Chapter XXI: Section 5: Congress shall have no power to prohibit the

removal from any State or Territory of persons held to
service or labor therein, to any other State or Territory in
which persons are so held; and the right during removal of
touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in
case of distress, shall exist, but not the right of transit
in or through any State or Territory without its consent. No
higher rate of taxation shall be imposed on persons so held
than on land.

Three objects are sought to be obtained by the third section as proposed by the committee: one is, the declaration that Congress has no power over slavery in the States; the second, that Congress shall not legislate respecting slavery in territory under its jurisdiction, but within the limits of States, without the consent of such States, nor abolish slavery in the District without the consent of Maryland; the third concerns the subject of the removal of slaves from place to place. It is desirable that these three subjects should be so presented that one or more of them may be adopted, and the others rejected; a purpose that cannot be accomplished if they are all embraced in the same section. My substitute is plain and simple, and I think covers the whole ground.

Mr. ROMAN:--Has not the gentleman entirely left out the provision relative to bringing slaves into the District of Columbia?

Mr. GROESBECK:--I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary. Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within the District cannot be taken from the owner under any authority of Congress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensation would in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, or elsewhere. Under the Constitution, slavery cannot be abolished without compensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in the subject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolish slavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner.

Mr. SEDDON:--The owner should always have compensation, it is true; but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property in slaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalent for the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself the question whether he will part with his property upon receiving suitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this right would be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is a farther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The North denies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensation also, unless compelled to make it under the Constitution. The North holding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolish the institution without paying for it.

Mr. GROESBECK:--I am willing to amend Section 4 of the substitute I offer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relation without making compensation, and the section may be thus considered.

Mr. DODGE:--I wish to support the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK; and let me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; we should use language which common men can understand, and which does not require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have some confidence in each other.

Mr. BARRINGER:--There is another entire and important omission in Mr. GROESBECK'S proposition: there is no provision whatever for the Territories.

Mr. DENT:--I think the Conference had much better adhere to the section reported by the committee as it has been already amended. We have all read and studied that section. We understand it. A State that will not adopt the whole of the section will not adopt any part of it, and so there is no use in severing the subjects provided for. I am opposed to the adoption of the substitute. We understand the original article better than we can any other.

Mr. WILMOT:--I think the original proposition the best; the word "regulate" has been struck out of it, leaving only the words "impair or abolish."

Mr. McCURDY:--I ask leave to revive my motion. I regret having withdrawn it. I think I have the right to renew it now.

The PRESIDENT (Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair):--The motion of the gentleman from Connecticut is out of order.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I understand we are now considering the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. GROESBECK). If so, I move to insert in his proposition after the word "abolish" the words "or impair."

Mr. GROESBECK:--I think the amendment improves it. I will accept it.

Mr. CHASE:--There is, certainly, a misunderstanding as to the effect of the vote laying the amendment offered by Mr. HITCHCOCK upon the table: it was offered as a substitute to the third section; if it did not carry the whole section to the table, then motions to amend that section are in order. In that view, I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is in order either way: to amend the article proposed by the committee, or to amend the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is entirely out of order; it has once been passed by informally.

Mr. CLEVELAND:--Is it not in order at any time to make a motion which will render the proposed substitute more perfect?

Mr. McCURDY:--I do not wish my proposition ruled out upon any technical construction of rules. I will now move it as an addition to the third section.

Mr. FOWLER:--I move to reconsider the vote adopting the motion proposed by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. HALL).

Mr. FIELD:--I oppose the motion. The amendment is both proper and necessary. It can certainly do no harm to the South; and if the South wishes to be fair, it will not object to it.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I oppose the reconsideration of the vote adopting Mr. HALL'S amendment, and I will state very shortly the reason why. If the doctrine is to be established here, that the report of the committee is too sacred to be touched--too perfect to be made subject to amendment--let us know it. It will relieve myself, and I think many others, from farther attendance here; and I wish to say now, that if we are to sit here, such considerations must not be presented in future.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I certainly wish some one would renew the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment. I do not like to do it myself, but I think if that amendment were reconsidered, we would fix upon some terms that would be satisfactory to all sides.

Mr. AMES:--I do not see the necessity for adopting Mr. McCURDY'S proposition. I think it amounts to nothing. It is simply a prohibition in the Constitution against the exercise of a right which no one wishes to exercise. I oppose it because it is unnecessary.

Mr. McCURDY:--I certainly do not wish to insist upon an unnecessary amendment. If the third section, as reported by the committee, is adopted, it declares that the right of transportation, &c., _shall exist_. Under this, if no amendment is adopted, slaves may be bought and sold in any of the waters of the free States.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--What difficulty or damage does the gentleman propose to obviate by his amendment?

The PRESIDENT:--The Chair has already decided that the proposition of Mr. McCURDY is not in order.

Mr. CHASE appealed from the decision of the Chair, and upon the appeal the decision was sustained.

Mr. FIELD:--I understand this decision cuts off both the amendments offered by Mr. HALL and Mr. McCURDY; that compels us to vote against the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. HALL, has been accepted. It stands as the order of the Conference, and cannot be rescinded except by a vote. I sustain the decision of the Chair, because, by every rule of parliamentary law, it was correct. But one thing farther. It is now perfectly in order to move Mr. McCURDY'S proposition, or any other, as an _addition_.

The PRESIDENT:--Most clearly so.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not discover any particular objection to the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK. If it had been reported by the committee, I should have preferred it; but the South is willing to take the section as it stands, and prefers the original to any substitute.

Mr. NOYES:--I am against the substitute, for it destroys the effect of the amendments offered by Messrs. HALL and McCURDY.

The vote was then taken upon Mr. GROESBECK'S amendment, and resulted as follows:

AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, and Indiana--7.

NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri,
Illinois, and Kansas--12.

And it was rejected.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I feel that my mission here is ended, and that I may as well withdraw from the Conference. I seem to be unable to impress gentlemen with the necessity of accomplishing any thing. The report of the committee is not satisfactory to the South; it is even doubtful whether they will adopt it; certainly they will not, if it is cut to pieces by amendments. I may be compelled to sacrifice my property, or go with the secessionists. At my time of life, I do not wish to do either.

Mr. McCURDY:--I regret that my amendment produces so much feeling, but I think, at all events, we should prevent the sale of slaves in the free States; it should be prevented beyond any possibility. I renew the offer of my amendment.

Mr. EWING:--If the laws of New York will permit the sale of slaves within the limits of that State, then we should prohibit the sale in the Constitution as proposed; but so long as that State has power to pass a law prohibiting it, there is no necessity for the amendment. The owner is only permitted to touch with his slaves, under certain circumstances, at the ports of free States.

Mr. RUFFIN:--It is impossible that slaves can be sold in a free State under the section reported by the committee. We propose to give the right of touching at those ports as a privilege, but we give no right of sale there. The laws of a free State could not be evaded in this way. Each State is supreme within its own limits; that supremacy would not be aided by this proviso.

Mr. TURNER:--Suppose a slave owner is compelled to stop at the port of Cairo, through stress of weather or any other cause, and he dies there, are his slaves set free by his death? Does not the law of actual domicil prevail? I think they will be regarded as slaves, and that under this provision they might be administered upon and sold as a part of his estate.

Mr. POLLOCK:--I think we may obviate all difficulty by inserting after the words "landing in case of distress," the words "but not for traffic or sale."

Mr. TUCK:--I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is not proper or best to encumber these propositions with amendments that are not necessary.

Mr. LOGAN:--Every State has the right to regulate transit within its own limits to suit itself. The proposed amendment gives no rights except such as are expressly named: "a right, during transportation, of touching at the ports, and of landing in case of distress." The right of the State to regulate transit is left unimpaired.

Mr. HOWARD:--There is one principle of law which will settle this question at once: property that is held under State laws must be transferred by the operation of State laws alone. Slaves are held and transferred by the specific laws of the States in which they are held.

Mr. PALMER:--The right of sale cannot possibly arise out of the right to touch during transportation at a port, or the right to land in case of distress. I cannot see the slightest occasion or necessity for the adoption of Mr. McCURDY'S amendment.

Mr. McCURDY'S amendment was rejected by the following vote:

AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York,
Indiana, and Iowa--7.

NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and
Kansas--14.

Mr. POLLOCK'S amendment was then adopted without a division.

Mr. VANDEVER:--I wish to propose an amendment by way of proviso:

"_Provided_ nothing herein contained shall be so construed
as to prevent any State from prohibiting the introduction as
merchandise of persons held to service or labor, or to
prevent such State from prohibiting the transit of persons
so held to service or labor through its limits."

Mr. FIELD:--This does not cover Mr. McCURDY'S proposition at all. Is there any secret purpose here to bring into the Constitution a provision which will permit the sale of slaves in free States? If there is not, why not say plainly that the States shall have the exclusive right to determine who shall and who shall not cross its borders, and what shall be the subject of sale or traffic within them?

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The States have all the powers which are not expressly delegated under the Constitution to be exercised by Congress. Congress has no power, except such as are expressly conferred upon them. The power to prohibit the sale of slaves rests somewhere. It has not been conferred upon Congress; it must remain in the State.

Mr. SMITH:--The argument of the gentleman from Kentucky seems to me very inconsistent with his report in other respects.

Mr. HOWARD:--The Border States are trying to get back the seceded States. We hope they will come back. We expect the adoption of this report to offer a strong inducement to them to return to the Union. It will not offer such inducement if its general effect is ruined by amendments.

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

AYES.--Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York,
Indiana, and Iowa--7.

NOES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania. Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and
Kansas--14.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. CLAY:--I have already stated that the State of Kentucky is prepared to adopt the CRITTENDEN amendment; that amendment will be satisfactory to the Border States. The longer we remain here the more I become satisfied that the CRITTENDEN amendment will meet with more general favor than any other; therefore I ask the consent of the Conference to introduce the CRITTENDEN amendment as a substitute for the committee's report.

The consent of the Conference was not given to Mr. CLAY'S proposition.

Mr. GROESBECK:--I move to amend the third section by inserting after the words "in case of distress shall exist," the words "but not the right of transit in any other State or Territory without its consent."

We must certainly do something to cover this difficulty; if we omit the subject entirely, we shall leave much opportunity for cavil on this question when the question goes to the people.

Mr. RUFFIN:--I move to amend the amendment by substituting in place of the words "without its consent," the words "against its dissent."

Mr. GROESBECK:--I will accept the amendment.

The amendment of Mr. GROESBECK was agreed to by the following vote:

AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio--10.

NOES.--Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois--8.

Mr. ALEXANDER, of New Jersey, dissented from the vote of that State.

Mr. GRANGER moved that when the Conference adjourn it adjourn to half-past seven o'clock this evening.

The vote upon Mr. GRANGER'S motion was taken by States, and resulted as follows:

AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--13.

NOES.--Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Kentucky, and Missouri--6.

So the motion was adopted.

On motion of Mr. CHASE the Conference adjourned.

* * * * *

EVENING SESSION--SEVENTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _February 25th, 1861._

The Conference was called to order at half-past seven o'clock, Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair.

Mr. SMITH, of New York:--I move that a committee of two be appointed by the PRESIDENT to arrange for the printing of the Journal.

