Chapter XVI: Section 7: Congress shall provide by law that the United (1)

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 assemblages, or when, after 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. GUTHRIE:--I hope now the Conference will proceed in the regular way, and that the majority report will be first perfected so far as amendments are concerned, and that then it may be adopted.

Mr. SEDDON:--I move to amend the first section by inserting, after the words "in all the present territory south of said line," the words "including the Cherokee grant," and I call for a vote by States on the adoption of the amendment I propose. My object is to carry out the instruction of the committee. A small part of the grant lies north of the line. It is better to include the whole.

Mr. BACKUS:--I move to amend the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, by substituting the word "excluding" for the word "including," and on my motion ask a vote by States.

Mr. RUFFIN:--I think the gentleman does not understand the effect of his amendment.

Mr. BACKUS:--I do not think we ought to regard the Cherokee grant at all.

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I think both the amendments important.

Mr. SEDDON:--We must recognize the Cherokee Territory, and not divide it. Upon mature reflection, I think the amendment is important.

The vote was taken upon the motion of Mr. BACKUS, and resulted as follows:

AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Vermont--11.

NOES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--9.

The PRESIDENT:--The question is now upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, as amended by the Conference.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope the amendment will not be adopted. It is not necessary to the sense of the article. It is cumulative in its effect. We have expressly excluded the Cherokee grant, lest we might seem to overrule the Cherokee treaty by a provision of the Constitution.

The vote was taken by States, on the adoption of the amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON, as amended, with the following result:

AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and
Vermont--10.

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

Thus the amendment was lost.

Mr. PRATT:--I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Connecticut.

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I now offer as a substitute for the first section, as reported, the following:

Strike out after the words "United States," in the first
line, and insert as follows:

"Not embraced by the Cherokee treaty, 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 service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed;
nor shall any law be passed to hinder or prevent the taking
of such persons 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
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."

Mr. FOWLER:--Let us first perfect the original. I move to amend by inserting after the word "prevent," in the first section, the words "or facilitate."

Mr. REID:--I think we ought to perfect the section before we vote on a substitute. I move to amend it by inserting after the word "line," after the words "territory south of said line," the following 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"--

I have not expressed my views at large upon the subject of the committee's report. I have earnestly wished to settle the perplexing questions which now distract the country. I do not rise to make a speech. I have not come here to exact more than the North can honorably grant, nor to deceive the North in the result, if the rights of the South are not protected. Our property is involved in your action. You can afford to be liberal. If you intend to recognize property in slaves, write it down in the bond. If the North wants any protection, name it, and we will put it into the bond. If you fear that slavery may go north of the proposed line, we will give you any assurance to the contrary. But I tell you that on the other side we require reciprocal terms. Nothing else will satisfy the public sentiment. Twelve months hence and we will not take what we now offer to take.

What are we talking about? Every one knows that the African race is better off at the South than it could be elsewhere. We do not wish to disrupt the Union. You are doing it on a mere Northern abstraction. Suppose a foreign power asked you what you were fighting about, what would be your answer?

But I was saying that the only way is for the North to be liberal; to be reciprocal; to make us entirely safe. Our security must be put into the bond and be faithfully preserved. The present _status_ of the States in the Union is deceptive. If I am to remain in the Union, it don't suit me. If I am to go into a southern confederacy, it is just what I should want. Beware, gentlemen of the North! You are cutting yourselves off from future glory and expansion.

Mr. VANDEVER:--The gentleman from North Carolina wants the distinct recognition of slavery in the bond. I would like to refer him to the condition of this question when the Constitution was adopted. The men of that time would not assert such a position. They did not think it proper or necessary. If we adopt his views we attempt to sit in judgment on the men of that day. Mr. CALHOUN understood this matter perfectly, and in one of his speeches refers to the unwillingness of the Convention to recognize slavery specifically. The sentiment of Iowa is that no such recognition ought to be made now. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SEDDON:--I consider this an important amendment, and a very just one. The principle upon which we are proceeding is that of partition. We, with our property are prohibited from going north of the line. The exact correlative of that would be, that you should be prohibited from going south with your institutions. That we do not ask. On one side involuntary servitude is prohibited. On the other we simply ask that it may be recognized. We give up two-thirds of the territory altogether. All we ask is protection in the remaining one-third.

