And the motion prevailed, and the vote was reconsidered.
The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs upon the amendment offered by Mr. ORTH. On this amendment the vote will be taken by States.
Mr. WHITE:--I consider this amendment as entirely unnecessary. The result which it seeks to attain is only the announcement of a well-understood provision of the common law. By the common law, if an action is brought for a trespa.s.s, and judgment recovered for that trespa.s.s, and the damages under that judgment paid, the property which is the subject of the action, and which may have originally been wrongfully taken, becomes transferred; the damages take the place of the property, the defendant has paid for his wrongful act, or, in other words, has paid for the property. The same principle applies to the case of the fugitive slave who is rescued from the custody of the law, when his owner has consented to accept payment for him. The legal right of the owner in the slave is satisfied by such payment; the money takes the place of the slave. But if this were not so, we ought not to enc.u.mber the Const.i.tution with such provisions. Congress will undoubtedly make the proper provision both for the protection of the slave and his master. Congress will not permit payment to be made for a slave, and then suffer him to go back to bondage. This would be both unlawful and unjust. I can see no necessity for adopting the amendment.
Mr. ORTH:--I understand there is some difference of opinion between members of the Conference as to the effect of the phraseology of my amendment. I will change that phraseology, and make the amendment read as follows:
"And such fugitive, after the master has been paid therefor, shall be discharged from such service."
Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--I am opposed to this amendment upon every ground. I would rather see some direct scheme of emanc.i.p.ation adopted and inserted in the Const.i.tution. Adopt this amendment, and the result is inevitable. It would amount to emanc.i.p.ation upon the largest possible scale. Our slaves would escape, you would rescue and pay for them, and that would be the end of them. Why not leave it to Congress to pa.s.s the necessary laws upon this subject? The adoption of this amendment would destroy all hope that our labors would be acceptable to the South. I say again, we had better establish emanc.i.p.ation at once.
Mr. DENT:--If this amendment is to be adopted, I hope we shall at the same time reconsider the vote by which we rejected the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina, requiring the payment by the county, city, or town wherein the slave is rescued from the custody of the law. This provision would make the General Government pay for the crimes of a few citizens in one section. In that case the General Government ought to own the negro. It has paid for him, and the property in him ought to be transferred.
Mr. WILMOT:--There is nothing in this. We do not wish to have the Government own the negro. It is bad enough to have individuals own slaves. We do not propose to turn the Government into an extensive slave owner.
But let me ask the gentleman seriously, who is to own the negro, in such a case, after he has been paid for? Certainly not the former owner, because his right is gone. This amendment only states a conclusion of law; the right of the owner being gone, the negro is free.
Mr. CHASE:--I think a single word will settle this. By the Const.i.tution as it now stands, the escaped fugitive is not discharged from service or labor. The original section, as proposed, requires that the slave should be paid for, when he is rescued. Now, he might be rescued three or four times. Shall he be paid for as often? Do gentlemen claim that his owner shall receive compensation more than once? I cannot see why gentlemen interested in slavery should object to this amendment.
Mr. RIVES:--I think if gentlemen would look at this proposition seriously, there would be no difference of opinion among us. Such a proposition would foist into the Const.i.tution a most injurious, pernicious, and troublesome doctrine. By the most ultra abolitionists of the free States the power of emanc.i.p.ating our slaves has been disclaimed. From the organization of the Government, no such right has been claimed by any respectable party or body of men. The question arose in the first Congress, I think, upon the pet.i.tion of the Quakers of Pennsylvania. It was decided almost unanimously against the power, even when exercised by Congress. But there is no need of multiplying or citing precedents. From that time to this, no political party has claimed the power of emanc.i.p.ation. Such is the universal doctrine now.
The right to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia is now claimed by some. I think that is the doctrine of Mr. CHASE. But upon what argument is it founded? Simply this: That the States, by the act of cession, have surrendered this power to Congress. This is the only argument I have ever heard in favor of the right, even in the District.
But this amendment proposes a most comprehensive scheme of emanc.i.p.ation. It accomplishes emanc.i.p.ation in every one of the slave States. It amounts to forcible emanc.i.p.ation upon the principle of compensation.
The point has been well stated by gentlemen who have preceded me.
Place this in the Const.i.tution, and there is an end of returning fugitives. The very courts will act upon it. They will say that if any one will come forward and pay the value of a slave when arrested, all the requirements of the Const.i.tution are satisfied, and he shall go free.
What is the object of our Conference? Why are we here? We are here to bury out of sight all the causes of our difference and trouble. And yet you propose to insert a new principle into our fundamental law, which, however you may look upon it, will be regarded at the South as totally inconsistent with our independence. Our people will not consent to it.
There is another view which I would suggest. This is eminently a matter of legislative regulation. If the slave is paid for, Congress will at once recognize the impropriety and injustice of permitting the owner to receive payment for, and also receive his slave. Congress may say with great propriety that the owner shall give a bond to return the money upon the restoration of his slave. I hope no principle will be implanted in the Const.i.tution which will be more troublesome--more productive of difficulties than any which has heretofore been made the subject of discussion.
Mr. EWING:--If we do any thing of this kind, perhaps we had better say that if the owner accepts compensation for his slave, he shall execute a deed of manumission. This will make it a matter of consent on the part of the owner. Put the amendment in that form and I will vote for it.
Mr. COALTER:--This amendment would offer a most powerful inducement to our slaves to run away. It would be dangerous in the extreme. When a fugitive has been paid for, and thus emanc.i.p.ated, he can come back and settle by the side of his master. What effect would that have upon the rest of his slaves? Would they not attempt the same thing? It may be said that the States can pa.s.s laws which will prevent their return.