The motion of Mr. SMITH was adopted, and the PRESIDENT appointed as such committee, Mr. SMITH, of New York, and Mr. HOWARD, of Maryland.

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

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I move to amend the third section by striking out the words "or Territory of the United States," occurring after the words "within any State."

I think we shall make the amendment more satisfactory by limiting the prohibition to States alone; still leaving the power in Congress to be exercised in conformity with the other provisions that regulate slavery in the Territories.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I have the same objection to this as to other amendments. It may not be important, but I do not want to commence by adopting amendments at all.

The question was taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. HITCHCOCK, and was agreed to by the following vote:

AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and
Kansas--10.

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

Mr. SUMMERS:--I now desire to call up for consideration the amendment proposed by myself on the evening of the 23d instant. The state of the case is this: Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, moved an amendment to my proposition, which was accepted; my amendment was then rejected by a vote of the Conference, and on the 25th the Conference reconsidered the vote by which the amendment was rejected. I will not now repeat what I said, when the amendment was offered, in favor of its adoption. I would only call the attention of gentlemen to the remarks I then made, and say in addition, that I earnestly hope the Conference will now adopt the amendment. It will make the proposition much more acceptable to the South, and, certainly, not more objectionable to the North. The amendment is offered to the second section, and is as follows:

"No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except
by discovery, and for naval and commercial stations, depots
and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of
all the Senators from States which allow involuntary
servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States
which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be
acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the
Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned,
be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to
the ratification of such treaty."

The amendment of Mr. SUMMERS was adopted by the following vote:

AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12.

NOES.--Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois,
and Kansas--6.

The PRESIDENT:--No further amendment being offered to the second and third sections, the Conference will proceed to the consideration of the fourth section of the report, or any amendments proposed to that section.

None being proposed, the Conference proceeded to the fifth section.

Mr. SEDDON:--I move to strike out the whole of the section. It has been heretofore stated, on behalf of the North, when this section was under consideration, that its adoption was not desirable, inasmuch as existing laws, properly enforced, amount to a sufficient prohibition of the slave-trade. If the North does not desire it, the South does not. I hope the Conference will consent to strike it out.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I think it very important to retain this section; it can, certainly, do no harm. We all agree, North and South, that the foreign slave-trade should not be revived.

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

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

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

Mr. BRADFORD:--I move to amend the fifth section by inserting after the words "slave-trade," the words "by citizens of the United States."

In proposing amendments to the Constitution, it seems to me improper that we should attempt to bind any but our own citizens. The adoption of the section in this form would seem to imply that we undertook to prohibit the slave-trade in other countries and among citizens of other countries. I desire to see it prohibited, but wish to have the constitutional provision expressed in appropriate terms.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I object to this amendment. It would nullify the operation of the section entirely. There are in the United States thousands of persons who are not citizens, but who, under such a provision of the Constitution, would revive the slave-trade and infuse into it a vigor which it never before possessed. It would be better to have no section at all than to permit such an amendment as this. The amendment can bear but one construction. It is intended to prohibit the slave-trade by our own citizens, and expressly to permit it by those who are not citizens.

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment.

Mr. BRADFORD:--I do not desire to embarrass the action of the Conference, and I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. JAMES:--I move to amend this section by striking out the following words: "from places beyond the limits thereof."

The object of this amendment is apparent, and does not need explanation.

The amendment of Mr. JAMES was agreed to by the following vote:

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

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

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move that the vote just passed striking out the words "from places beyond the present limits thereof," be rescinded.

I think the action of the Convention in passing this vote was hasty, and not taken upon due consideration. It may be an important question to determine, what are "the present limits thereof." Upon one construction it might prohibit the bringing of slaves from the States which have seceded and left the Union; upon another construction, which assumes that these are still in the Union and does not recognize their secession, it would not cut off the trade between those States and the others. I do not like to have such a question raised.

Mr. BACKUS:--I am against this reconsideration. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose, in this Conference, to recognize the secession of the States at all. I deny the legal power of a State to withdraw itself from the Union without the consent of the others. And beyond this, I do not think the question is raised as the gentleman asserts.

Mr. RUFFIN:--I think the clause is better as it is. By striking out the words "from beyond the present limits thereof," we do not establish any territorial limitation. And whether these States come back or not, no question of territory is raised. But if this reconsideration is carried, and the seceding States do not return to the Union, they will retaliate upon us. In the event of their continued secession we cannot get back from those States those of our slaves who are now temporarily there. We may wish to bring back those slaves, and some of our people may wish to carry ours there.

Mr. GRANGER:--I hope this vote will not be reconsidered. The argument of Judge RUFFIN is conclusive.

Mr. COALTER:--This is likely to be a troublesome question any way. Why not leave it as we have to leave many others--to the discretion of Congress? We certainly do not wish to adopt a provision which will cut off the traffic in slaves between the Gulf States and the others. Nobody is in favor of that, and I am at a loss how to manage this question. The negroes are a portion of the families of Southern men. They are regarded as such in all the transactions of life. Those families may at times become separated. A portion of them may now be in the seceded States, and a portion farther North. Again, it often happens that during one season of the year the planter, with his family and slaves, lives upon the plantation in the Gulf States; and at another season, removes with his family and slaves to a plantation farther North. We do not wish to obstruct a relation or proceeding of this kind. This is not a mere matter of dollars and cents. It is one involving the happiness of families. The blacks themselves are interested in it. I think it better to let the section stand as it does, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of Congress.

Mr. GRANGER:--I have always stood up against all the societies and organizations which have been established at the North to carry on crusades against slavery. My position in that respect is still unchanged. I hold that the people of the free States have nothing to do with slavery; that they are not responsible for it, and that it is their duty to let it alone. At the same time I have just as steadily opposed the slave-trade. I think it inhuman and atrocious, and I am the last man that would consent to its restoration. This section as it stands, in my judgment, cannot be improved. I think we had better leave it, and not raise these troublesome questions which will inevitably be suggested if these words are restored.

