Part 51 (1/2)

The motion of Mr. CROWNINs.h.i.+ELD was rejected by the following vote:

AYES.--Ma.s.sachusetts, Virginia, and Tennessee--3.

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

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the sixth section.

No amendment being offered thereto, the Conference proceeded to the seventh section.

Mr. TURNER:--I move to strike out the whole of the seventh section, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

”Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.”

The seventh section, as it now stands, will encounter more serious objection at the North than all the remaining portion of the article.

It is objectionable for many reasons: it looks to the actual exercise of violence and intimidation by mobs and unlawful a.s.semblies at the North. Although such may have occurred in one or two sections only, generally the provisions of the fugitive slave law have been observed and carried out. The whole subject is very distasteful to the North. I think if we keep it out of the article, and in its place secure that respect for the privileges of citizens in the various States, to which, indeed, under the Const.i.tution, they are ent.i.tled, we shall do much better.

Mr. LOGAN:--There are various reasons peculiar to some of the free States why this provision should not be adopted. The laws of several of the Western States do not recognize negroes as citizens. I move to amend the amendment proposed by my colleague, by inserting the words ”free white” before the word ”citizens.”

The amendment offered by Mr. LOGAN was adopted by the following vote:

AYES.--New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois--10.

NOES.--Maine, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and Iowa--8.

Mr. ORTH, of Indiana, dissented from the vote of his State.

Mr. TURNER:--I suppose the purpose of my colleague has been attained.

If there is a delegation willing to make such a distinction in the Const.i.tution, they will, of course, support the amendment as it is now amended.

The vote was then taken upon the amendment, as amended, with the following result:

AYES.--None.

NOES.--Maine, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Indiana--18.

Mr. WILMOT:--If the seventh section is adopted, I think the North should have some compensation therefor. I think citizens of the North have as much occasion for complaint on account of the action of mobs and riotous a.s.semblies in the slave States, as the slave States have of the occurrence of those mobs and a.s.semblies in the North. I therefore move the following as an addition to the seventh section:

”And Congress shall farther provide by law, that the United States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any State, who, in any other State, shall suffer by reason of violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous a.s.semblies, in his person or property, or in the deprivation, by violence, of his rights secured by this Const.i.tution.”

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I am opposed to this amendment upon the general principles I have so often stated. I oppose it for another reason. I am not in favor of an amendment which encourages mobs and riots at the North, and I will not consent to one which, like this, encourages seditious speeches at the South.

Mr. WILMOT:--Such is not the effect of my amendment. It does not protect a man in making seditious speeches in the slave States. It only secures to the citizen his rights without regard to the State to which he belongs. We have a provision of the Const.i.tution on that subject now, but it is not effective.

Mr. COALTER:--I am in favor of the amendment. There is great necessity for it.

Mr. SEDDON:--I think gentlemen entirely misconstrue the intent and purpose of the present provision of the Const.i.tution on that subject.

It grows out of and rests upon that provision which requires the return of fugitive slaves. It imposes an obligation upon Congress to secure to the owner, when he pursues his slave into a free State, the right which he enjoys as a citizen of his own State. In all other respects it is unnecessary. If a man is injured in his person or his property, he has his redress in the State courts; or if he is a foreigner or a citizen of another State, he may go into the Federal courts and get his redress there. In this respect the citizens of both sections are amply protected.

Mr. STEPHENS:--I earnestly hope this amendment may be rejected. We have come here to arrange old difficulties, not to make new ones.