A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Part 45

Mr. HARRIS:--The gentleman forgets that if we once adopt them, they are no longer subject to amendment.

Mr. BRONSON:--I wish to make a suggestion. I don't know but Parliamentarians would call it a point of order. Now let us go on and decide whether we will, or will not, adopt the third section as reported by the committee.

Mr. SEDDON:--I have several amendments which I am constrained to offer to this third section. My State would think me remiss if I did not offer them. I move, first, to insert after the words "State or Territory of the United States," the words "or obstruct, hinder, prevent, or abolish."

By the section as reported by the committee, Congress is prohibited from controlling or abolis.h.i.+ng slavery in any State or Territory. This amendment which I propose will prevent any action in relation to it--in aid of it, or otherwise. The Territorial Legislature will always be the creature of Congress, and under the committee's section it might act upon the subject of slavery. I understand that the purpose of the committee was to prevent Congress from abolis.h.i.+ng slavery in the Territories, but not to prevent the Territorial Legislature from acting in aid of it. My amendment will secure slavery from all interference. That is what we want.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The first section of the report covers this. The amendment, I think, is unnecessary.

Mr. SEDDON:--I think the first section, properly construed, would prevent the Territorial Legislature from enacting a law in aid of slavery, even if the whole people of the Territory desired it.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I do not desire to go over these questions again. If the Conference intends to come to any conclusion at all, I hope it will vote down all these amendments.

Mr. SEDDON:--I call for a vote by States.

Mr. WOOD:--I move that the amendment be laid on the table.

Mr. BALDWIN:--Which motion is in order--mine or that of the gentleman from Virginia?

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from Ohio having withdrawn his amendment, the proposal of the gentleman from Connecticut is no longer before the Conference. The question is upon the motion of the gentleman from Virginia to amend the third section of the article reported by the committee.

The vote upon the amendment proposed by Mr. SEDDON resulted as follows:

AYES.--Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--6.

NOES.--Maine, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky--14.

And the amendment was not adopted.

Mr. SEDDON:--I now move to amend the third section reported by the committee, by striking out the words "City of Was.h.i.+ngton," and inserting in their place the words "District of Columbia."

The motion of Mr. SEDDON was agreed to without a division.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not see why this privilege of bringing their slaves into the District should be limited to members of Congress.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--It is not. The expression is "representatives and _others_."

Mr. SEDDON:--I now propose to amend the same section by inserting after the words "without the consent of Maryland" the words "and Virginia." I think slavery ought not to be destroyed in the District of Columbia without the consent both of Maryland and Virginia. If there is any reason for requiring the consent of one State, the same reason exists as to the other. This amendment will make the section much more acceptable to the slaveholding States.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The committee did not require the a.s.sent of Virginia, because no part of the present District came from Virginia. We thought it unnecessary.

Mr. DENT:--Maryland and Virginia originally joined in the cession of the District to the United States. Afterwards that portion which came from her was re-ceded to Virginia. But this question is not one of territory alone. The policy and interest of the two States are intimately connected. It would be far more satisfactory to both these States, and to the South, if the a.s.sent of Virginia was required before Congress could abolish slavery in the District. Still Maryland does not insist upon it.

Mr. EWING:--I can see no necessity for, or propriety in, the amendment. We might as well require the consent of North Carolina or any of the other slave States. Virginia owns none of the District. She has no right to interfere.

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

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

NOES.--Maine, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas--14.

Mr. SEDDON:--My next proposition is to amend the third section by inserting after the words "landing in case of distress, shall exist,"

the words "and if the transportation be by sea, the right of property in the person held to service or labor shall be protected by the Federal Government as other property."

We claim that our property in slaves shall be recognized by the Union just like any other property--that no unjust or improper distinction shall be made. When we trust it to the perils of the seas, we wish to have it protected by the Federal Government.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I would inquire of the gentleman from Virginia whether it has not already been decided that this species of property is as much ent.i.tled to Federal protection as any other. I refer to the "Creole" case. The British Government made compensation for this species of property in that case. This was done upon the award of the commissioners pursuant to the decision of the umpire.

Mr. SEDDON:--Yes! But on the express ground that slavery was recognized in the islands. Express notice was given, that when the emanc.i.p.ation policy was adopted, the same principles would not be recognized. We are now removing doubts. We wish to have these matters no longer involved in uncertainty. We insist upon having these provisions in the Const.i.tution.

Mr. RUFFIN:--I wish to say a word on this subject, much as I regret the consumption of time. I am willing to leave this question where it is now; and my reason is this: If we put this into the Const.i.tution, the question may be raised, whether if foreign nations should interfere with this kind of property on the high seas, the Government would not be bound to consider it a cause of war. We ought not to bind ourselves to go to war. War should always depend upon considerations of policy. We should raise a thousand troublesome questions by putting these words "shall be protected" into the Const.i.tution. The matter is well enough as it is. Our rights in this respect are well enough protected by the ordinary course of national diplomacy. I would not be willing to put into the Const.i.tution language which would embarra.s.s us hereafter.

Mr. SEDDON:--I will frankly say that I think slave property upon every ground is as well ent.i.tled to the national protection as any other species of property.

Mr. BARRINGER:--This amendment brings up the very gist of the matter.

The question of the right of our property to Federal protection is now an open one. In the case of the Creole it was settled by negotiation, and not by the courts. The question so often hinted at and suggested in this Conference is now fairly brought up for decision. Governor CHASE struck at the very root of the matter the other day, when he said that slavery was an _abnormal_ condition. He laid down the opinion of the North. He is a statesman and a lawyer. He says that slavery cannot exist anywhere until it is established or authorized by law. This is the Northern idea, and it is a technical one. I hate technicalities almost as bad as I do sectionalism. The North deals in both. I regret to speak in these terms of the North, but I must if I speak truth. Now, I will lay down what is the opinion of the South upon the subject. We say that the right to hold and use slave property, always, everywhere, exists until it is prohibited by law. We say that it is a natural right, which grows out of the very necessities of society. We hold that the condition of slavery is a normal condition--not local at all; that it is found everywhere, except where it is forbidden by law. We claim that the right to hold slaves is a natural right, recognized by the law of nations, and of the world. I am quite aware that the North does not agree with our opinion.

Mr. VANDEVER:--I would ask whether this normal condition is confined to the blacks, or does it extend to all races?

Mr. BARRINGER:--Most a.s.suredly it is not confined to a single race. It extends to all races. Slavery of all races exists even in Europe.

Mr. FIELD:--Not now!

Mr. BARRINGER:--Perhaps not now, and why? For the reason that it has been abolished by law, as in the recent case of Russia. Slavery once existed in the Northern States. By law it was also abolished in those States. We say that when slave property is on the high seas it ought to be protected--the rights of the owner ought to be protected.

This question came up in the case of the "Amistead." Mr. ADAMS claimed that although these slaves were recognized by the laws of Spain as property, yet, when once upon the high seas, they were, by the law of nations, _free_, and these slaves have never been paid for to this day.

This amendment is highly important to the South. The concession we ask is no greater than has been made before. In the treaties of 1783 and 1815, slaves were to be protected as property.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not wish to nullify the action, or change the course of our Government on this question. Slaves upon the high seas have always been recognized as property. Look at the treaty of 1815.

That recognized slaves as property, and those which were taken from the District were paid for. ADAMS, of Ma.s.sachusetts, took the same ground now taken by the North. The Government took the opposite ground. The question was ultimately referred to the Emperor of Russia, who decided that property in slaves must be recognized by the law of nations, and sustained our view. Take the "Creole" case also. But I will not go over the ground. The "Amistead" case stood upon grounds which were entirely different.

But it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Const.i.tution.

The rights of the South in this respect are well enough protected now.

Mr. GRANGER:--I regret that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia has again raised a question which was decided against him by a large majority in the Conference a few days ago.

Mr. SEDDON:--The gentleman is quite correct. The principle must be the same whether applied to the Territories or to the high seas.

Mr. GRANGER:--It is claimed by the South that slaves are property everywhere. Why, then, name slave property more than any other species in the Const.i.tution?

Mr. BARRINGER:--We say that slaves are _both_ persons and property.

Mr. GRANGER:--It has always been the course of the Government to pay for slaves taken on the high seas. The gentleman has referred to the "Amistead" case as having been decided against the southern claim. I present the "Amistead" case as a perfect answer to the miserable calumnies which have been disseminated against that Court. The Judges in that case were unanimous with a single exception, and he was a Judge from a free State. We of the North upon these national questions are prepared to go with you to the extreme verge of right and loyalty.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I have no desire to complicate these questions of international law. The treaties of 1783 and 1815 were partic.i.p.ated in by JAY and the elder ADAMS. They expressly provided for the payment for slaves like other property. This is plain English, and settles the question so far as the North is concerned. I am for letting it alone where it is.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I am not able to support this proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. I consider the right of property in slaves, in the slave States, and in the territory south of 36 30', as fully recognized and established in the report of the majority of the committee. In this very clause this property is expressly admitted, and Congress is prohibited from interfering with it. This is enough--it is all that should be done. We have come here to settle our domestic troubles. The report of the committee recognizes and affirms these rights of the South which have heretofore been denied or doubted. I think their report gives us all the a.s.surance we need. We were not sent here to engraft new principles into our foreign policy, and I will not consent to enter upon that business. We have got this right of property specifically recognized, and no administration hereafter will refuse to carry out the plain provisions of the Const.i.tution.