Mr. MOREHEAD:--This is a matter which requires some reflection, and, on the whole, I am inclined, for the present, to withdraw my proposition.

Mr. SEDDON:--I do not like this plan of legislating in the Constitution. The Constitution ought to be an instrument defining and limiting the powers of Congress. We had better leave to Congress, or rather, to assign to Congress the power to exercise this prohibition. I, therefore, move to amend by inserting at the commencement of the section these words: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit," and to strike out at the end of the section the words "are forever prohibited."

Mr. ALLEN:--This would be a most effectual way of reviving the slave-trade. It would remove the constitutional prohibition, and permit Congress to prohibit or permit it, as that body may choose. Would that ever hereafter be considered a crime which Congress had power to permit? No. I cannot conceive it possible that any State should seriously wish to see a traffic resumed which has been stigmatized by the whole civilized world as worse than piracy. This is a question which I would not leave to Congress. We know how immensely profitable this trade is--that fortunes are made by a single successful voyage. Don't let such an inducement to corruption creep into our Constitution.

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of this amendment, not because I am in favor of the slave-trade, but because such a section is out of place in the Constitution. The Constitution is a bill of rights, an instrument which defines and settles the rights of citizens. It is not a law. I have no fear that if we leave this to Congress the slave-trade will be revived.

Mr. DONIPHAN:--I cannot agree with my colleague. I am opposed to the foreign slave-trade in every form. I would not even make a treaty with a nation or a State that would permit it. If the seceded States are to be regarded out of the Union, I would not treat with them; I would not invest Congress with such a dangerous power. Nothing will suit me but an unqualified prohibition of this trade in the Constitution itself.

Mr. HOUSTON:--The gentleman from Missouri has expressed the views of Delaware. His argument is conclusive.

Mr. HOWARD:--The intervention of Congress will be necessary whether this amendment passes or not. The section as adopted makes no provision for the punishment of any one who violates it. If a vessel should be seized while engaged in the trade, this section does not provide for her forfeiture or condemnation, or the punishment of her officers or owners. The section would be inoperative without the action of Congress. Why not let Congress have all the power?

Mr. DODGE:--Congress will declare the punishment.

Mr. SEDDON:--If you cut off the slave with the seceded States, they will do the same with you. I think the Border States should at all events adopt the amendment.

The Conference refused to agree to the amendment of Mr. SEDDON by the following vote:

AYES.--Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Missouri--5.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and
Kansas--16.

Messrs. JOHNSON and DONIPHAN, of Missouri, dissented from the vote of that State.

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I move to strike out the whole of this section, and insert a new one of the following tenor: "The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves into the United States and their Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof."

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I like the amendment proposed better than the original, but I wish to suggest an amendment to it myself.

We are aware that certain countries which are much exercised over the criminality of slavery and the slave-trade, have recently adopted a system, the horrors of which are not surpassed by those of the middle passage. I refer to the importation of coolies and other persons from China and the East. In my judgment, this is the slave-trade in one of its worst forms. I think if we prevent the importation of slaves at all, the provision ought to be made to cover such a case. I therefore move to amend the proposition of Mr. MOREHEAD, by inserting after the words "importation of slaves," the words "or coolies, or persons held to service or labor."

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I accept the amendment of Mr. WICKLIFFE, and should have inserted it myself had it occurred to me. My proposition as it now stands, covers both the points here made; it declares the entire prohibition of the slave-trade, and it makes it also the duty of Congress to pass laws effectually to prevent it.

The amendment offered by Mr. MOREHEAD was agreed to by the following vote:

AYES.--Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and
Illinois--11.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New York, New Jersey, and Kansas--8.

Mr. HOPPIN, of Rhode Island, Messrs. ORTH and ELLIS, of Indiana, and Mr. STOCKTON, of New Jersey, dissented from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I move to strike out the whole section. I had rather have no section at all, and no provision upon the subject, than such a one as we have now adopted. The requisition upon Congress making it their duty to enact laws, will be considered as a necessary one; the consequence which must result is, that until Congress legislates, there is no law against the importation of slaves.

The motion of Mr. CROWNINSHIELD was rejected by the following vote:

AYES.--Massachusetts, Virginia, and Tennessee--3.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Kansas--18.

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the sixth section.

No amendment being offered thereto, the Conference proceeded to the seventh section.

Mr. TURNER:--I move to strike out the whole of the seventh section, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens
of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of
the several States."

The seventh section, as it now stands, will encounter more serious objection at the North than all the remaining portion of the article. It is objectionable for many reasons: it looks to the actual exercise of violence and intimidation by mobs and unlawful assemblies at the North. Although such may have occurred in one or two sections only, generally the provisions of the fugitive slave law have been observed and carried out. The whole subject is very distasteful to the North. I think if we keep it out of the article, and in its place secure that respect for the privileges of citizens in the various States, to which, indeed, under the Constitution, they are entitled, we shall do much better.

Mr. LOGAN:--There are various reasons peculiar to some of the free States why this provision should not be adopted. The laws of several of the Western States do not recognize negroes as citizens. I move to amend the amendment proposed by my colleague, by inserting the words "free white" before the word "citizens."

The amendment offered by Mr. LOGAN was adopted by the following vote:

AYES.--New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and
Illinois--10.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa--8.

Mr. ORTH, of Indiana, dissented from the vote of his State.

Mr. TURNER:--I suppose the purpose of my colleague has been attained. If there is a delegation willing to make such a distinction in the Constitution, they will, of course, support the amendment as it is now amended.

