Chapter XXXIV: Appendix: No. I (2)

SEC. 5. The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever
prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass
laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or
persons held to service or labor, into the United States and
the Territories from places beyond the limits thereof.

SEC. 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with
this section of those amendments, and the third paragraph of
the second section of the first article of the Constitution,
and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth
article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without
the consent of all the States.

SEC. 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States
shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from
labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other 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 like violence or intimidation, and the owner
thereby deprived of the same; and the acceptance of such
payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such
fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to the
citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States.

Mr. MASON:--I suppose the proper disposition is to have it printed.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--There is nothing to print.

Mr. GREEN:--And refer it to the Committee for the District of Columbia. I think that is about right.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I move that it be referred to a select committee, with instructions to report to-morrow morning.

Mr. MASON:--We ought certainly to have it printed.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--It can be printed in the mean time.

Mr. FESSENDEN:--We should have time to look at it.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--It is moved that the communication be printed and referred to a select committee, with instructions to report to-morrow morning.

Mr. BIGLER:--I would be glad to make a suggestion to the Senator from Kentucky, that he name in addition an hour to-morrow at which the consideration of the report shall be in order, or else a single objection will throw it over to the next day.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Well, to-morrow at twelve o'clock, I would say. ["One."] I move one o'clock.

Mr. BIGLER:--With instructions to the committee to report to-morrow morning, and that the report be the special order at one o'clock?

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Yes, sir.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--Does the Senator indicate the number of the committee?

Mr. GREEN:--Seventeen.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--Five is enough.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--A committee of five; no more.

Mr. COLLAMER:--I would suggest to gentlemen not only that it be made the order of the day for twelve o'clock to-morrow, but that it be adopted by three-fourths of the States the next day. [Laughter.]

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--It is moved and seconded that the communication be printed and referred to a select committee of five members, to report to-morrow at one o'clock.

Mr. HALE:--I ask for a division of the question.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The first question will be on printing.

The motion to print was agreed to.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The next question is that the communication be referred to a select committee of five, with instructions to report to-morrow at one o'clock.

Mr. HALE:--I ask for a division of that.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--How would it be divided?

Mr. HALE:--The motion to refer to a select committee is one proposition, and the instructions are another.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--That is the form in which the Senator wants it divided?

Mr. HALE:--Yes, sir.

Mr. BIGLER:--As the Chair states the proposition, it does not reach the object which the Senator from Kentucky had in view. The instructions should be that the committee report to-morrow morning, and that the report shall be the special order at one o'clock. Unless that is done, one objection will put it over.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The Senator from New Hampshire asks for a division of the question, and it is susceptible of division. The first question is on referring the communication to a special committee of five.

The motion was agreed to.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The next branch of the proposition is that that committee be instructed to report to-morrow morning, and that their report be made the special order for to-morrow at one o'clock.

Mr. HALE:--On that, I should like to have the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The VICE-PRESIDENT:--The question is upon directing the committee to report to-morrow morning, and that the report be made the special order for to-morrow at one o'clock.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CLINGMAN:--Though I am utterly opposed to the proposition, I am willing to give it the direction its friends desire, and I vote "yea."

Mr. LATHAM:--I desire to change my vote. I have no confidence in this thing, and I fear it will be an unnecessary consumption of time; but I yield to the judgment of my political associates and I vote "yea."

The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 21; as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Anthony, Baker, Bayard, Bigler, Bragg,
Bright, Clingman, Crittenden, Dixon, Douglas, Fitch, Foster,
Gwin, Hunter, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham,
Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Rice, Sebastian, and
Thomson--26.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer,
Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Green, Grimes, Hale,
Harlan, King, Morrill, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck,
Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson--21.

So the motion was agreed to.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I move that the committee be appointed by the Chair.

The motion was agreed to; and Mr. CRITTENDEN, Mr. BIGLER, Mr. THOMSON, Mr. SEWARD, and Mr. TRUMBULL, were appointed the committee.

On the 28th of February the committee so appointed, presented to the Senate the following report, and the following action was taken thereon:

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--The select committee, to whom was referred the communication received yesterday from the Convention assembled in this place, commonly called the Peace Convention, with instructions to report by twelve o'clock to-day, have had the subject under consideration, and have directed me to make the following report--

Mr. HALE:--I object to its consideration to-day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH in the chair):--Objection being made, it cannot be considered until one o'clock, but it will be read.