What is the meaning of this proposition as it now stands? Who does not see that its meaning is ambiguous? It requires us to give up territorial protection, and leaves us with nothing but the shred of a right protected by the Federal courts. Once more let me tell you, that in my opinion the South will never consider this a satisfactory adjustment. You say we are protected by the principles of the common law. Who can tell what this will amount to? Assuming the territorial government to be favorable, it could do nothing. You leave it powerless. Suppose a citizen of Virginia emigrates to the territory south of the line with his property. He would have no earthly right except under the laws of Virginia. The power to enforce those laws is a thousand miles away. If we are to make a partition, let it be a partition. As the provision stands, it is the unfairest bargain ever made. It is all on the side of the North. In common fairness and honesty, I submit that the North ought to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ORTH:--There is much that is worthy of consideration in the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia. I hope earnestly that we shall not adopt a proposal of amendment that admits of two interpretations. If I could vote for the report of the majority at all, I would throw around it all the protection it needs. This is a new and peculiar species of property which we are now making the Constitution recognize and protect. If the South is entitled to the proposition itself, I think they are entitled to this amendment. After all, it is only making the amendment express just what we know its friends claim it implies.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I would have preferred the direct recognition by express terms of slavery south of the line proposed, and I voted that way in the committee. I suppose, however, that the clause as it stands recognizes the _status_ there, as it now exists--that it prevents all interference with the _status_. Would you prefer to put into the proposition certain express terms which would destroy all chance of its adoption by the people? I do not think the world is governed by ideas alone. It is governed by ideas and material interests. The Constitution of 1787 secured the interests of the slaveholder in the States. This clause does the same in the Territories. No man can be cheated by it unless he cheats himself. Gentlemen favoring the amendment must know that at least it will not improve the prospects of the proposition with the people. Do you wish to break up the Conference? This is an effectual way of doing it.

We ask for this proposition substantially as it stands. The North can give it to us if it chooses. If it will not, then we shall go home and tell our constituents. They must decide for themselves what they will do. This will settle the Territorial question effectually. What more do we want? The additional guarantees? These are provided for in the other clauses.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I call for a vote by States on Mr. REID'S amendment.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I shall vote for the amendment of my colleague. I have occupied no time in the general debate, but now I do desire to say a few words about this amendment, and the proposition to which it is offered. The amendment brings up the very _gist_ of the matter. Differences of opinion exist as to the effect of the clause. The amendment settles them. This is no place to talk about devotion to the Union. To be a Union at all it must be one that recognizes and protects the rights of all. Any other Union is not worth the name; is not worth preserving. We came here, it is true, to save the Union. We came here to devise the means of saving it. Practically the Union is already dissolved. If not dissolved it is disintegrated.

We ask first, additional guarantees for our rights--for Southern rights. They must be such as will satisfy our people, and bring back the States that have left the Union. Short of this they will amount to nothing. I know the public opinion of the South on these important questions. I have closely watched its growth. My own convictions as to what it will require are decided. Unless you use language and adopt terms in your proposals of amendment which will satisfy the seceded States--which will induce them to return to the Union--your labors will have been in vain.

What is our claim? It is this, in short: We claim that every Southern man has the right to go into the Territories with his property, wherever these Territories may be. The Territories belong to both; to the South as well as to the North. We want equality. We have no wish to propagate slavery, but every man at the South does wish to insist upon his right to enter the Territories upon terms of perfect equality with the North, if he chooses to do so. He may not exercise the right, but he will not give it up.

We want a division of the Territories. We want to set up landmarks so that neither we nor our posterity shall dispute hereafter about the line.

North Carolina has instructed us to say to this Conference, that if the CRITTENDEN amendment can be adopted here, we can carry it almost with unanimity. There will be a struggle even with our own people, but we can induce them to adopt it.

We have three hundred miles of border in common with South Carolina. Our trade and our associations are in that direction. It is useless to deny that South Carolina has sympathizers among us in her recent movement. You must consider these things, and give us a chance. We must base our argument on principle; we must stand upon terms of perfect equality.

The proposition needs this amendment. As it stands it is ambiguous. It is worse than that, for its construction will depend on the opinion of a Territorial Judge.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I come from a State that is deeply interested in the subject of slavery. Nevertheless, I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina.

I belong to that class of politicians which believes that the people of every section of the Union have a right to go into all the Territories of the Union, and take with them their property and hold it in safety. But we ought not, in our proposals of amendment to the Constitution, to insist upon what will be repulsive to any section of the Union. I think the amendment is unnecessary--that the right we claim is sufficiently protected without it. As it stands, neither Congress nor the Territorial Government has the right to impair the _status_ of the slave. What farther protection do we need? What other can we have? Why should we insist upon the adoption of a new style of language? We ought not to be unreasonable; we ought to content ourselves with the proposition as it stands, and not put expressions into it which will make the whole repulsive to a large section of the country, and which, in all probability, will defeat the whole amendment when it comes before the country. I am not even sure that we could get it there. I doubt whether it would pass Congress.

