Chapter XLI: Section I: In all the present territory of the United States (1)

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 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.

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.

YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New
Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Tennessee--9.

NAYS.--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and
Virginia--8.

DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.

NOT VOTING.--Indiana.

SEC. II. 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 for the ratification of such treaty.

YEAS.--Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--11.

NAYS.--Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and
Vermont--8.

DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.

SEC. III. Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof
shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate,
abolish, or control, within any State, the relation
established or recognized by the laws thereof touching
persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to
interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the
District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, nor
without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who
do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere
with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing
with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking
away, persons so held to labor or service; nor the power to
interfere with, or abolish involuntary service in places
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,
within those States and Territories where the same is
established or recognized; nor the power to prohibit the
removal or transportation of persons held to labor or
involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United
States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is
established or recognized by law or usage, and the right
during transportation, by sea or river, 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, or of sale or traffic
against the laws thereof; nor shall Congress have power to
authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to
labor or service than on land. The bringing into the
District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service for
sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred
to other places as merchandise, is prohibited.

YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, North Caroline, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia--12.

NAYS.--Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont--7.

DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.

SEC. IV. The third paragraph of the second section of the
fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to
prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and
through the action of their judicial and ministerial
officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from
labor to the person to whom such labor or service is due.

YEAS.--Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia--15.

NAYS.--Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire--4.

DIVIDED.--New York and Kansas--2.

SEC. V. 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.

YEAS.--Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, Vermont, and Kansas--16.

NAYS.--Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
and Virginia--5.

SEC. VI. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with
this section of these 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.

YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Tennessee--11.

NAYS.--Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and Virginia--9.

DIVIDED.--New York.

SEC. VII. 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 assemblies, 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
citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States.

YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Virginia--12.

NAYS.--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina,
Missouri, and Vermont--7.

DIVIDED.--New York.

NOT VOTING.--Massachusetts.

When the question was first taken on the first section, it was lost by a vote of eleven States against it to eight in its favor, a majority of your Commissioners casting the vote of New York against it. A motion was immediately made to reconsider, which was advocated by Mr. Granger, one of the Commissioners from New York, and was carried by a vote of fourteen States for, to five against it--a majority of the Commissioners from New York again casting its vote in the negative, and the Convention adjourned. On the next day it again came up on its final passage, and was then carried by a vote of nine States for, to eight against it--the vote of New York not being given. Why it was not given is left by the Commissioners to be stated by Mr. Field, on his own responsibility. (_See note_, p. 596.)

The vote of New York was not given upon any of the sections except the fifth, for the reason already stated; but upon that section we all voted Aye, as all her Commissioners then present were in its favor.

After the several votes had been taken, it was objected that the whole article should be put to a vote upon the question of its final adoption before it could be regarded as properly passed, but the President of the Convention decided that this was not necessary, and no such vote was taken. At the close of the discussion on this subject your Commissioners were prepared to cast the vote against the entire article, if any question had been taken upon it as a whole, as a majority of your Commissioners think it should have been.

Soon after the adoption of these proposed amendments to the Constitution, and after voting down and laying on the table various propositions made by a minority in the interest of freedom and the free States, the Convention adjourned--having adopted an address to Congress requesting that body to submit the amendment, to Conventions of the several States, for ratification, according to the Constitution of the United States; and they were accordingly communicated to Congress on the same day. In the Senate, they were referred to a committee, and were recommended for adoption by a majority of that committee; but Messrs. Seward and Trumbull, a minority of the committee, reported against the amendments, and in favor of a National Convention; thus following out and approving the proposition which had been made in the Convention by your Commissioners, and the entire minority of that party, nearly three weeks before, and for which the majority which controlled it, if it had chosen to do so, could at any time have obtained an unanimous vote. The amendment of the Convention, however, failed to secure the approval of either branch of Congress.

The labors of your Commissioners having thus terminated, it is due to those whom they represented, and to themselves, that the majority should state briefly the reasons why the proposed amendments to the Constitution did not meet their approbation.

_First._--In their judgment, no amendment of that sacred instrument in the interest, and for the purpose of the extension and perpetuation of the slave power--an interest which has wielded the whole political power of the United States during almost the entire existence of the Government--was either expedient or necessary. They preferred it should remain and continue just as it came from the hands of our revolutionary fathers; a Constitution establishing freedom and not slavery.

