should raise a thousand troublesome questions by putting these words "shall be protected" into the Constitution. The matter is well enough as it is. Our rights in this respect are well enough protected by the ordinary course of national diplomacy. I would not be willing to put into the Constitution language which would embarrass us hereafter.

Mr. SEDDON :-I will frankly say that I think slave property upon every ground is as well entitled to the national protection as any other species of property.

Mr. BARRINGER:-This amendment brings up the very gist of the matter. The question of the right of our property to Federal protection is now an open one. In the case of the Creole it was settled by negotiation, and not by the courts. The question so often hinted at and suggested in this Conference is now fairly brought up for decision. Governor CHASE struck at the very root of the matter the other day, when he said that slavery was an abnormal condition. He laid down the opinion of the North. He is a statesman and a lawyer. He says that slavery cannot exist anywhere until it is established or authorized by law. This is the Northern idea, and it is a technical one. I hate technicalities almost as bad as I do sectionalism. The North deals in both. I regret to speak in these terms of the North, but I must if I speak truth. Now, I will lay down what is the opinion of the South upon the subject. We say that the right to hold and use slave property, always, everywhere, exists until it is prohibited by law. We say that it is a natural right, which grows out of the very necessities of society. We hold that the condition of slavery is a normal condition-not local at all; that it is found everywhere, except where it is forbidden by law. We claim that the right to hold slaves is a natural right, recognized by the law of nations, and of the world. I am quite aware that the North does not agree with our opinion.

Mr. VANDEVER:-I would ask whether this normal condition is confined to the blacks, or does it extend to all races ?

Mr. BARRINGER:-Most assuredly it is not confined to a single race. It extends to all races. Slavery of all races exists even in Europe.

Mr. FIELD:-Not now!

Mr. BARRINGER:-Perhaps not now, and why? For the

reason that it has been abolished by law, as in the recent case of Russia. Slavery once existed in the Northern States. By law it was also abolished in those States. We say that when slave property is on the high seas it ought to be protected—the rights of the owner ought to be protected.

This question came up in the case of the "Amistead." Mr. ADAMS claimed that although these slaves were recognized by the laws of Spain as property, yet, when once upon the high seas, they were, by the law of nations, free, and these slaves have never been paid for to this day.

This amendment is highly important to the South. The concession we ask is no greater than has been made before. In the treaties of 1783 and 1815, slaves were to be protected as property.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:-I do not wish to nullify the action, or change the course of our Government on this question. Slaves upon the high seas have always been recognized as property. Look at the treaty of 1815. That recognized slaves as property, and those which were taken from the District were paid for. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, took the same ground now taken by the North. The Government took the opposite ground. The question was ultimately referred to the Emperor of Russia, who decided that property in slaves must be recognized by the law of nations, and sustained our view. Take the "Creole" case also. But I will not go over the ground. The "Amistead" case stood upon grounds which were entirely different.

But it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Constitution. The rights of the South in this respect are well enough protected now.

Mr. GRANGER:-I regret that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia has again raised a question which was decided against him by a large majority in the Conference a few days ago.

Mr. SEDDON:-The gentleman is quite correct. The principle must be the same whether applied to the Territories or to the high seas.

Mr. GRANGER:-It is claimed by the South that slaves are property everywhere. Why, then, name slave property more than any other species in the Constitution?

Mr. BARRINGER:-We say that slaves are both persons and property.

The

Mr. GRANGER:-It has always been the course of the Government to pay for slaves taken on the high seas. gentleman has referred to the "Amistead" case as having been decided against the southern claim. I present the "Amistead" case as a perfect answer to the miserable calumnies which have been disseminated against that Court. The Judges in that case were unanimous with a single exception, and he was a Judge from a free State. We of the North upon these national questions are prepared to go with you to the extreme verge of right and loyalty.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina :-I have no desire to complicate these questions of international law. The treaties of 1783 and 1815 were participated in by JAY and the elder ADAMS. They expressly provided for the payment for slaves like other property. This is plain English, and settles the question so far as the North is concerned. I am for letting it alone where it is.

