"No territory shall be acquired by the United States 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 cla.s.s of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the satisfaction of such treaty."

I do not propose to occupy time in discussing it, but I ask a minute or two to explain its provisions. The second section of the article proposed by the committee, requires that a treaty under which territory or commercial or naval stations is acquired, should require four-fifths of the Senate for its ratification. This, I think, is an unnecessary restriction upon the treaty-making power. Occasion may arise when it would not be advisable to wait for the exercise of this power at all. The question of acquiring territory may arise under circ.u.mstances when delay would be fatal. Suppose our t.i.tle to an island in the Arctic Ocean, or a point upon the sh.o.r.e, by discovery or otherwise, which might be settled by prompt action! There might be no national authority with which we could treat for its acquisition. I think it would be hazardous to provide that in no event should territory be acquired except by treaty. The case I have supposed has no relation whatever to the case of an ordinary acquisition of territory by treaty with a recognized foreign power.

But the question of slavery always arises when the subject of acquiring territory is mentioned. This clause would fix the _status_, would put it in the power of either cla.s.s of States to prevent the acquisition, but it would not permit a small number of States to do it. To leave it where a _majority_ of the Senators of both sections could control the subject, would seem to me the mode of settlement least objectionable. The ratification would require two-thirds of the Senate, like all treaties, and these two-thirds would include a majority of both sections.

Objection will be made to this cla.s.sification of the States. I do not like it myself, but there it no way to avoid it. I have adopted the language of the Ordinance of 1787. There can be no very sound objection to the use of these terms. The objection is rather sentimental than otherwise.

The amendment I offer ought to satisfy the South, and I think it will.

The South asks for these provisions because they settle all questions about our present territory, and prevent questions arising over that we may acquire hereafter. They will give to both sides equality of power. But voting is far more important now than speaking. I will consume no more time.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--The gentleman from Virginia desires to try his motion.

For the present, I will withdraw mine.

Mr. FIELD:--I have only a word to say on this subject. There are very grave objections to this cla.s.sification of sections. I will not repeat them here. I supposed the sense of the Conference had been expressed against it.

But I wish to inquire why this second section is necessary at all? It came up in the committee rather by accident than otherwise. I do not think any one of the committee intended to make it one of the subjects of our action, and the section was finally presented by a small majority.

Let us leave this subject where the Const.i.tution leaves it. We can now acquire territory by discovery or by treaty. So far the Const.i.tution has operated satisfactorily. The country owes much of its greatness to this very provision of the Const.i.tution. No grievance to the South, a.s.suredly, has been caused by it. I am much averse to any alteration.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I think, after some reflection, that this amendment is of much more importance than many of us have supposed. I shall vote for it, because I do not wish to have too many limitations placed upon the power of the Government in relation to the acquisition of territory. We know how difficult it is to change our fundamental law.

Very few amendments to the Const.i.tution have been made since the death of WASHINGTON. We are now establishing our fundamental law for ages to come. Is there upon the face of the civilized earth a nation with such a limitation upon the power of acquiring territory as this original article proposes? Its adoption would place us at the feet of foreign nations.

In war, conquest is one means of indemnity--often the best and only one. We must look to the acquisition of future territory; we must make our settlement with that in view.

Reference has been made here to the seceded States, and some hard words have been used toward them. This is not the place for such words. What is the condition of these States now? They say they are out of the Union. We say, No! The question between us may be decided by the Courts; it may be decided by the sword. But we all want them back; we would place no restrictions upon their return. They will only come back by treaty. Unless you adopt this amendment, the section proposed will be applicable to their case, and a mere fraction could keep them out of the Union forever.

In regard to the subject of slavery, what we want is security for the future. That we can arrange. In my opinion you will never get back the seceded States, without you give them some hope of the acquisition of future territory. They know that when slavery is gathered into a _cul-de-sac_, and surrounded by a wall of free States, it is destroyed. Slavery must have expansion. It must expand by the acquisition of territory which now we do not own. The seceded States will never yield this point--will never come back to a Government which gives no chance for the expansion of their princ.i.p.al inst.i.tution. They will insist upon equity, upon the same rights with you in the common territory, and the same prospect, of acquiring foreign territory that you have. If you are not prepared to grant all this, do not waste your time in thought about the return of the seceded States.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--New Jersey voted to make the first section of the article reported applicable to future territory, not because she wishes to acquire new territory, but because she knows that it will be acquired; and she believes all questions raised here can be settled now, in regard to it, better than they can be hereafter. These questions have raised a ferment in the nation; we would settle them any way. We should have voted for these restrictions upon the power of acquiring territory; and still we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that in a few years new territory must be acquired. Look at Sonora, at all Mexico; they furnish the reason for our action. An effort will be made, perhaps, to secure the new territory by treaty. Better get it in that way than by conquest.

