Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not think it is in order to offer a subst.i.tute at the present time.

Mr. GROESBECK:--Then I will call it a motion to strike out and insert, which, certainly, is in order. I, therefore, move to strike out the whole of the third section and insert the following:

SECTION 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish or control within any State the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof respecting persons held to service or labor therein.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to legislate respecting the relation of service or labor in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, but within States where that relation is established or recognized, and while it continues, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland, and compensation to persons to whom such service or labor is due.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal from any State or Territory of persons held to service or labor therein, to any other State or Territory in which persons are so held; and the right during removal of touching at ports, sh.o.r.es, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist, but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory without its consent. No higher rate of taxation shall be imposed on persons so held than on land.

Three objects are sought to be obtained by the third section as proposed by the committee: one is, the declaration that Congress has no power over slavery in the States; the second, that Congress shall not legislate respecting slavery in territory under its jurisdiction, but within the limits of States, without the consent of such States, nor abolish slavery in the District without the consent of Maryland; the third concerns the subject of the removal of slaves from place to place. It is desirable that these three subjects should be so presented that one or more of them may be adopted, and the others rejected; a purpose that cannot be accomplished if they are all embraced in the same section. My subst.i.tute is plain and simple, and I think covers the whole ground.

Mr. ROMAN:--Has not the gentleman entirely left out the provision relative to bringing slaves into the District of Columbia?

Mr. GROESBECK:--I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary.

Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within the District cannot be taken from the owner under any authority of Congress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensation would in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, or elsewhere. Under the Const.i.tution, slavery cannot be abolished without compensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in the subject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolish slavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner.

Mr. SEDDON:--The owner should always have compensation, it is true; but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property in slaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalent for the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself the question whether he will part with his property upon receiving suitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this right would be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is a farther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The North denies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensation also, unless compelled to make it under the Const.i.tution. The North holding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolish the inst.i.tution without paying for it.

Mr. GROESBECK:--I am willing to amend Section 4 of the subst.i.tute I offer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relation without making compensation, and the section may be thus considered.

Mr. DODGE:--I wish to support the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK; and let me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; we should use language which common men can understand, and which does not require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have some confidence in each other.

Mr. BARRINGER:--There is another entire and important omission in Mr.

GROESBECK'S proposition: there is no provision whatever for the Territories.

Mr. DENT:--I think the Conference had much better adhere to the section reported by the committee as it has been already amended. We have all read and studied that section. We understand it. A State that will not adopt the whole of the section will not adopt any part of it, and so there is no use in severing the subjects provided for. I am opposed to the adoption of the subst.i.tute. We understand the original article better than we can any other.

Mr. WILMOT:--I think the original proposition the best; the word "regulate" has been struck out of it, leaving only the words "impair or abolish."

Mr. McCURDY:--I ask leave to revive my motion. I regret having withdrawn it. I think I have the right to renew it now.

The PRESIDENT (Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair):--The motion of the gentleman from Connecticut is out of order.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I understand we are now considering the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. GROESBECK). If so, I move to insert in his proposition after the word "abolish" the words "or impair."

Mr. GROESBECK:--I think the amendment improves it. I will accept it.

Mr. CHASE:--There is, certainly, a misunderstanding as to the effect of the vote laying the amendment offered by Mr. HITCHc.o.c.k upon the table: it was offered as a subst.i.tute to the third section; if it did not carry the whole section to the table, then motions to amend that section are in order. In that view, I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is in order either way: to amend the article proposed by the committee, or to amend the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I think Mr. McCURDY'S motion is entirely out of order; it has once been pa.s.sed by informally.

Mr. CLEVELAND:--Is it not in order at any time to make a motion which will render the proposed subst.i.tute more perfect?

Mr. McCURDY:--I do not wish my proposition ruled out upon any technical construction of rules. I will now move it as an addition to the third section.

Mr. FOWLER:--I move to reconsider the vote adopting the motion proposed by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. HALL).

Mr. FIELD:--I oppose the motion. The amendment is both proper and necessary. It can certainly do no harm to the South; and if the South wishes to be fair, it will not object to it.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I oppose the reconsideration of the vote adopting Mr.

HALL'S amendment, and I will state very shortly the reason why. If the doctrine is to be established here, that the report of the committee is too sacred to be touched--too perfect to be made subject to amendment--let us know it. It will relieve myself, and I think many others, from farther attendance here; and I wish to say now, that if we are to sit here, such considerations must not be presented in future.

Mr. FOWLER:--I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I certainly wish some one would renew the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment. I do not like to do it myself, but I think if that amendment were reconsidered, we would fix upon some terms that would be satisfactory to all sides.

Mr. AMES:--I do not see the necessity for adopting Mr. McCURDY'S proposition. I think it amounts to nothing. It is simply a prohibition in the Const.i.tution against the exercise of a right which no one wishes to exercise. I oppose it because it is unnecessary.

Mr. McCURDY:--I certainly do not wish to insist upon an unnecessary amendment. If the third section, as reported by the committee, is adopted, it declares that the right of transportation, &c., _shall exist_. Under this, if no amendment is adopted, slaves may be bought and sold in any of the waters of the free States.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--What difficulty or damage does the gentleman propose to obviate by his amendment?

The PRESIDENT:--The Chair has already decided that the proposition of Mr. McCURDY is not in order.

Mr. CHASE appealed from the decision of the Chair, and upon the appeal the decision was sustained.

Mr. FIELD:--I understand this decision cuts off both the amendments offered by Mr. HALL and Mr. McCURDY; that compels us to vote against the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. HALL, has been accepted. It stands as the order of the Conference, and cannot be rescinded except by a vote. I sustain the decision of the Chair, because, by every rule of parliamentary law, it was correct. But one thing farther. It is now perfectly in order to move Mr. McCURDY'S proposition, or any other, as an _addition_.

The PRESIDENT:--Most clearly so.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I do not discover any particular objection to the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK. If it had been reported by the committee, I should have preferred it; but the South is willing to take the section as it stands, and prefers the original to any subst.i.tute.

Mr. NOYES:--I am against the subst.i.tute, for it destroys the effect of the amendments offered by Messrs. HALL and McCURDY.

The vote was then taken upon Mr. GROESBECK'S amendment, and resulted as follows:

AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Ohio, and Indiana--7.

NOES.--Maine, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas--12.

And it was rejected.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I feel that my mission here is ended, and that I may as well withdraw from the Conference. I seem to be unable to impress gentlemen with the necessity of accomplishing any thing. The report of the committee is not satisfactory to the South; it is even doubtful whether they will adopt it; certainly they will not, if it is cut to pieces by amendments. I may be compelled to sacrifice my property, or go with the secessionists. At my time of life, I do not wish to do either.

Mr. McCURDY:--I regret that my amendment produces so much feeling, but I think, at all events, we should prevent the sale of slaves in the free States; it should be prevented beyond any possibility. I renew the offer of my amendment.

Mr. EWING:--If the laws of New York will permit the sale of slaves within the limits of that State, then we should prohibit the sale in the Const.i.tution as proposed; but so long as that State has power to pa.s.s a law prohibiting it, there is no necessity for the amendment.

The owner is only permitted to touch with his slaves, under certain circ.u.mstances, at the ports of free States.

Mr. RUFFIN:--It is impossible that slaves can be sold in a free State under the section reported by the committee. We propose to give the right of touching at those ports as a privilege, but we give no right of sale there. The laws of a free State could not be evaded in this way. Each State is supreme within its own limits; that supremacy would not be aided by this proviso.

Mr. TURNER:--Suppose a slave owner is compelled to stop at the port of Cairo, through stress of weather or any other cause, and he dies there, are his slaves set free by his death? Does not the law of actual domicil prevail? I think they will be regarded as slaves, and that under this provision they might be administered upon and sold as a part of his estate.

Mr. POLLOCK:--I think we may obviate all difficulty by inserting after the words "landing in case of distress," the words "but not for traffic or sale."

Mr. TUCK:--I am in favor of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is not proper or best to enc.u.mber these propositions with amendments that are not necessary.