This is a very serious and important question. We wish to stay the hands of extremists on both sides. We wish to stand by the Union. If war comes, our soil is to be the battle ground. I wish to avoid war. I will insist upon this, and I will consent to no extreme opinions.

Mr. VANDEVER:--I do not see why Mr. GUTHRIE cannot accept the proposed amendment. He and the gentleman from North Carolina are both aiming at the same thing. The amendment is certainly the clearest. Do you suppose the people are not going to understand the subject thoroughly? Do you suppose that they will be deceived by any such transparent disguise of words? You do not pay them a very high compliment by such a supposition.

I must vote against the amendment, because I am opposed to the _principle_ of protecting slavery in the Territories. Such is the sentiment of the North. If it was not, I should vote for the amendment.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--As I intend to vote against the amendment, it is due to the Convention that I should state the reasons for my vote. I am in favor of a clear recognition of all the rights of the South, especially of our rights in the Territories. I voted for the CRITTENDEN amendment in the committee. I thought the North ought, in justice to us, to adopt that amendment. We, in this Conference, have selected a Committee of One from each State--a committee of able men, and we have placed this subject in their charge. They have consulted together. They have ascertained the views and feeling of the different sections of the country; they have embodied the result of their labors in this report. The question now presented appears to my mind to be this: After all the time and ability they have given to their report in the present distracted and perilous condition of the country, shall I consent to put words into the amendment of the Constitution which they recommend, that will ensure its defeat when it comes before the people?

I know as certainly as that GOD rules in heaven, that unless we come to some satisfactory adjustment in this Conference, a convulsion will ensue such as the world has never seen.

I have been travelling for nearly two months in the seceded States. I believe I understand the temper of their people. I have found there an all-pervading dissatisfaction with the existing state of things, but I have also found great devotion to the Union. I think we can yet save the seceded States. But at least let us save Texas and Arkansas. As it is, black ruin sits nursing the earthquake which threatens to level this Government to its foundations. Can you not feel it, while there is yet time to prepare for the shock? If this giant frenzy of disunion raises its crested head--if red battle stamps his foot, the North will feel the shock as severely as the South.

Such is the prospect before us, and near to us, and yet gentlemen say that they will not give _one_ guarantee to avert such dire calamities. Will not the gentleman from New York do one thing to save that Ship of State of which he spoke so eloquently, when she is already among the breakers, and driving so rapidly toward that rocky shore against which her ribs of steel cannot long protect her? We are patriots all--we are bound to act together--to do something--to do our duty, and our whole duty--to do what will ultimately preserve the Union.

Mr. PALMER:--A few days ago the Conference listened to a deliberate defence of the institution of slavery by its friends from the slave States, in which at least one gentleman from a free State (Mr. EWING) participated. That defence could have had but one object. That object was to place us who do not believe in slavery in such a position that we could not agree to a compromise without endorsing the views then expressed. Gentlemen expect us to give up our opinions and concur with them. I have but one remark to make to all such suggestions. We entertain our opinions on the subject of slavery; we cannot, we will not surrender them.

We are told that this contest must cease, or the Union must perish. I am inclined to think so myself. We stand ready to make any reasonable compromise to save the Union, short of sacrificing our opinions. You, gentlemen of the South, cannot be satisfied unless our capitulation is complete.

I do not assent to much that is said here about the Border States. If the Union is not dissolved until the Border States go to fighting each other, it will last forever.

Mr. REID:--If we all mean the same thing, let us put it into the bond. Then there will be no room for misunderstanding or controversy. If you leave this article open to construction, nothing will be settled. The gentleman is mistaken if he supposes that I wish him to adopt my arguments. I do not. If this provision, as it stands, protects slavery in the Territories south of 36° and 30´, why not say so in express terms? I question whether the article, as reported, recognizes property in slaves at all. I wish to settle the question now and forever. I do not wish to have my purpose perverted. I wish to carry home to North Carolina a reasonable story. We have given up all our rights in the territory north of the line. Let the North be reciprocal. What shall I tell my people at home? That I have given away their rights in more than one-half the territory, and have not even secured a provision protecting property in slaves in the remainder?

The vote, on the request of Mr. CHITTENDEN, was taken by States, and resulted as follows:--

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

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, and Iowa--17.

So the amendment was lost.

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--Tennessee approves the sentiment of the amendment, but she thinks the requisite security is already given.

