his name was called) asked
leave to vote.
Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, objected.
Mr. GARNETT:--Mr. Speaker, intending and desiring to express my
abhorrence of these insidious propositions, conceived in fraud and
born of cowardice, by giving a direct vote against them, yet from
respect for the conference which reported them, I am willing to
receive them, and therefore now vote "ay."
Mr. HARRIS, of Virginia:--I vote "ay," because I am in favor of the
resolutions as a peace measure.
Mr. MAYNARD:--Believing these propositions eminently wise and just, I
will let my vote stand in the affirmative.
Mr. BURNETT:--I hope the Chair will enforce the rules.
The SPEAKER:--I am trying to, all I can; and I hope gentlemen will
keep their seats and preserve order.
Mr. DE JARNETTE:--I vote "ay," with the hope of having an opportunity
to vote against the propositions of the Peace Conference.
Mr. BOTELER:--I vote "ay," to introduce these propositions, because I
believe it to be my duty to do every thing, consistent with honor, to
preserve the peace and save the Union of my country.
Mr. COX:--I desire to ask a question of the Chair.
The SPEAKER:--The Chair will hear you.
Mr. COX:--I desire to know whether or not it will be in order to move
to suspend the rules to enable me to have my vote recorded?
Mr. SPEAKER:--No, sir.
Mr. COX:--I would like very much to have it recorded in favor of these
peace propositions. I vote "ay," if there is no objection.
Mr. HINDMAN:--Consent is not given to the gentleman from Ohio to have
his vote recorded.
The SPEAKER:--It is not received.
Mr. ROBINSON, of Rhode Island:--Believing that this is a test vote, I
change my vote, and vote "no."
Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:--I wish to know whether the vote of my colleague,
CLARK B. COCHRANE, is recorded.
The SPEAKER:--It is not.
Mr. JOHN COCHRANE:--I think he has retired from the House on account
of sickness in his family; and I believe he is laboring for the Union
in other quarters.
Mr. MILLSON:--I desire to vote.
Objection was made.
Mr. MILLSON:--I am entitled to vote, having been absent upon a
committee of conference. I vote "ay."
Mr. HINDMAN:--Is the gentleman entitled to vote under the rules of the
House?
Mr. BARR:--Objection comes too late.
The SPEAKER:--It has been usual to allow gentlemen to vote under such
circumstances.
Mr. HICKMAN:--Do the rules allow him to vote?
The SPEAKER:--The Chair supposes that is the rule of the House.
Mr. HINDMAN:--I ask to have the rule read.
Mr. MILLSON:--No rule of the House could take away the right of a
member to vote when he is absent by order of the House. If the rules
deprived a member of the right to vote under such circumstances, it
would be void.
The result was announced as above recorded.
Mr. McCLERNAND:--This vote divides the Republican party, and sounds
its death knell.
No. V.
REPORTS OF DELEGATES TO STATES.
_Report of the Peace Commissioners to the Legislature of Virginia._
_To His Excellency_ JOHN LETCHER, _Governor of Virginia:_
The undersigned Commissioners, in pursuance of the wishes of
the General Assembly, expressed in the resolutions of the
19th day of January last, repaired in due season to the City
of Washington. They there found, on the 4th day of February,
the day suggested in the overture of Virginia for a
Conference with the other States, Commissioners to meet them
from the following States, viz.: Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and
Kentucky. Subsequently, during the continuance of the
Conference, at different periods, appeared likewise
Commissioners from Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, New
York, Maine, Iowa, and Kansas. So that before the close
twenty-one States were represented by Commissioners,
appointed either by the Legislatures or Governors of the
respective States.
The undersigned communicated the resolutions of the General
Assembly to this Conference, and, both before its committee
appointed to recommend a plan of adjustment, and the
Conference itself, urged the propositions known as the
CRITTENDEN resolutions, with the modification suggested by
the General Assembly of Virginia, as the basis of an
acceptable adjustment.
They were not adopted by the Conference, but in lieu thereof,
after much discussion, and the consideration of many proposed
amendments, the article with seven sections, intended as an
amendment to the Constitution, was adopted by sections (not
under the rules, being voted on as a whole), and by a vote of
the Conference (not taken by States), was directed to be
submitted to Congress, with the request that it should be
recommended to the States for ratification, which was
accordingly done by the President of the Conference.
The undersigned regret that the Journal showing the
proceedings and votes in the Conference has not yet been
published or furnished them, and that consequently they are
not able to present it with this report. As soon as received
it will be communicated to your Excellency.
In the absence of that record it is deemed appropriate to
state that on the final adoption of the first section, two of
the States, Indiana and Missouri, did not vote, and New York
was divided, and that the votes by States was, ayes 9, nays
8--Virginia, by a majority of her Commissioners, voting in
the negative.
The other sections were adopted by ranging majorities (not
precisely recollected), and on the fifth and seventh sections
the vote of Virginia was in the negative. The plan, when
submitted to Congress, failed to receive its recommendation,
and as that body, having adjourned, can take no further
cognizance of it, the undersigned feel the contingency has
arrived on which they are required to report, as they herein
do, the result of their action.
Respectfully,
JOHN TYLER,
G.W. SUMMERS,
W.C. RIVES,
JAS. A. SEDDON.
The above report having been read and ordered to be printed, Mr.
SUMMERS stated that the reason it was not signed by Judge
BROCKENBROUGH, the other Virginia Commissioner, was because that
gentleman was not in Richmond. Mr. SUMMERS presented a communication
in which Judge BROCKENBROUGH stated his views at length on the
propositions adopted by the Convention, and it was printed, by vote of
the Legislature, in connection with the report.
After reviewing the different sections of the propositions adopted by
the Peace Conference, Judge BROCKENBROUGH, in his letter, states that
the said propositions, _as an entirety_, would have received his vote,
and therefore the vote of Virginia, in the Peace Conference, if it had
been submitted to a vote in that form.
* * * * *
_Reports of the New York Commissioners to the Legislature of that
State._
MAJORITY REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO THE PEACE CONVENTION.
_March 23d, 1861._
_To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New York:_
The Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Legislature of the
State of New York to meet Commissioners from other States in the City
of Washington on the fourth day of February, 1861, upon the call of
the State of Virginia, by resolutions passed by the General Assembly
of that State on the nineteenth day of January, 1861.
A copy of the Journal of the Convention is submitted herewith, from
which it will be seen that prior to the presence of the Commissioners
from New York, that body had been completely organized, rules of order
adopted which excluded all persons other than members from witnessing
its deliberations, forbidding any publication or other communication
of its proceedings, and the taking of any entry from its Journal
without leave; in short, requiring all its debates and acts to be kept
secret. A committee had also been organized of one from each State to
be appointed by the Commissioners from such State, to which the
Virginia resolutions were referred, "with all other propositions for
the adjustment of existing differences between the States, with
authority to report what they might deem right, proper, and necessary
to restore harmony and preserve the Union;" and this committee had
been in session two days before your Commissioners were enabled to
appoint any one of their number upon it. This was done on the eighth
of February by the appointment of Mr. Field.
William E. Dodge, one of your Commissioners, took his seat in the
Convention on the seventh day of February, 1861, and Messrs. Field,
Noyes, Wadsworth, Corning, King, and Wool, on the eighth of February,
Mr. Smith on the eleventh, and Judges James and Bronson on the twelfth
day of February, and Mr. Granger, who was appointed in the place of
Judge Gardiner, who declined, on the eighteenth day of February, 1861.
It was deemed advisable by your Commissioners that the proceedings of
the Convention should be open to the public and the press, and hence
they advised and concurred in resolutions introduced for that purpose,
which were laid on the table on the motion of a Commissioner from the
State of New Jersey. On a subsequent day they also concurred in a
resolution authorizing the employment of a stenographer, to "preserve
accurate notes of the debates and other proceedings of 'the
Convention,' which notes should not be communicated to any person, nor
shall copies thereof be taken, nor shall the same be made public until
after the final adjournment of this Convention, except in pursuance of
a vote authorizing their publication;" but this was refused, and the
resolution laid on the table on motion of a Commissioner from the
State of Pennsylvania, by a vote of eleven to eight, all the Slave
States represented voting against it, with the addition of the States
of Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Before the
Convention closed its session, the following states, twenty-one in
all, were represented in the Convention: Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, Connecticut, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont,
Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Kansas. With the
concurrence of a majority of your Commissioners, Mr. Field offered in
the committee of one from each State, on the fourteenth of February,
the following proposition:
"Each State has the sole and exclusive right, according to
its own judgment, to order and direct its domestic
institutions, and to determine for itself what shall be the
relation to each other of all persons residing or being
within its limits;"
but it was rejected by a majority of the committee, and formed no part
of its report.
That committee made its report on the fourteenth of February,
unaccompanied by any written observations, in the shape of an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in the following
words:
ARTICLE 1. In all the territory of the United States not
embraced within the limits of the Cherokee Treaty Grant,
north of a line from east to west on the parallel of 36° 30´
north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment
of crime, is prohibited whilst it shall be under a
Territorial Government; and in all the territory south of
said line, the status of persons owing service or labor, as
it now exists, shall not be changed by law while such
territory shall be under a Territorial Government; and
neither Congress nor the Territorial Government shall have
power to hinder or prevent the taking to said territory of
persons held to labor or involuntary service, within the
United States, according to the laws or usages of the State
from which such persons may be taken, nor to impair the
rights arising out of said relations, which shall be subject
to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts according to
the common law; and when any Territory north or south of
said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe,
shall contain a population required for a member of
Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of
representation, it shall, if its form of government be
republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing
with the original States, with or without involuntary
service or labor, as the constitution of such new State may
provide.
ART. 2. Territory shall not be acquired by the United
States, unless by treaty, nor except for naval and
commercial stations and depots, unless such treaty shall be
ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate.
ART. 3. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof
shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate,
abolish, or control, within any State or Territory of the
United States, the relation established or recognized by the
laws thereof touching persons bound to labor or involuntary
service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish
involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the
consent of Maryland, and without the consent of the owners,
or making the owners who do not consent just compensation;
nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives
and others from bringing with them to the City of
Washington, retaining, and taking away persons so bound to
labor; nor the power to interfere with, or abolish
involuntary service in places under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and
Territories where the same is established or recognized; nor
the power to prohibit the removal or transportation by land,
sea, or river, of persons held to labor or involuntary
service in any State or Territory of the United States to
any other State or Territory thereof where it is established
or recognized by law or usage; and the right during
transportation of touching at ports, shores, and landings,
and of landing in case of distress, shall exist, nor shall
Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation
on persons bound to labor than on land.
ART. 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the
fourth article of the Constitution, shall not be construed
to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation,
and through the action of their judicial and ministerial
officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from
labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.
ART. 5. The foreign slave-trade and the importation of
slaves into the United States and their Territories from
places beyond the present limits thereof, are forever
prohibited.
ART. 6. The first, third, and fifth articles, together with
this article of these amendments, and the third paragraph of
the second section of the first article of the Constitution,
and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth
article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without
the consent of all the States.
ART. 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States
shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from
labor, in all cases where the marshal or other officers,
whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented
from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs and
riotous assemblies, or when after such arrest such fugitive
was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and
obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of
such fugitive.
Mr. Field, the member of the committee from New York, dissented from
this report, as also did Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, and Mr.
Crowninshield, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Seddon, of Virginia.
This report was under discussion, and various amendments were proposed
to it until the twenty-seventh day of February, a majority of your
Commissioners steadily opposing all its provisions except that
prohibiting the foreign slave-trade, and most of such majority being
opposed to the submission, by the Convention, of any amendment of the
Constitution of the United States at the present time, and in the
present excited state of the public mind. During the consideration of
the report various independent propositions were made by the consent,
and with the concurrence of your Commissioners; among which was one by
Mr. Baldwin, of Connecticut, presented on the fifteenth of February,
in the form of a minority report from the committee upon the plan of
adjustment, which concluded with a resolution, "That the Convention
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 other mode of ratification may be proposed
by Congress;" and this proposition, after being discussed at length,
was lost on the twenty-sixth of February, by a vote of thirteen States
against to nine in its favor, a majority of your Commissioners casting
the vote of New York in favor of it.
A proposition somewhat similar, embracing an address to the people of
the United States, and containing a resolution for calling the
Convention, was also submitted to the Convention, with the like
concurrence of a majority of your Commissioners, by Mr. Tuck of New
Hampshire, on the eighteenth of February, and on the twenty-sixth was
also defeated by a vote of eleven States against nine.
It will be seen, therefore, that your Commissioners, with those from
several other States, offered to unite in a call for a Convention, to
be convened in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States; and
that the slave States uniting with several of the free States,
uniformly opposed, and at last defeated it.
On the twenty-third of February Mr. Vandever, of Iowa, offered the
following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That whatever may be the ultimate determination
upon the amendment to the Federal Constitution, or other
propositions for the adjustment approved by this Convention,
we, the members, recommend our respective States and
constituencies to faithfully abide in the Union."
A motion to lay it upon the table prevailed by a vote of eleven to
nine, a majority of your Commissioners voting in the negative.
On the twentieth of February, Mr. Field, one of your Commissioners, at
the instance of a majority of them, offered, as an amendment to the
Constitution to be adopted by the Convention, and proposed with any
other amendments, that it should recommend the following:
"The Union of the States, under this 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."
On the twenty-sixth of February, after several ineffectual attempts to
get rid of the proposition, on points of order, it was negatived by a
vote of eleven States against ten, a majority of your Commissioners
casting the vote of New York in its favor.
Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, moved the following as an amendment to
the seventh article, on the twenty-first of February.
"And Congress shall further provide by law, that the United
States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any
State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of
violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblies in
his person or property, or in the deprivation by violence of
his rights secured by this Constitution."
A motion was made to insert the word "white" before "citizen," but it
failed by a vote of eleven to ten; and on the twenty-fifth of February
the entire amendment was defeated by a vote of eleven to eight; your
Commissioners, by a majority, casting the vote of New York in its
favor.
