The PRESIDENT then put the motion upon printing the address, and it was carried upon a division.
Mr. GUTHRIE offered the following resolution, which was adopted unanimously:
_Resolved_, That if the President shall choose to speak on any question, he may, for the occasion, call any member to preside.
Mr. MEREDITH:--I wish to offer a proposition, and hope for the present it may lie on the table, and be considered hereafter. I do not desire to move it as an amendment to the report of the committee, but think it better to present it as a direct and independent proposition. I present it now only for the purpose of having it before the Convention. It is as follows:
ARTICLE.--That Congress shall divide all the territory of the United States into convenient portions, each containing not less than sixty thousand square miles, and shall establish in each a territorial government; the several territorial legislatures, whether heretofore const.i.tuted, or hereafter to be const.i.tuted, shall have all the legislative powers now vested in the respective States of this Union; and whenever any territory having a population sufficient, according to the ratio existing at the time, to ent.i.tle it to one member of Congress, shall form a republican const.i.tution, and apply to Congress for admission as a State, Congress shall admit the same as a State accordingly.
The proposition of Mr. MEREDITH was laid on the table without objection.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--There appears to be a misunderstanding between the Secretary and myself upon the question of printing the Journal. To avoid question, I move that the Journal be printed up to and including to-day.
Mr. GOODRICH:--I move to amend by adding "and from day to day during the session."
The amendment and the motion were adopted without objection.
Mr. ALEXANDER, of New Jersey, took the chair.
The PRESIDENT:--The Convention will now proceed to the order of the day--the consideration of the report of the committee.
Mr. REID, of North Carolina:--I wish to move an amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON. It is to add to his the words "and future." If adopted, the language will be "present and future territory."
Mr. EWING:--This will render a division of the question necessary. The gentleman had better withdraw his amendment for the time.
Mr. REID:--I am instructed by the Legislature of North Carolina to offer it, and I think best to do so in this regular manner.
Mr. CLEVELAND:--I think the motion of Mr. REID is out of order. I suggest that if adopted, with Mr. JOHNSON"S amendment, the sense of the proposition as it now stands will not be changed.
Mr. RUFFIN:--I rise merely to make a suggestion to my colleague. This motion must be made at some time, by some one, so that we may have a regular vote upon it. Now, as it is not certain how the report of the majority of the committee is to be construed, I propose at a suitable time to move an amendment which will make the proposition applicable to territory hereafter acquired. If this will suit my colleague, I hope he will withdraw his motion.
Mr. REID:--I came here not to deceive the North or the South. I intend to be plain and unambiguous. Why should we send forth a proposition that is uncertain, vague, and, as gentlemen admit, open to different constructions? If we are to pour oil upon the troubled waters, let us do so to some purpose; above all, let us be definite, plain, and certain. I cannot consent to withdraw my motion. I must insist upon its consideration.
Mr. LOGAN:--I had hoped the question on Mr. JOHNSON"S amendments would have been taken on Sat.u.r.day. It is an important one, and one which must be met. I would suggest that it would be best to let the question be taken on Mr. JOHNSON"S amendments now. The subject presents itself to my mind in this way: The proposition of the majority, as it now stands, is uncertain. The friends of the proposition ought to be allowed to perfect it, to make it satisfactory to themselves. If there is a doubt about it, let us make it clear that it applies only to the present territory. Then we can have a clear and decisive vote upon it.
The substance of the proposition is what I wish to arrive at, and it will be more in order if the vote is not taken till we know what that substance is. I shall not object to its application to future territory. I hope the gentleman from North Carolina will withdraw his amendment, and let the question be taken on that of Mr. JOHNSON.
Mr. SEDDON:--One word only. I fear we are being placed in an awkward position. I am desirous to have the language of the proposition clear and not delusive. The amendment of Mr. JOHNSON embarra.s.ses me; I hardly know how to vote upon it. If I vote for Mr. JOHNSON"S motion, I shall have the semblance of favoring the limitation of the proposition to present territory. Mr. RUFFIN and myself both want the same thing, but on Mr. JOHNSON"S motion he will vote one way and I the other.
Mr. RUFFIN:--Will the gentleman allow me to explain? I voted against the proposition in committee because, as it now stands, it applies only to existing territory. I wish to carry this proposition, but not by the vote of the South alone. I want Northern votes, and a.s.surances that the people of the North will vote for the proposition and adopt it.
Mr. SEDDON:--I shall feel disposed to vote against Mr. JOHNSON"S motion.
The question was here stated by the President as follows:
The vote will be taken upon the motion of Mr. REID to amend the amendment offered by Mr. JOHNSON.
Mr. REID:--It strikes me that the question is this: My proposition is to add the words "and future," but Mr. JOHNSON"S amendment is to add the word "present." Can this be treated as an amendment to his motion?
I must say that my duty to my country and State will prevent my voting for the proposition as he proposes to limit it.
Mr. COALTER:--I think the committee ought to be permitted to amend and complete their report. Let us, by general consent, agree to have the word "present" inserted.
Mr. REID:--I object to that all the time.
Mr. TURNER:--I move that the report be recommitted for amendment.