The vote was then taken upon the amendment, as amended, with the following result:

AYES.--None.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana--18.

Mr. WILMOT:--If the seventh section is adopted, I think the North should have some compensation therefor. I think citizens of the North have as much occasion for complaint on account of the action of mobs and riotous assemblies in the slave States, as the slave States have of the occurrence of those mobs and assemblies in the North. I therefore move the following as an addition to the seventh section:

"And Congress shall farther provide by law, that the United
States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any
State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of
violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies,
in his person or property, or in the deprivation, by
violence, of his rights secured by this Constitution."

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am opposed to this amendment upon the general principles I have so often stated. I oppose it for another reason. I am not in favor of an amendment which encourages mobs and riots at the North, and I will not consent to one which, like this, encourages seditious speeches at the South.

Mr. WILMOT:--Such is not the effect of my amendment. It does not protect a man in making seditious speeches in the slave States. It only secures to the citizen his rights without regard to the State to which he belongs. We have a provision of the Constitution on that subject now, but it is not effective.

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment. There is great necessity for it.

Mr. SEDDON:--I think gentlemen entirely misconstrue the intent and purpose of the present provision of the Constitution on that subject. It grows out of and rests upon that provision which requires the return of fugitive slaves. It imposes an obligation upon Congress to secure to the owner, when he pursues his slave into a free State, the right which he enjoys as a citizen of his own State. In all other respects it is unnecessary. If a man is injured in his person or his property, he has his redress in the State courts; or if he is a foreigner or a citizen of another State, he may go into the Federal courts and get his redress there. In this respect the citizens of both sections are amply protected.

Mr. STEPHENS:--I earnestly hope this amendment may be rejected. We have come here to arrange old difficulties, not to make new ones. Adopt this, and you lay the foundation stone of disunion. It is an encouragement to seditious speeches and purposes. The clause is well enough as it is. We do not wish to encourage men to come among us and excite discontent among our slaves. We will not permit them to do it. Our safety requires that we should not. Our own citizens do not connive at the escape of slaves. None do it who have any business in our States. We are here for peace. When half a dozen States are out, whose return we wish to secure, shall we put such a clause as this into the Constitution? Do it, and a half dozen others will follow. I am not at all sure that the report of the majority, if adopted, will satisfy my State. It certainly will not if it is mangled and frittered away. I have not occupied time in making speeches here. I say to you gentlemen, beware! If I thought the spirit of the North was truly represented in this Conference, I would go home and advise my State to secede; and if she did not, I would abandon her forever.

Mr. RUFFIN:--I am opposed to the amendment because I think it unnecessary, and because it opens a new and very serious controversy. The rights of Northern men are fully protected now. There is not a court in the South in which a Northern citizen cannot find a lawyer to advocate his cause. If he is poor, he may even sue _in forma pauperis_, and incur no liability even for costs.

Mr. WILMOT:--I am claiming no more than I have a right to claim under the decision of the Supreme Court. That court, in the case of Prigg _vs._ The State of Pennsylvania, decided that the Constitution imposes the duty upon Congress of carrying this provision into effect. I insist upon making it plain. Rights upon both sides are sought to be protected by this article. They are correlative.

Mr. LOGAN favored and Mr. EWING opposed the amendment, in a few brief remarks.

Mr. ORTH:--I do not think we shall accomplish much by protracting our present session longer. I move that the Conference adjourn, and ask a vote by States.

The Conference refused to adjourn, by the following vote:

AYES.--Maine, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois,
Iowa, and Kansas--7.

NOES.--New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--14.

The PRESIDENT:--The question recurs upon the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The vote upon the question of agreeing to the motion of Mr. WILMOT, resulted as follows:

AYES.--Maine, New York, Indiana, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Iowa--8.

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

And the motion was rejected.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I now move to amend the seventh section, by adding thereto the following words:

"And in all cases in which the United States shall pay for
such fugitive, Congress shall also provide for the
collection by the United States of the amount so paid, with
interest, from the county, city, or town in which such
arrest shall have been prevented, or rescue made."

I am certain that no objection can be made to the equity of this amendment. If a municipal corporation shall permit the rights of a slave owner to be disregarded by the rescue of a slave, it not only fails to perform its duty under the Constitution, but becomes an active participant in the crime. Shall the consequences of its own fault be visited upon the people of the whole country? Those who acknowledge and carry out their obligations under the Constitution, as well as those who do not? This would inflict a punishment upon the innocent for the crime of the guilty. It is not right to leave it in that way. It would present an inducement to these violations of law which the provision is intended to prevent. We ought to make the guilty party pay the penalty.

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--If such a proposition were to come from a free State, the mover would be charged with attempting to destroy all hope that the committee's report could be adopted by the people. However, if the friends of the report are willing to adopt it, I do not know that I ought to object. It places the Government in a position where it is bound under the Constitution to prosecute a municipal corporation for the acts of its individual members. It is certainly novel, and introduces a new system into the jurisprudence of the country. Is the mover serious in his proposition?

Mr. BARRINGER:--I am certainly serious. I would like to hear some substantial argument against my motion.

The question being taken on the amendment of Mr. BARRINGER, resulted as follows:

AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Kansas--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.

And the amendment was rejected.

Mr. DENT:--I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Maryland. I consider the amendment as eminently just and proper.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I have an amendment which I intend to offer at some time, and I may as well propose it now. The people of the free States have complained, and not without good reason, that one clause in the Constitution is not carried into effect in some of the slaveholding States. Their complaints are similar to those made on the part of the South, which it is the purpose of the seventh section to remove. If there have been instances at the North where mobs and riotous assemblies have obstructed the administration of justice in the case of fugitive slaves, so there have been instances at the South where mobs and riots have disregarded the rights of citizens of Northern States. I propose to deal fairly by all sections. Let us remove both causes of complaint. I move to amend the seventh section by adding thereto the following words:

"Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens
of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in
the several States."