Several other propositions upon other subjects were also submitted to
the Convention, as will appear by the Journal; but it is not deemed
necessary to refer to them more particularly, except, that on the
eighteenth of February, Mr. Reid, of North Carolina, proposed to amend
the first section of the committee's report by inserting after the
word "line" in the seventh line thereof, the words "involuntary
servitude is recognized; and property in those of the African race
held to service or labor, in any of the States of the Union, when
removed to such territory, shall be protected," and which was lost by
a vote of seventeen States against to three for it. On the
twenty-sixth of February, he also moved to insert in the same section,
after the words "common law," the words, "and such rights shall be
protected by all departments of the Territorial Government during its
continuance," which the President ruled out of order, as the section
had been previously gone through in detail, and was only before the
Convention on its final passage.
The Report of the Committee on a plan of adjustment, already
mentioned, came up for consideration on its final passage, after many
amendments had been made to it, as will appear by the Journal, on the
twenty-sixth of February, in the following form, and was ultimately
thus adopted, by the votes stated at the end of each section:
ARTICLE XIII.
SECTION I. In all the present territory of the United States
north of the parallel of 36° 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.
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.
DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.
NOT VOTING.--Indiana.
SEC. II. 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 for the ratification of such treaty.
YEAS.--Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11.
NAYS.--Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and
Vermont--8.
DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.
SEC. III. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof
shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate,
abolish, or control, within any State, the relation
established or recognized by the laws thereof touching
persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to
interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the
District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, nor
without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who
do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere
with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing
with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking
away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to
interfere with, or abolish involuntary service in places
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,
within those States and Territories where the same is
established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the
removal or transportation of persons held to labor or
involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United
States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is
established or recognized by law or usage, and the right
during transportation, by sea or river, of touching at
ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of
distress, shall exist; but not the right of transit in, or
through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic
against the laws thereof; nor shall Congress have power to
authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to
labor or service than on land. The bringing into the
District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service for
sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred
to other places as merchandise, is prohibited.
YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, North Caroline, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia--12.
NAYS.--Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont--7.
DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.
SEC. IV. The third paragraph of the second section of the
fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to
prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and
through the action of their judicial and ministerial
officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from
labor to the person to whom such labor or service is due.
YEAS.--Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia--15.
NAYS.--Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire--4.
DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.
SEC. V. The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever
prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass
laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or
persons held to service or labor, into the United States and
the Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof.
YEAS.--Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas--16.
NAYS.--Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
and Virginia--5.
SEC. VI. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with
this section of these amendments, and the third paragraph of
the second section of the first article of the Constitution,
and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth
article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without
the consent of all the States.
YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Tennessee--11.
NAYS.--Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and Virginia--9.
DIVIDED.--New York.
SEC. VII. Congress shall provide by law, that the United
States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive
from labor in all cases where the marshal, or other officer,
whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented
from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or
riotous assemblies, or when after arrest such fugitive was
rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner
thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such
payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such
fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to
citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States.
YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia--12.
NAYS.--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina,
Missouri, and Vermont--7.
DIVIDED.--New York.
NOT VOTING.--Massachusetts.
When the question was first taken on the first section, it was lost by
a vote of eleven States against it to eight in its favor, a majority
of your Commissioners casting the vote of New York against it. A
motion was immediately made to reconsider, which was advocated by Mr.
Granger, one of the Commissioners from New York, and was carried by a
vote of fourteen States for, to five against it--a majority of the
Commissioners from New York again casting its vote in the negative,
and the Convention adjourned. On the next day it again came up on its
final passage, and was then carried by a vote of nine States for, to
eight against it--the vote of New York not being given. Why it was not
given is left by the Commissioners to be stated by Mr. Field, on his
own responsibility. (_See note_, p. 596.)
The vote of New York was not given upon any of the sections except the
fifth, for the reason already stated; but upon that section we all
voted Aye, as all her Commissioners then present were in its favor.
After the several votes had been taken, it was objected that the whole
article should be put to a vote upon the question of its final
adoption before it could be regarded as properly passed, but the
President of the Convention decided that this was not necessary, and
no such vote was taken. At the close of the discussion on this subject
your Commissioners were prepared to cast the vote against the entire
article, if any question had been taken upon it as a whole, as a
majority of your Commissioners think it should have been.
Soon after the adoption of these proposed amendments to the
Constitution, and after voting down and laying on the table various
propositions made by a minority in the interest of freedom and the
free States, the Convention adjourned--having adopted an address to
Congress requesting that body to submit the amendment, to Conventions
of the several States, for ratification, according to the Constitution
of the United States; and they were accordingly communicated to
Congress on the same day. In the Senate, they were referred to a
committee, and were recommended for adoption by a majority of that
committee; but Messrs. Seward and Trumbull, a minority of the
committee, reported against the amendments, and in favor of a National
Convention; thus following out and approving the proposition which had
been made in the Convention by your Commissioners, and the entire
minority of that party, nearly three weeks before, and for which the
majority which controlled it, if it had chosen to do so, could at any
time have obtained an unanimous vote. The amendment of the Convention,
however, failed to secure the approval of either branch of Congress.
The labors of your Commissioners having thus terminated, it is due to
those whom they represented, and to themselves, that the majority
should state briefly the reasons why the proposed amendments to the
Constitution did not meet their approbation.
_First._--In their judgment, no amendment of that sacred instrument in
the interest, and for the purpose of the extension and perpetuation of
the slave power--an interest which has wielded the whole political
power of the United States during almost the entire existence of the
Government--was either expedient or necessary. They preferred it
should remain and continue just as it came from the hands of our
revolutionary fathers; a Constitution establishing freedom and not
slavery.
_Second._--The Convention would scarcely listen to, much less adopt,
any amendment in the interest of freedom or of free labor, or of the
rights of citizens of the free States; the only one of that
character--that in relation to securing to the citizens of each State
the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several
States--having been voted down as a direct proposition when offered by
Mr. Wilmot, and only adopted in an indirect way at the end of the
section requiring payment to be made by Congress for rescued slaves.
In like manner the absolute right of secession in every State as
inherent under the Constitution of the United States was claimed to
exist by members of the Convention from the slave States, accompanied
by a denial of any right in the General Government to coerce obedience
to it, or to enforce the laws for the collection of revenue. And
although all the delegates from the slave States did not take this
ground, yet in several instances a majority of the delegates from
several of them did so, and the States themselves generally voted
against all propositions to the contrary. The article proposed by your
Commissioners denying the right of nullification and secession was
defeated in accordance with these views; so that in effect slave
States, and such of the free States as voted with them, would not
consent so to amend the Constitution as to deny the right of
nullification and secession, even if all the guarantees demanded by
the slave interest were accorded to it. In addition, many of the
delegates from the slave States declared that it was the fixed
determination of those States to stand by the States that had seceded
from the Union, and to aid them in resisting it, even if such
guarantees were given; and that they would resist any attempts to
coerce them, or to enforce the revenue, or any other laws within their
limits, without their consent. In other words, they claimed a right to
remain in the Union under the Constitution, with its new guarantees of
slavery, and yet to obstruct the operations of the Government, to
prevent the execution of the laws, and to aid those who were in open
rebellion against, and had made war upon it. Under these circumstances
your Commissioners did not deem it consistent with justice, or the
respect due to their own State, to give their assent to any of the
proposed amendments, except that prohibiting the slave-trade--and even
that, in their opinion, was unnecessary, as no enlightened legislative
body would dare to propose to reëstablish that infamous traffic.
_Third._--By the first section of the proposed amendments, slavery is
_constitutionally_ established in all of the territory south of the
line of 36° 30´, and all control over it by Congress or the
territorial legislatures is absolutely taken away during its
territorial condition. In effect, there is to be no law for slavery,
its permanency and existence being provided for, except the will of
the master and the present odious slave code of New Mexico. These are
fastened upon every inch of the soil of that immense region, beyond
even the power of the people to remove them, however much they may
desire to do so, prior to the formation of a State government. Slavery
must therefore be the normal condition of the territory, while the
State is in the process of formation and organization; and the
inevitable result must be, that free labor and free institutions will
be excluded, and no free State formed within its limits. As the
territory was free from the blight of slavery when acquired, your
Commissioners could not assent to its being changed into slave soil by
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
_Fourth._--The second section of the proposed amendments gives to the
slave States an absolute negative upon the acquisition of free
territory in every possible mode by which it can be acquired; and in
giving reciprocally the same right to free States as to acquiring
slave territory, also fetters the operations of the General Government
both in peace and war, depriving it to some extent of the exercise of
perfect sovereignty, and at the same time sanctioning, and
perpetuating in the organic law, an odious discrimination in favor of
an institution peculiar to the slave States, and at variance with the
humane principles of the age. The free States do not need any such
veto power in their favor, and the slave States would not demand it
except to maintain and preserve for slavery a balance of power
hitherto claimed, and to some extent exercised by them, for which they
secure by this amendment a constitutional perpetuation. No
well-founded objection seems to exist in regard to the acquisition of
free territory, unless it be that it is obtained in order to convert
it into slave soil; and your Commissioners could not consent to give
to a single interest, that of slavery, a negative upon such
acquisitions. They have always regarded slavery as a local
institution, depending solely upon the laws of the States in which it
was permitted for its existence; and they did not deem it expedient or
just to recognize it as, or elevate it to, the rank of a positive
governmental power, by clothing it with the right to interrupt one of
the ordinary and most essential functions of the Government. Slavery,
except as a limited basis of representation, has now no political
power or authority under the Constitution; the wise and good men who
framed that instrument cautiously withheld it in all other respects;
and your Commissioners find in the history of the aggressions of the
slave interest, only additional reasons for confining it within its
original limits.
