Part 47 (2/2)

Mr. BROWNE:--I move to lay the subst.i.tute proposed by the gentleman from Ohio on the table. If that motion is carried, I do not understand that the effect of it is to lay the report of the committee on the table.

Mr. SMITH:--I rise to a question of order. I think the question now should be on Mr. McCURDY'S amendment. I ask for information. I do not quite see how that amendment can be informally pa.s.sed over without at the same time pa.s.sing the consideration of the whole article.

The PRESIDENT:--It was pa.s.sed by universal consent.

Mr. CHASE:--As I understand it, the gentleman from Illinois made the motion that the vote be reconsidered, and the consideration of the amendment pa.s.sed for the present, and this was agreed to by the Conference unanimously.

The motion of Mr. BROWNE to lay the motion of Mr. HITCHc.o.c.k on the table, was agreed to without a division.

Mr. BALDWIN:--I move to strike out these words in the third section: ”Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons bound to labor than on land.” I have already stated that I think this language singularly inappropriate to a provision of the Const.i.tution. The Const.i.tution already prohibits such distinctions in the laying of taxes, and, therefore, there is no necessity for the adoption of this clause. But I have another and more important objection to it; it contains and proposes to place in the Const.i.tution the distinct recognition of the right of property in slaves. This recognition was carefully avoided in the Convention which framed the Const.i.tution, and the North always has been, and always will be, opposed to any such recognition. Place it there, and your article will never be adopted in any of the free States.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--The first statutes pa.s.sed by Congress on this subject recognized the right to tax slaves. This implied the right to hold slaves. This recognition of the right of taxation was made in express terms. The gentleman has forgotten the history of the legislation on this subject. The object of the committee is to prevent any possibility that those who come after us should make any distinction between these cla.s.ses of property in levying taxes. We do not seek a recognition of the right of property in slaves in this; that right is already recognized to our satisfaction in the Const.i.tution.

Mr. TUCK:--I understand the gentleman from Kentucky, and I think he is right. If we adopt the article at all we ought to retain this language.

The vote was taken by States on the amendment proposed by Mr. BALDWIN, with the following result:

AYES.--Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, and Connecticut--3.

NOES.--New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri--18.

Mr. PRATT dissented from the vote of Connecticut.

Messrs. NOYES and SMITH also dissented from the vote of New York.

Mr. FOWLER:--I move to strike out the words ”without the consent of Maryland,” immediately following the words ”service in the District of Columbia.”

I can see no necessity for requiring the consent of Maryland to the abolition of slavery in the District. There is no more reason for it than for requiring the consent of Maine, or any other State. By the cession of the District to the United States Maryland has parted with all power over it, and the exclusive power of legislation is given to Congress. The District has become the common property of the Union as much as any of the Territories, and ought to be controlled in the same way.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I hope this amendment will not prevail. The District is almost surrounded by the Territory of Maryland. The abolition of slavery in it would be very destructive to our interests and property.

To convert the District into free territory would offer a direct invitation to our slaves to abscond and go into the District. Even if the rendition clause of the Const.i.tution was faithfully observed and carried out, it would involve us in much expense and difficulty. If we are required to maintain faith with the Government, the Government must keep faith with us.

Mr. FOWLER:--I did not suppose my motion would meet with such serious objections. If they exist I will withdraw it.

Mr. BATES:--I have an amendment to propose, which I think will improve the language of the section, and make it more consonant with that used in the Const.i.tution. I move to amend the third section by striking out the word ”bound” wherever it occurs therein, and inserting in its place the word ”held;” also to insert after the words ”to labor”

wherever they occur, the words ”or service.”

The amendments proposed by Mr. BATES were adopted without a division.

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--I propose to amend the section as it stands after the adoption of the amendments of Mr. BATES, by inserting between the words ”or” and ”service” where they occur in that connection, the word ”involuntary.”

Mr. EWING:--I had rather leave out the word ”involuntary;” it would look better. As the section now stands, both voluntary and involuntary service are included.

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--By the insertion of the words ”service” in Mr. BATES'

amendment, one portion of my purpose is accomplished. I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. GROESBECK:--I would ask if it is now in order to move a subst.i.tute for the whole section. I have one which meets my wishes, and which, I think, will meet the views of, and be acceptable to, the Conference.

<script>