_Second._--The Convention would scarcely listen to, much less adopt, any amendment in the interest of freedom or of free labor, or of the rights of citizens of the free States; the only one of that character--that in relation to securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States--having been voted down as a direct proposition when offered by Mr. Wilmot, and only adopted in an indirect way at the end of the section requiring payment to be made by Congress for rescued slaves. In like manner the absolute right of secession in every State as inherent under the Constitution of the United States was claimed to exist by members of the Convention from the slave States, accompanied by a denial of any right in the General Government to coerce obedience to it, or to enforce the laws for the collection of revenue. And although all the delegates from the slave States did not take this ground, yet in several instances a majority of the delegates from several of them did so, and the States themselves generally voted against all propositions to the contrary. The article proposed by your Commissioners denying the right of nullification and secession was defeated in accordance with these views; so that in effect slave States, and such of the free States as voted with them, would not consent so to amend the Constitution as to deny the right of nullification and secession, even if all the guarantees demanded by the slave interest were accorded to it. In addition, many of the delegates from the slave States declared that it was the fixed determination of those States to stand by the States that had seceded from the Union, and to aid them in resisting it, even if such guarantees were given; and that they would resist any attempts to coerce them, or to enforce the revenue, or any other laws within their limits, without their consent. In other words, they claimed a right to remain in the Union under the Constitution, with its new guarantees of slavery, and yet to obstruct the operations of the Government, to prevent the execution of the laws, and to aid those who were in open rebellion against, and had made war upon it. Under these circumstances your Commissioners did not deem it consistent with justice, or the respect due to their own State, to give their assent to any of the proposed amendments, except that prohibiting the slave-trade--and even that, in their opinion, was unnecessary, as no enlightened legislative body would dare to propose to reëstablish that infamous traffic.

_Third._--By the first section of the proposed amendments, slavery is _constitutionally_ established in all of the territory south of the line of 36° 30´, and all control over it by Congress or the territorial legislatures is absolutely taken away during its territorial condition. In effect, there is to be no law for slavery, its permanency and existence being provided for, except the will of the master and the present odious slave code of New Mexico. These are fastened upon every inch of the soil of that immense region, beyond even the power of the people to remove them, however much they may desire to do so, prior to the formation of a State government. Slavery must therefore be the normal condition of the territory, while the State is in the process of formation and organization; and the inevitable result must be, that free labor and free institutions will be excluded, and no free State formed within its limits. As the territory was free from the blight of slavery when acquired, your Commissioners could not assent to its being changed into slave soil by an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

_Fourth._--The second section of the proposed amendments gives to the slave States an absolute negative upon the acquisition of free territory in every possible mode by which it can be acquired; and in giving reciprocally the same right to free States as to acquiring slave territory, also fetters the operations of the General Government both in peace and war, depriving it to some extent of the exercise of perfect sovereignty, and at the same time sanctioning, and perpetuating in the organic law, an odious discrimination in favor of an institution peculiar to the slave States, and at variance with the humane principles of the age. The free States do not need any such veto power in their favor, and the slave States would not demand it except to maintain and preserve for slavery a balance of power hitherto claimed, and to some extent exercised by them, for which they secure by this amendment a constitutional perpetuation. No well-founded objection seems to exist in regard to the acquisition of free territory, unless it be that it is obtained in order to convert it into slave soil; and your Commissioners could not consent to give to a single interest, that of slavery, a negative upon such acquisitions. They have always regarded slavery as a local institution, depending solely upon the laws of the States in which it was permitted for its existence; and they did not deem it expedient or just to recognize it as, or elevate it to, the rank of a positive governmental power, by clothing it with the right to interrupt one of the ordinary and most essential functions of the Government. Slavery, except as a limited basis of representation, has now no political power or authority under the Constitution; the wise and good men who framed that instrument cautiously withheld it in all other respects; and your Commissioners find in the history of the aggressions of the slave interest, only additional reasons for confining it within its original limits.

_Fifth._--To so much of the third article as declares that the Constitution nor any amendment of it, shall be so construed as to give Congress the power to regulate, abolish, or control slavery within any State, there was no objection, as it has never been seriously claimed that any such power was given; but this provision is connected with so many objectionable, not to say odious ones, that your Commissioners felt themselves bound to vote against it. These surrender all the power of Congress over the District of Columbia, and over other places within its exclusive jurisdiction, in respect of slavery and its ultimate extinction, however much the people of the United States in the progress of civilization and humanity may desire it; and by the sixth section this provision is made unalterable without the consent of all the States. The influences produced by the existence of slavery at the National Capital, upon public men and public measures, are well known; and while they may be tolerated, as they have been, without any desire to exercise the power of eradicating the cause of the evil, still a sound policy requires that the power should not be abandoned. Connected with this surrender of a well-defined and necessary power, are other provisions in regard to the transit of slaves through the free States; in effect, permitting the carrying on of the internal slave-trade through these States, unless they pass laws forbidding it. This trade through the free States is not made dependent upon the consent of the States, but is made lawful without dissent; and the result is, that if this amendment shall be adopted, every free State will find it necessary to legislate for its exclusion, or to permit and regulate the transit by its own laws. These laws would be deemed odious by the slave States, and would produce dissatisfaction and irritation. Besides, in most of the free States, the normal legal condition of every person is that of freedom; this constitutional provision would at once change the local law of the State, and operate as a positive recognition of slavery in the absence of any new enactment. Thus, every free State would find itself compelled to adopt a slave code, more or less extensive in its character, regulating or excluding the inter-state slave-trade. Taking this in connection with the fourth section, authorizing the States to legislate upon the subject of fugitive slaves, and by their judicial and ministerial officers to enforce their delivery, contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which declares all such interference on the part of the States unconstitutional, it is apparent that the legislatures of all the free States would be beset by hordes of persons in the interest of the slave power for the passage of laws protecting slavery within their limits. No means, however impure, would be omitted to obtain them; and it is easy to see that a slave code upon the subject of transit of fugitives, more or less stringent in its character, would soon find its way into every statute book. When the States now free abolished slavery within their own limits, they intended to get rid of the evil entirely, not only in practice but as a necessity of legislation; these provisions compel a return to it, and involve the adoption of new laws for its regulation or exclusion.

_Seventh._ [Transcriber's Note: should be "Sixth"]--The sixth section makes most of the amendments which give a constitutional protection to slavery, unalterable without the consent of all the States. It also includes the second section of the fourth article, which provides that "representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective members," including three-fifths of all slaves, &c.; and that portion of the fourth article which requires the delivering up of fugitive slaves. Thus, a preference is given to the slave interest over every other; these may all be affected by a constitutional amendment, ratified or adopted by three-fourths of the States; but the slave clauses are to remain, except by universal consent, fixed and immovable. No such protection is given to freedom; none to the property of free men, unless it be what is called property in slaves; none to the freedom of the press; none to the religion of the citizen, or to the rights of conscience. These rights, more sacred than any other, are deemed of less importance, and are secured by less guarantees than the right to hold a fellow man in bondage and to traffic in his flesh. Moreover, the three-fifth representation of slaves, and only the same rate of direct taxation, are perpetual by the same rigid provision. This not only gives to the slave States a representation of three-fifths of their slave property, but it secures to them an exemption from taxation on the same property to the extent of two-fifths. But no property whatever, in the free States constitutes a basis of representation, and all of it is liable to, and may be taxed. Unequal and unjust as was this discrimination in favor of the slave States, still as it formed a part of the original Constitution, it should be maintained; but when it is sought to extend it to new States, and to make it unchangeable without the consent of all the States, the attempt should be resisted by every freeman. There are other property interests more important than that of slavery, but none of them have been so arrogant as to claim such exclusive privileges and perpetuation.

_Finally._--Other objections of a grave character might be stated, but it is not deemed necessary. The great purpose of the Convention was to amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to recognize and protect slaves as property. As a direct proposition this was negatived, but the same end was sought to be attained by indirect means, and its friends exulted in having accomplished it. Such is the obvious effect of these amendments. If adopted, slaves must everywhere in the Union be regarded as property, and entitled to the same legal protection as other property. The necessary result will be, that all State laws forbidding the bringing of slaves within their limits, will be void, the sovereignty of the States in that respect will be destroyed, and the National Constitution will recognize and protect property in man.

We do not believe that the people of the State of New York will, under any pressure of circumstances, however grave, recognize a claim so repugnant to humanity, so hostile to freedom.

We commend to your honorable body the careful consideration of these proposed constitutional amendments. We believe that they will, if adopted, engraft upon our Constitution the odious doctrine of property in man; that they will extend slavery over a vast domain once free; that they will change the whole spirit and character of our organic law, making that to protect and foster slavery which was intended to establish freedom; making that irrevocable and perpetual which the framers of the instrument intended should be temporary.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD, WM. CURTIS NOYES, JOHN A. KING, JAMES S. WADSWORTH, A.B. JAMES, JAMES C. SMITH.

* * * * *

NOTE OF MR. FIELD.

The following statement shows why the vote of New York was not given upon the first question taken in the Peace Convention, on the twenty-seventh of February. The Journal represents the vote as divided. _It was not divided._ The vote was ordered to be cast, _and should have been cast_ in the negative.

On Tuesday, the day preceding, a message came to me from the clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, that the Court was waiting for me in a case which had stood upon the docket since December, 1859, and was now for the first time reached in its order. The case was of great importance, for upon its result depended the closing or reopening of a litigation which I had conducted for nineteen years, which had embraced in its different forms more than eighty suits, and in the course of which the Courts of the State and of the United States had come into direct conflict. All the tribunals of the State of New York, where the question had been raised, had decided against my clients. The Supreme Court of the United States, by a majority of two, had once decided in their favor.

The present case was to determine whether the Court would adhere to its former decision. The stake of my clients was therefore immense, and I was their only counsel.

The case being called after my arrival in Court, the Chief Justice observed that, as it was too late to begin that day, the argument would proceed first the next morning, at eleven o'clock, unless the Attorney-General should claim precedence in another case. Then, thinking that the Convention would close its business during the day, I hastened back, and the question being soon taken, I cast the vote of the State against the proposition before the Convention, and it was rejected by 11 to 8.

A reconsideration was moved and carried, and an adjournment taken to half-past seven in the evening. At that hour I returned to the Convention, but to my disappointment, and in spite of my efforts, it adjourned to the next morning at ten o'clock, a majority of my associates voting for the adjournment.

The next morning I endeavored to procure a meeting of the delegation before ten o'clock, that I might obtain a formal instruction to the Chairman in my absence to cast a vote of the State against the proposed amendments. Not being able, however, to obtain the earlier attendance of all the members, I waited till they appeared in the hall of the Convention, and there, shortly before eleven o'clock, I called them together, and, all being present, a resolution, in contemplation of my absence, was moved and carried, that "the Chairman declare that New York voted No on each section." Thereupon requesting Mr. King to act as temporary Chairman in my absence, and when New York was called to cast the vote in the negative, pursuant to the resolution, I left the hall and drove to the Capitol as rapidly as possible, that I might be present at the opening of the Court.

Was it reasonable, nay, was it possible, that I should do otherwise? It is known to be a rule of the Supreme Court not to postpone an argument for other engagements of counsel. If neither counsel is present, the case goes to the foot of the docket, to be reached again only after two or three years; if one of the counsel only appears, he makes an oral argument, and a printed brief is submitted on the other side. In my view, it would have been trifling with the rights of my clients either to submit their case on a printed brief or to postpone it for two years. I had no one to send to the Court in my place. To despatch a letter with an excuse was a liberty I did not feel justified in taking, and if taken, it might fail of its object, as the Court, when informed of the circumstances, must have believed that no member of the delegation would take advantage of my absence if he could, and that he could not if he would, since the vote had been already determined in a meeting of the delegation, and that determination could not be reconsidered or changed without the desertion to the minority of one of the majority.

But whatever might be the opinion of others, my duty appeared to myself extremely plain. There was nothing to be done in the Convention but the merely ministerial duty of declaring what had already been determined, which duty could certainly be performed by another as well as myself, while, on the other hand, no one but myself could act in Court for my clients. It is true that some of my associates expressed to me their apprehension that the minority might appeal to the Convention, and that the Convention might arbitrarily overrule the delegation; but I answered them as I repeat now, that neither the minority of the delegation nor the Convention itself had any right to interpose. We were not asking a favor, but exercising a right. Whether a person not present could vote was not the question. Persons did not vote except on unimportant questions and by general consent. States voted; the vote of each State was delivered by its Chairman, who collected the voices of his delegation and announced the result. There was nothing in the reason of the thing, nothing in any rule or usage of the Convention, which required the voices of the delegation to be collected at the instant of announcing the result. They might be collected one minute beforehand, or, as in the present instance, ten minutes, or twice ten minutes. All that could be required was, that each member should give his own judgment upon the particular proposition, and the sum of these judgments it was the sole province of the Chairman to make known. There could be no occasion for their standing by his side while he performed this duty unless he needed their support or they feared his weakness.

I have said that there was no rule of the Convention which ordered the matter otherwise; on the contrary, the rule as to the mode of voting--the 18th--was as follows:

"18. MODE OF VOTING: All votes shall be taken by States, and
each State to give one vote. The yeas and nays of the
members shall not be taken, or published--only the decision
by States."

On the twenty-first of February, Mr. Dent, of Maryland, moved the adoption of the following rule:

"When the vote on any question is taken by States, any
Commissioner dissenting from the vote of his State may have
his dissent entered on the journal."

Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the following as a substitute for Mr. Dent's rule.

"The yeas and nays of the Commissioners of each State, upon
any question, shall be entered upon the Journal, when it is
desired by any Commissioner; and the vote of each State
shall be determined by the majority of Commissioners present
from each State."

Mr. Chase's substitute was rejected, and Mr. Dent's rule adopted.

The usage of the Convention may be understood by a single example. The Maine delegation consisted of her two Senators and six members of the House of Representatives. One member only attended for the greater part of the Convention, and cast the vote of the State. Indeed it was a frequent practice for members to absent themselves and leave their associates to act for them.

The State of New York had, moreover, decided for herself in what manner her Commissioners should speak for her, by declaring in the joint resolution of the Senate and Assembly that they should cast their "votes to be determined by a majority of their number," not the majority of those who should happen to be present at a particular instant on the floor of the Convention, but a majority of the whole number. Suppose, upon a question being put, the delegation had met for consultation, and by a formal resolution determined that the vote of the State be No; then, instructing their Chairman to cast the vote accordingly, had separated, and all but the Chairman retired from the hall, could he thereupon have changed the vote to Aye, because he disagreed with the majority and alone remained on the floor? Or could the Convention have refused this vote of the State? And if not, how is that question different from the one here?

It was, therefore, I must think with good reason, assumed by me when I left the hall, that if the question should be put in my absence, which by the way I considered uncertain, as the debate then going on might last for hours, and I hoped still to find some means of deferring my argument to the next day, I might certainly depend on the vote of New York being declared again as it had been declared before, never doubting for a moment the ability and the will of my associates to defend against all opposition the rights of the State, their own rights, and mine.

On my arrival at the Court I did not succeed in my desire to defer my argument to the next day; but had I done so, it would have made no difference, as the vote in the Convention must have been called before I reached the Capitol.

What occurred in my absence I can only know from report. Five different statements are given: one by Mr. King in a published letter, another by the secretary of the delegation in the minutes kept by him, the third by the chairman of the Massachusetts delegation, who had the best opportunity to observe what was passing, the fourth by the secretary in a correspondence with me, and the fifth in the published Journal of the Convention.

Mr. King's statement of what occurred in my absence is as follows:

"The vote on the amendment soon followed, and before New
York was called I asked my colleagues what vote should be
given, and the reply was that in the absence of Mr. Field
the vote was divided. Nevertheless, I stated the case to the
Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before.
This was objected to by one of the Commissioners of the
minority, and permission having been refused by the
Convention, by direction of my colleagues when the State was
called I answered that the vote was divided."

The other statements are subjoined, and numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

From a comparison of these statements it appears.

_First:_ That the direction given to Mr. King, when the whole delegation were together, regularly convened, in contemplation of my absence, was to "declare that New York voted No."

_Second:_ That instead of confining himself to that duty, he began immediately upon my departure, and before the vote was demanded, to ask anew, "what vote should be given?" and when the vote was demanded, instead of voting No, "stated the case to the Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before."

_Third:_ That Mr. King's colleagues, though they had just resolved, in expectation of my absence, that he should "declare that New York voted No," yet "before New York was called," and of course before any intimation from the Convention or its President, in answer to his question, "What vote shall be given?" replied, "that in Mr. Field's absence, the vote was divided," and directed him so to declare.

_Fourth:_ That the Convention never "decided that no person could vote who was not present." Whatever was done, was done between the delegation and Mr. Tyler. No order was taken by the Convention, but, on the contrary, the objection on the part of the minority of the delegation was that "the Convention had no control or authority in the matter."

What caused this departure from the course of proceedings prescribed by the resolution does not clearly appear. The delegation did not rescind the resolution; the Convention did not reverse it. I do not understand that my associates consider it a nullity--certainly they could not have so considered it when it was passed. I have not sufficient evidence that they changed their minds within ten minutes, or that they have changed them yet. That the resolution was not a nullity, but an authoritative act, binding upon every member of the delegation, until duly reconsidered, I believed then, and believe still.

I submit, therefore, that my reason for attending court, at its opening, was not only sufficient but imperative; and if I had not yielded to it, I should have incurred the reproach of my clients, and the censure of all right-thinking men; that before I left the Convention, I did not only all that could have been done, but all that was necessary, to make the vote of New York certain against the proposed amendments of the Constitution; and that the omission to record the vote of New York as it was ordered, was owing not to any act or omission of mine, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some of them, to prevent an expression of the opinion of the majority, and to the failure of my associates of the majority to execute in my absence what had been resolved when I was present.

It is certainly with regret that I write this note. My preference was for a statement in which we all could join, but my associates refused to enter into any joint relation of the facts.

I hope, also, it will not be inferred from any thing I have written, that I do not regret the omission to record New York as voting against what appeared to me an unwise and pernicious proposition. Though the importance of the vote has been greatly magnified, and the result in my opinion would not have been different if the vote of New York had been counted, as I believe some of the States not voting would, if necessary, have voted in the affirmative; and even if it had been otherwise, I think the action of the Convention was of no importance whatever; yet, I should wish this State, of which we are so proud, to appear always, even in a matter of ceremony, on the side of Freedom; ever loyal to the Constitution as it is, but against placing there a guaranty to slavery beyond the guarantees of our fathers.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

NEW YORK, _March 20th, 1861._

* * * * *

I.--_Extract from the Minutes of the New York Delegation, kept by their Secretary._

"WEDNESDAY, _February 27th, 1861._

"New York delegation met in the room, and Mr. Wadsworth moved that the New York delegation vote No on each of the sections of the committee's report. Messrs. Corning, Bronson, Granger, Wool, and Dodge opposed, urging that the vote of New York be given on each section as it was called. The majority overruled, and decided to have the Chairman declare that New York voted No on each section.

"The question on the first section being called, Mr. King stated that one of the members of the delegation being called away to the United States Court, the delegation had taken a vote before he left, and he appealed to the justice of the Convention to have it so cast, stating that the vote of the delegation had been so cast on the previous day.

"The Convention decided that no person could vote who was not present.

"The delegation was divided."

* * * * *

II.--_Letter from the Chairman of the Massachusetts Delegation._

"WASHINGTON, _March 8th, 1861._

"MY DEAR SIR:--Your favor of the 6th instant is before me. After alluding to the fact that 'my seat in the Peace Convention was at the table directly under the President's chair, between him and the New York delegation,' you desire me to inform you what took place, on the occasion of the vote of New York being called on the morning of the 27th February. What I observed was this:

"When the vote of New York was called for, Governor King rose and stated in substance that you had a short time before left the Convention to argue a case in the Supreme Court, which had been assigned for that morning, and asked the permission of the Convention to give the vote of the State in your absence, the same as though you were present. To this one of the Commissioners, Mr. Corning I think it was, objected, saying that the vote of New York was to be given as her Commissioners who were present should decide, and that the Convention had no control or authority in the matter. Some conversation was then had between the Commissioners who favored and those who opposed the pending proposition, which I did not hear with sufficient distinctness to understand, and in a minute or two Governor King announced that the vote of New York was divided.

"This is the substance of what occurred, so far as I observed it.

"With great respect, your friend,

"J.Z. GOODRICH.

"To David Dudley Field, Esq., New York."

* * * * *

III.--_Letter to the Secretary of the Convention._

"NEW YORK, _March 4th, 1861._

"DEAR SIR:--Was any resolution passed by the Convention on Wednesday, the 27th of February, respecting the right of New York to vote, or affecting the vote of that State in the absence of any of her Commissioners? On one side I am told that there was such a resolution passed, or vote taken, in my absence; on the other side, I am told that there was not. If one was passed, will you do me the favor to give me a copy of it, and oblige

"Yours truly,

"DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, Esq., &c., &c."

* * * * *

IV.--_The Secretary's Answer._

No. 135, WILLARD'S, WASHINGTON, _March 5th, 1861._

"DEAR SIR:--I have your letter. When New York was called, the inquiry was made whether an absent member could vote, stating that one member of that delegation was absent. The President stated that an absent member could not vote. New York was stated divided, and did not vote.

"Respectfully, &c.,

"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT."

* * * * *

V.--_Extract from the Journal of the Convention._

"_February 27th, 1861._

"The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the following vote:

"YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9.

"NAYS.--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--8.

"So the section was adopted.

"On calling New York, the members stated that one of their number was absent, and the delegation were divided. Inquiry was made of the President whether an absent member could vote. The President decided he could not, without general leave.

"New York, Indiana, and Kansas were divided."

* * * * *

_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_

The undersigned beg leave to submit a reply to the statement of Mr. D.D. Field, to the report of the majority of the Commissioners to the Conference Convention at Washington, respecting his absence on the final vote in that body, on the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The fact of his absence is admitted by Mr. Field, and attempted to be defended at great length, but Mr. Field has omitted to state that, by the 14th Rule of the Convention, "no member should be absent from the Convention, so as to interrupt the representation of the State, without leave." Mr. Field neither asked nor obtained leave of absence, and hence, under the rule, he failed to discharge his duty, both to the Convention and his colleagues. Mr. Field does not state that he made any application to the court for a temporary postponement of his case, in view of the important vote then about to be taken in Convention. But, on the contrary, argues to show that his duty to his client was paramount to his duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question involving constitutional principles. After Mr. Field had stated, in the presence of his colleagues in the Convention, that he was obliged to go immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States, he was urged by those who agreed with him in opinion, to remain, and give the vote of the State against the proposed amendments, and was repeatedly told that his absence would divide the vote; this was so stated to him, by the minority of the Commissioners, and that it would be so claimed by them before the Convention. He refused to remain, and with the full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the question about to be taken, he left the Convention, and thus defeated the vote of his State. We who remained in our places, felt deeply the embarrassment, and the remarks which were made in consequence of Mr. Field's withdrawal. We had steadily, up to that time, sustained with him, our own, and what we believed to be the sentiment of the State, in favor of freedom, and were, therefore, entirely unprepared for such a determination on his part. Nor is our surprise lessened by the manner and the certificates by which he has at great length attempted to defend his course on this occasion. The vote of New York was not declared until after the vote which had been previously taken in its delegation had been stated, nor until an appeal had been made to the Convention, and refused by its President, to enable his colleagues to protect its vote in the absence of the Chairman of the delegation. By his absence the vote of New York stood 5 to 5, and it was under the decision of the Convention alone, that the vote was declared to be divided. Mr. Field has stated that the omission to record the vote of New York against the amendments was not owing to any act or omission of his, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some of them, to prevent the expression of the opinion of the majority. The objection was made after notice to him that it would be made, and the Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost by his absence. Nor is the opinion of Mr. Field entitled to consideration when he imputes to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was afterwards rendered null, by his absence. They did adhere to it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been previously agreed to. Mr. Field states, and truly, that his colleagues refused to unite in a joint relation of the facts of the case. They refused, because they were not satisfied with his course, and would not be responsible for it in any way. Up to the moment of his leaving the Convention, Mr. Field had manifested great zeal and ability in sustaining and defending the principles which a majority of the delegation desired to advocate, and his failure at the last, and decisive vote, was as unexpected as it was indefensible.

JOHN A. KING, WM. CURTIS NOYES, A.B. JAMES, JAS. S. WADSWORTH, JAS. C. SMITH.

NEW YORK, _March 28th, 1861._

* * * * *

_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_

Informed by the newspapers of this morning that five of my associates in the Peace Convention, after waiting nearly three weeks, made yesterday to the Legislature a communication purporting to be an answer to the note which I thought it my duty to append to the report, explaining why the vote of New York was not given at a particular time, I beg leave to submit the following in reply:

I do not perceive that my associates impugn a single statement of fact contained in my note. My engagement in Court, the importance of the engagement, the necessity for my keeping it, the meeting of the delegation in contemplation of it, their resolution directing how the vote should be cast in my absence, the neglect so to cast it, are all, by silence, admitted. Nor do I perceive any denial of the proposition that the delegation had a right to pass the resolution, which thus became binding on all its members until reconsidered and reversed.

Perhaps I ought to make one exception to this use of admissions. My associates apparently wish to have it believed, yet hesitate to assert, that the Convention made a decision respecting the right to vote. In one place they say, "that an appeal had been made to the Convention, and refused by its President;" in another, that "it was under the decision of the Convention alone that the vote was declared to be divided;" and in a third, that the objection of the minority was made after notice to me that it would be made, and the "Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost," by my absence. They should have reflected that there could have been no "decision of the Convention" if the appeal to it was "refused by its President." The truth beyond question is, that although my associates imagined that the Convention decided something, it did in fact decide nothing.

My associates say further, that I argue to show that my duty to my client was paramount to my "duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question involving constitutional principles." This is an idle calumny. My note can be read as well as theirs; and in general will be read by the same persons, and there is not a word in it to justify or excuse their assertion. I never thus argued. I claimed that I had two duties to perform, and that I performed both. I did not claim that my duty to my State was subordinate to any other duty whatever.

When my associates assert that their Chairman left the Convention "with full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the vote about to be taken," if they mean that I knew or supposed that they intended to reverse their own action, or that Mr. King would not announce the vote as it had been resolved, or would declare the vote divided, or that they would support him in it, or that the Convention would overrule the delegation, then they assert what they could not know to be true, and what is not true in fact. My note sets forth what I was told, and what I replied.

My associates argue that I failed to discharge my duty, because I did not obtain leave of the Convention before going into the Supreme Court. Though I do not remember to have heard before of leave granted by a deliberative body to a member to go out for half an hour, or for one or two hours, I will observe, by this Convention absence was expressly allowed, if it did not "interrupt the representation of the State." My associates do indeed claim that, when I left the hall, the State ceased to be represented, ten Commissioners only remaining behind. The argument of this strange position appears to be, that a State is not represented when its vote can be divided, and that the vote of New York was divided. Here is a double fallacy. To say that the vote was divided, begs the question. It was not divided so long as the resolution passed by the delegation remained valid, and its validity is not denied. The other part of the proposition is equally fallacious. A State is represented when there are in the body delegates authorized to represent it, whatever be their number. The arguments of my associates seem to be, that a State could only be represented in the Peace Convention by odd numbers, and that if it sent eight or ten representatives, it would have no representatives at all.

But what shall I say to the following sentences:--"Nor is the opinion of Mr. Field entitled to consideration, when he imputes to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was afterwards rendered null by his absence. They did adhere to it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been previously agreed to." Would any one imagine that the authors were speaking of a vote, given in expectation of my absence, and to determine what should be done when I was away? The vote was taken because I was to be absent, and directed the Chairman how to act in that event, but it is nevertheless pretended that the moment I became absent, the vote became null. They might better have said that the vote would have become null, or rather that there would have been no occasion for it in case of my continued presence. Then they say that they adhered to it. How did they adhere? The resolution directed the Chairman to cast the vote in the negative. He did not obey the resolution. His associates and mine did not insist that he should. Nobody prevented his answering "no," when the vote was called. No reason has ever been given for his not so answering. That he should instead have entered voluntarily into a discussion with Mr. Tyler on the subject, and that his associates should have looked quietly on, can only be accounted for by supposing them indifferent or bewildered.

It is not an agreeable task to write thus of old friends; but I must defend myself when attacked, and defence cannot always be made pleasant to an assailant.

My late friends profess to think me responsible for the loss of the vote of New York on a certain occasion. I think them responsible for it. Which side is right the Legislature and the people of the State will judge.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

NEW YORK, _April 11th, 1861._

* * * * *

_Report of a Minority of the Commissioners of New York._

IN SENATE, _March 25th, 1861._

The undersigned, constituting a minority of the Commissioners, appointed by the Legislature of the State of New York, under resolutions responsive to those of the State of Virginia, referred to in the report of the majority of the Commissioners of said State of New York, admitting the correctness of the record of the proceedings presented by said majority, but differing from them in much of the reasoning which they present, respectfully report:

That they entered upon the duties assigned to them, earnestly desiring to carry out the patriotic spirit of said resolutions as therein expressed, which said original resolutions are herein embodied as a part of this report:

NEW YORK.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners from this State to meet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation of Virginia._