The amendment offered by Mr. SEDDON was rejected by the following vote:

AYES.-Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri-3.

NOES.-Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas—18.

Mr. CRISFIELD-Maryland votes "No," not because she specially objects to the amendment, but she stands by the report of the committee.

Mr. DENT:-I dissent from the vote of Maryland.

Mr. CLAY:-And I from the vote of Kentucky.

Mr. HALL, of Vermont :-I move to amend the third section by striking out the word "nor," immediately succeeding the words "persons so bound to labor," and inserting the following:

"But the bringing into said District of persons held to service, for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pass all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor shall Congress have."

It is well known that much of the agitation upon the question of slavery has formerly arisen from the existence of the slavetrade in the District of Columbia. Since the prohibition of 1850, the public mind has been much more quiet, so far as this subject is concerned. I suppose the committee did not intend to change the law of 1850, but I fear their action will not be so understood at the North. I propose to make the matter clear. [Mr. HALL here read the section of the Act of 1850 referring to this subject.] My amendment puts the language of this act into the Constitution. My only purpose is, to have this question left in exactly its present position. Without the amendment, I fear it will be claimed that the article restores the slave-trade in this District. Nothing would more effectually destroy the article at the North.

Mr. WHITE:-The language of the report is clear. It gives no right to sell slaves in the District.

* The published Journal states that Mr. ALEXANDER dissented from the vote of New Jersey. My notes do not show that he dissented, and I think the Journal may be erroneous in this particular.

Mr. HALL :-I wish to be understood. The article prohibits Congress from interfering with slavery. Ergo, it will be claimed they cannot prohibit the exercise of any of its functions. The construction, to say the very least, will be doubtful. It should not be left in doubt.

Mr. NOYES:-The slave-trade in the District of Columbia has always been a subject of great dissatisfaction. I don't know that it is considered of much importance in the South, but at the North it always has been. Ten years ago it was abolished by act of Congress. I fear that unless the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont is adopted, the effect of the committee's report will be to restore the slave-trade in the District. The section reported by the committee permits any person to bring his slaves into the District; to retain them there as long as he chooses, and to take them away. It recognizes the right of absolute dominion. It secures it effectually. It imposes upon the soil of the District the right of holding, retaining, and taking away the slaves by the owner himself, his agent or assignee. The slave-trade, in my judgment, is thus restored.

Mr. GUTHRIE :-I am satisfied that the article reported by the committee is not susceptible of misconstruction, and I hope we shall not mar the report by adopting the amendment. Our intention was only to permit public officers to bring their servants here.

Mr. AMES:-Two words will cure all this difficulty. The insertion of the words "for personal service only."

Mr. GUTHRIE:-We have no intention of reviving the slave-trade in the District. I have no more to say.

Mr. DODGE:-I hope this section will not be left in doubt. When I first read it I said to myself, "This thing will never do; it will bring the slave-trade back to the District."

Mr. AMES:-Will the gentleman from Vermont accept my amendment?

Mr. HALL:-No. I cannot accept it. I offer the amendment in good faith, for I believe it necessary.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of North Carolina :-Cannot we avoid the verbiage of the amendment?

Mr. EWING:-I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont, so that I can vote for that proposed by Mr. AMES.

The vote upon Mr. HALL'S amendment being taken by States, resulted as follows:

AYES.-Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas-11.

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

And the amendment was adopted.

Messrs. HOPPIN and BROWNE, of Rhode Island, dissented from the vote of that State.

Mr. MCCURDY:-I move to amend the original article of the committee's report by the addition of this proviso. My object is to prevent the sale of slaves in the waters of New York or any other port:

"Provided, That nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent any States in which involuntary servitude is prohibited, from restraining by law the transfer of such persons, or of any right or interest in their services, from one individual to another, within the limits of such State."

Mr. GUTHRIE:-I insist there is not the slightest necessity for this amendment. I hope gentlemen will stop interposing these useless propositions; they confound the sense of the article, and we are guarding against questions which by no possibility can arise.