Messrs. BUTLER and CLAY, of Kentucky, and Mr. DENT, of Maryland, asked to have their dissent recorded from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I wish to make a suggestion in relation to Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute. I think it is not in order. The Conference has already determined to perfect the committee's report, before substitutes are to be considered.

Mr. CURTIS:--I now move to amend Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute, by striking out all after the word "prohibit," in the third line, down to and including the words "common law," and inserting instead thereof the words, "but this restriction shall not apply to territory south of said line."

My proposition is offered in good faith, and to show that Iowa is disposed to compromise. I do not say that this is as far as she will go. I have inserted the very words used by our fathers. They prohibited slavery north and tolerated it south of the line. This was the original proposition of Virginia. If there is any thing in its ethics, they are Virginia ethics. Slavery now exists in these Territories. Let it be there. There is slavery in Kansas, Utah, and Nebraska. We cannot help it. It appears to me that the South ought to accept this amendment. It recognizes the opinions of our fathers. This was JEFFERSON'S idea when he drew the ordinance of 1787.

The Constitution does recognize the relation of master and slave, in my opinion. I do not like it, I confess. You in the South do not regard your blacks as slaves in the absolute sense of the term. You have a right in their services, not in their bodies. You recognize them as _men_ in various ways.

Again I say, I do not offer this amendment to embarrass the action of the Conference. It secures slavery south of 36° 30´.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--This amendment would not be satisfactory either to the South or myself. In my judgment, it ought not to be adopted. We claim the right under the Constitution as it is, to go into all the Territories of the Union with our property. This right is confirmed to us by the decision of the Supreme Court. There will be no compromise, if we cannot go home to our people and tell them that you concede this right south of 36° 30´. Otherwise, they would throw the propositions in our faces. As it stands, the article gives you security, North. As it would be when this amendment is adopted, it would give the South law and litigation. We want peace. We cannot take this amendment.

Pending the consideration of the amendment offered by Mr. CURTIS, on motion of Mr. JAMES, the Conference adjourned to ten o'clock to-morrow morning.

SIXTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, SATURDAY, _February 23d, 1861._

The Conference was called to order at ten o'clock A.M., by President TYLER, and its proceedings commenced with prayer from Rev. Dr. BUTLER.

The Journal of yesterday, in part, was read. The Secretary stated that he had not found time to complete it.

Mr. ALEXANDER:--I move to rescind the resolution adopted yesterday allowing ten minutes to a member proposing an amendment, and ten minutes for the reply. I do not propose to discuss the motion. I think all will agree upon the necessity of rescinding the resolution. This will leave the five minutes' rule in full force.

A vote by States was asked by several members.

Mr. SEDDON:--I wish to call the attention of the Conference to this subject for a moment. I hope the present rule will not be changed. The debate up to yesterday was upon general questions. We have not yet gone into detail. We tried the operation of the ten minutes' rule yesterday. I am sure that it will not be claimed that any gentleman abused it.

Mr. JAMES:--We have scarcely discussed a question of detail connected with an article in the committee's report.

Mr. ALEXANDER:--I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. VANDEVER:--I tried to offer a resolution yesterday which I deemed important. It was then ruled out of order. I am sure it is in order now. It reads as follows:

_Resolved_, That whatever may be the ultimate determination
upon the amendment of the Federal Constitution, or other
propositions for adjustment approved by this Convention, we,
the members, do recommend our respective States and
constituencies to faithfully abide in the Union.

Mr. BRONSON:--I rise to a question of order. The report of the committee and the amendments thereto, are the special order of business. We ought not to permit collateral questions to be brought in. We adjourned yesterday with the amendment proposed by Mr. FRANKLIN as a substitute for the first article of the committee's report before us. To that Mr. CURTIS, of Iowa, had offered an amendment, which was under discussion. Let us keep to our rules.

The PRESIDENT:--I think the resolution of the gentleman from Iowa is in order now.

Mr. VANDEVER:--I hope the question will be taken upon my resolution at the present time. All the questions we have been discussing are, in my judgment, secondary to another which ought to be first decided. Is this Conference true to the Union--true under all circumstances? If so, I regard it as highly important that the Conference should give some expression to that effect. Even if we should settle this great contention about slavery to-day, other questions might afterward arise. I am quite prepared to see a claim set up, to what is called the right of peaceful secession. I would guard against all such claims. The passage of this resolution would have a beneficial effect upon the public mind. I think we still have a Government which can protect itself and the nation. My constituents believe this preliminary question quite as important as that of protecting slavery in the Territories.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move to lay the resolution introduced by the gentleman from Iowa, on the table.

Mr. BUTLER:--I want the resolution read again.

Mr. VANDEVER:--Let us all go on to the record. I ask a vote by States.

