A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention. L. E. Chittenden
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 Saturday. 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 embarrasses 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 assurances 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, Massachusetts, 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 trespass 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 constitutional provision. Some of the most important constitutional 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 Constitution 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 Constitution, 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 Constitution, 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 Constitution, 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 Constitution, 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 Constitution 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