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I repeat my objection to all these amendments. If our work here is to have any efficacy, we must adhere to the report. Why bring in another bone of contention?

Mr. ORTH:--Will you not extend the same protection to free citizens which you do to slaveholders?

The question was taken on the motion of Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, with the following result:

AYES.--Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa,
Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Kansas--16.

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

So the amendment was adopted.

Mr. ROMAN dissented from the vote of Maryland.

Mr. AMES:--I move an amendment which will make the section more explicit. I move to strike out the word "force," and to insert instead thereof the words "violence or intimidation."

The motion was agreed to without objection.

Mr. ORTH:--I move to amend the seventh section by adding at the close thereof the following words:

"And such fugitives, after such payment, shall then be
discharged from such service."

I am opposed to this whole business of making compensation for fugitive slaves; but if this section is to be adopted, and the Government pays the owner the whole value of the fugitive, upon every principle of equity and justice the fugitive should be discharged, and the master should have no right to reduce him again to slavery. You make the measure of the owner's damages in such a case the value of the slave. Do you intend, after he has secured that, he shall still have the right of capture--that after the damages have been fully paid, he may still call on the courts of law for the slave's surrender? This would be a double compensation indeed. I shall insist upon this amendment, and ask a vote by States.

Mr. ROMAN:--I have not hitherto addressed the Conference, but I should do myself injustice if I remained silent any longer. I came here in good faith, encouraged with the hope that this Conference would do something which would indicate a purpose to protect and acknowledge the rights of the slaveholding States. I have patiently attended your sittings, and little by little that hope has faded, until to-night it has almost passed away. What good can come of these deliberations, when upon every question which is presented the lines of sectionalism are tightly drawn, and with one or two exceptions every northern State is arrayed against us? Suppose these proposals of amendment as reported by the committee are adopted, there is evidently a purpose manifested here by a large delegation from the free States, to prevent their adoption by the people. I know the opposition which in any event will be arrayed against them. It is an opposition which nothing but unanimity among the moderate conservative men of the country can overcome. Believe it or not, gentlemen, I assure you we are in earnest, in our determination to have our rights under the Constitution defined and guaranteed. Our safety, as well as our self-respect, requires this. I have not been satisfied with the majority report, but if I had been disposed to accept it--if the South would accept it now, you will not concede even that. You insist upon weakening its provisions by amendments, and by amendments which are insulting to us.

It is now seriously proposed under the Constitution, by an express provision, to deprive us of our property in slaves against our consent, and to emancipate them by making compensation. What other effect can be given to such an amendment? One of our slaves escapes into a free State. He is arrested by the marshal and discharged by a mob. Does this act discharge him from his service? Does this lawless violence make him free? And if the town or city where the mob occurs is made to pay a slight penalty, does this also divest the owner of his right? This is nothing but an inducement to mobs and riots. Pass this provision, and no fugitive slave will ever again be returned from a free State. There will always be abolitionists enough to pay for a slave, and this payment will set the slave free, and will constitute the only penalty for this violence. For one, I would prefer to have no provision at all on the subject than to have one encumbered with such an amendment.

I have but little more to say. If the peace of this country is to be hereafter established on a permanent basis, and the Union is to be preserved, you, gentlemen of the North, must recognize our rights, and cease to interfere with them. You have nothing to do with this question of slavery. It is an institution of our own. If it is a crime, we are responsible for it, and will bear the responsibility. We have never interfered with your institutions. You must now let us alone.

Mr. ORTH:--The objection of the gentleman from Maryland may be answered in a word. It is for the owner to elect whether or not to accept compensation and set his slave free. If he still chooses to pursue him, he need not accept compensation; but if he does not, and receives payment for him, the slave should go free. As to mobs and riots, we punish men at the North who engage in them.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I entirely agree with my colleague in this respect. We could not accept the section if such an amendment was adopted. The report of the committee is the very least that will satisfy our people. Do not destroy it by such amendments as these.

The vote was then taken upon the amendment proposed by Mr. ORTH, with the following result:

AYES.--Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New
York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kansas--10.

NOES.--Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Vermont, and Virginia--11.

And the amendment was rejected.

Mr. CLAY:--I move to amend the report by adding a section to be numbered Section 8, as follows:

"The second paragraph of the second section of fourth
article of the Constitution shall be so construed that no
State shall have the power to consider and determine what is
treason, felony, or crime, in another State; but that a
person charged in any State with treason, felony, or crime,
who shall flee from justice and be found in another State,
shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State
from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
State having jurisdiction of the crime."

I do not think discussion necessary upon such an amendment as this. It is well known to the Conference that great difficulties have been found to exist in carrying into effect this provision of the Constitution. So far as the slave States are concerned, it is a perfect nullity. Unless it is amended it may as well be stricken from the instrument. I believe the tenor of the decisions at the North has been to permit the executive upon whom the requisition is made, to determine whether the offence charged is a crime under the law of the State to which the person charged has fled. If it is a crime, the fugitive is delivered up. If not a crime in that sense, he is discharged. The decisions of the courts have been to the same effect; whenever the fugitive has been brought upon _habeas corpus_, the decision has been the same. It is obvious that under this construction of the Constitution no fugitive will be hereafter returned for an offence in which the question of slavery is involved. This is only one of the many evasions of the Constitution which have been practised in the free States. I deem the amendment very important.

Mr. BRONSON:--The gentleman from Kentucky is entirely mistaken in his statement of the decisions of the northern courts or northern governors. The decisions are uniform so far as I know, that where the offence charged is either a crime at common law, or under the statutes of the State from which the fugitive has fled, he has been delivered up.