But this power will not be exercised. I know many free negroes in the slave States who are respectable persons, who own property, and have their social and domestic ties. These examples are bad. A fugitive who has been set free is not a safe man to return and settle as a free negro among those who were his co-slaves.
Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--By this amendment you are inaugurating a system of covert emanc.i.p.ation to which the South can never submit. We protest against its adoption. The argument upon which you seek to sustain it is a false one. How can the owner receive the full value of his rescued slave when he himself, as a citizen and tax-payer, pays a part of the price?
Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina:--I move to amend this amendment by adding thereto these words:
"And the negro when thus emanc.i.p.ated shall not be permitted to leave the State in which the emanc.i.p.ation takes place."
We know from past experience what the abolitionists of the free States would do under such a provision as this in the Const.i.tution. There will be an underground railroad line along every princ.i.p.al route of travel. There will be depots all along these lines. Canoes will be furnished to ferry negroes over the Potomac and Ohio. JOHN BROWN & CO.
will stand ready to kill the master the very moment he crosses the line in pursuit of his slave. What officer at the North will dare to arrest the slave when JOHN BROWN pikes are stacked up in every little village? If arrested, there will be organizations formed to rescue him, and you may as well let the "n.i.g.g.e.r" go free at once. You are opening up the greatest scheme of emanc.i.p.ation ever devised.
Mr. BACKUS:--I move to amend the amendment proposed by Mr. ORTH by the subst.i.tution of the following:
"And the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to said fugitive."
It is claimed that this is a scheme of emanc.i.p.ation. It is nothing of the sort. It is not intended that the owner shall be obliged to accept compensation for his slave. That is left optional with him. He may take it or not as he likes. The effect of accepting compensation would be just the same as if he sold his slave to the North. The gentleman from Virginia raises a curious objection; that the owner does not receive a full compensation because he pays a portion of it himself.
Well, I suppose the owner would pay the one hundred and thirty-millionth part of the price! Does not the same objection lay against the payment of any tax whatever? It is asked, Does this payment transfer the legal t.i.tle to the slave? Well, it probably goes to the party who pays for it. If the payment is made in a free State, where slavery is not tolerated, the t.i.tle would not pa.s.s at all. I submit to our friends from the South, whether they wish to have the Government become a slave-trader, to set it up as a huckster of slaves in the shambles. My amendment imposes the responsibility upon Congress. I have no doubt Congress will legislate properly upon the subject.
Now let me say one word to gentlemen, friends of the South, in all kindness. I have appreciated your position, and it has influenced my action. I have not refused to give you any reasonable guarantees, and I shall not refuse them. But I submit to you, whether it is in good taste for you to declare that, if we do not yield all these little points to you, the Government is to be broken up; that that is the only alternative?
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope this amendment will be adopted. As a Southern man, I declare that it is acceptable to me. Let us adopt it, and end the matter. [Cries of "Agreed."]
Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--I have a very serious objection to putting any bid in the Const.i.tution to induce slaves to run away. I firmly believe that if this amendment should ever become a part of the Const.i.tution, it would lead to the ultimate extinction of slavery. The State of Missouri is surrounded on three sides by free States. When one of our slaves escapes and crosses the border, he finds himself at once among a people, some of whom will vindicate his freedom with their lives. I am willing to leave this whole subject to Congress.
Congress will not permit the owner to get his money, and also retain his slave. In the name of G.o.d I ask that no such provision may be put into the Const.i.tution!
Mr. MOREHEAD:--I will agree to this. The difference between the two is as wide as the poles.
The vote was then taken upon the amendment as amended, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont--17.
NOES.--Indiana, Missouri, and Virginia--3.
So the amendment was agreed to.
Messrs. CLAY, of Kentucky, DENT and ROMAN, of Maryland, STEPHENS and TOTTEN, of Tennessee, dissented from the votes of their respective States.
Mr. BRONSON:--It is evident under the rules, as they now stand, that this debate is not to close within a month. I move to amend the rules as follows:
"Before reaching the final question on the plan to be submitted to Congress, no member shall be allowed to speak more than three minutes on any proposition."
Mr. SEDDON:--I rise to a question of order. I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New York is not in order.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I move to lay the amendment on the table.
The motion of Mr. GUTHRIE prevailed without a division.
Mr. FIELD:--I move to add an additional section to the report, as follows:
SECTION 8. The Union of the States under the Const.i.tution is indissoluble, and no State can secede from the Union, or nullify an act of Congress, or absolve its citizens from their paramount obligation of obedience to the Const.i.tution and laws of the United States.
In offering this amendment as an additional section, I propose very briefly to state the reasons for its adoption. I shall not antic.i.p.ate any of the objections that may be urged against it, for, as I understand the rule, I shall have the right to speak in reply. I will only state one or two arguments in favor of the article.
We have been discussing the means of removing the symptoms of the disease called secession. This amendment attacks the disease itself.
The doctrines of CALHOUN, originated and advocated by him, have now been taken up by his followers, who are striking at the very foundation of our Government. The doctrine of the North is, that no State can secede from the Union. This amendment a.s.serts that doctrine.
Before we begin to amend, we ought to know whether we have any Const.i.tution to amend. The people of my section wish to know whether we can compel obedience of a State, if every man in it undertakes to refuse obedience. They believe that power to exist in the Const.i.tution now. If there is any doubt about it, they wish that power distinctly a.s.serted.
Mr. EWING:--I move to lay the amendment on the table at present, without affecting the section of the report under consideration.
Mr. FIELD:--This motion is debatable.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:--I submit that the motion of the gentleman from New York is not an amendment; that it is an addition, and may be laid on the table without affecting the remainder of the report.
Mr. BRONSON:--We have now gone through with the propositions, and are ready to take a final vote upon them. Mr. FIELD"S amendment is properly an addition, and relates entirely to other subjects. Laying that on the table does not carry the whole subject there.