The resolution was read, and the vote being taken by States, resulted as follows:

AYES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Missouri, and Ohio--11.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--9.

So the motion to lay the resolution on the table prevailed.

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the order of the day. The question is upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, to the substitute for the first section of the report of the committee, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I came into this Conference with the honest and single purpose of healing the unfortunate differences which now distract the country, having no sinister ends to answer. That purpose has hitherto remained unchanged. To accomplish it, there is nothing I will not sacrifice except principle and honor. I think the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa is, in substance, just the same as Mr. FRANKLIN'S substitute. In the one, a fact is implied; in the other, the same fact is expressed. I understand that neither proposition can command the support of those gentlemen in the Conference who favor a National Convention. Neither can the amendment command the approval of the border slave States. Certainly not all, if it can any of them. The adoption, then, of this amendment, will operate as a defeat of the first section of the proposed amendment of the Constitution. Neither party in this Conference will accept it. While, therefore, I believe it ought to be accepted--while I believe it amounts to nearly the same as the original proposition, I will not peril the Union upon a mere question of form.

I did not come here to inquire into causes. Our differences exist, and I do not think they were occasioned by the success of the Republican party in the last Presidential election. The plotters against the Union have seized upon the occasion to accomplish their designs.

By no fault of their own, several of the Border States are placed in a very unfortunate position. They wish to remain in the Union, but their people insist that certain of their rights shall be previously secured; in other words, guaranteed.

It is my firm belief that if the inauguration of President LINCOLN was over, if his administration had been for a few months in operation, we should all be at peace. Now, we must act upon the facts as they are presented to us.

I must vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa in order to give the original proposition a fair chance. I wish to have it distinctly understood that this is the reason why I cast my vote against his amendment.

Mr. JAMES:--I do not rise to debate the question at length, now before the Conference. I think that this amendment brings us at once to the true issue which the case presents. We have hitherto been talking about abstractions. Now we come directly to the point. As this is a Conference to settle disputed questions, the sooner we come to the true points in issue, the better.

What is the cause of our present differences? It is not found in any action of the North. No Northern State proposes to disrupt the Union or to threaten its stability. But certain of the Southern slave States come here and say to us that certain alleged rights of theirs must be secured, or they cannot induce their people to consent to remain in the Union.

I have heard a great deal said in this Conference about civil war. Now, civil war is not a pleasant subject to consider; but, gentlemen, I pray you to remember that the North proposes no civil war. She declines to consider the subject at all, now. If civil war is brought upon the country, it will be your work, not ours. The North will do all she can to stay your hands--to prevent you from plunging the country into civil war. She will not enter upon it until you force her to do so. When you begin it, and force her into war in order to defend the Government and the Union, I have no doubt she will enter the field and carry on civil war until the Union is restored and its enemies put down. Let me ask you, gentlemen, who have so much to say about war, whether you had not better leave that question where it is?

It has been assumed, and very often stated here, that the present Constitution gives the right to the Southern slave owner to take his negroes into any of the Territories of the United States, and hold them there as slaves. I think it would be well for you not to act so entirely upon that assumption. A different view prevails quite extensively at the North. It will be a long time before that view is changed.

Now, you gentlemen of the South propose to restore the Missouri Compromise line. To induce us to adopt it, you say that the territory south of it is a barren, worthless desert--that slavery can never obtain a substantial foothold there. Why, then, do you make the subject one of so much importance? Why do you risk all the calamities of civil war and a disruption of the Union for such a poor reward? We should distrust all your statements, we should disbelieve all your professions of patriotism, if we could for a moment credit the assertion that you would break up the Union on such a worthless pretext.

You ring the changes in our ears upon the decision of the Supreme Court in your favor. Let me tell you plainly that there is no section of the Union in which the decisions of that court have been so fully and fairly respected and observed as in the free States of the North. With that you should be satisfied.

You are in trouble; that is evident. Your troubles have been caused by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. That, again, was your work, not ours. We opposed the repeal to the end. You had the power and you carried it. Now the North is indifferent about the restoration of that compromise; but if that will satisfy you, restore the _status quo_, and the North will stand by you. But you must not expect now, that the North will do any thing better for you than to extend the provisions of the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean.

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--The gentleman from New York who has last addressed the Conference, appeals to us to accept the amendment now proposed, upon the grounds of justice and equity. What is the present state of the case? We claim the right to go into all the Territories with our southern property. The Supreme Court has confirmed this right to us. With this advantage in our favor, we have met here to compromise. What is the proposition now? It is to give the North all the territory north of 36° 30´, and to leave all questions concerning the territory south of that line without any adjustment at all! That gentleman favors no compromise at all. He proposes that we should go home without any adjustment. Shall we go back to our excited people and say this: "The North will make no adjustment with you"? Is this the way to settle the important questions that now distract the country?

