Part 45 (1/2)

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The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman from Ohio having withdrawn his amendment, the proposal of the gentleman from Connecticut is no longer before the Conference.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,”