Personally, I would oppose any farther acquisitions. We need no more territory, and yet I know that more will be acquired. The North wishes it more than the South. In the end, the North will insist that we should have Cuba. What is the sentiment of our commercial cities now?

I think we ought to surround this power of acquisition by some judicious restrictions; not make them too strong, or the country will break over, and not regard them. What restriction would not have been broken down, when the question came up in relation to Texas? We must antic.i.p.ate occasions of the same kind. I am inclined to vote for the subst.i.tute of the gentleman from Virginia. At all events let us adopt some limitations. If not these, then such as are contained in the original article.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland:--I propose to amend the subst.i.tute offered by the gentleman from Virginia, by inserting after the words "United States," the words "except by discovery, and for naval and commercial depots and transit routes."

There is now a law, the const.i.tutionality of which has not been doubted, providing for the acquisition of territory by discovery. But the Court, in the Dred Scott case, decided that territory could not be acquired, except as preliminary to the formation of a State. This difficulty should be obviated. I think the amendment I propose will do it. If we adopt the proposition of Mr. SUMMERS, we cut off the power of acquiring territory for transit routes, &c., except by treaty. I think my amendment will make the section more satisfactory to the South.

Mr. SUMMERS:--I will accept the amendment, and treat it as a part of my subst.i.tute.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I feel a deep solicitude in this subject. We are here for the purpose of settling a great difficulty. Instead of settling it, we shall add to it by placing these unnecessary obstructions in the way of acquiring territory in future. Would not the South be safer by the adoption of this guarantee? It is the only one, aside from the first section, which gives the South a grain of power. We cannot go on with things as they are--only seven States to contend with all the rest of the nation. We must all desire that the seceded States should return to the Union. How are they to come back?

By treaty, or by the sword? Who will not prefer to win them back by adopting principles in our amendments which will make it for their interest to return? If the amendment is adopted, no future territory will be acquired without the consent of a majority of Senators on both sides of the line. Reject this, and I have not the slightest hope of ever seeing the seceded States again in the Union. I believe this amendment will meet the wishes of a large majority of the people of Virginia.

The vote upon the adoption of the subst.i.tute proposed by Mr. SUMMERS resulted as follows:

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

NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--10.

And the amendment was lost.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I will now renew my proposition, and ask a vote upon it by States.

The vote upon the subst.i.tute offered by Mr. GUTHRIE, for the section of the article reported by the committee, resulted as follows:

AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio--10.

NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa--10.

And the amendment was lost.

Mr. PRICE dissented from the vote of New Jersey, and Mr. BARRINGER from the vote of North Carolina.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--As the hour named for the call upon the President-elect is approaching, I move that a committee of three members be appointed by the President to make arrangements for the introduction of the members of the Conference.

The motion of Mr. WICKLIFFE was agreed to, and the President appointed Messrs. WICKLIFFE, FIELD, and CHASE, as the committee.

Mr. McKENNAN:--I move a reconsideration of the vote of the Conference rejecting the subst.i.tute offered by the gentleman from Virginia. I am not at all certain that we may not think it advisable to adopt that amendment.

The order of the day was now suspended, and the committee appointed to wait upon the President-elect, reported that they had performed that duty, and that the President-elect would be pleased to receive the members of the Conference in his parlors in Willard's Hotel, at the present time.

For the purpose of waiting on the President, on motion of Mr. EWING, the Conference adjourned until the 25th inst., at ten o'clock A.M.

SEVENTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, MONDAY, _February 25th, 1861._

The Convention was called to order at ten o'clock, pursuant to adjournment, by President TYLER, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr.

SMITH.

The Journal of Sat.u.r.day was read.

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--The Delegates from the State of Indiana desire that the vote of that State upon the proposition of amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. CURTIS), on Friday last, may be recorded.

The vote was taken on Sat.u.r.day, and Indiana desires to record her vote against said proposition.

The Conference granted the leave asked, and the vote of Indiana was accordingly entered upon the Journal.

The PRESIDENT:--There have been transmitted to me the proceedings of a meeting of the Democrats of Pennsylvania, in which are contained certain resolutions relating to the matters now before us. I am informed that the meeting was one of the largest ever held in that State. The usual course would be to enter them upon the record, but in this instance I would suggest the propriety of having them read.

However, the Conference will take such order upon them as it thinks proper.

Mr. POLLOCK:--The policy of the Conference from the beginning has been not to receive or consider resolutions of a partisan character. That decision was made on one of the early days of our session, upon a series of resolutions adopted by a convention held in New Haven, Connecticut, which were presented by Mr. CLAY. I think we had better pa.s.s over the subject informally, and I would call for the order of the day.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I think the resolutions had better be referred to the Committee on Credentials.

Mr. CLAY:--I quite approved of the course taken by the Conference of the resolutions which were sent to me for presentation. I hope we will pursue the same course now. I move that these resolutions be entered upon the Journal as received, and that they be laid on the table.