Mr. CLAY:--Did not the Executive of New York refuse to deliver up a fugitive on the demand of the Governor of Virginia?

Mr. BRONSON:--In that case I think there was no evidence that the offence charged was a crime under the statutes of Virginia, and it certainly was not at common law.

The vote was taken upon Mr. CLAY'S amendment, and resulted as follows:

AYES.--Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Virginia--5.

NOES.--Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, New
Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Kansas--16.

And the amendment was rejected.

And on motion, at two o'clock A.M., the Conference adjourned.

EIGHTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, _February 26th, 1861._

The Conference, pursuant to adjournment, was called to order at eleven o'clock.

Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. GURLEY.

The PRESIDENT informed the Conference that in consequence of the length of the Journal of yesterday, the Secretary had not been able to write it out, and that it would be necessary to omit the reading thereof this morning.

Mr. McCURDY:--There was a vote taken in the confusion near the close of the session last evening, in which Connecticut, according to the minutes of the Secretary, appears to have voted in the negative. It was upon the amendment of Mr. ORTH, declaring that the slave should be free whenever his master had accepted payment for him. On that amendment the vote of Connecticut was Yea. As the vote is recorded Nay by mistake, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mr. BRONSON:--The motion to reconsider is not necessary. Connecticut can record her vote as she wishes to have it stand. It will not change the result.

The PRESIDENT:--I think the motion is in order, if made by Connecticut.

Mr. BATTELL:--I will move to reconsider. I voted with the majority.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--No individual delegate can make such a motion. States vote here, not individuals. I submit that the motion is out of order, unless made by a majority of the delegation.

Mr. BALDWIN:--The question is not complicated at all; neither is the motion out of order. A majority of the delegation from Connecticut cast the vote of that State in favor of Mr. ORTH'S amendment. By mistake that vote was recorded against the amendment. The same majority whose vote is made to do them injustice by a mistake for which its members are not responsible, now moves to reconsider the vote.

The question was then taken upon Mr. McCURDY'S motion, and resulted as follows:

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

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

And the motion prevailed, and the vote was reconsidered.

The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by Mr. ORTH. On this amendment the vote will be taken by States.

Mr. WHITE:--I consider this amendment as entirely unnecessary. The result which it seeks to attain is only the announcement of a well-understood provision of the common law. By the common law, if an action is brought for a trespass, and judgment recovered for that trespass, and the damages under that judgment paid, the property which is the subject of the action, and which may have originally been wrongfully taken, becomes transferred; the damages take the place of the property, the defendant has paid for his wrongful act, or, in other words, has paid for the property. The same principle applies to the case of the fugitive slave who is rescued from the custody of the law, when his owner has consented to accept payment for him. The legal right of the owner in the slave is satisfied by such payment; the money takes the place of the slave. But if this were not so, we ought not to encumber the Constitution with such provisions. Congress will undoubtedly make the proper provision both for the protection of the slave and his master. Congress will not permit payment to be made for a slave, and then suffer him to go back to bondage. This would be both unlawful and unjust. I can see no necessity for adopting the amendment.

Mr. ORTH:--I understand there is some difference of opinion between members of the Conference as to the effect of the phraseology of my amendment. I will change that phraseology, and make the amendment read as follows:

"And such fugitive, after the master has been paid therefor,
shall be discharged from such service."

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I am opposed to this amendment upon every ground. I would rather see some direct scheme of emancipation adopted and inserted in the Constitution. Adopt this amendment, and the result is inevitable. It would amount to emancipation upon the largest possible scale. Our slaves would escape, you would rescue and pay for them, and that would be the end of them. Why not leave it to Congress to pass the necessary laws upon this subject? The adoption of this amendment would destroy all hope that our labors would be acceptable to the South. I say again, we had better establish emancipation at once.

Mr. DENT:--If this amendment is to be adopted, I hope we shall at the same time reconsider the vote by which we rejected the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, requiring the payment by the county, city, or town wherein the slave is rescued from the custody of the law. This provision would make the General Government pay for the crimes of a few citizens in one section. In that case the General Government ought to own the negro. It has paid for him, and the property in him ought to be transferred.

Mr. WILMOT:--There is nothing in this. We do not wish to have the Government own the negro. It is bad enough to have individuals own slaves. We do not propose to turn the Government into an extensive slave owner.

But let me ask the gentleman seriously, who is to own the negro, in such a case, after he has been paid for? Certainly not the former owner, because his right is gone. This amendment only states a conclusion of law; the right of the owner being gone, the negro is free.

Mr. CHASE:--I think a single word will settle this. By the Constitution as it now stands, the escaped fugitive is not discharged from service or labor. The original section, as proposed, requires that the slave should be paid for, when he is rescued. Now, he might be rescued three or four times. Shall he be paid for as often? Do gentlemen claim that his owner shall receive compensation more than once? I cannot see why gentlemen interested in slavery should object to this amendment.

Mr. RIVES:--I think if gentlemen would look at this proposition seriously, there would be no difference of opinion among us. Such a proposition would foist into the Constitution a most injurious, pernicious, and troublesome doctrine. By the most ultra abolitionists of the free States the power of emancipating our slaves has been disclaimed. From the organization of the Government, no such right has been claimed by any respectable party or body of men. The question arose in the first Congress, I think, upon the petition of the Quakers of Pennsylvania. It was decided almost unanimously against the power, even when exercised by Congress. But there is no need of multiplying or citing precedents. From that time to this, no political party has claimed the power of emancipation. Such is the universal doctrine now.