_Fifth._--To so much of the third article as declares that the
Constitution nor any amendment of it, shall be so construed as to give
Congress the power to regulate, abolish, or control slavery within any
State, there was no objection, as it has never been seriously claimed
that any such power was given; but this provision is connected with so
many objectionable, not to say odious ones, that your Commissioners
felt themselves bound to vote against it. These surrender all the
power of Congress over the District of Columbia, and over other places
within its exclusive jurisdiction, in respect of slavery and its
ultimate extinction, however much the people of the United States in
the progress of civilization and humanity may desire it; and by the
sixth section this provision is made unalterable without the consent
of all the States. The influences produced by the existence of slavery
at the National Capital, upon public men and public measures, are well
known; and while they may be tolerated, as they have been, without any
desire to exercise the power of eradicating the cause of the evil,
still a sound policy requires that the power should not be abandoned.
Connected with this surrender of a well-defined and necessary power,
are other provisions in regard to the transit of slaves through the
free States; in effect, permitting the carrying on of the internal
slave-trade through these States, unless they pass laws forbidding it.
This trade through the free States is not made dependent upon the
consent of the States, but is made lawful without dissent; and the
result is, that if this amendment shall be adopted, every free State
will find it necessary to legislate for its exclusion, or to permit
and regulate the transit by its own laws. These laws would be deemed
odious by the slave States, and would produce dissatisfaction and
irritation. Besides, in most of the free States, the normal legal
condition of every person is that of freedom; this constitutional
provision would at once change the local law of the State, and operate
as a positive recognition of slavery in the absence of any new
enactment. Thus, every free State would find itself compelled to adopt
a slave code, more or less extensive in its character, regulating or
excluding the inter-state slave-trade. Taking this in connection with
the fourth section, authorizing the States to legislate upon the
subject of fugitive slaves, and by their judicial and ministerial
officers to enforce their delivery, contrary to the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, which declares all such
interference on the part of the States unconstitutional, it is
apparent that the legislatures of all the free States would be beset
by hordes of persons in the interest of the slave power for the
passage of laws protecting slavery within their limits. No means,
however impure, would be omitted to obtain them; and it is easy to see
that a slave code upon the subject of transit of fugitives, more or
less stringent in its character, would soon find its way into every
statute book. When the States now free abolished slavery within their
own limits, they intended to get rid of the evil entirely, not only in
practice but as a necessity of legislation; these provisions compel a
return to it, and involve the adoption of new laws for its regulation
or exclusion.
_Seventh._ [Transcriber's Note: should be "Sixth"]--The sixth section
makes most of the amendments which give a constitutional protection to
slavery, unalterable without the consent of all the States. It also
includes the second section of the fourth article, which provides that
"representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States according to their respective members," including
three-fifths of all slaves, &c.; and that portion of the fourth
article which requires the delivering up of fugitive slaves. Thus, a
preference is given to the slave interest over every other; these may
all be affected by a constitutional amendment, ratified or adopted by
three-fourths of the States; but the slave clauses are to remain,
except by universal consent, fixed and immovable. No such protection
is given to freedom; none to the property of free men, unless it be
what is called property in slaves; none to the freedom of the press;
none to the religion of the citizen, or to the rights of conscience.
These rights, more sacred than any other, are deemed of less
importance, and are secured by less guarantees than the right to hold
a fellow man in bondage and to traffic in his flesh. Moreover, the
three-fifth representation of slaves, and only the same rate of direct
taxation, are perpetual by the same rigid provision. This not only
gives to the slave States a representation of three-fifths of their
slave property, but it secures to them an exemption from taxation on
the same property to the extent of two-fifths. But no property
whatever, in the free States constitutes a basis of representation,
and all of it is liable to, and may be taxed. Unequal and unjust as
was this discrimination in favor of the slave States, still as it
formed a part of the original Constitution, it should be maintained;
but when it is sought to extend it to new States, and to make it
unchangeable without the consent of all the States, the attempt should
be resisted by every freeman. There are other property interests more
important than that of slavery, but none of them have been so arrogant
as to claim such exclusive privileges and perpetuation.