We have not come here for war; we have come here for peace. We have come to settle all the questions between us upon a fair and equitable basis. How are we met? Gentlemen from the North say they will give us nothing. All we ask is right and justice--that right which the Constitution and the Court has given us in _all_ the territory, _secured in one-third of it_. With that we will be content.

Some gentlemen object to the phraseology of the article. Let them have all that their own way. They stop here to quarrel about words? Settle those as you like, but we ask all the friends of the Union to stand by, and reject all amendments which affect the substance of the article. Such a course will end all contention.

We read in Sacred History that the Israelites were once so conscientious that they would not fight on Sunday. They were attacked and overthrown. They finally agreed to compromise the question of conscience so far as to fight in self-defence on Sunday. They were attacked then, and the enemy was overthrown.

The report is not such as we could wish it might be, but, such as it is, we will accept it and stand by it. We will adopt it, and we ask the North to adopt it, in the true spirit of compromise.

Mr. LOGAN:--I am under the necessity of believing that the gentleman from Iowa is in earnest, in offering this amendment; but if I were to present it, I should not expect any one to believe I was in earnest. What is the compromise which this amendment proposes? It is, in substance, that the North will take three-fourths of the Territory under the Constitution, and the rest by force. If gentlemen entertain such views, we might as well come to a direct vote at once, and see whether any thing can be done.

The gentleman from Iowa says this is the Missouri Compromise; but it lacks much of it. Besides, circumstances have greatly changed since 1820, when the compromise was adopted. Now, seven States have left us and gone out of the Union, and we are acting in view of that fact. There is a contest between the North and the remaining Southern States, and the latter have no better chance in that contest alone, than Turkey had in the grasp of the rugged Russian Bear. The gentlemen from these States do not threaten. All they say is, "If we cannot agree longer together, let us go in peace. We will fight only in self-defence."

They ask us further, "If we stay with you, how do you intend to treat us? As equals, or as inferiors?" If as inferiors, we cannot sustain ourselves with our people, saying nothing of our own self-respect. I acknowledge the force of these inquiries.

A civil revolution terminated at the last election. The power to wield the Government came into the hands of the Republicans. The circumstances suddenly change. Political power leaves the South. What now shall we give them in place of that? Shall we leave these States at our mercy? This is an earnest time. We should act as if the fate of a great nation depended on our action. If we intend to say we will do nothing, let us say so plainly, and not by indirection.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I thank GOD I hear a voice such as I have just heard from _that_ section of the country (Iowa)! I have been a member of a recent Legislature of North Carolina, in which there was a majority of secessionists. I have been jeered at in that body for the opinions I have expressed, for I have told those gentlemen repeatedly that if we could once get the ear of the North, the North would do us justice. They pointed me to the raid of JOHN BROWN--to the meeting in Boston, where the gallows of JOHN BROWN was carried with solemn ceremonies into the Cradle of Liberty. They pointed me to the man who presided over that meeting, since elevated to the high and honorable position of Governor of Massachusetts. Notwithstanding all this, I have replied that the masses of the northern people would deal fairly by us. I have told these secessionists to their teeth that Mr. LINCOLN was properly elected under the Constitution, and that he ought to be inaugurated. Their reply was, "Kansas, and the JOHN BROWN raid!"

Now, I ask this Conference to look for one moment at the effect of the amendment which is proposed. It withdraws all constitutional protection from us north of 36° 30´. Adopt it, and what has Massachusetts to do but to import her foreigners into the country south, and take possession of it. New York will back her, and we shall be swept from the face of the earth.

If the gentleman from New York means to say that the nation can put its foot on to the neck of the States and crush them into submission, let him go into Virginia and join in another JOHN BROWN raid. Virginia will treat him as she did JOHN BROWN. No! the gentleman has not studied the motto of the Union. There is the _E pluribus_ as well as the _unum_. If the new President proposes to come down to the South and conquer us, he will find that the whole temple shall fall. We can be crushed, perhaps, but conquered, _never_!

Mr. BRADFORD:--Maryland has, under the lead of her constitutional Chief Magistrate, determined to preserve her position of neutrality, and not by any action of hers to add to the prevailing excitement on either side. She has done what she could to allay the existing irritation, and will continue to pursue the same policy she has hitherto adopted.

Here is a large file of amendments. Almost every delegation has given notice of an intention to offer one or more. If we begin to adopt them, I feel sure that we shall destroy all hope of an ultimate agreement.

Mr. President, I desire to make an emphatic declaration to this Conference. It is this: Give us the report as it came from the committee, without substantial alteration, and there is no power on earth that can draw the State of Maryland out of the Union! Maryland has been called the heart of the Union. The day she leaves the Union, that heart is broken! I am now inclined to set my face against all amendments. I think that is the better course.

In the populous section of the State where I reside, the universal cry is, "For God's sake, settle these questions!" Why can we not settle them? The committee inform us that the members of which it is composed, were nearly unanimous upon all points except the territorial question. Will reasonable men not yield a little to each other in order to settle that?

Then let us look calmly at the consequences which must follow our disagreement. I will enter into no panegyric of the Union. To use an often repeated expression, it needs none. It is enshrined in the hearts of the people with all the glories of the past, with all the glorious hopes of the future. It has given us a position in the front rank of the nations. There is every prospect that it will make us in the end the most powerful among the nations. Who can look unmoved upon the spectacle of such a Union about to fall into fragments? What sacrifice too great to avert such a ruin?

We all understand, we all agree that we can save the Union by settling this miserable question of slavery in the Territories. We should be unworthy of ourselves and our trusts, if we set our division upon this question above the preservation of the Union. How can it be possible that Union men, or even politicians, can hesitate as to which path ought to be taken? One leads to ruin, the other to a haven of safety.

It will be a world-wonder hereafter, if we do not agree. The people--the whole country, will stand aghast at the spectacle of folly we present. I would not, for all the wealth and honors the nation could bestow, be remembered hereafter as a man who stood between these measures of pacification and the people who should finally decide upon them. I would not have the priceless blessing of the Union put in peril for a single hour, when its safety can be purchased at so small a cost.

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The civilized world is amazed at the present condition of one of the greatest Governments on the face of the earth. I participate in that amazement myself. What is that condition? In a time of profound peace, of great prosperity, with the Government itself in the hands of southern men, State after State has dared to attempt to sever its connection with the Union. Even Florida, which has cost us so many millions, which ever since we had her has been a constant slough of expenditure, says we cannot even have the national property which happens to be within her territorial limits!

I am not so strong a believer in the effect of legislative action as many others. I have looked at the main points of our differences in the light of history, and it is my belief that the laws of soil and climate will settle this question of slavery in the Territories, much more effectually than we can settle it by any legislative or constitutional provisions.

The Missouri Compromise once settled this Territorial question in a manner satisfactory to the South. Through the influence of the South it was repealed. Now the South desires to have its provisions restored. As I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, it exactly restores the _status quo_.

We are told, farther, that the natural allies of the border slave States have left them; that, reduced in numbers, they cannot maintain their position against the North. This assumes that the North is hostile to the South. I deny it. I say that my state is the natural ally of Kentucky, a more powerful ally than she ever had South.

Parties are governed by certain natural laws. A party which adopts a principle at war with the sentiments of the people may succeed for a time by the force of party drill, but in the end it will go down. The CALHOUN doctrine destroyed a party. Under the operation of the same law the Democratic party has gone down. But you cannot destroy a party before its time. The effort of Virginia now is to overthrow the Republican party. The effort will not succeed. It is equivalent to an attempt to overthrow the country.

I am not frightened at this idea of giving guarantees. I do not think them of much importance. I am willing to give such as are reasonable. We hold to a certain extent to your doctrine of State sovereignty, and would protect it.

Our people North and South are too much alike in many respects. We are all inclined to stand too much upon party abstractions. This is almost the only reason why we cannot agree.

We are told that some things stated here grate harshly upon the ears of gentlemen from the South. The converse of this is equally true. I can take a rebuke, I trust, in a good temper, but I do not like to be stabbed in the house of my friends. I do not like to have doctrines and opinions imputed to me and my party which are only entertained by a little knot of fanatical abolitionists in the neighborhood of Boston; a few men who will not vote under the present Constitution, and who are led and controlled by LLOYD GARRISON and WENDELL PHILLIPS.

Mr. HOUSTON:--I am strongly averse to the introduction of the subject of party into the deliberations of the Conference. I did not intend to allude to party at all; but since the subject has been referred to in such impassioned terms, I feel that I must say a word about it.

Many references have been made in this debate to the opinions of WASHINGTON. I wish his opinions were better observed and respected. I refer to his appeal to his countrymen not to form parties with reference to geographical lines, and asking them to frown indignantly upon every attempt to form such parties.

What WASHINGTON foresaw, at length has come to pass. Parties have been formed, and are now in existence, divided by geographical lines, having no interests or opinions in common. But no such parties can long exist without threatening the stability of the Government.

So long as parties were national in their character; so long as they excluded sectional interests from their platforms, their existence was a benefit rather than an injury to the Union. Gradually they have all drifted toward sectionalism, until now we find ourselves in a position which taxes the ability and ingenuity of the ablest men to provide for the existence even of our Government.

Now, I see no chance of safety for us until we reëstablish political parties upon their old bases, excluding all sectional considerations. When this is accomplished, the country is safe. It can only be done by settling this territorial question, and removing all inducement to the formation of sectional parties.

The election of Mr. LINCOLN was a fair election. It afforded no just pretext for secession, much less for the formation of sectional parties, or for creating sectional issues.

The time has come when the advice, the counsels of WASHINGTON, become his most precious legacy to the country. Shall we not regard the solemn admonitions of the Father of his Country?

I would ask our friends from the North--for they are our friends and not our enemies--whether they will not listen to these counsels of WASHINGTON? He was always ready, always willing to submit to just compromises, when they were necessary to the peace and happiness of his country. Will they not emulate his example now?

Delaware does not feel any special interest in this question of slavery in the Territories. She would have it settled in that way which would promote the interests of the whole Union. Her present impression is, that the report of the committee presents the most practicable and equitable mode of adjustment. Long ago Delaware favored the abolition of the slave trade. She has been consistent in her course on that question ever since. It is not unlikely that she may soon favor the abolition of slavery within her limits. Her progress has been in that direction. When the present Constitution was adopted, Delaware had fifteen thousand slaves. Now she has not more than eighteen hundred.

Mr. TUCK:--I recognize the reason and propriety of the wishes of the gentleman from Maryland, to try the proposition now before the Conference upon its merits. I certainly do not desire to have time taken up in unnecessary delay. I do not think much of these statements about civil war. Nor is there any attempt here to defame or injure any section. No member here has any such intention. We seem to be divided into two parties. Both are willing to act; neither asks for delay. One desires action through Congress, the other through the people, acting in General Convention. We all have confidence in the people. What do you see in this Conference? One-half of the Republicans here, are ready to join hands with those who would invoke the action of Congress, and carry their propositions through, to send them at once to Congress. I am ready to carry your propositions directly to the people.

A word now to the Democrats in this Conference. You have always been our superiors in political address and management. You expect in four years to bring the Government back under your control. My strong bias is in favor of a General Convention. That bias I got from the old Democratic party. The first mention of such an idea I found in an article in the "National Intelligencer"--a paper which certainly does not advocate radical views. I am aware of the opposition which this idea will meet with here, and yet I have heard many gentlemen from the South say, that this idea carried out--the question fairly submitted to the people, and decided by them, their decision would be satisfactory. And would not many of the Southern slave States be satisfied with a decision upon these questions by a General Convention? Would not Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Tennessee be willing to submit their interests to such a tribunal?

Now, I wish to ask the members representing the Southern States in this Conference, whether, when we offer you a General Convention, fairly elected, which shall patiently hear and firmly decide all our points of difference, you had not better accept it? I assure you, gentlemen, in the most perfect good faith, that a convention is the best alternative the North can now offer you. It is a fair and an honorable alternative; and because it is so, the North will insist that it ought to be satisfactory to you. If you refuse it, I ask you whether, in the sight of GOD and Man, you will not have stood between the country and peace? We act in secret here, but in the end all our actions will be exposed to the world. It will be seen that we were ready to do justice to you, and to submit all your claims to the final verdict of the people. Should you not at least wait for their decision?

Mr. DONIPHAN:--Will the gentleman support these proposals of amendment in a convention of the people, and will he use his influence to elect members of such a convention who will do the same? If the North will give us such pledges as will secure that kind of action, perhaps we will go for a General Convention. Without such a pledge, a General Convention would be worse than useless.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I am glad I have obtained the floor for a few minutes. I feel that it will be very painful for me to address the Conference, on account of physical debility.

But I came here with the single purpose of accomplishing the settlement of one or two important questions. Permit me, once for all, and for the last time, to tell the gentlemen from New Hampshire and Connecticut, that they wholly misunderstand the import of the action of the Legislature of Kentucky, and the views of the "Louisville Journal." I have said, before, that in view of the fact that Congress could not settle our difficulties, the Legislature of Kentucky asked for a National Convention, as our only hope of making an adjustment. After this came the invitation of Virginia, like a bright beam of hope. Virginia invited you all, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, and the other States, to meet and consult for the public safety. If you did not wish to secure our common safety, you should not have accepted her invitation.