The Secretary read the joint resolution reported by Mr. CRITTENDEN (S. No. 70), proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as follows:

JOINT RESOLUTION _proposing certain amendments to the
Constitution of the United States._

WHEREAS Commissioners, appointed on the invitation of the
State of Virginia, by the following States, respectively:
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, and
Kansas, have met in Convention at the City of Washington,
for the purpose of considering the distracted and perilous
condition of the country, and proposing measures for the
preservation of the peace, the safety of the people, and the
security of the Union, and having performed that duty, and
communicated to Congress the result of their deliberations,
with a request and recommendation on the part and in the
name of said States, that the following be proposed to the
several States as amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, according to the fifth article of said
instrument, namely: [See article preceding.]

Mr. SEWARD:--Mr. President--

Mr. GWIN:--I think I am on the floor.

Mr. SEWARD:--I desire to speak a word from the committee touching the present report.

Mr. GWIN:--Certainly.

Mr. HALE:--I object to its present consideration.

Mr. SEWARD:--I am not proposing to consider it.

Mr. BIGLER:--The Senator from New Hampshire has no right to make the objection.

Mr. SEWARD:--I am not proposing to consider it at the present moment; but I am desirous of making an explanation from the committee, touching the report made by the Senator from Kentucky. The honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL], and myself, constituted a minority of the committee. We dissent from the report, and we proposed in committee to submit a substitute. The majority held that, for some reason, sufficient in their estimation, we were not entitled to submit a minority report. I therefore ask leave of the Senate to introduce a joint resolution in my own name, and in which the honorable Senator from Illinois authorized me to say that he concurs with me, and which I ask unanimous consent to have read and printed; and it will be the subject of consideration at such time hereafter as the Senate shall choose to hear it, either in connection with the other or not.

Mr. MASON:--Is it in the form of a report?

Mr. SEWARD:--No; it is not insisted on in that form; it is submitted on my own behalf. I desire that it may be read for information and printed, subject to the future action of the Senate.

The proposition of Mr. SEWARD was read, as follows:

A joint resolution concerning a National Convention to
propose amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

WHEREAS, The Legislatures of the States of Kentucky, New
Jersey, and Illinois, have applied to Congress to call a
Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of
the United States: Therefore,

_Be it Resolved, &c._, That the Legislatures of the other
States be invited to take the subject into consideration,
and to express their will on that subject to Congress, in
pursuance of the fifth article of the Constitution.

Mr. BIGLER:--I desire to make--

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from California was on the floor. No action is now requested on the paper just offered, only a motion to print. Shall the paper be printed?

Mr. HALE:--Was it read for information?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--For information only.

Mr. SEWARD:--I move that it be printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair hears no objection.

Mr. BIGLER:--I desire to make a remark in reference to the question of order made by the Senator from New Hampshire. The Senator objects to the consideration of the report to-day. Yesterday, when the Senator from Kentucky made the motion, I insisted on further moving that the report of the committee should be the special order at one o'clock to-day.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--That is the record.

Mr. BIGLER:--That instruction was offered, and therefore the Senator's objection will not apply.

Mr. HALE:--Therefore it will.

Mr. SEWARD:--I insist on the motion to print.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from California is on the floor. The Senator from New Hampshire having objected to the present consideration of the resolution reported by the Senator from Kentucky, for the time being it cannot be considered.

Mr. SEWARD:--Will the Senator from California allow the question to be put on my motion to print?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:-The Chair heard no objection to that; and it was ordered.

Mr. DOOLITTLE:--The Senator from California will allow me to say a single word. I observe that, in this report, the State of Wisconsin is mentioned as having sent delegates to this Convention, commonly denominated the Peace Convention. That is a mistake. I desire, also, to give notice that when this subject shall come up for consideration, I shall offer as an amendment to the first section of article thirteen, as proposed, the following proviso:

_Provided, however_ (and this section shall take effect upon
the express condition), That no State, or any part thereof,
heretofore admitted, or hereafter to be admitted, into the
Union, shall have power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of
the United States; and that this Constitution, and all laws
passed in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the
land therein, any thing contained in any constitution, act,
or ordinance of any State Legislature or Convention to the
contrary notwithstanding.

