AYES.--New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio--12.

NOES.--Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, and Kansas--6.

The PRESIDENT:--No further amendment being offered to the second and third sections, the Conference will proceed to the consideration of the fourth section of the report, or any amendments proposed to that section.

None being proposed, the Conference proceeded to the fifth section.

Mr. SEDDON:--I move to strike out the whole of the section. It has been heretofore stated, on behalf of the North, when this section was under consideration, that its adoption was not desirable, inasmuch as existing laws, properly enforced, amount to a sufficient prohibition of the slave-trade. If the North does not desire it, the South does not. I hope the Conference will consent to strike it out.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I think it very important to retain this section; it can, certainly, do no harm. We all agree, North and South, that the foreign slave-trade should not be revived.

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

AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri--4.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--17.

Mr. BRADFORD:--I move to amend the fifth section by inserting after the words "slave-trade," the words "by citizens of the United States."

In proposing amendments to the Const.i.tution, it seems to me improper that we should attempt to bind any but our own citizens. The adoption of the section in this form would seem to imply that we undertook to prohibit the slave-trade in other countries and among citizens of other countries. I desire to see it prohibited, but wish to have the const.i.tutional provision expressed in appropriate terms.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I object to this amendment. It would nullify the operation of the section entirely. There are in the United States thousands of persons who are not citizens, but who, under such a provision of the Const.i.tution, would revive the slave-trade and infuse into it a vigor which it never before possessed. It would be better to have no section at all than to permit such an amendment as this. The amendment can bear but one construction. It is intended to prohibit the slave-trade by our own citizens, and expressly to permit it by those who are not citizens.

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment.

Mr. BRADFORD:--I do not desire to embarra.s.s the action of the Conference, and I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. JAMES:--I move to amend this section by striking out the following words: "from places beyond the limits thereof."

The object of this amendment is apparent, and does not need explanation.

The amendment of Mr. JAMES was agreed to by the following vote:

AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Kansas--17.

NOES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move that the vote just pa.s.sed striking out the words "from places beyond the present limits thereof," be rescinded.

I think the action of the Convention in pa.s.sing this vote was hasty, and not taken upon due consideration. It may be an important question to determine, what are "the present limits thereof." Upon one construction it might prohibit the bringing of slaves from the States which have seceded and left the Union; upon another construction, which a.s.sumes that these are still in the Union and does not recognize their secession, it would not cut off the trade between those States and the others. I do not like to have such a question raised.

Mr. BACKUS:--I am against this reconsideration. So far as I am concerned, I do not propose, in this Conference, to recognize the secession of the States at all. I deny the legal power of a State to withdraw itself from the Union without the consent of the others. And beyond this, I do not think the question is raised as the gentleman a.s.serts.

Mr. RUFFIN:--I think the clause is better as it is. By striking out the words "from beyond the present limits thereof," we do not establish any territorial limitation. And whether these States come back or not, no question of territory is raised. But if this reconsideration is carried, and the seceding States do not return to the Union, they will retaliate upon us. In the event of their continued secession we cannot get back from those States those of our slaves who are now temporarily there. We may wish to bring back those slaves, and some of our people may wish to carry ours there.

Mr. GRANGER:--I hope this vote will not be reconsidered. The argument of Judge RUFFIN is conclusive.

Mr. COALTER:--This is likely to be a troublesome question any way. Why not leave it as we have to leave many others--to the discretion of Congress? We certainly do not wish to adopt a provision which will cut off the traffic in slaves between the Gulf States and the others.

n.o.body is in favor of that, and I am at a loss how to manage this question. The negroes are a portion of the families of Southern men.

They are regarded as such in all the transactions of life. Those families may at times become separated. A portion of them may now be in the seceded States, and a portion farther North. Again, it often happens that during one season of the year the planter, with his family and slaves, lives upon the plantation in the Gulf States; and at another season, removes with his family and slaves to a plantation farther North. We do not wish to obstruct a relation or proceeding of this kind. This is not a mere matter of dollars and cents. It is one involving the happiness of families. The blacks themselves are interested in it. I think it better to let the section stand as it does, and to leave the whole matter to the discretion of Congress.

Mr. GRANGER:--I have always stood up against all the societies and organizations which have been established at the North to carry on crusades against slavery. My position in that respect is still unchanged. I hold that the people of the free States have nothing to do with slavery; that they are not responsible for it, and that it is their duty to let it alone. At the same time I have just as steadily opposed the slave-trade. I think it inhuman and atrocious, and I am the last man that would consent to its restoration. This section as it stands, in my judgment, cannot be improved. I think we had better leave it, and not raise these troublesome questions which will inevitably be suggested if these words are restored.

Mr. MOREHEAD:--This is a matter which requires some reflection, and, on the whole, I am inclined, for the present, to withdraw my proposition.

Mr. SEDDON:--I do not like this plan of legislating in the Const.i.tution. The Const.i.tution ought to be an instrument defining and limiting the powers of Congress. We had better leave to Congress, or rather, to a.s.sign to Congress the power to exercise this prohibition.

I, therefore, move to amend by inserting at the commencement of the section these words: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit," and to strike out at the end of the section the words "are forever prohibited."

Mr. ALLEN:--This would be a most effectual way of reviving the slave-trade. It would remove the const.i.tutional prohibition, and permit Congress to prohibit or permit it, as that body may choose.

Would that ever hereafter be considered a crime which Congress had power to permit? No. I cannot conceive it possible that any State should seriously wish to see a traffic resumed which has been stigmatized by the whole civilized world as worse than piracy. This is a question which I would not leave to Congress. We know how immensely profitable this trade is--that fortunes are made by a single successful voyage. Don't let such an inducement to corruption creep into our Const.i.tution.

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of this amendment, not because I am in favor of the slave-trade, but because such a section is out of place in the Const.i.tution. The Const.i.tution is a bill of rights, an instrument which defines and settles the rights of citizens. It is not a law. I have no fear that if we leave this to Congress the slave-trade will be revived.

Mr. DONIPHAN:--I cannot agree with my colleague. I am opposed to the foreign slave-trade in every form. I would not even make a treaty with a nation or a State that would permit it. If the seceded States are to be regarded out of the Union, I would not treat with them; I would not invest Congress with such a dangerous power. Nothing will suit me but an unqualified prohibition of this trade in the Const.i.tution itself.

Mr. HOUSTON:--The gentleman from Missouri has expressed the views of Delaware. His argument is conclusive.

Mr. HOWARD:--The intervention of Congress will be necessary whether this amendment pa.s.ses or not. The section as adopted makes no provision for the punishment of any one who violates it. If a vessel should be seized while engaged in the trade, this section does not provide for her forfeiture or condemnation, or the punishment of her officers or owners. The section would be inoperative without the action of Congress. Why not let Congress have all the power?

Mr. DODGE:--Congress will declare the punishment.

Mr. SEDDON:--If you cut off the slave with the seceded States, they will do the same with you. I think the Border States should at all events adopt the amendment.

The Conference refused to agree to the amendment of Mr. SEDDON by the following vote:

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

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--16.

Messrs. JOHNSON and DONIPHAN, of Missouri, dissented from the vote of that State.

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I move to strike out the whole of this section, and insert a new one of the following tenor: "The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pa.s.s laws to prevent the importation of slaves into the United States and their Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof."

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I like the amendment proposed better than the original, but I wish to suggest an amendment to it myself.

We are aware that certain countries which are much exercised over the criminality of slavery and the slave-trade, have recently adopted a system, the horrors of which are not surpa.s.sed by those of the middle pa.s.sage. I refer to the importation of coolies and other persons from China and the East. In my judgment, this is the slave-trade in one of its worst forms. I think if we prevent the importation of slaves at all, the provision ought to be made to cover such a case. I therefore move to amend the proposition of Mr. MOREHEAD, by inserting after the words "importation of slaves," the words "or coolies, or persons held to service or labor."

Mr. MOREHEAD:--I accept the amendment of Mr. WICKLIFFE, and should have inserted it myself had it occurred to me. My proposition as it now stands, covers both the points here made; it declares the entire prohibition of the slave-trade, and it makes it also the duty of Congress to pa.s.s laws effectually to prevent it.

The amendment offered by Mr. MOREHEAD was agreed to by the following vote:

AYES.--Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois--11.

NOES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Kansas--8.

Mr. HOPPIN, of Rhode Island, Messrs. ORTH and ELLIS, of Indiana, and Mr. STOCKTON, of New Jersey, dissented from the votes of their respective States.

Mr. CROWNINSHIELD:--I move to strike out the whole section. I had rather have no section at all, and no provision upon the subject, than such a one as we have now adopted. The requisition upon Congress making it their duty to enact laws, will be considered as a necessary one; the consequence which must result is, that until Congress legislates, there is no law against the importation of slaves.