Mr. COALTER:--Shall we adjourn over simply for this? That will use up another day.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope it will not be recommitted. We can settle the question here in a moment.
The PRESIDENT:--The vote will now be taken.
Mr. McCURDY:--I call for the individual names of members voting.
The PRESIDENT:--The call is not in order.
The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. REID, and resulted as follows:
AYES--New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, and Virginia--8.
NAYS--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and Iowa--12.
So the amendment failed.
The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. JOHNSON:--I trust that I shall not trespa.s.s upon the time of the Conference, but the subject now before it is one of great importance, and it involves the consideration of many important questions. The amendment which I offer is for the purpose of making the proposition of the committee clear and plain. I was aware that a construction might be placed upon it different from that which the committee intended; and it is due to the frankness which is manifested here, that the purposes of the committee should be made plain. There ought to be no ambiguity in a const.i.tutional provision. Some of the most important const.i.tutional questions decided by the Supreme Court have been questions of construction. Lawyers would differ about the construction to be given the committee"s proposition. I think the Supreme Court has placed a construction upon the terms used here, which would be conclusive. A similar question arose in the Dred Scott case. There the question was upon that article in the Const.i.tution which confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the _territories_ or other property belonging to the United States." The Court in that case decided that the provision had no bearing on the controversy in that case, because the power given by that provision, whatever it might be, was confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which, upon the adoption of the Const.i.tution, belonged to or was claimed by the United States, and was within their boundaries, as settled by the treaty with Great Britain. With this clause in the Const.i.tution, therefore, it could have no influence upon the territory afterward acquired from a foreign government. I think this decision conclusive, and that the proposition, if incorporated into the Const.i.tution, would refer only to the territory now owned by the United States.
It was the wish of the representatives of some States in the committee that the word "future" should be inserted in the report. I was opposed to it: it was so odious to me to put words into the Const.i.tution, or to propose to do so, which should go forth to the world as an indication that this Government proposes to acquire new territory in any way. I have said that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case decided that the words "the territories" in the Const.i.tution only applied to the then existing territory. I think they decided wrong in this respect, though I agree to the correctness of the decision in that case in the main; but such as it is, the decision is binding upon this Conference and the people.
Mr. JOHNSON here read a portion of the opinion of Judge TANEY delivered in the Dred Scott case, and continued:
You perceive that Judge TANEY turns the question upon the construction of the word "the." Had the word "any" been used in its place, he must have held that the provision applied to future, as well as the then existing territory.
Knowing that it was the purpose of the majority of the committee to exclude future territory from the operation of this proposition, and that it was due to the committee and the Convention that their purposes should be carried out, I offer my amendment as applicable to the sixth line of the proposition as well as the first.
In discussing the merits of this report, in its application to the existing condition of the country, I have to say a word to my Southern friends. You have sought to extend this provision to territory which shall be hereafter acquired. You have had a decisive vote and have been beaten in this Conference. The fight has been a fair one; the question has been thoroughly understood. We ought to acquiesce in the decision of the majority. We cannot change this decision if we would; and if we could change it, the proposition amended as you would prefer to have it, would never pa.s.s Congress. The repeated action of that body, during its present session, shows this conclusively. Accepting this decision then, as definitive, can we not settle the question with reference to existing territory? Shall we settle it? Settle it fairly--recognizing and acknowledging the rights of all, and remain brethren forever with the Free States! From my very heart, I say yes.
(Applause.) The proposition as it now stands covers all the territory we have. The whole ground, the whole trouble, which has brought this country into its present lamentable condition--has arisen over this question. I believe if it had been disposed of or settled in some way before, many States would have been kept in the Union that have now gone out. And why should we not settle it?
We have now a territory extensive enough to sustain two hundred millions of people--embracing almost every climate, fruitful in almost every species of production--rich in all the elements of national wealth, and governed by a Const.i.tution that has raised us to an elevation of grandeur that the world has never before witnessed. That we should separate to the destruction of such a Government, on account of territory we have not got, and territory that we do not want, is not, I believe, the patriotic sense of the South.
But this proposition does not stand by itself alone. It is connected, and must be construed, with the provision relating to the acquisition of future territory. The second section of the committee"s proposition provides that territory shall not be acquired by the United States, unless by treaty, nor, with unimportant exceptions, unless such treaty shall be ratified by four-fifths of all the members of the Senate. Is not that guaranty enough for us? Should we not act unreasonably if we required further guaranty in this respect? For myself, I should have preferred that the consent of two-thirds of the Senate only should be required, and that that two-thirds should comprise a majority both from the free and slave States.
Mr. RUFFIN:--At the proper time I shall move such an amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON:--If such an amendment is proposed I shall vote for it. I know there will be objections raised to it, but they will be far outweighed by the advantages it will give to the South.
But the objection of Mr. BALDWIN is opposed here, and it is one which must be answered. He says this is the wrong way to propose amendments to the Const.i.tution--that our action is inconsistent with that instrument. He does not claim that it is prohibited by the letter, but by the spirit of the Const.i.tution. Where does he get the spirit but from the letter? There are two methods of proposing amendments to the Const.i.tution provided by that instrument. Let us see what they are.