The section will then read as follows:

SEC. 1. In all the present territory of the United States
north of the parallel of 36° 30´ of north latitude,
involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is
prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line,
the _status_ of persons held to involuntary service or
labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any
law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to
hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the
States of the Union to said territory, nor to impair the
rights arising from the said relation; but the same shall be
subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts,
according to the course of the common law. When any
Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary
as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal
to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its
form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union
on an equal footing with the original States, with or
without involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such
State may provide; _Provided, however_ (and this section
shall take effect upon the express condition), That no
State, nor any part thereof, heretofore admitted, or
hereafter to be admitted into the Union, shall have power
to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and
that the Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance
thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land therein, any
thing contained in any constitution, act, or ordinance, of
any State Legislature or Convention to the contrary
notwithstanding.

And I desire that that amendment, which I now send to the Chair, may be printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Is there any objection to printing the paper which the Senator has just read? The Chair hears no objection.

The same day the Report of the Peace Conference was called up for consideration, when Senator HALE objected to the consideration of the report. Considerable discussion then ensued, in which Messrs. HALE, BIGLER, TRUMBULL, CRITTENDEN, and DIXON participated. This discussion related merely to the question, whether under the rules of the Senate the Report of the Peace Conference could at this time be taken up. The merits of the report were not considered, and for that reason it is not deemed necessary to report the proceedings of the Senate in this respect. The joint rules of the two Houses were suspended in order that another subject might be taken up, and no decision was had upon the question, whether the Report of the Peace Conference at this time should be considered.

The allotted time having been consumed in this discussion, the Senate proceeded to the consideration and disposal of several orders of the day. On the first of March it resumed action on the Report of the Peace Conference.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH):--It is the duty of the Chair to announce the special order of the day, being the joint resolution (S. No. 70) proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I ask that the resolutions from the House of Representatives, in regard to amendments of the Constitution, be laid before the Senate, in order that they may be considered at the same time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair will lay before the Senate a joint resolution from the House of Representatives.

The joint resolution (H.R. No. 80) to amend the Constitution of the United States, was read the first time by its title.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I ask that that be made the special order at the same time, in connection with the joint resolution reported by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. MASON:--I have looked at that joint resolution, and it certainly ought to be committed to a committee to correct its English. It is unintelligible.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--My object is merely to have it considered at the same time with the other.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The joint resolution will have its second reading.

The joint resolution (H.R. No. 80) was read a second time by its title.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--It is now the subject of any motion that may be made in regard to it.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I move that it be made the special order in connection with the joint resolution reported by the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. CLARK:--How does that happen to be in order here when there is a special order called up?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--It is not in order to consider it, except by unanimous consent.

Mr. CLARK, Mr. BINGHAM, and Mr. SUMNER:--I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The special order is before the Senate.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I ask that the other resolutions which have come from the House of Representatives, be read. There are two of them, I believe.

The House joint resolutions (No. 64) declaratory of the opinion of Congress in regard to certain, questions now agitating the country, and of measures calculated to reconcile existing differences, were read the first time by the title.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The second reading--

Mr. CHANDLER and others:--I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Is objection made?

Mr. CHANDLER:--I withdraw my objection.

Mr. SUMNER:--I object.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Objection being made, it cannot be read the second time.

Mr. SIMMONS:--It passed the other House unanimously. There can be no objection, I think.

Mr. CLARK:--We have another subject up.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The special order is before the Senate. The question is on the second reading.

The joint resolution (S. No. 70) proposing certain amendments to the Constitution of the United States, was read the second time, and considered as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. PUGH:--Let the resolution be read, not the proposition itself, but the formal part, the introduction.

Mr. HUNTER:--Is that open to amendment now?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--It is in Committee of the Whole, and open to amendment. The reading of the formal part of the joint resolution is called for.

The Secretary read it.