The vote was then taken on the amendment of Mr. MCCURDY, and resulted as follows:

AYES.-Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas-11.

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

And the amendment was agreed to.

Messrs. LOGAN and PALMER, of Illinois, dissented from the vote of that State.

Mr. HOWARD:-I would ask the gentleman from Connecticut if he ever knew or heard of a case where a slave was sold in a free State?

Mr. MCCURDY:-I do not intend to argue that question; but as I am appealed to, although the proviso is adopted, I will state the grounds on which it rests.

Mr. CLAY:-I wish to know whether the object of the

amendment is to prevent the making of contracts connected with the purchase or sale of slaves in the free States?

Mr. MCCURDY:-My object is apparent from the amendment. It explains itself. I wish to prohibit any transactions concerning the purchase or sale of slaves, either within the free States or the navigable waters connected therewith, or under free State jurisdiction. If there were no such prohibition, a cargo of slaves might be brought from the coast of Africa into the port of New York, and transferred there to parties residing in the slave States. The free States have a right to direct what shall, and what shall not be a subject of commerce within their limits. I presume it is not intended that the Constitution shall prohibit the exercise of this right. I desire not to leave this open to construction, but to make the section declare that no such intention exists.

Mr. GUTHRIE:-I am now satisfied that we shall get nothing here that is satisfactory to the people of the south side of the river. We are continually waylaid by suspicions, which are unjust, unfounded, and ought not to exist. If this class of amendments is to be adopted, I cannot go on, with respect to myself or the Convention. I feel now, since this amendment is adopted, that my mission here is ended.

Mr. REID :-I move to insert at the end of the third article reported by the committee these words: "Persons of the African race shall not be deemed citizens, or permitted to exercise the right of suffrage, in the election of federal officers."

Mr. GUTHRIE :-This is worse than ever, and it comes from the South too.

Mr. REID :-I will withdraw it then.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:-I ask the unanimous consent of the Conference to move the adoption of the previous question. We may as well come to the point now as ever. There is no use of discussing this question any longer. I move the previous question upon the report.

Objections and cries of "No, no," were made by several

members.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:-I will withdraw the motion.

Mr. TURNER:-I think it would be very unreasonable for any gentleman to expect that we were to get through with the

questions presented by this report without the exercise of mutual forbearance. The adoption of an amendment implies no disrespect to the committee. No member of the committee should take it in that sense. I will move a reconsideration of the vote by which the last amendment was adopted. I do not think we had better take the vote now, but pass the subject for the present.

The PRESIDENT:-It can be passed by common consent.

The vote was reconsidered without a division, and the immediate consideration of the question passed.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:-I now renew the offer of my substitute for the third section of the article reported by the committee.

Mr. FIELD:-I thought when the motion to reconsider the vote upon Mr. MCCURDY's amendment was agreed to, it was understood that the consideration of the whole section was to be passed for the present. My vote upon that amendment was given deliberately, and I have no idea that this Convention is to break up because a vote is passed in it which is distasteful to any man, State, or delegation.

Mr. HITCHCOCK :-I think I must insist upon the consideration of my substitute.

Mr. BROWNE:-I move to lay the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Ohio on the table. If that motion is carried, I do not understand that the effect of it is to lay the report of the committee on the table.

Mr. SMITH :—I rise to a question of order. I think the question now should be on Mr. MCCURDY's amendment. I ask for information. I do not quite see how that amendment can be informally passed over without at the same time passing the consideration of the whole article.

The PRESIDENT:-It was passed by universal consent.

Mr. CHASE:-As I understand it, the gentleman from Illinois made the motion that the vote be reconsidered, and the consideration of the amendment passed for the present, and this was agreed to by the Conference unanimously.

The motion of Mr. BROWNE to lay the motion of Mr. HгTCHCOCK on the table, was agreed to without a division.