Chapter XVIII: Section 7: Congress shall provide by law that the United (3)

AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--14.

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

And the substitute was agreed to.

Mr. FIELD:--There seems to be a misapprehension as to the proper time for offering substitutes for the whole report of the committee. I shall act upon the understanding that the proper time to offer them will be when we have gone through with the report of the committee. If I am wrong I wish to be corrected now.

Mr. LOGAN:--I am informed that Mr. LINCOLN, the President-elect, has arrived in this city. I feel certain that the Conference would desire to treat him with the same measure of respect which it has extended to the present incumbent of that high office. I therefore move that the President of this Convention be requested to call upon the President-elect of the United States, and inform him that its members would be pleased to wait upon him in a body at such time as will suit his convenience, and that this Convention be advised of the result.

The motion of Mr. LOGAN was agreed to unanimously.

Mr. WILMOT:--I move an adjournment to half-past seven o'clock this evening.

The motion was agreed to, and the Conference adjourned.

* * * * *

EVENING SESSION--SIXTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, SATURDAY, _February 23d, 1861._

The Conference was called to order by the President, at half-past seven o'clock.

The PRESIDENT:--I have addressed a note to the President-elect, announcing the desire of the Conference to offer their respects to him in a body, at seven and one-half o'clock this evening, or at such other time as would be agreeable to him. I have received his reply, stating that he will be pleased to receive the members of this body at nine o'clock this evening, or at any other time which may suit their convenience.

The Conference then proceeded to the order of the day, being the consideration of the second article of the section reported by the committee.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to strike out the second article, and to insert the following in its place:

"Territory may be acquired for naval and commercial stations
and transit routes, and by discovery, and for no other
purposes, without the concurrence of four-fifths of the
Senate."

It is generally conceded that under our present Constitution the United States have no power to acquire territory for coaling or naval stations, within the country of a foreign power. It was the committee's intention to remedy this defect by the present section. But as it stands, I do not like it. The idea is somewhat awkwardly expressed. I wish to have the enabling power conferred in direct terms.

Mr. SUMMERS:--I would ask to interrupt the order of business for a moment, in order to make a report from the Committee on Credentials, in the Kansas case. The defect adverted to in the case of Mr. STONE, has been supplied to the satisfaction of the committee, and Messrs. CONWAY, EWING, and ADAMS, have also presented themselves as delegates from the State of Kansas, with proper credentials. It has not been our practice heretofore to admit members by a formal vote, nor do I see any necessity for making the case of Kansas an exception. The committee would suggest that the clerk enter the names of these gentlemen upon the roll of delegates, unless objection is made.

The PRESIDENT:--The Secretary will make the entry, as no objection is made.

Mr. SUMMERS:--Some days ago I introduced into the Conference, and caused to be printed, a substitute which I proposed to offer for the second section of the committee's article. I offer it now, as follows:

"No territory shall be acquired by the United States 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 to the satisfaction of such treaty."

I do not propose to occupy time in discussing it, but I ask a minute or two to explain its provisions. The second section of the article proposed by the committee, requires that a treaty under which territory or commercial or naval stations is acquired, should require four-fifths of the Senate for its ratification. This, I think, is an unnecessary restriction upon the treaty-making power. Occasion may arise when it would not be advisable to wait for the exercise of this power at all. The question of acquiring territory may arise under circumstances when delay would be fatal. Suppose our title to an island in the Arctic Ocean, or a point upon the shore, by discovery or otherwise, which might be settled by prompt action! There might be no national authority with which we could treat for its acquisition. I think it would be hazardous to provide that in no event should territory be acquired except by treaty. The case I have supposed has no relation whatever to the case of an ordinary acquisition of territory by treaty with a recognized foreign power.

But the question of slavery always arises when the subject of acquiring territory is mentioned. This clause would fix the _status_, would put it in the power of either class of States to prevent the acquisition, but it would not permit a small number of States to do it. To leave it where a _majority_ of the Senators of both sections could control the subject, would seem to me the mode of settlement least objectionable. The ratification would require two-thirds of the Senate, like all treaties, and these two-thirds would include a majority of both sections.

Objection will be made to this classification of the States. I do not like it myself, but there it no way to avoid it. I have adopted the language of the Ordinance of 1787. There can be no very sound objection to the use of these terms. The objection is rather sentimental than otherwise.

The amendment I offer ought to satisfy the South, and I think it will. The South asks for these provisions because they settle all questions about our present territory, and prevent questions arising over that we may acquire hereafter. They will give to both sides equality of power. But voting is far more important now than speaking. I will consume no more time.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The gentleman from Virginia desires to try his motion. For the present, I will withdraw mine.

Mr. FIELD:--I have only a word to say on this subject. There are very grave objections to this classification of sections. I will not repeat them here. I supposed the sense of the Conference had been expressed against it.

But I wish to inquire why this second section is necessary at all? It came up in the committee rather by accident than otherwise. I do not think any one of the committee intended to make it one of the subjects of our action, and the section was finally presented by a small majority.

Let us leave this subject where the Constitution leaves it. We can now acquire territory by discovery or by treaty. So far the Constitution has operated satisfactorily. The country owes much of its greatness to this very provision of the Constitution. No grievance to the South, assuredly, has been caused by it. I am much averse to any alteration.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I think, after some reflection, that this amendment is of much more importance than many of us have supposed. I shall vote for it, because I do not wish to have too many limitations placed upon the power of the Government in relation to the acquisition of territory. We know how difficult it is to change our fundamental law. Very few amendments to the Constitution have been made since the death of WASHINGTON. We are now establishing our fundamental law for ages to come. Is there upon the face of the civilized earth a nation with such a limitation upon the power of acquiring territory as this original article proposes? Its adoption would place us at the feet of foreign nations.

In war, conquest is one means of indemnity--often the best and only one. We must look to the acquisition of future territory; we must make our settlement with that in view.

Reference has been made here to the seceded States, and some hard words have been used toward them. This is not the place for such words. What is the condition of these States now? They say they are out of the Union. We say, No! The question between us may be decided by the Courts; it may be decided by the sword. But we all want them back; we would place no restrictions upon their return. They will only come back by treaty. Unless you adopt this amendment, the section proposed will be applicable to their case, and a mere fraction could keep them out of the Union forever.

In regard to the subject of slavery, what we want is security for the future. That we can arrange. In my opinion you will never get back the seceded States, without you give them some hope of the acquisition of future territory. They know that when slavery is gathered into a _cul-de-sac_, and surrounded by a wall of free States, it is destroyed. Slavery must have expansion. It must expand by the acquisition of territory which now we do not own. The seceded States will never yield this point--will never come back to a Government which gives no chance for the expansion of their principal institution. They will insist upon equity, upon the same rights with you in the common territory, and the same prospect, of acquiring foreign territory that you have. If you are not prepared to grant all this, do not waste your time in thought about the return of the seceded States.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--New Jersey voted to make the first section of the article reported applicable to future territory, not because she wishes to acquire new territory, but because she knows that it will be acquired; and she believes all questions raised here can be settled now, in regard to it, better than they can be hereafter. These questions have raised a ferment in the nation; we would settle them any way. We should have voted for these restrictions upon the power of acquiring territory; and still we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that in a few years new territory must be acquired. Look at Sonora, at all Mexico; they furnish the reason for our action. An effort will be made, perhaps, to secure the new territory by treaty. Better get it in that way than by conquest.

Personally, I would oppose any farther acquisitions. We need no more territory, and yet I know that more will be acquired. The North wishes it more than the South. In the end, the North will insist that we should have Cuba. What is the sentiment of our commercial cities now?

I think we ought to surround this power of acquisition by some judicious restrictions; not make them too strong, or the country will break over, and not regard them. What restriction would not have been broken down, when the question came up in relation to Texas? We must anticipate occasions of the same kind. I am inclined to vote for the substitute of the gentleman from Virginia. At all events let us adopt some limitations. If not these, then such as are contained in the original article.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:--I propose to amend the substitute offered by the gentleman from Virginia, by inserting after the words "United States," the words "except by discovery, and for naval and commercial depots and transit routes."

There is now a law, the constitutionality of which has not been doubted, providing for the acquisition of territory by discovery. But the Court, in the Dred Scott case, decided that territory could not be acquired, except as preliminary to the formation of a State. This difficulty should be obviated. I think the amendment I propose will do it. If we adopt the proposition of Mr. SUMMERS, we cut off the power of acquiring territory for transit routes, &c., except by treaty. I think my amendment will make the section more satisfactory to the South.

Mr. SUMMERS:--I will accept the amendment, and treat it as a part of my substitute.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I feel a deep solicitude in this subject. We are here for the purpose of settling a great difficulty. Instead of settling it, we shall add to it by placing these unnecessary obstructions in the way of acquiring territory in future. Would not the South be safer by the adoption of this guarantee? It is the only one, aside from the first section, which gives the South a grain of power. We cannot go on with things as they are--only seven States to contend with all the rest of the nation. We must all desire that the seceded States should return to the Union. How are they to come back? By treaty, or by the sword? Who will not prefer to win them back by adopting principles in our amendments which will make it for their interest to return? If the amendment is adopted, no future territory will be acquired without the consent of a majority of Senators on both sides of the line. Reject this, and I have not the slightest hope of ever seeing the seceded States again in the Union. I believe this amendment will meet the wishes of a large majority of the people of Virginia.

The vote upon the adoption of the substitute proposed by Mr. SUMMERS resulted as follows:

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

NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--10.

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:

AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Ohio--10.

NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia,
North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa--10.

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.

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _February 25th, 1861._

The Convention was called to order at ten o'clock, pursuant to adjournment, by President TYLER, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. SMITH.

The Journal of Saturday was read.

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The Delegates from the State of Indiana desire that the vote of that State upon the proposition of amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. CURTIS), on Friday last, may be recorded. The vote was taken on Saturday, and Indiana desires to record her vote against said proposition.

The Conference granted the leave asked, and the vote of Indiana was accordingly entered upon the Journal.

The PRESIDENT:--There have been transmitted to me the proceedings of a meeting of the Democrats of Pennsylvania, in which are contained certain resolutions relating to the matters now before us. I am informed that the meeting was one of the largest ever held in that State. The usual course would be to enter them upon the record, but in this instance I would suggest the propriety of having them read. However, the Conference will take such order upon them as it thinks proper.

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.

The Secretary made a statement to the effect that he had not
found time fully to complete the Journal, or to arrange for
its being printed under the rule requiring that secrecy
should be preserved; that the Mayor of Washington had
proposed to have the printing done under a supervision which
would secure its non-publication by the press, and that
various reasons existed why the order of the Conference had
not been complied with.

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]

[Footnote 4: I suppose these amendments offered by Mr. BROCKENBROUGH were never printed; certainly no printed copy of them was ever distributed to the members of the Conference, and they were never inserted in the Journal. In preserving my notes, I naturally assumed that I could rely upon the printed copies distributed to the members, for the various amendments offered. At the period of writing out these notes communication with Mr. BROCKENBROUGH is impossible, and I am obliged to omit farther notice of his amendments. I am not even able to state the subjects to which they referred.]

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:

"to Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within
any State, the relations established or recognized by the
laws thereof, touching persons held to service or labor
therein."

SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any
person held to service or labor in the District of Columbia,
under the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to
impair any rights pertaining to that relation, under the
laws now in force within the said District, while such
relations shall exist in the State of Maryland, without the
consent of said State, and of those to whom the service or
labor is due, or making them just compensation therefor; nor
the power to prohibit or interfere with members of Congress
and officers of the Federal Government whose duties require
them to be in said District, from bringing with them, for
personal service only, retaining, and taking away persons so
held to service or labor, nor the power to impair or abolish
the relations of persons owing service or labor in places
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,
within those States and Territories where such relations are
established or recognized by law.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the
removal or transportation of persons held to service or
labor in any State or Territory of the United States to any
State or Territory thereof where the same obligation or
liability to labor or service is established or recognized
by law; and the right during such transportation, by sea or
river, of touching at ports, shores, or landings, and of
landing in case of distress, shall exist; nor shall the
Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation
on persons held to service or labor than on land.

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