Mr. SEWARD:--I offer the following as a substitute:

Strike out all after the word "whereas," in the preamble, to
the end of the resolution, and insert:

The Legislatures of the States of Kentucky, New Jersey, and
Illinois, have applied to Congress to call a Convention for
proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United
States; Therefore,

_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
the Legislatures of the other States be invited to take the
subject of such a Convention into consideration, and to
express their will on that subject to Congress, in pursuance
of the fifth article of the Constitution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair understands that a proviso was offered to the matter that the Senator from New York proposes to strike out. The vote will first be taken on the proviso offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. DOOLITTLE], to insert at the end of section one of article thirteen:

_Provided, however_ (and this section shall take effect upon
the express condition), That no State, nor any part thereof,
heretofore admitted, or hereafter to be admitted into the
Union, shall have power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of
the United States; and that this Constitution, and all laws
passed in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the
land, any thing contained in any constitution, act, or
ordinance of any State Legislature or Convention to the
contrary notwithstanding.

Mr. HUNTER:--I believe that the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin is not pending.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from Wisconsin proposes that as a proviso to the matter which the Senator from New York moves to strike out; and the question must first be taken on that.

Mr. HUNTER:--I did not know that that was before the Senate.

Mr. BIGLER:--He only gave notice of it.

Mr. HUNTER:--I thought the Senator from Wisconsin only gave notice that he would offer it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair may have misunderstood the Senator's motion at the time. He called for the printing of it; but if that is the understanding of the Senate--

Mr. SEWARD:--What does the record say?

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Chair understands that the record presents it as "intended to be offered."

Mr. SEWARD:--Then the question is on the substitute. I ask that the question be taken.

Mr. HUNTER:--I have an amendment to submit. I propose to amend the first section of the proposition before us, by inserting in lieu of it the first article of what are called the CRITTENDEN resolutions. I move to strike out the first article of the peace propositions, and to insert:

That in all the territory of the United States now held, or
hereafter acquired, situate north of latitude 36° 30´,
slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under
territorial government. In all the territory south of said
line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby
recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by
Congress; but shall be protected as property by all the
departments of the territorial government during its
continuance; and when any Territory, north or south of said
line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe,
shall contain the population requisite for a member of
Congress, according to the then Federal ratio of
representation of the people of the United States, 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 slavery, as the constitution of such new State
may provide.

Mr. COLLAMER:--I rise to a question of order. It will be observed that this paper is before us under a recital that, whereas these propositions of amendment have been presented by the Commissioners, as they are called, from the several States--naming them--who have asked Congress to submit them, therefore we propose to submit them to the States. The whole proceeding is based and predicated on this recital. I say that it cannot be amended. If it were amended, it would cease to be the application of that body which the recital States. I therefore object to any amendments, except a substitute; perhaps a substitute may be offered striking out the recital and all; but an amendment to it is out of order, in my view.

Mr. HUNTER:--In regard to the question of order, I understand that the recital is the recital of the committee, and that the question before us is on these propositions for amending the Constitution of the United States, which are to be treated as a bill. If so, each section is subject to amendment as a bill would be subject to amendment. It was my purpose to offer the entire series of what are called the CRITTENDEN resolutions, as an amendment to these, and I still intend to offer them, section by section; but I was prevented from offering them in that form, because the Senator from New York got the floor first, and offered his proposition as a substitute. I therefore could not raise the question which I desired to raise, except by offering the amendments, section by section, in order to perfect the original proposition. I submit that it is in order.

Mr. COLLAMER:--I submit, still, my question of order, suggesting to gentlemen that if we make any amendment, we must strike out the recital.

Mr. BIGLER:--I do not see that any ordinary question of order can be raised in this case; but I do think there is a consideration much more grave, and that is the question whether we will treat the series of resolutions presented here by this Peace Congress as a proposition which we ought either to accept or reject. I was one of those in the select committee who took that position. It was manifestly intended that we should accept the entire programme, or reject it. Therefore I was unwilling; and we decided to consider no question of amendment--

Mr. HUNTER:--That is not a question of order, but of propriety. It would be an argument against any amendment.

Mr. BIGLER:--I have said it was no ordinary question of rules; but that there was a far graver question of propriety. I agree with the Senator in that view; and I rose for the purpose of alluding to the view taken of this subject by the select committee. The Senator from New York desired the leave of the committee to report his proposition as a substitute; but the majority of the committee held that the resolutions had not been committed to us for the purpose of considering them and changing them, or substituting something else, but simply to attach to them the formal resolution to present them as amendments to the Constitution for the ratification of the States. For that reason we proposed no amendment; and the Senator from New York yesterday offered his substitute on his own responsibility, because, as I understood him, of the view taken by the committee. Now, sir, I still entertain the view that, while the Senate have a clear right unquestionably to change these resolutions, and to change the resolution of submission to make it conform to any thing we may do, we ought to consider these resolutions sent here by this Peace Conference as a whole, and accept them or reject them; but there can be no question of ordinary rule raised as to the right to offer an amendment; there is a greater, a graver question of propriety as to how they shall be treated.

Mr. SEWARD:--It is not merely a question of form or order, but the proposition of the Senator from Virginia would change the whole character of the transaction. This joint resolution is one single, complete proposition. It is one act. It begins with a declaration by Congress, that "whereas Commissioners, appointed on the invitation of the State of Virginia," have performed a certain duty confided to them, "and communicated to Congress the result of their deliberations, with a request and recommendation on the part and in the name of said States"--of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the rest of the States represented in the Convention--"the following"--nothing different, nothing originating in Congress, nothing originating anywhere else, but--"the following be proposed to the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, according to the fifth article of said instrument." Now, if we should adopt this whole transaction, we should simply do this: we should submit these amendments to the people of the United States for their acceptance, for the reason that the Peace Convention, as it is called, has considered upon the subject, and thought it grave enough to solicit us to invest it with the legislative or congressional sanction, and so submit it to the Legislatures and conventions of the States; but whenever you have made a single alteration in it, such as is proposed now by the Senator from Virginia, it is not, then, the proposition of the States "of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts," or any other States; but it is a recommendation of the Congress of the United States. The whole character is changed. The Convention is swept out of existence in the history of Congress. The resolutions then adopted become the deliberate conviction of the majority of the Congress of the United States, who substitute their own judgment, and their own wisdom, and their own will, for the wishes, the opinions, respectfully submitted to them by the representatives of those States, and take the responsibility of saying that this is what the Peace Convention should have submitted, instead of the proposition which they have sent here.

Mr. HUNTER:--I wish to make a suggestion in regard to the real position of this question, as it now appears before us. The arguments that have been urged by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from New York might very well be brought up against the propriety of adopting the amendment; but, so far as the question itself stands, it is only brought before us by a report of our committee. The Peace Conference had no power to present questions or make communications to us; but they having made a communication, and we, having respect for that body, agreed to take it up, and we referred their proposition to a committee. The only authority which we have now for considering it in the Senate, is on the recommendation of our committee. This proposition stands here as a recommendation of that committee to alter the Constitution, as proposed by this Conference. It being their recommendation in regard to the alteration of the Constitution, under our rules it stands like a bill; and I have a right to move to amend it, section by section; and in doing so, I should be pursuing the method taken by the Peace Conference, as I understand, for I am told they never took a vote on it as a whole, but voted on it proposition by proposition; and in fact, the majority who passed the propositions were composed of different States, and they never did take a vote on the articles as a whole.

Now, I am proposing to amend this as it comes up, proposition by proposition; and if it would be in order for me to make such a motion, supposing that this proposition had originated with a committee of this body, who had made a report proposing such amendments to the Constitution, I should have a right to make it now, for it is only in that way that it appears legally before us. I say, then, so far as the question of order is concerned, it seems to me that I have clearly a right to do it. I would be willing, in order to get rid of the question of order, to move to strike out the preamble too; but in my opinion it stands before us as a bill would stand. I may amend the particular sections. I am not proposing by this amendment to perfect the whole proposition, but a part of it; and if I should succeed in that, I can then go back, and move to amend the preamble.

So far as the question of order is concerned, I cannot see how it is that I am out of order. There may be a question of propriety. Those who believe that this proposition is one that ought to be accepted as a whole, and ought to be accepted because it comes from this body, eminently respectable, as we all acknowledge it to be, may say that we ought not to amend it; not that we have not the power, but that we ought not to amend it. Those of us, however, who think as I do, that it is a proposition not to be accepted; that it is a proposition highly dangerous, and one which will give rise to great difficulties, on the other hand, may think it eminently proper to amend it. I, thinking in that way, avail myself of what I suppose my parliamentary right, to offer an amendment; and it is upon that question of parliamentary right alone, as I understand, that the Chair is to determine.

Mr. TRUMBULL:--Mr. President, it seems to me very clear that, as a question of order, this proposition does not stand in any respect different from any other. Suppose an individual Senator had thought proper to propose amendments to the Constitution; that they had been referred to a committee; and the committee had approved them: what would it have done? Precisely what this committee has done. It would have reported back the proposition, with a resolution in conformity with that clause of the Constitution which points out the mode of its amendment. The fact that this proposition was adopted by gentlemen from various States does not alter it at all. It comes here as a mere petition. However respectable and dignified the Convention may have been which arrived at these conclusions; however much weight their conclusions may be entitled to in the country, they come here simply as petitioners--in that light, and none other--asking Congress to submit certain resolutions to the States of the Union to be adopted or not as portions of the fundamental law, and, unquestionably, any Senator has a right to propose an amendment in the same way as if they were introduced by an individual Senator. Can it be possible that if I draw up a series of propositions as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and a select committee thinks proper to recommend them to this body, the hands of the body are tied up, and it must take them, word for word, and letter for letter, as I have drawn them? The question is, whether it is proper to do this; whether the respect due the Peace Convention should not deter gentlemen from offering amendments, is a question we are not discussing. The point is one of order; and as a question of order, I was astonished when the Senator from Pennsylvania first suggested it.

Mr. BIGLER:--I suggested no question of order.

Mr. TRUMBULL:--I did understand the Senator from Pennsylvania to say, that that was the view he took in committee in response to what was said by the Senator from Vermont, and it was to that I alluded when I said I was astonished at the ground he took, that the committee could not amend these propositions, or that any other person could not move to amend them.

Mr. BIGLER:--The Senator from Vermont made a distinct point of order; but I did not sustain the Senator's views on the point of order. On the other hand, so far from that, I stated distinctly, that there could be no ordinary question of order under the rule; but a question of propriety, a question as to the consideration that was to be attached to this proposition of the Peace Convention; that the select committee, or a majority, at least, were under the impression that it was expected we would treat it as a whole, and accept it or reject it. That is what I said. I have no doubt whatever of the right of a Senator on this floor to move to amend this resolution. But, sir, I cannot agree with the Senator from Illinois by any means, that this proposition should be treated as the mere report of a committee or the proposition of an individual Senator. Who supposes that twenty States would have sent commissioners here to consider this great question and suggest to Congress--

Mr. TRUMBULL:--The Senator from Pennsylvania, I see, is misunderstanding me. I said, as a question of order, it was to be treated the same as if offered by an individual Senator; that however much respect we might have for it, as coming from the source it did, yet, as a question of order, there was no difference in the rules.

Mr. BIGLER:--I did not understand the Senator as placing entire stress on the question of order. I have been endeavoring to take this question away from the rules, to set it above the rules, and I say that we ought to consider it without reference to the rules. If it be that this programme is not acceptable to the Senate, let it be rejected. What I supposed was intended from the beginning was, that whatever they sent here was to be considered as an entirety--accepted or rejected. I was about to remark, who supposes that twenty States would have sent commissioners to prepare a programme of peace for the consideration of Congress, if they had supposed that immediately the peculiar views of each member of Congress would be set up in opposition to them?

Mr. President, a single remark in relation to what fell from the Senator from New York, and I shall have done. The Senator from New York alludes to the terms of the preamble, that, for the reason that these commissioners agreed, therefore these propositions are submitted as amendments to the Constitution. I do not wish to be understood as regarding it in that light. I do not think it is the right of Congress to submit propositions of amendment of the Constitution because they come from any source. The spirit of the Constitution is, that Congress will submit amendments to the Constitution; because Congress approves those amendments, and it would be a reason why I should vote for or against them, whether I approved them or not. If, as a whole, I could vote for them, I would vote for them; if, as a whole, I could not, I would vote against them. That does not affect the question whether, under all the circumstances, and solemn surroundings, the labor which has been bestowed, and the character of the men that have presented this paper, we should consider it as an entirety, or attempt to cut it up by piecemeal, by which neither they, nor the public, will ever ascertain what the judgment of Congress was on the results of their labor. That is what I say.

Mr. SEWARD:--The honorable Senator may very naturally and very properly take the ground that he would not vote, and that Congress ought not to vote, for submitting this proposition to the people, for the reason assigned in the paper before us. I have not any disposition to quarrel with him about it. I might take the same view, and say that I would not submit to the people a proposition which was futile, which was frivolous. That is not what I was speaking to. What I was speaking to was, the character of this proposition; and this is a proposition just to this effect, logically and technically expressed: that whereas these commissioners appointed by the States have met, consulted, considered, and adopted that resolution, therefore, for that reason, independent of every thing else, Congress submits it to the States.

Mr. PUGH:--I want to make an appeal to the friends of some proposition of peace. This is the last day of the session but one, and we have not made the progress of one line. We have gone into an eternal discussion about questions of order, and that, too, in defiance of the rule of the Senate. I insist that the question shall be decided without further debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH):--It is not for the Chair to decide any question of propriety, except as an individual Senator. As Presiding Officer, he does not deem the question of order, made by the Senator from Vermont, to be well taken. The joint resolution differs in no respect from other resolutions, and is open to amendment, and is before the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, for that purpose. The question is on agreeing to the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. HUNTER:--Mr. President, I have offered this amendment, as the first of a series which I shall offer, for the purpose of carrying out the will of my State, as it has been expressed through its Legislature; and I might say there are other Senators similarly situated, for there are other States which have declared a disposition to settle upon the basis of what are called the CRITTENDEN resolutions. That is the first reason which prompts me; and to me it is imperative, because the Legislature of the State which I have the honor in part to represent, has declared that this is the basis upon which it would settle, and intimated that it would not take less than they propose by way of security for the South. I have also another reason. I have examined this proposition of the Peace Conference--

Mr. WADE:--Will the Senator let us hear it read? We do not understand what his proposition is.

Mr. HUNTER:--My proposition is the first article from the CRITTENDEN amendments, in regard to the territorial adjustment.

Mr. WADE:--We understand that.

Mr. HUNTER:--After as careful an examination as I have been able to give this proposition from the Peace Conference since it was printed, that is to say, within the last day or two, I have come to the conclusion that it would not only make a great many more difficulties than it would remove, if it should be adopted as an amendment to the Constitution, but that it would place the South--the slaveholding States--in a far worse position than they now occupy under the present Constitution, with the Dred Scott decision as its exposition.

Mr. CLARK:--Will the Senator from Virginia allow me to make a suggestion?

Mr. HUNTER:--Certainly.

Mr. CLARK:--I understand him to say he proposes to offer the several propositions of the CRITTENDEN amendment one after the other.

Mr. HUNTER:--Yes, sir.

Mr. CLARK:--Then I suggest, as that is the intention of the Senator, that unanimous consent be given to move them as one amendment, so that we may have them all up for discussion, if any one chooses to discuss them, at the same time.

Mr. HUNTER:--I have no objection to that, if it is the general wish. I was saying, Mr. President, when I was interrupted, that after as careful an examination as I was able to give this peace proposition, since it was printed, I came to the conclusion that it would put the southern States in a far worse position than they now occupy under the present Constitution, and with the Dred Scott decision. Under that Constitution, and with the Dred Scott decision, they had a right, as the court has decided, to carry their slaves into any Territory of the United States. That is a right which has been adjudicated to them by a solemn decision of the Supreme Court; and it is to be remembered that this right has not only been accorded to them by the decision of the court, but by the action of the several branches of the Federal Government. That is their present state of things under the present Constitution of the United States with regard to the territorial question. In what position, then, does this proposed territorial adjustment place them? Why, sir, it excludes them; it puts the WILMOT proviso on all territory north of 36° 30´; and south of 36° 30´ it gives them the privilege of another lawsuit, in order to try their right and title to enter the territory with their slaves. What are the words of this proposed amendment of the Constitution?

"In all the present territory south of that line, the
_status_ of persons hold to involuntary service or labor, as
it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be
passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder
or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States
of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights
arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject
to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to
the course of the common law."

"In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ of persons held to involuntary servitude or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed." What is the meaning of that word "_status_"? What is the _status_? The word _status_ may be applied to different things; there may be a local _status_ or a political _status_. In some countries a slave may hold property, and, in a certain form, sue; in others, he cannot. Or it may be the social and legal relation, that of the slave to his master, which constitutes the _status_ that is referred to; and I presume it is that which it is declared shall not be changed. But, sir, shall not be changed by whom? By Congress? It does not say so. By the Territorial Legislature? It does not say so in terms. Does it mean that it shall not be changed by Congress or by the government of the Territory? Does it mean that it shall not be changed at all by anybody? Does it mean the master shall not emancipate him if he chooses? Is it an absolute prohibition of any change of the _status_ of the slave, of any sort or description?

These are the terms which we are obliged to resort to in order to escape from the manly declaration of the CRITTENDEN resolution, that south of that line slavery shall be recognized and protected. It was eminently proper, as we excluded them north of it, that our institutions should be recognized and protected south of that line. That, sir, was plain English; that everybody could understand; but here we are interpolating law Latin into the Constitution; this word "_status_" is introduced; and who is to determine what the _status_ was? I thought it had been considered a march forward, a step of progress, an evidence of improvement in English legislation, when it abandoned Norman French and law Latin, and resorted to the mother tongue; and especially it should be so, when we are making constitutions for American people of English descent, and who speak the English tongue. A constitution is for the millions, and the millions should be able to understand it.

But, Mr. President, let us proceed a little further. This whole matter is to be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of common law. That embraces the right of the master to his slave as a matter of cognizance under the common law before the courts; because what do they mean by the _status_ of all persons held to involuntary servitude or labor? They mean rightfully held. They do not mean if a man is kidnapped and held illegally to involuntary service or labor that he is always to be so held. It means that the _status_ of persons who are rightfully and legally held shall not be changed; and who is to determine that? The courts are to determine it according to the common law. That is to be determined by judges who are to be appointed from a party, and by a party who believe that there cannot be property in man; by a party who believe that, in the Somerset case, Lord MANSFIELD has laid down the common law properly; by a party who will probably believe that the decision of the English courts, in regard to the slave ANDERSON, that it was no murder for a slave when escaping to kill his master, was a correct exposition of the common law.

How, then, do we stand? Why, sir, in relation to our right to slaves, we have to try that right before judges who are thus appointed, and appointed from a party who we know entertain these opinions. Why, sir, you might poll that party through the whole United States, and I would venture any thing upon the assertion that you cannot get one in a hundred thousand who would not deny that there could be property in man, especially under the common law. We thus lose the advantage of the Dred Scott decision. According to the Dred Scott decision, we can carry them into the territory of the United States and hold them, and it is decided that there is property in slaves--decided under the Constitution. The court maintain that the Constitution recognizes it. It is upon constitutional ground that we have made our claims, and so far, it is upon this that we have fought and won the battle, not upon common law; and now we are to abandon the advantages that we have got from that ground of title under the Dred Scott decision, and go into court and try a case that has been already decided in our favor; and under the common law, try it before judges who are to be selected by a party entertaining such opinions as I have just described; and I am sorry to say, without appeal to the Supreme Court; because, in the territorial bills which have been lately passed, that right has been taken from us. My friend from North Carolina will be kind enough to read an article in the Chicago platform, showing what is held on that subject by those who wield the power of this Government.

Mr. CLINGMAN read, as follows:

Eighth. "That the normal condition of all the territory of
the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican
fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national
territory, ordained that 'no person should be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' it
becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation
is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution
against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the
authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, or of
any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any
Territory of the United States."

Mr. HUNTER:--Thus much, Mr. President, in regard to the _status_; and it is to be observed that the same word is used in reference to persons who are now held to involuntary servitude in the Territories and to those whom we are to have the right to take into the Territories from the States recognizing slavery. So that we submit this question of our right to slaves, when it reaches the Territories, to be tried under the common law, by courts appointed by the party entertaining the opinions I have described, and that without appeal. This is in regard to the Territories which we now own. What is the settlement provided for in regard to territory hereafter to be acquired? Here it is, in the third section: