The undersigned beg leave to submit a reply to the statement of Mr.

D.D. Field, to the report of the majority of the Commissioners to the Conference Convention at Washington, respecting his absence on the final vote in that body, on the proposed amendments to the Const.i.tution of the United States. The fact of his absence is admitted by Mr. Field, and attempted to be defended at great length, but Mr. Field has omitted to state that, by the 14th Rule of the Convention, "no member should be absent from the Convention, so as to interrupt the representation of the State, without leave." Mr. Field neither asked nor obtained leave of absence, and hence, under the rule, he failed to discharge his duty, both to the Convention and his colleagues. Mr. Field does not state that he made any application to the court for a temporary postponement of his case, in view of the important vote then about to be taken in Convention. But, on the contrary, argues to show that his duty to his client was paramount to his duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question involving const.i.tutional principles. After Mr. Field had stated, in the presence of his colleagues in the Convention, that he was obliged to go immediately to the Supreme Court of the United States, he was urged by those who agreed with him in opinion, to remain, and give the vote of the State against the proposed amendments, and was repeatedly told that his absence would divide the vote; this was so stated to him, by the minority of the Commissioners, and that it would be so claimed by them before the Convention. He refused to remain, and with the full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the question about to be taken, he left the Convention, and thus defeated the vote of his State. We who remained in our places, felt deeply the embarra.s.sment, and the remarks which were made in consequence of Mr. Field's withdrawal. We had steadily, up to that time, sustained with him, our own, and what we believed to be the sentiment of the State, in favor of freedom, and were, therefore, entirely unprepared for such a determination on his part. Nor is our surprise lessened by the manner and the certificates by which he has at great length attempted to defend his course on this occasion. The vote of New York was not declared until after the vote which had been previously taken in its delegation had been stated, nor until an appeal had been made to the Convention, and refused by its President, to enable his colleagues to protect its vote in the absence of the Chairman of the delegation. By his absence the vote of New York stood 5 to 5, and it was under the decision of the Convention alone, that the vote was declared to be divided. Mr. Field has stated that the omission to record the vote of New York against the amendments was not owing to any act or omission of his, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some of them, to prevent the expression of the opinion of the majority. The objection was made after notice to him that it would be made, and the Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost by his absence. Nor is the opinion of Mr. Field ent.i.tled to consideration when he imputes to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was afterwards rendered null, by his absence. They did adhere to it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been previously agreed to. Mr. Field states, and truly, that his colleagues refused to unite in a joint relation of the facts of the case. They refused, because they were not satisfied with his course, and would not be responsible for it in any way. Up to the moment of his leaving the Convention, Mr. Field had manifested great zeal and ability in sustaining and defending the principles which a majority of the delegation desired to advocate, and his failure at the last, and decisive vote, was as unexpected as it was indefensible.

JOHN A. KING, WM. CURTIS NOYES, A.B. JAMES, JAS. S. WADSWORTH, JAS. C. SMITH.

NEW YORK, _March 28th, 1861._

_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_

Informed by the newspapers of this morning that five of my a.s.sociates in the Peace Convention, after waiting nearly three weeks, made yesterday to the Legislature a communication purporting to be an answer to the note which I thought it my duty to append to the report, explaining why the vote of New York was not given at a particular time, I beg leave to submit the following in reply:

I do not perceive that my a.s.sociates impugn a single statement of fact contained in my note. My engagement in Court, the importance of the engagement, the necessity for my keeping it, the meeting of the delegation in contemplation of it, their resolution directing how the vote should be cast in my absence, the neglect so to cast it, are all, by silence, admitted. Nor do I perceive any denial of the proposition that the delegation had a right to pa.s.s the resolution, which thus became binding on all its members until reconsidered and reversed.

Perhaps I ought to make one exception to this use of admissions. My a.s.sociates apparently wish to have it believed, yet hesitate to a.s.sert, that the Convention made a decision respecting the right to vote. In one place they say, "that an appeal had been made to the Convention, and refused by its President;" in another, that "it was under the decision of the Convention alone that the vote was declared to be divided;" and in a third, that the objection of the minority was made after notice to me that it would be made, and the "Convention sustained it, hence the vote was lost," by my absence. They should have reflected that there could have been no "decision of the Convention" if the appeal to it was "refused by its President." The truth beyond question is, that although my a.s.sociates imagined that the Convention decided something, it did in fact decide nothing.

My a.s.sociates say further, that I argue to show that my duty to my client was paramount to my "duty as Commissioner of the State of New York, in a question involving const.i.tutional principles." This is an idle calumny. My note can be read as well as theirs; and in general will be read by the same persons, and there is not a word in it to justify or excuse their a.s.sertion. I never thus argued. I claimed that I had two duties to perform, and that I performed both. I did not claim that my duty to my State was subordinate to any other duty whatever.

When my a.s.sociates a.s.sert that their Chairman left the Convention "with full knowledge of the effect of his absence on the vote about to be taken," if they mean that I knew or supposed that they intended to reverse their own action, or that Mr. King would not announce the vote as it had been resolved, or would declare the vote divided, or that they would support him in it, or that the Convention would overrule the delegation, then they a.s.sert what they could not know to be true, and what is not true in fact. My note sets forth what I was told, and what I replied.

My a.s.sociates argue that I failed to discharge my duty, because I did not obtain leave of the Convention before going into the Supreme Court. Though I do not remember to have heard before of leave granted by a deliberative body to a member to go out for half an hour, or for one or two hours, I will observe, by this Convention absence was expressly allowed, if it did not "interrupt the representation of the State." My a.s.sociates do indeed claim that, when I left the hall, the State ceased to be represented, ten Commissioners only remaining behind. The argument of this strange position appears to be, that a State is not represented when its vote can be divided, and that the vote of New York was divided. Here is a double fallacy. To say that the vote was divided, begs the question. It was not divided so long as the resolution pa.s.sed by the delegation remained valid, and its validity is not denied. The other part of the proposition is equally fallacious. A State is represented when there are in the body delegates authorized to represent it, whatever be their number. The arguments of my a.s.sociates seem to be, that a State could only be represented in the Peace Convention by odd numbers, and that if it sent eight or ten representatives, it would have no representatives at all.

But what shall I say to the following sentences:--"Nor is the opinion of Mr. Field ent.i.tled to consideration, when he imputes to the majority a want of fidelity to him, in not claiming and adhering to the vote which had been taken when all were present, and which was afterwards rendered null by his absence. They did adhere to it, and endeavored to cast the vote accordingly. It was his duty to have been present, and to have thus given effect to that which had been previously agreed to." Would any one imagine that the authors were speaking of a vote, given in expectation of my absence, and to determine what should be done when I was away? The vote was taken because I was to be absent, and directed the Chairman how to act in that event, but it is nevertheless pretended that the moment I became absent, the vote became null. They might better have said that the vote would have become null, or rather that there would have been no occasion for it in case of my continued presence. Then they say that they adhered to it. How did they adhere? The resolution directed the Chairman to cast the vote in the negative. He did not obey the resolution. His a.s.sociates and mine did not insist that he should.

n.o.body prevented his answering "no," when the vote was called. No reason has ever been given for his not so answering. That he should instead have entered voluntarily into a discussion with Mr. Tyler on the subject, and that his a.s.sociates should have looked quietly on, can only be accounted for by supposing them indifferent or bewildered.

It is not an agreeable task to write thus of old friends; but I must defend myself when attacked, and defence cannot always be made pleasant to an a.s.sailant.

My late friends profess to think me responsible for the loss of the vote of New York on a certain occasion. I think them responsible for it. Which side is right the Legislature and the people of the State will judge.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.

NEW YORK, _April 11th, 1861._

_Report of a Minority of the Commissioners of New York._

IN SENATE, _March 25th, 1861._

The undersigned, const.i.tuting a minority of the Commissioners, appointed by the Legislature of the State of New York, under resolutions responsive to those of the State of Virginia, referred to in the report of the majority of the Commissioners of said State of New York, admitting the correctness of the record of the proceedings presented by said majority, but differing from them in much of the reasoning which they present, respectfully report:

That they entered upon the duties a.s.signed to them, earnestly desiring to carry out the patriotic spirit of said resolutions as therein expressed, which said original resolutions are herein embodied as a part of this report:

NEW YORK.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS _appointing Commissioners from this State to meet Commissioners from other States at Washington, on invitation of Virginia._

WHEREAS, the State of Virginia, by resolutions of her General a.s.sembly, pa.s.sed the nineteenth instant, has invited such of the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States as are willing to unite with her, to meet at Washington, on the fourth of February next, to consider, and if practicable, agree on some suitable adjustment of our national difficulties; and whereas, the people of New York, while they hold the opinion that the Const.i.tution of the United States, as it is, contains all needful guarantees for the rights of the States, are nevertheless ready, at all times, to confer with their brethren upon all alleged grievances; and to do all that can justly be required of them to allay discontent; therefore,

_Resolved_, That David Dudley Field, William Curtis Noyes, James S.

Wadsworth, James C. Smith, Amaziah B. James, Erastus Corning, Addison Gardner, Greene C. Bronson, Wm. E. Dodge, Ex-Governor John A. King, and Major-General John E. Wool, be and are hereby appointed Commissioners on the part of this State, to meet Commissioners from other States, in the City of Washington, on the fourth day of February next, or so soon thereafter as Commissioners shall be appointed by a majority of the States of the Union, to confer with them upon the complaints of any part of the country, and to suggest such remedies therefor as to them shall seem fit and proper; but the said Commissioners shall at all times be subject to the control of this Legislature, and shall cast five votes to be determined by a majority of their number.

_Resolved_, That in thus acceding to the request of Virginia, it is not to be understood that this Legislature approve of the propositions submitted by the General a.s.sembly of that State, or concede the propriety of their adoption by the proposed Convention. But while adhering to the position she has heretofore occupied, New York will not reject an invitation to a conference, which, by bringing together the men of both sections, holds out the possibility of an honorable settlement of our national difficulties, and the restoration of peace and harmony to the country.

_Resolved_, That the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the Executives of the several States, and also to the President of the United States, and to inform the Commissioners without delay of their appointment.

_Resolved_, That the foregoing resolutions be transmitted to the honorable the Senate, with a request that they concur therein.

The foregoing resolutions were pa.s.sed in the House of a.s.sembly by a vote of seventy-three ayes to thirty-nine noes, and in the Senate by a vote of nineteen to twelve, those in the negative, in both Houses, being all members of the dominant party, and those in the affirmative composed of the members of the opposition, and of those Republicans who were supposed to be prepared to meet the State of Virginia and other sister States, in the spirit of the resolutions adopted by the States of Virginia and New York.

A single point in the record, to which reference has been made, requires some consideration before proceeding to the reasoning of a majority of the Commissioners upon the propositions finally adopted by the Convention. The majority of the Commissioners state that most of said majority were opposed to the submission by the Convention of any amendments of the Const.i.tution of the United States at the present time, and in the present excited state of the public mind.

Not only was that ground a.s.sumed by a majority of the New York Commissioners, but some of their number argued with great ability against the danger of touching that sacred instrument, consecrated by memories so dear to every patriot heart.

The propositions, presented as amendments, were clear and distinct--their adoption would in no manner disturb the general harmony of the Const.i.tution; yet, strangely enough, to an ordinary mind, the majority of the Commissioners who found such danger in adopting the specific amendments proposed, voted with a united action for a General Convention to remodel the entire Const.i.tution--exposed to all the hazards that must attend such a Convention--by whose action a form of government might be presented, in which could not be found a single trace of that Const.i.tution for which they professed such high veneration.

The undersigned will now consider the reasons presented by a majority of the Commissioners against the proposition: The majority declare that the Convention would not listen to, much less adopt any amendments in the interests of freedom, or of free labor, or of the rights of citizens of the free States, the only one of that character, that in relation to the securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States, &c., &c. As the undersigned have no recollection of the propositions to which reference would seem to be made, other than that embraced in the last clause, which they have quoted, they would call the attention of the people of the State of New York to this subject, as one deeply interesting in its character, and upon which it is supposed that there is very little difference of opinion. As this statement is thrown out by a majority of the Commissioners, in a manner to carry a belief that the harsh and cruel enactments which deprive colored citizens of the North of the privileges they claim in Southern States under the Const.i.tution, it may be well for our people to consider that such enactments are not confined to the States fostering the inst.i.tution of slavery, but exist and are enforced in some States making peculiar claim to love for freedom and the rights of man. The State of Illinois has a code of laws against free colored persons, citizens of other States, as severe as those of South Carolina or Louisiana. These laws have been recently enforced, and yet the North does not hear one word of the wrongs inflicted upon colored citizens of other States found within the borders of Illinois.

It will be recollected that the Const.i.tution first presented by the State of Oregon, contained a clause prohibiting free colored persons from residing within that State. That Const.i.tution received the votes of both the Senators from New York--each expressing his views of that instrument, yet the public censure has not fallen upon either of those gentlemen, by reason of such action. Nor is it necessary to go beyond the election polls of this State, claiming its fifty thousand majority for the cause of freedom and of equal rights--and yet counting from the ballot box an hundred thousand majority against securing the privilege of suffrage to colored persons, upon the same conditions that it is secured to whites. These facts are presented with the hope that they may create a spirit of charity in the public mind toward those States whose peculiar position renders such harsh legislation certainly not more censurable than it is in free States.

The undersigned differ entirely from the majority of the Commissioners, as to the action of the Convention upon subjects interesting to the North. It is known to all that Virginia, Kentucky, and it is believed all the Southern Border States instructed their delegates to insist on the Crittenden propositions, a material feature of which was, that in all future acquired territory, south of 36 30', slavery should be permitted; and yet when this material clause was found repugnant to the Northern sentiment, a distinguished Commissioner from Maryland moved to limit it to _present_ territory, which proposition was adopted. Surely this was an important surrender to Northern sentiment that should not have been forgotten.

The majority say, that by the first of the proposed amendments, slavery is const.i.tutionally established in all the territory south of the line of 36 30', as if such recognition of slavery there was now for the first time to be established by the proposed amendment. The majority of these Commissioners are counsellors of eminent ability, and yet, for some reason not easily comprehended, they have seen fit to ignore a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which declares that slavery can be carried into all the Territories of the United States, whether south or north of the line of 36 30'. The famous Dred Scott decision, to which reference is here made, was often referred to in the debates of the Convention, and was insisted upon by many gentlemen, holding views and opinions similar to those of a majority of the New York Commissioners, as affording all the protection that the South could require, and claiming that the proposed amendment was unnecessary, by reason of such protection.

The Territory of New Mexico was declared open to slavery by the compromise act of 1850. The public mind of the North was deeply agitated upon that subject. A distinguished statesman, who was removed from earth before his eyes were forced "to rest upon a dismembered Confederacy," was violently a.s.sailed for declaring that slavery could work no practical evil in New Mexico; and yet the recent census has vindicated that a.s.sertion, showing that in the ten years that have pa.s.sed since that compromise, only twenty-four slaves were to be found in what the majority of the committee are pleased to call the "immense region" of New Mexico; more than half of whom were servants of army officers, to be removed when they should be ordered to other stations.

The Territorial Legislature of New Mexico has declared the existence and pa.s.sed laws for the protection of slavery throughout that entire Territory, while the proposed amendment of the Const.i.tution would exclude it from all that portion of said Territory north of 36 30'.

The undersigned are not only ready to vindicate their votes for that proposed amendment, but claim that such an amendment to the Const.i.tution would be a great gain to the cause of freedom; taking from the action of the Dred Scott decision, and of the Territorial Legislation, all territory north of 36 30'; and they challenge a comparison of their votes, with the course of those who preferred to leave this question subject to the action of that decision, and to the legislation to which reference is made.

The _second_ section of the proposed amendments, touching the future acquisition of territory, met the approval of the undersigned, as certainly not less important to the North than to the South. The history of our country shows how hastily the a.s.sumed powers of Congress have been exercised upon this question, and at this moment presents a startling example, of a State of vast territory, acquired by a joint resolution of Congress, sustained at an enormous expense, and now withdrawing from the Confederacy, seizing upon and applying to its own use all the Government property found within its borders.

Every reflecting citizen can determine for himself where there is the most danger to the cause of humanity, and whether territory is more probably to be acquired from the North, and consecrated to freedom, or from the Southwest, upon which these exciting contests might be revived.

This proposed amendment is presented with entire confidence for the decision of our people.

As the majority of the Commissioners do not dissent from the general principles of the _third_ article, but object to some of its provisions, the undersigned would remark that the princ.i.p.al difference between them and the majority would seem to be whether Congress shall be denied the power of abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation. Ever since the formation of the Government, this has been a subject upon which the friends of freedom have been divided. In the opinion of the undersigned, this question should be permanently settled.

The power of removing slaves from one section of the country to another, is secured by this section, but cannot be exercised against the wishes of the State through which slaves would otherwise be taken.

The power to touch at ports, sh.o.r.es, and landings, with vessels having on board persons held in bondage, and of landing, in case of distress, is embraced in this proposed amendment, the latter clause of which will, certainly, receive the approval of every friend of humanity. The undersigned do not join in the fears expressed by the majority, that a resort to "impure means" could ever secure from the Legislature of New York any laws upon these subjects, not entirely consistent with the honor and dignity of the State.

The _Fourth_ proposition was adopted by a vote so large as to make comment here unnecessary.

As the _Fifth_ proposition received the unanimous vote of your Commissioners, it requires no comment.

The _Sixth_ proposition is upon a subject that has been discussed ever since the formation of the Government, and need not be dwelt upon.

The _Seventh_ proposition presented itself with such force to the Convention as to receive a strong vote, but seven States declaring against it. It will be seen that this section requires Congress to provide by law for securing to citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.