_First:_ That the direction given to Mr. King, when the whole delegation were together, regularly convened, in contemplation of my absence, was to "declare that New York voted No."
_Second:_ That instead of confining himself to that duty, he began immediately upon my departure, and before the vote was demanded, to ask anew, "what vote should be given?" and when the vote was demanded, instead of voting No, "stated the case to the Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before."
_Third:_ That Mr. King"s colleagues, though they had just resolved, in expectation of my absence, that he should "declare that New York voted No," yet "before New York was called," and of course before any intimation from the Convention or its President, in answer to his question, "What vote shall be given?" replied, "that in Mr. Field"s absence, the vote was divided," and directed him so to declare.
_Fourth:_ That the Convention never "decided that no person could vote who was not present." Whatever was done, was done between the delegation and Mr. Tyler. No order was taken by the Convention, but, on the contrary, the objection on the part of the minority of the delegation was that "the Convention had no control or authority in the matter."
What caused this departure from the course of proceedings prescribed by the resolution does not clearly appear. The delegation did not rescind the resolution; the Convention did not reverse it. I do not understand that my a.s.sociates consider it a nullity--certainly they could not have so considered it when it was pa.s.sed. I have not sufficient evidence that they changed their minds within ten minutes, or that they have changed them yet. That the resolution was not a nullity, but an authoritative act, binding upon every member of the delegation, until duly reconsidered, I believed then, and believe still.
I submit, therefore, that my reason for attending court, at its opening, was not only sufficient but imperative; and if I had not yielded to it, I should have incurred the reproach of my clients, and the censure of all right-thinking men; that before I left the Convention, I did not only all that could have been done, but all that was necessary, to make the vote of New York certain against the proposed amendments of the Const.i.tution; and that the omission to record the vote of New York as it was ordered, was owing not to any act or omission of mine, but to the efforts of the minority of the delegation, or some of them, to prevent an expression of the opinion of the majority, and to the failure of my a.s.sociates of the majority to execute in my absence what had been resolved when I was present.
It is certainly with regret that I write this note. My preference was for a statement in which we all could join, but my a.s.sociates refused to enter into any joint relation of the facts.
I hope, also, it will not be inferred from any thing I have written, that I do not regret the omission to record New York as voting against what appeared to me an unwise and pernicious proposition. Though the importance of the vote has been greatly magnified, and the result in my opinion would not have been different if the vote of New York had been counted, as I believe some of the States not voting would, if necessary, have voted in the affirmative; and even if it had been otherwise, I think the action of the Convention was of no importance whatever; yet, I should wish this State, of which we are so proud, to appear always, even in a matter of ceremony, on the side of Freedom; ever loyal to the Const.i.tution as it is, but against placing there a guaranty to slavery beyond the guarantees of our fathers.
DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.
NEW YORK, _March 20th, 1861._
I.--_Extract from the Minutes of the New York Delegation, kept by their Secretary._
"WEDNESDAY, _February 27th, 1861._
"New York delegation met in the room, and Mr. Wadsworth moved that the New York delegation vote No on each of the sections of the committee"s report. Messrs. Corning, Bronson, Granger, Wool, and Dodge opposed, urging that the vote of New York be given on each section as it was called. The majority overruled, and decided to have the Chairman declare that New York voted No on each section.
"The question on the first section being called, Mr. King stated that one of the members of the delegation being called away to the United States Court, the delegation had taken a vote before he left, and he appealed to the justice of the Convention to have it so cast, stating that the vote of the delegation had been so cast on the previous day.
"The Convention decided that no person could vote who was not present.
"The delegation was divided."
II.--_Letter from the Chairman of the Ma.s.sachusetts Delegation._
"WASHINGTON, _March 8th, 1861._
"MY DEAR SIR:--Your favor of the 6th instant is before me. After alluding to the fact that "my seat in the Peace Convention was at the table directly under the President"s chair, between him and the New York delegation," you desire me to inform you what took place, on the occasion of the vote of New York being called on the morning of the 27th February. What I observed was this:
"When the vote of New York was called for, Governor King rose and stated in substance that you had a short time before left the Convention to argue a case in the Supreme Court, which had been a.s.signed for that morning, and asked the permission of the Convention to give the vote of the State in your absence, the same as though you were present. To this one of the Commissioners, Mr. Corning I think it was, objected, saying that the vote of New York was to be given as her Commissioners who were present should decide, and that the Convention had no control or authority in the matter. Some conversation was then had between the Commissioners who favored and those who opposed the pending proposition, which I did not hear with sufficient distinctness to understand, and in a minute or two Governor King announced that the vote of New York was divided.
"This is the substance of what occurred, so far as I observed it.
"With great respect, your friend,
"J.Z. GOODRICH.
"To David Dudley Field, Esq., New York."
III.--_Letter to the Secretary of the Convention._
"NEW YORK, _March 4th, 1861._
"DEAR SIR:--Was any resolution pa.s.sed by the Convention on Wednesday, the 27th of February, respecting the right of New York to vote, or affecting the vote of that State in the absence of any of her Commissioners? On one side I am told that there was such a resolution pa.s.sed, or vote taken, in my absence; on the other side, I am told that there was not. If one was pa.s.sed, will you do me the favor to give me a copy of it, and oblige
"Yours truly,
"DAVID DUDLEY FIELD.
"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT, Esq., &c., &c."
IV.--_The Secretary"s Answer._
No. 135, WILLARD"S, WASHINGTON, _March 5th, 1861._
"DEAR SIR:--I have your letter. When New York was called, the inquiry was made whether an absent member could vote, stating that one member of that delegation was absent. The President stated that an absent member could not vote. New York was stated divided, and did not vote.
"Respectfully, &c.,
"CRAFTS J. WRIGHT."
V.--_Extract from the Journal of the Convention._
"_February 27th, 1861._
"The question on the adoption of said section resulted in the following vote:
"YEAS.--Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9.
"NAYS.--Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia--8.
"So the section was adopted.
"On calling New York, the members stated that one of their number was absent, and the delegation were divided. Inquiry was made of the President whether an absent member could vote. The President decided he could not, without general leave.
"New York, Indiana, and Kansas were divided."
_To the Legislature of the State of New York:_