and true, and I will accept them. I will sustain them to the end. If they are wrong-and I now believe them to be-I will never sustain them, and I will show my faith in GOD by leaving the consequences with Him.

Any substantial change in the fundamental principles of government is revolutionary. Yours may be a peaceable one, but it is still a revolution. The seceded States are in armed revolution. You are in direct alliance with them. You say the Government shall not retake the forts, collect the revenue, and you ask us to aid you in preventing the Government from doing its duty.

Permit this, and the judgment of the world will be that we have submitted to the inauguration of your principles as the principles of the Government. It would exhibit a weakness from which the country could never hope to recover. These are reasons satisfactory enough to me. I cannot vote for the first article.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:-Do you wish to get the seceded States back?

Mr. WILMOT:-Certainly I do.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:-How do you propose to do it?

Mr. WILMOT:-I cannot say that I have any special way. It is their duty to return. There are better methods of coercing them than to march our army on to their soil. Now I understand it is your purpose to intrench slavery behind the Constitution.

Mr. RUFFIN:-Certainly. That is true-in a certain portion of the Territories.

Mr. WILMOT:-I thought I was not mistaken. The Government has long been administered in the interest of slavery. The fixed determination of the North is, that this shall be no longer.

Mr. HOUSTON :-Will the gentleman hazard the assertion that such has been the policy of Tennessee, Maryland, or Delaware?

Mr. WILMOT:-I did not intend to say more than that such has been the general policy of the Government. Another objection to the proposed amendment is its ambiguity. Its construction is doubtful, when it should be plain. Don't let us differ

when we go home. If we do we shall settle nothing. Some will claim that the first article does not furnish a slave code. Others will claim that it does, and such I think is a fact. I am also opposed to the second article. I do not think it is right thus to bind posterity. I am opposed to the third article, except the first clause. If you think there is really a purpose at the North to interfere with slavery in the States, I am willing a declaratory amendment should be adopted prohibiting such interference. I like that of Mr. FIELD much better. I can go for that with all my heart.

As to the foreign slave trade we ask nothing. The laws are well enough as they are, if properly enforced. Besides, you make too much of it. You will claim hereafter that this formed one part of the compromise. It will amount to nothing.

Mr. BARRINGER:-But the South wants the foreign slave trade prohibited.

Mr. WILMOT:-Do not the statutes prohibit it? Why not enforce them?

Mr. BARRINGER:-We had rather have the prohibition in the Constitution.

Mr. WILMOT:-I am opposed also to abrogating the power of Congress over the District of Columbia. I hope to see slavery abolished in the District.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:-Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania abide by the decision in the Dred Scott case?

Mr. WILMOT:-Certainly, so far as it decides what is in the record.

Mr. SEDDON :-You will not permit it to settle the principle?

Mr. WILMOT:-I will not, any more than Virginia would accede to the decision upon the Alien and Sedition Laws. I will be frank and go farther. If the Court had undertaken to settle the principle, I would do all I reasonably could to overthrow the decision.

Mr. SEDDON :-My voice has failed me to-day, and I do not know that I can speak in audible tones, but I will try.

I understand the gentleman who last addressed us to say, that there are to be incorporated into the administration of the Government two new principles: one is, that there shall be no

slavery in the territories; the other is, that the action of the Government shall be on the side of freedom. And furthermore, that slavery is to be regarded as a purely local institution, and that slaves are not to be regarded as property anywhere except in the slave States. Now, that was just the way in which I interpreted the action of the North in the last election, and it is precisely this view which has led to the secession of the States. The gentleman well understands that a different view of their rights under the Constitution prevails among the Southern people. Will he also understand and recognize the fact, that the Supreme Court has clearly given the sanction of its opinion to the Southern construction?

Mr. WILMOT:-Ought not the action of the Government under WASHINGTON to be a precedent of some weight in our fa vor?

Now the North

Mr. SEDDON:-I cannot accede to that. has inaugurated this policy. We of the South say it is a subversion of the Constitution. The gentleman must as freely admit that the party just coming into power must of necessity be a Northern party. It can have no affiliation with any party at the South. Now I ask, can we, as a matter of policy or justice, whose rights are so vitally involved, sit by and see this done? Slavery is with us a democratic and a social interest, a political institution, the grandest item of our prosperity. Can we in safety or justice sit quietly by and allow the North thus to array all the powers of the Government against us?

The hour of one o'clock having arrived, the PRESIDENT announced that under the resolutions adopted by the Conference, general debate must cease, and the Conference would proceed to vote upon the report of the General Committee, and various amendments proposed thereto.

Mr. FIELD:-I rise to a question of privilege. What was done by the Conference with the credentials of the gentleman from Kansas?

The SECRETARY:-The practice heretofore has been, to consider a gentleman a member, when the Committee on Credentials report in his favor.

Mr. FIELD:-Then I move to reconsider the action of the Conference in this case.

Mr. PRICE:-I rise to a question of order. The committee have reported in favor of Mr. STONE, and that is conclusive. The PRESIDENT:-I think the Conference has a right to pass upon, the credentials.

Mr. FIELD:-I have a serious objection to the admission of the gentleman from Kansas. He holds the commission of the Secretary of the Territory alone, from a man who has never been appointed Governor. It is very irregular. It looks as though the gentleman was sent here only for the purpose of giving the vote of Kansas to certain propositions.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:-The delegate comes here with an appointment under the seal of the State of Kansas. The act admitting Kansas provides that all the territorial officers shall exercise jurisdiction until others are elected. I think it is in very bad taste for the gentleman from New York to question the regularity of the appointment.

Mr. WICKLIFFE :-I make a point of order. We have de cided to proceed to the vote at this time.

The PRESIDENT:-I think this is a privileged question. Mr. HOUSTON:-I respectfully appeal from the decision of the PRESIDENT.

Mr. MOREHEAD:-I move to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. FIELD:-I ask for a vote by States.

The PRESIDENT:-It is somewhat difficult to decide what motion has precedence. What was the motion of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. FIELD:-I moved a reconsideration of the action of the Convention admitting Mr. STONE. Let us have a vote on that motion. It is as good a test as any.

Mr. MOREHEAD:-I insist that the question is upon my motion to lay the whole subject on the table.

The question was taken upon the motion of Mr. MOREHEAD, with the following result:

AYES.-Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia-10.

NOES.-Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont-9.

Mr. CLAY:-I would ask, as a matter of courtesy, not to say

of common decency, that Mr. STONE may be permitted to state how and why he came here.

Mr. STONE, of Kansas :-I understand that I was appointed by the Secretary of Kansas, who was at the time the Acting Governor. I understand that the appointment was made in accordance with the Enabling Act of Kansas. I am not inclined to argue my right to a seat in the Conference.

Mr. FIELD:-I wish to ask the gentleman only one question. Was not Governor ROBINSON actually in possession of his office before the delegate received his appointment, and is he not in such possession now?

Mr. STONE:-He was, and is.

Mr. ALEXANDER :--I call for the reading of the fourth Rule.

The fourth Rule was read by the Secretary, as follows:

4TH RULE.-A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without special leave, upon the same question; and not a second time, before every other who has been silent shall have been heard, if he chooses to speak upon the subject.

Mr. FIELD :—In order to bring the subject fairly before the Conference, I will put my motion in the form of a resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That the credentials of Mr. STONE, who desires to act as a Commissioner from Kansas, be referred back to the Committee on Credentials, with instructions to that committee to report the facts concerning his appointment, and whether it proceeded from the Territorial Secretary.

Mr. SUMMERS:-I wish the Committee on Credentials to stand right with the Conference. We accepted the commission of the Acting Governor as prima facia correct.

Mr. VANDEVER:-I wish to offer a resolution.

Mr. GUTHRIE:-All resolutions are out of order.

The PRESIDENT:-I think resolutions under the ruling of the Conference cannot now be considered.

Mr. CURTIS :-I ask leave for the State of Iowa to vote on the motion to lay the subject of the admission of the delegate from Kansas on the table.

The motion was granted, and Iowa being called, voted No; and the vote stood: Ayes, 10; Noes, 10. And so the motion was lost.