_Finally._--Other objections of a grave character might be stated, but
it is not deemed necessary. The great purpose of the Convention was to
amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to recognize and
protect slaves as property. As a direct proposition this was
negatived, but the same end was sought to be attained by indirect
means, and its friends exulted in having accomplished it. Such is the
obvious effect of these amendments. If adopted, slaves must everywhere
in the Union be regarded as property, and entitled to the same legal
protection as other property. The necessary result will be, that all
State laws forbidding the bringing of slaves within their limits, will
be void, the sovereignty of the States in that respect will be
destroyed, and the National Constitution will recognize and protect
property in man.
We do not believe that the people of the State of New York will, under
any pressure of circumstances, however grave, recognize a claim so
repugnant to humanity, so hostile to freedom.
We commend to your honorable body the careful consideration of these
proposed constitutional amendments. We believe that they will, if
adopted, engraft upon our Constitution the odious doctrine of property
in man; that they will extend slavery over a vast domain once free;
that they will change the whole spirit and character of our organic
law, making that to protect and foster slavery which was intended to
establish freedom; making that irrevocable and perpetual which the
framers of the instrument intended should be temporary.
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD,
WM. CURTIS NOYES,
JOHN A. KING,
JAMES S. WADSWORTH,
A.B. JAMES,
JAMES C. SMITH.
* * * * *
NOTE OF MR. FIELD.
The following statement shows why the vote of New York was not given
upon the first question taken in the Peace Convention, on the
twenty-seventh of February. The Journal represents the vote as
divided. _It was not divided._ The vote was ordered to be cast, _and
should have been cast_ in the negative.
On Tuesday, the day preceding, a message came to me from the clerk of
the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Court was waiting for
me in a case which had stood upon the docket since December, 1859, and
was now for the first time reached in its order. The case was of great
importance, for upon its result depended the closing or reopening of a
litigation which I had conducted for nineteen years, which had
embraced in its different forms more than eighty suits, and in the
course of which the Courts of the State and of the United States had
come into direct conflict. All the tribunals of the State of New York,
where the question had been raised, had decided against my clients.
The Supreme Court of the United States, by a majority of two, had once
decided in their favor.
The present case was to determine whether the Court would adhere to
its former decision. The stake of my clients was therefore immense,
and I was their only counsel.
The case being called after my arrival in Court, the Chief Justice
observed that, as it was too late to begin that day, the argument
would proceed first the next morning, at eleven o'clock, unless the
Attorney-General should claim precedence in another case. Then,
thinking that the Convention would close its business during the day,
I hastened back, and the question being soon taken, I cast the vote of
the State against the proposition before the Convention, and it was
rejected by 11 to 8.
A reconsideration was moved and carried, and an adjournment taken to
half-past seven in the evening. At that hour I returned to the
Convention, but to my disappointment, and in spite of my efforts, it
adjourned to the next morning at ten o'clock, a majority of my
associates voting for the adjournment.
The next morning I endeavored to procure a meeting of the delegation
before ten o'clock, that I might obtain a formal instruction to the
Chairman in my absence to cast a vote of the State against the
proposed amendments. Not being able, however, to obtain the earlier
attendance of all the members, I waited till they appeared in the hall
of the Convention, and there, shortly before eleven o'clock, I called
them together, and, all being present, a resolution, in contemplation
of my absence, was moved and carried, that "the Chairman declare that
New York voted No on each section." Thereupon requesting Mr. King to
act as temporary Chairman in my absence, and when New York was called
to cast the vote in the negative, pursuant to the resolution, I left
the hall and drove to the Capitol as rapidly as possible, that I might
be present at the opening of the Court.
Was it reasonable, nay, was it possible, that I should do otherwise?
It is known to be a rule of the Supreme Court not to postpone an
argument for other engagements of counsel. If neither counsel is
present, the case goes to the foot of the docket, to be reached again
only after two or three years; if one of the counsel only appears, he
makes an oral argument, and a printed brief is submitted on the other
side. In my view, it would have been trifling with the rights of my
clients either to submit their case on a printed brief or to postpone
it for two years. I had no one to send to the Court in my place. To
despatch a letter with an excuse was a liberty I did not feel
justified in taking, and if taken, it might fail of its object, as the
Court, when informed of the circumstances, must have believed that no
member of the delegation would take advantage of my absence if he
could, and that he could not if he would, since the vote had been
already determined in a meeting of the delegation, and that
determination could not be reconsidered or changed without the
desertion to the minority of one of the majority.
But whatever might be the opinion of others, my duty appeared to
myself extremely plain. There was nothing to be done in the Convention
but the merely ministerial duty of declaring what had already been
determined, which duty could certainly be performed by another as
well as myself, while, on the other hand, no one but myself could act
in Court for my clients. It is true that some of my associates
expressed to me their apprehension that the minority might appeal to
the Convention, and that the Convention might arbitrarily overrule the
delegation; but I answered them as I repeat now, that neither the
minority of the delegation nor the Convention itself had any right to
interpose. We were not asking a favor, but exercising a right. Whether
a person not present could vote was not the question. Persons did not
vote except on unimportant questions and by general consent. States
voted; the vote of each State was delivered by its Chairman, who
collected the voices of his delegation and announced the result. There
was nothing in the reason of the thing, nothing in any rule or usage
of the Convention, which required the voices of the delegation to be
collected at the instant of announcing the result. They might be
collected one minute beforehand, or, as in the present instance, ten
minutes, or twice ten minutes. All that could be required was, that
each member should give his own judgment upon the particular
proposition, and the sum of these judgments it was the sole province
of the Chairman to make known. There could be no occasion for their
standing by his side while he performed this duty unless he needed
their support or they feared his weakness.
I have said that there was no rule of the Convention which ordered the
matter otherwise; on the contrary, the rule as to the mode of
voting--the 18th--was as follows:
"18. MODE OF VOTING: All votes shall be taken by States, and
each State to give one vote. The yeas and nays of the
members shall not be taken, or published--only the decision
by States."
On the twenty-first of February, Mr. Dent, of Maryland, moved the
adoption of the following rule:
"When the vote on any question is taken by States, any
Commissioner dissenting from the vote of his State may have
his dissent entered on the journal."
Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the following as a substitute for Mr.
Dent's rule.
"The yeas and nays of the Commissioners of each State, upon
any question, shall be entered upon the Journal, when it is
desired by any Commissioner; and the vote of each State
shall be determined by the majority of Commissioners present
from each State."
Mr. Chase's substitute was rejected, and Mr. Dent's rule adopted.
The usage of the Convention may be understood by a single example. The
Maine delegation consisted of her two Senators and six members of the
House of Representatives. One member only attended for the greater
part of the Convention, and cast the vote of the State. Indeed it was
a frequent practice for members to absent themselves and leave their
associates to act for them.
The State of New York had, moreover, decided for herself in what
manner her Commissioners should speak for her, by declaring in the
joint resolution of the Senate and Assembly that they should cast
their "votes to be determined by a majority of their number," not the
majority of those who should happen to be present at a particular
instant on the floor of the Convention, but a majority of the whole
number. Suppose, upon a question being put, the delegation had met for
consultation, and by a formal resolution determined that the vote of
the State be No; then, instructing their Chairman to cast the vote
accordingly, had separated, and all but the Chairman retired from the
hall, could he thereupon have changed the vote to Aye, because he
disagreed with the majority and alone remained on the floor? Or could
the Convention have refused this vote of the State? And if not, how
is that question different from the one here?
It was, therefore, I must think with good reason, assumed by me when I
left the hall, that if the question should be put in my absence, which
by the way I considered uncertain, as the debate then going on might
last for hours, and I hoped still to find some means of deferring my
argument to the next day, I might certainly depend on the vote of New
York being declared again as it had been declared before, never
doubting for a moment the ability and the will of my associates to
defend against all opposition the rights of the State, their own
rights, and mine.
On my arrival at the Court I did not succeed in my desire to defer my
argument to the next day; but had I done so, it would have made no
difference, as the vote in the Convention must have been called before
I reached the Capitol.
What occurred in my absence I can only know from report. Five
different statements are given: one by Mr. King in a published letter,
another by the secretary of the delegation in the minutes kept by him,
the third by the chairman of the Massachusetts delegation, who had the
best opportunity to observe what was passing, the fourth by the
secretary in a correspondence with me, and the fifth in the published
Journal of the Convention.
Mr. King's statement of what occurred in my absence is as follows:
"The vote on the amendment soon followed, and before New
York was called I asked my colleagues what vote should be
given, and the reply was that in the absence of Mr. Field
the vote was divided. Nevertheless, I stated the case to the
Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before.
This was objected to by one of the Commissioners of the
minority, and permission having been refused by the
Convention, by direction of my colleagues when the State was
called I answered that the vote was divided."
The other statements are subjoined, and numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
From a comparison of these statements it appears.
_First:_ That the direction given to Mr. King, when the whole
delegation were together, regularly convened, in contemplation of my
absence, was to "declare that New York voted No."
_Second:_ That instead of confining himself to that duty, he began
immediately upon my departure, and before the vote was demanded, to
ask anew, "what vote should be given?" and when the vote was demanded,
instead of voting No, "stated the case to the Convention, and asked
permission to cast the vote as before."
_Third:_ That Mr. King's colleagues, though they had just resolved, in
expectation of my absence, that he should "declare that New York voted
No," yet "before New York was called," and of course before any
intimation from the Convention or its President, in answer to his
question, "What vote shall be given?" replied, "that in Mr. Field's
absence, the vote was divided," and directed him so to declare.
_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._