Mr. CRISFIELD:-I am not able to support this proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. I consider the right of property in slaves, in the slave States, and in the territory south of 36° 30', as fully recognized and established in the report of the majority of the committee. In this very clause this property is expressly admitted, and Congress is prohibited from interfering with it. This is enough-it is all that should be done. We have come here to settle our domestic troubles. The report of the committee recognizes and affirms these rights of the South which have heretofore been denied or doubted. . I think their report gives us all the assurance we need. We were not sent here to engraft new principles into our foreign policy, and I will not consent to enter upon that business. We have got this right of property specifically recognized, and no administration hereafter will refuse to carry out the plain provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. SEDDON :-Where in the article do you find this right recognized? It simply prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery within certain limits. Nothing beyond that.

Mr. CRISFIELD:-I find the recognition pervading the whole report. The right of transportation, for instance, is secured. Does not that involve, of necessity, a recognition of the right of property? I am sure the South is safe in leaving this question where the report leaves it.

The PRESIDENT:-The Conference will now proceed to the consideration of the order of the day, which is the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the substitute offered by Mr. SUMMERS, for the second section of the articles of amendment reported by the committee.

Mr. MCKENNAN:-At the request of one of my colleagues I would ask a postponement of the vote upon my motion of reconsideration for the present. It will produce no injurious result, and I think myself we had better hold this amendment subject to the future action of the Conference.

Mr. SUMMERS:-I will not withhold my consent to the postponement. But I hope the members of this Conference will consider my amendment, and give it their attention when it comes up again.

Mr. GUTHRIE:-If we pass Mr. SUMMERS' amendment, we should pass by the consideration of the whole section. I think that is the better way. Let us now proceed to the consideration of the third section in the article of amendment proposed by the committee.

The PRESIDENT:-Such will be taken as the pleasure of the Conference.

The third section was read.

The PRESIDENT:-The third section is open to propositions of amendment.

Mr. GUTHRIE:-I move to amend this section by striking out the words "by land, sea, or river," occurring after the words "or transportation."

Mr. GUTHRIE's motion was adopted without a division.

Mr. GUTHRIE:-I now move to insert after the words "during transportation," the words "by sea or river."

Which motion was also agreed to without a division.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:-I now move to amend the third section by striking out all after the word "give," in the second line thereof, and inserting as follows:

assumed that I could rely upon the printed copies distributed to the members, for the various amendments offered. At the period of writing out these notes communication with Mr. BROCKENBROUGH is impossible, and I am obliged to omit farther notice of his amendments. I am not even able to state the subjects to which they referred.

"to Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof, touching persons held to service or labor therein."

SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any person held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, under the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to impair any rights pertaining to that relation, under the laws now in force within the said District, while such relations shall exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of said State, and of those to whom the service or labor is due, or making them just compensation therefor; nor the power to prohibit or interfere with members of Congress and officers of the Federal Government whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them, for personal service only, retaining, and taking away persons so held to service or labor, nor the power to impair or abolish the relations of persons owing service or labor in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, within those States and Territories where such relations are established or recognized by law.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the United States to any State or Territory thereof where the same obligation or liability to labor or service is established or recognized by law; and the right during such transportation, by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, or landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist; nor shall the Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to service or labor than on land.

Although it may not be strictly in order, yet, as a part of my plan, I wish to bring forward a substitute which I shall offer to the seventh section of the committee's article, which, if adopted, should be numbered

SECTION 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases where the Marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous assemblage; or where, after such arrest, such fugitive shall be rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such service or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the same, the United States shall pay to such party the full value of such service or labor.

I offer these in separate sections, in order not only that the vote may be taken upon each one separately here, but also when the same questions come before the people. The first section of my amendment, as I understand from every quarter, sets all opposition at rest; all are willing to agree to it. This may be adopted and the others rejected, which could not be done if the original section was adopted. The other sections conform to the language of our present Constitution, and for that reason I think they will