The right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia is now claimed by some. I think that is the doctrine of Mr. CHASE. But upon what argument is it founded? Simply this: That the States, by the act of cession, have surrendered this power to Congress. This is the only argument I have ever heard in favor of the right, even in the District.

But this amendment proposes a most comprehensive scheme of emancipation. It accomplishes emancipation in every one of the slave States. It amounts to forcible emancipation upon the principle of compensation.

The point has been well stated by gentlemen who have preceded me. Place this in the Constitution, and there is an end of returning fugitives. The very courts will act upon it. They will say that if any one will come forward and pay the value of a slave when arrested, all the requirements of the Constitution are satisfied, and he shall go free.

What is the object of our Conference? Why are we here? We are here to bury out of sight all the causes of our difference and trouble. And yet you propose to insert a new principle into our fundamental law, which, however you may look upon it, will be regarded at the South as totally inconsistent with our independence. Our people will not consent to it.

There is another view which I would suggest. This is eminently a matter of legislative regulation. If the slave is paid for, Congress will at once recognize the impropriety and injustice of permitting the owner to receive payment for, and also receive his slave. Congress may say with great propriety that the owner shall give a bond to return the money upon the restoration of his slave. I hope no principle will be implanted in the Constitution which will be more troublesome--more productive of difficulties than any which has heretofore been made the subject of discussion.

Mr. EWING:--If we do any thing of this kind, perhaps we had better say that if the owner accepts compensation for his slave, he shall execute a deed of manumission. This will make it a matter of consent on the part of the owner. Put the amendment in that form and I will vote for it.

Mr. COALTER:--This amendment would offer a most powerful inducement to our slaves to run away. It would be dangerous in the extreme. When a fugitive has been paid for, and thus emancipated, he can come back and settle by the side of his master. What effect would that have upon the rest of his slaves? Would they not attempt the same thing? It may be said that the States can pass laws which will prevent their return. But this power will not be exercised. I know many free negroes in the slave States who are respectable persons, who own property, and have their social and domestic ties. These examples are bad. A fugitive who has been set free is not a safe man to return and settle as a free negro among those who were his co-slaves.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--By this amendment you are inaugurating a system of covert emancipation to which the South can never submit. We protest against its adoption. The argument upon which you seek to sustain it is a false one. How can the owner receive the full value of his rescued slave when he himself, as a citizen and tax-payer, pays a part of the price?

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move to amend this amendment by adding thereto these words:

"And the negro when thus emancipated shall not be permitted
to leave the State in which the emancipation takes place."

We know from past experience what the abolitionists of the free States would do under such a provision as this in the Constitution. There will be an underground railroad line along every principal route of travel. There will be depots all along these lines. Canoes will be furnished to ferry negroes over the Potomac and Ohio. JOHN BROWN & CO. will stand ready to kill the master the very moment he crosses the line in pursuit of his slave. What officer at the North will dare to arrest the slave when JOHN BROWN pikes are stacked up in every little village? If arrested, there will be organizations formed to rescue him, and you may as well let the "nigger" go free at once. You are opening up the greatest scheme of emancipation ever devised.

Mr. BACKUS:--I move to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. ORTH by the substitution of the following:

"And the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner
from further claim to said fugitive."

It is claimed that this is a scheme of emancipation. It is nothing of the sort. It is not intended that the owner shall be obliged to accept compensation for his slave. That is left optional with him. He may take it or not as he likes. The effect of accepting compensation would be just the same as if he sold his slave to the North. The gentleman from Virginia raises a curious objection; that the owner does not receive a full compensation because he pays a portion of it himself. Well, I suppose the owner would pay the one hundred and thirty-millionth part of the price! Does not the same objection lay against the payment of any tax whatever? It is asked, Does this payment transfer the legal title to the slave? Well, it probably goes to the party who pays for it. If the payment is made in a free State, where slavery is not tolerated, the title would not pass at all. I submit to our friends from the South, whether they wish to have the Government become a slave-trader, to set it up as a huckster of slaves in the shambles. My amendment imposes the responsibility upon Congress. I have no doubt Congress will legislate properly upon the subject.

Now let me say one word to gentlemen, friends of the South, in all kindness. I have appreciated your position, and it has influenced my action. I have not refused to give you any reasonable guarantees, and I shall not refuse them. But I submit to you, whether it is in good taste for you to declare that, if we do not yield all these little points to you, the Government is to be broken up; that that is the only alternative?

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope this amendment will be adopted. As a Southern man, I declare that it is acceptable to me. Let us adopt it, and end the matter. [Cries of "Agreed."]

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--I have a very serious objection to putting any bid in the Constitution to induce slaves to run away. I firmly believe that if this amendment should ever become a part of the Constitution, it would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery. The State of Missouri is surrounded on three sides by free States. When one of our slaves escapes and crosses the border, he finds himself at once among a people, some of whom will vindicate his freedom with their lives. I am willing to leave this whole subject to Congress. Congress will not permit the owner to get his money, and also retain his slave. In the name of God I ask that no such provision may be put into the Constitution!

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I will agree to this. The difference between the two is as wide as the poles.

The vote was then taken upon the amendment as amended, and resulted as follows:

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

NOES.--Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia--3.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Messrs. CLAY, of Kentucky, DENT and ROMAN, of Maryland, STEPHENS and TOTTEN, of Tennessee, dissented from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. BRONSON:--It is evident under the rules, as they now stand, that this debate is not to close within a month. I move to amend the rules as follows:

"Before reaching the final question on the plan to be
submitted to Congress, no member shall be allowed to speak
more than three minutes on any proposition."

Mr. SEDDON:--I rise to a question of order. I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New York is not in order.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to lay the amendment on the table.

The motion of Mr. GUTHRIE prevailed without a division.

Mr. FIELD:--I move to add an additional section to the report, as follows: