And the amendment was lost.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I will now renew my proposition, and ask a vote upon it by States.

The vote upon the substitute offered by Mr. Guthrie, for the section of the article reported by the committee, resulted as follows:

And the amendment was lost.

Mr. Price dissented from the vote of New Jersey, and Mr. Barringer from the vote of North Carolina.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—As the hour named for the call upon the President-elect is approaching, I move that a committee of three members be appointed by the President to make arrangements for the introduction of the members of the Conference.

The motion of Mr. Wickliffe was agreed to, and the President appointed Messrs. Wickliffe, Field, and Chase, as the committee.

Mr. McKENNAN:—I move a reconsideration of the vote of the Conference rejecting the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia. I am not at all certain that we may not think it advisable to adopt that amendment.

The order of the day was now suspended, and the committee appointed to wait upon the President-elect, reported that they had performed that duty, and that the President-elect would be pleased to receive the members of the Conference in his parlors in Willard's Hotel, at the present time.

For the purpose of waiting on the President, on motion of Mr. Ewing, the Conference adjourned until the 25th inst., at ten o'clock a.m.

SEVENTEENTH DAY.

Mr. POLLOCK:—The policy of the Conference from the beginning has been not to receive or consider resolutions of a partisan character. That decision was made on one of the early days of our session, upon a series of resolutions adopted by a convention held in New Haven, Connecticut, which were presented by Mr. Clay. I think we had better pass over the subject informally, and I would call for the order of the day.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:—I think the resolutions had better be referred to the Committee on Credentials.

Mr. CLAY:—I quite approved of the course taken by the Conference of the resolutions which were sent to me for presentation. I hope we will pursue the same course now. I move that these resolutions be entered upon the Journal as received, and that they be laid on the table.

The motion of Mr. Clay was agreed to, and the resolutions were laid on the table.

Mr. SMITH, of New York:—I would inquire whether any action has been taken under the order of the Conference for the printing of the Journal from day to day. It is very important that we have these Journals, that we may know exactly what has been done. No gentleman can carry all our proceedings in his memory.

Mr. SMITH:—Then I hope the order will be complied with to-day. It is very important that each member should have a copy of our daily Journal. I certainly expected one this morning. I will not make a motion now, but if these copies are not furnished, I shall move the appointment of a committee to secure their future publication.

Mr. DENT:—There was a vote passed upon this subject. It may have been in the absence of the Secretary.

The PRESIDENT:—The Conference is informed that the Journal shall be published as soon as possible.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:—I have two amendments which I shall offer. At present I desire to have them laid on the table and printed.[4]

The PRESIDENT:—The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the order of the day, which is the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the substitute offered by Mr. Summers, for the second section of the articles of amendment reported by the committee.

Mr. McKENNAN:—At the request of one of my colleagues I would ask a postponement of the vote upon my motion of reconsideration for the present. It will produce no injurious result, and I think myself we had better hold this amendment subject to the future action of the Conference.

Mr. SUMMERS:—I will not withhold my consent to the postponement. But I hope the members of this Conference will consider my amendment, and give it their attention when it comes up again.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—If we pass Mr. Summers' amendment, we should pass by the consideration of the whole section. I think that is the better way. Let us now proceed to the consideration of the third section in the article of amendment proposed by the committee.

The PRESIDENT:—Such will be taken as the pleasure of the Conference.

The third section was read.

The PRESIDENT:—The third section is open to propositions of amendment.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I move to amend this section by striking out the words "by land, sea, or river," occurring after the words "or transportation."

Mr. Guthrie's motion was adopted without a division.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I now move to insert after the words "during transportation," the words "by sea or river."

Which motion was also agreed to without a division.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I now move to amend the third section by striking out all after the word "give," in the second line thereof, and inserting as follows:

Although it may not be strictly in order, yet, as a part of my plan, I wish to bring forward a substitute which I shall offer to the seventh section of the committee's article, which, if adopted, should be numbered

I offer these in separate sections, in order not only that the vote may be taken upon each one separately here, but also when the same questions come before the people. The first section of my amendment, as I understand from every quarter, sets all opposition at rest; all are willing to agree to it. This may be adopted and the others rejected, which could not be done if the original section was adopted. The other sections conform to the language of our present Constitution, and for that reason I think they will meet with more favor. Each subject is thus made to stand on its own merits.

The PRESIDENT:—The question will be taken upon each section of the substitute proposed.

Mr. JAMES:—I propose the following as a substitute for the first section of the amendment offered by Mr. Hitchcock. It is, I believe, the same as that proposed in Congress by the Committee of Thirteen. I understand, also, that the Committee of the House of Representatives are about to substitute it for what is known as the Adams Proposition. We all have the same purpose in view, to negative in express terms the right of Congress to interfere with the institution of slavery within the States. I present the amendment because I think it expresses the purpose in better language.

Mr. CHASE:—This amendment would be limited in its application to the States. Congress would still have power in this respect over Territories.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—The report of the committee has been agreed upon after much discussion, and printed. We all understand it, and I hope we shall adhere to it without any alteration. If we begin to adopt these amendments no one can tell where they will carry us.

Mr. JAMES:—My proposition is offered as an amendment to that offered by Mr. Hitchcock.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—So I understand; but his amendment is proposed as a substitute for the third section of the article reported by the committee. I object to the whole of it.

Mr. RANDOLPH:—Do I understand that the question now is upon substituting Mr. Hitchcock's amendment for the committee's report.

Mr. JAMES:—No. It is upon substituting my proposition for the first section of Mr. Hitchcock's amendment.

The vote upon the amendment offered by Mr. James resulted as follows:

And the amendment was lost.

Mr. WOOD:—I must enter my dissent from the vote of Illinois.

Mr. FOWLER:—I have an amendment which I offer to the substitute proposed by Mr. Hitchcock—

Mr. RANDOLPH:—I object to it as out of order. Let us take the vote upon the various sections of Mr. Hitchcock's proposition. If they are rejected, then these amendments may all be moved to the committee's report.

The PRESIDENT:—I have already decided that the substitute is open to amendment.

Mr. RANDOLPH:—Then I will appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The PRESIDENT:—I will state the ground of my decision. It is true, as claimed by the gentleman from New Jersey, that if the propositions of Mr. Hitchcock are rejected these amendments may be moved to the sections reported by the committee. If, on the contrary, they are adopted, or either of them, so far as they are adopted they must stand as the order of the Conference, and are no longer subject to amendment. I understand the Parliamentary rule in such a case to be well settled.

A somewhat confused debate here arose, when Mr. Randolph withdrew his appeal from the decision of the chair.

Mr. BALDWIN:—I move to amend the proposition of the gentleman from Ohio, by striking out the words "nor shall Congress have the power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or labor, than on land." I do not think these words are appropriate in a provision of the Constitution.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I supposed the Conference would understand my purpose. It was to substitute my three sections for the third section of the committee's report. I did not suppose this series of amendments would be offered. For the present, I will withdraw my amendments.

Mr. HARRIS:—The gentleman forgets that if we once adopt them, they are no longer subject to amendment.

Mr. BRONSON:—I wish to make a suggestion. I don't know but Parliamentarians would call it a point of order. Now let us go on and decide whether we will, or will not, adopt the third section as reported by the committee.

Mr. SEDDON:—I have several amendments which I am constrained to offer to this third section. My State would think me remiss if I did not offer them. I move, first, to insert after the words "State or Territory of the United States," the words "or obstruct, hinder, prevent, or abolish."

By the section as reported by the committee, Congress is prohibited from controlling or abolishing slavery in any State or Territory. This amendment which I propose will prevent any action in relation to it—in aid of it, or otherwise. The Territorial Legislature will always be the creature of Congress, and under the committee's section it might act upon the subject of slavery. I understand that the purpose of the committee was to prevent Congress from abolishing slavery in the Territories, but not to prevent the Territorial Legislature from acting in aid of it. My amendment will secure slavery from all interference. That is what we want.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—The first section of the report covers this. The amendment, I think, is unnecessary.

Mr. SEDDON:—I think the first section, properly construed, would prevent the Territorial Legislature from enacting a law in aid of slavery, even if the whole people of the Territory desired it.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I do not desire to go over these questions again. If the Conference intends to come to any conclusion at all, I hope it will vote down all these amendments.

Mr. SEDDON:—I call for a vote by States.

Mr. WOOD:—I move that the amendment be laid on the table.

Mr. BALDWIN:—Which motion is in order—mine or that of the gentleman from Virginia?

The PRESIDENT:—The gentleman from Ohio having withdrawn his amendment, the proposal of the gentleman from Connecticut is no longer before the Conference. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Virginia to amend the third section of the article reported by the committee.

The vote upon the amendment proposed by Mr. Seddon resulted as follows:

And the amendment was not adopted.

Mr. SEDDON:—I now move to amend the third section reported by the committee, by striking out the words "City of Washington," and inserting in their place the words "District of Columbia."

The motion of Mr. Seddon was agreed to without a division.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I do not see why this privilege of bringing their slaves into the District should be limited to members of Congress.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—It is not. The expression is "representatives and others."

Mr. SEDDON:—I now propose to amend the same section by inserting after the words "without the consent of Maryland" the words "and Virginia." I think slavery ought not to be destroyed in the District of Columbia without the consent both of Maryland and Virginia. If there is any reason for requiring the consent of one State, the same reason exists as to the other. This amendment will make the section much more acceptable to the slaveholding States.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—The committee did not require the assent of Virginia, because no part of the present District came from Virginia. We thought it unnecessary.

Mr. DENT:—Maryland and Virginia originally joined in the cession of the District to the United States. Afterwards that portion which came from her was re-ceded to Virginia. But this question is not one of territory alone. The policy and interest of the two States are intimately connected. It would be far more satisfactory to both these States, and to the South, if the assent of Virginia was required before Congress could abolish slavery in the District. Still Maryland does not insist upon it.

Mr. EWING:—I can see no necessity for, or propriety in, the amendment. We might as well require the consent of North Carolina or any of the other slave States. Virginia owns none of the District. She has no right to interfere.

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

Mr. SEDDON:—My next proposition is to amend the third section by inserting after the words "landing in case of distress, shall exist," the words "and if the transportation be by sea, the right of property in the person held to service or labor shall be protected by the Federal Government as other property."

We claim that our property in slaves shall be recognized by the Union just like any other property—that no unjust or improper distinction shall be made. When we trust it to the perils of the seas, we wish to have it protected by the Federal Government.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I would inquire of the gentleman from Virginia whether it has not already been decided that this species of property is as much entitled to Federal protection as any other. I refer to the "Creole" case. The British Government made compensation for this species of property in that case. This was done upon the award of the commissioners pursuant to the decision of the umpire.

Mr. SEDDON:—Yes! But on the express ground that slavery was recognized in the islands. Express notice was given, that when the emancipation policy was adopted, the same principles would not be recognized. We are now removing doubts. We wish to have these matters no longer involved in uncertainty. We insist upon having these provisions in the Constitution.

Mr. RUFFIN:—I wish to say a word on this subject, much as I regret the consumption of time. I am willing to leave this question where it is now; and my reason is this: If we put this into the Constitution, the question may be raised, whether if foreign nations should interfere with this kind of property on the high seas, the Government would not be bound to consider it a cause of war. We ought not to bind ourselves to go to war. War should always depend upon considerations of policy. We should raise a thousand troublesome questions by putting these words "shall be protected" into the Constitution. The matter is well enough as it is. Our rights in this respect are well enough protected by the ordinary course of national diplomacy. I would not be willing to put into the Constitution language which would embarrass us hereafter.

Mr. SEDDON:—I will frankly say that I think slave property upon every ground is as well entitled to the national protection as any other species of property.

Mr. BARRINGER:—This amendment brings up the very gist of the matter. The question of the right of our property to Federal protection is now an open one. In the case of the Creole it was settled by negotiation, and not by the courts. The question so often hinted at and suggested in this Conference is now fairly brought up for decision. Governor Chase struck at the very root of the matter the other day, when he said that slavery was an abnormal condition. He laid down the opinion of the North. He is a statesman and a lawyer. He says that slavery cannot exist anywhere until it is established or authorized by law. This is the Northern idea, and it is a technical one. I hate technicalities almost as bad as I do sectionalism. The North deals in both. I regret to speak in these terms of the North, but I must if I speak truth. Now, I will lay down what is the opinion of the South upon the subject. We say that the right to hold and use slave property, always, everywhere, exists until it is prohibited by law. We say that it is a natural right, which grows out of the very necessities of society. We hold that the condition of slavery is a normal condition—not local at all; that it is found everywhere, except where it is forbidden by law. We claim that the right to hold slaves is a natural right, recognized by the law of nations, and of the world. I am quite aware that the North does not agree with our opinion.

Mr. VANDEVER:—I would ask whether this normal condition is confined to the blacks, or does it extend to all races?

Mr. BARRINGER:—Most assuredly it is not confined to a single race. It extends to all races. Slavery of all races exists even in Europe.

Mr. FIELD:—Not now!

Mr. BARRINGER:—Perhaps not now, and why? For the reason that it has been abolished by law, as in the recent case of Russia. Slavery once existed in the Northern States. By law it was also abolished in those States. We say that when slave property is on the high seas it ought to be protected—the rights of the owner ought to be protected.

This question came up in the case of the "Amistead." Mr. Adams claimed that although these slaves were recognized by the laws of Spain as property, yet, when once upon the high seas, they were, by the law of nations, free, and these slaves have never been paid for to this day.

This amendment is highly important to the South. The concession we ask is no greater than has been made before. In the treaties of 1783 and 1815, slaves were to be protected as property.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I do not wish to nullify the action, or change the course of our Government on this question. Slaves upon the high seas have always been recognized as property. Look at the treaty of 1815. That recognized slaves as property, and those which were taken from the District were paid for. Adams, of Massachusetts, took the same ground now taken by the North. The Government took the opposite ground. The question was ultimately referred to the Emperor of Russia, who decided that property in slaves must be recognized by the law of nations, and sustained our view. Take the "Creole" case also. But I will not go over the ground. The "Amistead" case stood upon grounds which were entirely different.

But it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Constitution. The rights of the South in this respect are well enough protected now.

Mr. GRANGER:—I regret that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia has again raised a question which was decided against him by a large majority in the Conference a few days ago.

Mr. SEDDON:—The gentleman is quite correct. The principle must be the same whether applied to the Territories or to the high seas.

Mr. GRANGER:—It is claimed by the South that slaves are property everywhere. Why, then, name slave property more than any other species in the Constitution?

Mr. BARRINGER:—We say that slaves are both persons and property.

Mr. GRANGER:—It has always been the course of the Government to pay for slaves taken on the high seas. The gentleman has referred to the "Amistead" case as having been decided against the southern claim. I present the "Amistead" case as a perfect answer to the miserable calumnies which have been disseminated against that Court. The Judges in that case were unanimous with a single exception, and he was a Judge from a free State. We of the North upon these national questions are prepared to go with you to the extreme verge of right and loyalty.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:—I have no desire to complicate these questions of international law. The treaties of 1783 and 1815 were participated in by Jay and the elder Adams. They expressly provided for the payment for slaves like other property. This is plain English, and settles the question so far as the North is concerned. I am for letting it alone where it is.

Mr. CRISFIELD:—I am not able to support this proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. I consider the right of property in slaves, in the slave States, and in the territory south of 36° 30´, as fully recognized and established in the report of the majority of the committee. In this very clause this property is expressly admitted, and Congress is prohibited from interfering with it. This is enough—it is all that should be done. We have come here to settle our domestic troubles. The report of the committee recognizes and affirms these rights of the South which have heretofore been denied or doubted. I think their report gives us all the assurance we need. We were not sent here to engraft new principles into our foreign policy, and I will not consent to enter upon that business. We have got this right of property specifically recognized, and no administration hereafter will refuse to carry out the plain provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. SEDDON:—Where in the article do you find this right recognized? It simply prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery within certain limits. Nothing beyond that.

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

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

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

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

The vote upon Mr. Seddon's amendment resulted as follows:

And the amendment was lost.

Messrs. Butler and Clay, of Kentucky; Messrs. Doniphan and Johnson, of Missouri; Messrs. Howard and Dent, of Maryland, dissented from the votes of their respective States.

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

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

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

Mr. SEDDON:—I call a vote by States.

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

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

I shall not detain the Conference for five minutes in the discussion of this amendment. I wish, however, to have the words "master and slave" somewhere inserted in this article, in plain English language, so that the dangerous delusion so prevalent at the North, that the Constitution does not recognize slavery, may be thoroughly and forever removed; so that the Constitution shall, beyond any question, recognize the relation of master and slave; a duplex relation—a relation of person and property. I wish to meet that question fairly and squarely. Let it be thoroughly understood as a relation of person and property. This is what we ask, and this is what we insist upon. Put this into the Constitution, and you take the shortest and the most effective means of settling the question, and of promoting peace and tranquillity. You strike the axe to the very root of bitterness, whence has sprung all our trouble, all our difficulties. I ask a vote by States.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. ALEXANDER:—[5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the amendment was adopted.

Messrs. Hoppin and Browne, of Rhode Island, dissented from the vote of that State.

Mr. McCURDY:—I move to amend the original article of the committee's report by the addition of this proviso. My object is to prevent the sale of slaves in the waters of New York or any other port:

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I insist there is not the slightest necessity for this amendment. I hope gentlemen will stop interposing these useless propositions; they confound the sense of the article, and we are guarding against questions which by no possibility can arise.

The vote was then taken on the amendment of Mr. McCurdy, and resulted as follows:

And the amendment was agreed to.

Messrs. Logan and Palmer, of Illinois, dissented from the vote of that State.

Mr. HOWARD:—I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut if he ever knew or heard of a case where a slave was sold in a free State?

Mr. McCURDY:—I do not intend to argue that question; but as I am appealed to, although the proviso is adopted, I will state the grounds on which it rests.

Mr. CLAY:—I wish to know whether the object of the amendment is to prevent the making of contracts connected with the purchase or sale of slaves in the free States?

Mr. McCURDY:—My object is apparent from the amendment. It explains itself. I wish to prohibit any transactions concerning the purchase or sale of slaves, either within the free States or the navigable waters connected therewith, or under free State jurisdiction. If there were no such prohibition, a cargo of slaves might be brought from the coast of Africa into the port of New York, and transferred there to parties residing in the slave States. The free States have a right to direct what shall, and what shall not be a subject of commerce within their limits. I presume it is not intended that the Constitution shall prohibit the exercise of this right. I desire not to leave this open to construction, but to make the section declare that no such intention exists.

Mr. GUTHRIE:—I am now satisfied that we shall get nothing here that is satisfactory to the people of the south side of the river. We are continually waylaid by suspicions, which are unjust, unfounded, and ought not to exist. If this class of amendments is to be adopted, I cannot go on, with respect to myself or the Convention. I feel now, since this amendment is adopted, that my mission here is ended.

Mr. REID:—I move to insert at the end of the third article reported by the committee these words: "Persons of the African race shall not be deemed citizens, or permitted to exercise the right of suffrage, in the election of federal officers."

Mr. GUTHRIE:—This is worse than ever, and it comes from the South too.

Mr. REID:—I will withdraw it then.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to move the adoption of the previous question. We may as well come to the point now as ever. There is no use of discussing this question any longer. I move the previous question upon the report.

Objections and cries of "No, no," were made by several members.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—I will withdraw the motion.

Mr. TURNER:—I think it would be very unreasonable for any gentleman to expect that we were to get through with the questions presented by this report without the exercise of mutual forbearance. The adoption of an amendment implies no disrespect to the committee. No member of the committee should take it in that sense. I will move a reconsideration of the vote by which the last amendment was adopted. I do not think we had better take the vote now, but pass the subject for the present.

The PRESIDENT:—It can be passed by common consent.

The vote was reconsidered without a division, and the immediate consideration of the question passed.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I now renew the offer of my substitute for the third section of the article reported by the committee.

Mr. FIELD:—I thought when the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. McCurdy's amendment was agreed to, it was understood that the consideration of the whole section was to be passed for the present. My vote upon that amendment was given deliberately, and I have no idea that this Convention is to break up because a vote is passed in it which is distasteful to any man, State, or delegation.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:—I think I must insist upon the consideration of my substitute.

Mr. BROWNE:—I move to lay the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Ohio on the table. If that motion is carried, I do not understand that the effect of it is to lay the report of the committee on the table.

Mr. SMITH:—I rise to a question of order. I think the question now should be on Mr. McCurdy's amendment. I ask for information. I do not quite see how that amendment can be informally passed over without at the same time passing the consideration of the whole article.

The PRESIDENT:—It was passed by universal consent.

Mr. CHASE:—As I understand it, the gentleman from Illinois made the motion that the vote be reconsidered, and the consideration of the amendment passed for the present, and this was agreed to by the Conference unanimously.

The motion of Mr. Browne to lay the motion of Mr. Hitchcock on the table, was agreed to without a division.

Mr. BALDWIN:—I move to strike out these words in the third section: "Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons bound to labor than on land." I have already stated that I think this language singularly inappropriate to a provision of the Constitution. The Constitution already prohibits such distinctions in the laying of taxes, and, therefore, there is no necessity for the adoption of this clause. But I have another and more important objection to it; it contains and proposes to place in the Constitution the distinct recognition of the right of property in slaves. This recognition was carefully avoided in the Convention which framed the Constitution, and the North always has been, and always will be, opposed to any such recognition. Place it there, and your article will never be adopted in any of the free States.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:—The first statutes passed by Congress on this subject recognized the right to tax slaves. This implied the right to hold slaves. This recognition of the right of taxation was made in express terms. The gentleman has forgotten the history of the legislation on this subject. The object of the committee is to prevent any possibility that those who come after us should make any distinction between these classes of property in levying taxes. We do not seek a recognition of the right of property in slaves in this; that right is already recognized to our satisfaction in the Constitution.

Mr. TUCK:—I understand the gentleman from Kentucky, and I think he is right. If we adopt the article at all we ought to retain this language.

The vote was taken by States on the amendment proposed by Mr. Baldwin, with the following result: