A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Part 40

Mr. WOOD:--I wish my vote recorded in favor of the amendment.

Mr. COOK:--And so do I.

Mr. LOGAN:--I am the other way.

Mr. TUCK:--I dissent from the vote of New Hamps.h.i.+re.

Mr. GRANGER:--And I from that of New York.

Mr. WOLCOTT:--I dissent from the vote of Ohio. I notice that my colleague, Mr. CHASE, is not present at this moment.

Mr. BRONSON:--I also dissent from the vote of New York. My a.s.sociate, GEN. WOOL, is confined to his room by a severe indisposition. For his benefit, and as I know he feels a deep interest in these votes, and desires to have his name appear upon the record, in his behalf I offer the following resolution:

_Resolved_, Whereas JOHN E. WOOL, a delegate from New York, is unable to attend the Convention, from sickness, therefore that he be permitted, when he does attend, or by communication in writing to the Secretary, to have his dissent recorded, as to any vote of his State.

This resolution was agreed to without a division.

The PRESIDENT:--The question now will be upon the adoption of the subst.i.tute proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FRANKLIN), to the first section of the article reported by the committee.

Mr. FRANKLIN:--Before that question is taken, I desire to accept certain verbal amendments which have been proposed by various members, which will, I think, improve the subst.i.tute which I offer. These amendments are as follows:

1st. In the fifth line, as printed, after the words "nor shall any law be pa.s.sed," insert the words "by Congress or the Territorial Legislature."

2d. In the sixth line, after the words "the taking of such persons," insert "from any of the States of this Union."

3d. In the eighth line, before the words "according to the common law," insert the words "course of the."

4th. In the seventh line, after the words "prevent the taking of such persons," insert the words "from any State in the Union."

These amendments I adopt, and wish them to be treated as incorporated into my subst.i.tute.

The PRESIDENT:--Such will be a.s.sumed as the pleasure of the Conference, as no objection is made.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am content, on the part of the committee, that the subst.i.tute offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania should be adopted in the place of the first section of the article reported by the committee. It amounts to the same thing, and is expressed in shorter and better language.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I move to amend Mr. FRANKLIN'S subst.i.tute as follows:[3] I think these words would be more acceptable to the people of the Northern States.

[Footnote 3: This was a verbal amendment. I was not able to note it at the time, nor have I since been able to procure it.]

Mr. PALMER:--Does not the gentleman's amendment involve an Hibernicism? I think if we are to adopt the report of the committee, the FRANKLIN amendment admits of no improvement. It had better stand as it is. If we undertake to change it we shall all get to sea.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I withdraw my proposition.

Mr. JAMES:--It was moved yesterday to insert the words, "or facilitate" after the words "hinder or prevent," in that part of Mr.

FRANKLIN'S amendment which negatives the right to pa.s.s laws. What was done with that?

Mr. FOWLER:--Nothing. I moved it, and I insist upon the motion.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I submit to the Conference whether this amendment is necessary or proper. Suppose some new question arises relating to slavery which it may be greatly for the interest of the Territory to protect. Suppose mines are discovered, and the Territory should want slaves to work them. Shall we put it into the Const.i.tution that no law shall be pa.s.sed to encourage their emigration?

Mr. BRONSON:--I see no need of it.

Mr. JAMES:--The point generally comes out. Now you say that you will have the right to go into the Territory with your slaves, and no law shall be pa.s.sed to prevent you, no matter how much such a law would promote the material interests of the Territory. The converse of this you will not agree to. You are not content to let slavery stand by itself, you must have it nursed by the Territorial Legislatures. Does slavery always require such partiality? I say the power of the Legislature should be exercised on both sides, or it should not be exercised at all. I am trying to perfect the article. If it is to pa.s.s, and go to the people as a measure of pacification, and if you expect them to adopt it, you must not have it so one-sided and unfair.

The people will understand it--it will be our duty to explain it to them, and to give them its history.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--But your amendment would prohibit the pa.s.sage of a law permitting the transit of a slaveholder through the Territory with his property. Remember, also, that the prohibition only continues so long as the territorial condition exists.

Mr. SMITH:--Before this vote is taken, I wish to call attention to the character of the prohibition. "Nor shall any law be pa.s.sed to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons to said Territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation," &c. Now, this is very broad.

Suppose a law giving the right of transit to the people of the free States, or any law for their protection in the Territory, as inhabitants, is held by the Territorial Judge to "impair the rights arising from said relation." He holds it unconst.i.tutional. Where is the remedy? What views are entertained upon some of these points in some sections of the South we know. If you do not adopt this amendment it is quite in the power of the Legislature to exclude any person from the Territory whose presence there may be thought injurious to slavery. Did the committee intend this?

The question upon the adoption of Mr. FOWLER'S amendment resulted as follows:

AYES.--Maine, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--10.

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

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. GROESBECK:--I move to amend the subst.i.tute offered by Mr.

FRANKLIN, by inserting after the words "nor shall any law be pa.s.sed,"

the words "by Congress or the Territorial Legislature." I think this is necessary to make our intention plain. Otherwise it might be said that the prohibition did not apply to Congress.

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I think the suggestion a very proper one. I will accept the amendment.

Mr. WILMOT:--I only wish to understand where we are. Have we disposed of the word "facilitate"?

The PRESIDENT:--That amendment was not adopted.

Mr. WILMOT:--Then I move to insert before the word "_status_," the word "legal."

Mr. RUFFIN:--That raises again every question we have been discussing.

The word, as used in the subst.i.tute, only refers to the status _in fact_.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--This brings up all our old troubles. Let us reject it.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I wish to understand this subject, and what will be the effect of adopting this amendment. I understand that the slave has what we call a _status_. The subst.i.tute of Mr. FRANKLIN is intended specifically to recognize and protect that _status_ in the Territories as fully as it is protected and recognized in the States. I think it has that effect. Adopt the amendment, and the effect is precisely the opposite. The amendment rescinds the _status_.

Mr. PALMER:--I wish to make an inquiry of the mover. Does the amendment, after all, make any difference? Must not any _status_, not against law, be, of necessity, a _legal_ status?

Mr. WILMOT:--No. I think there is a wide difference, and the South thinks so. One is a status in fact, the other, one in law.

Mr. LOGAN:--I hope we shall not adopt the amendment. We all want these questions settled. The amendment opens them all wider than before. If we intend to give the South the right she asks for, and, as I think, rightfully asks for, let us give it to her in plain and unequivocal language. Let us not give her a legacy of litigation, by using words which mean one thing or the opposite, according to the construction you place upon them. I wish to settle all these questions fairly. The amendment leaves the question as to what const.i.tutes a _legal status_, to be decided by the Court. The North would claim that there cannot be such a thing as a legal status, a legal condition of slavery. The South would claim the opposite.

Mr. WILMOT:--If the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina had been adopted, I would not have moved this. The section then would have been unambiguous and clear. Now it is all open to construction.

Mr. CHASE:--In my judgment it is unimportant whether the amendment is adopted or not. The condition of the slave in the Southern States is one arising out of law, established by legislative provisions. _Status in fact_ must mean _status in law_ as well as _status in fact_.

I have listened with attention to the appeals made by gentlemen who urge the interests of the South in favor of a settlement of these questions. But you are now prosecuting a plan which will be the subject of debate throughout the country. Adopt your article in either form, and the question, What does status mean? will still remain.