Mr. BALDWIN :-I :nove to strike out these words in the third section: "Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons bound to labor than on land." I have already stated that I think this language singularly inappropriate to a provision of the Constitution. The Constitution already prohibits such distinctions in the laying of taxes, and, therefore, there is no necessity for the adoption of this clause. But I have another and more important objection to it; it contains and proposes to place in the Constitution the distinct recognition of the right of property in slaves. This recognition was carefully avoided in the Convention which framed the Constitution, and the North always has been, and always will be, opposed to any such recognition. Place it there, and your article will never be adopted in any of the free States.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:-The first statutes passed by Congress on this subject recognized the right to tax slaves. This implied. the right to hold slaves. This recognition of the right of taxation was made in express terms. The gentleman has forgotten the history of the legislation on this subject. The object of the committee is to prevent any possibility that those who come after us should make any distinction between these classes of property in levying taxes. We do not seek a recognition of the right of property in slaves in this; that right is already recognized to our satisfaction in the Constitution.

Mr. TUCK :-I understand the gentleman from Kentucky, and I think he is right. If we adopt the article at all we ought to retain this language.

The vote was taken by States on the amendment proposed by Mr. BALDWIN, with the following result:

AYES.-Maine, Massachusetts, and Connecticut-3.

NOES.-New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri-18.

Mr. PRATT dissented from the vote of Connecticut.

Messrs. NOYES and SMITH also dissented from the vote of New York.

Mr. FOWLER-I move to strike out the words "without the consent of Maryland," immediately following the words "service in the District of Columbia."

I can see no necessity for requiring the consent of Maryland to the abolition of slavery in the District. There is no more reason for it than for requiring the consent of Maine, or any other State. By the cession of the District to the United States Maryland has parted with all power over it, and the exclusive power of legislation is given to Congress. The District has become the common property of the Union as much as any of the Territories, and ought to be controlled in the same way.

Mr. CRISFIELD:-I hope this amendment will not prevail. The District is almost surrounded by the Territory of Maryland. The abolition of slavery in it would be very destructive to our interests and property. To convert the District into free territory would offer a direct invitation to our slaves to abscond and go into the District. Even if the rendition clause of the Constitution was faithfully observed and carried out, it would involve us in much expense and difficulty. If we are required to maintain faith with the Government, the Government must keep faith with us.

Mr. FOWLER:-I did not suppose my motion would meet with such serious objections. If they exist I will withdraw it.

Mr. BATES:-I have an amendment to propose, which I think will improve the language of the section, and make it more consonant with that used in the Constitution. I move to amend the third section by striking out the word "bound " wherever it occurs therein, and inserting in its place the word "held;" also to insert after the words "to labor" wherever they occur, the words "or service."

The amendments proposed by Mr. BATES were adopted without a division.

Mr. CARRUTHERS :-I propose to amend the section as it stands after the adoption of the amendments of Mr. BATES, by inserting between the words "or" and "service" where they occur in that connection, the word "involuntary."

Mr. EWING:-I had rather leave out the word "involuntary;" it would look better. As the section now stands, both voluntary and involuntary service are included.

Mr. CARRUTHERS :-By the insertion of the words "service" in Mr. BATES' amendment, one portion of my purpose is accomplished. I will withdraw my motion.

Mr. GROESBECK:-I would ask if it is now in order to move a substitute for the whole section. I have one which meets my wishes, and which, I think, will meet the views of, and be acceptable to, the Conference.

Mr. CRISFIELD:-I do not think it is in order to offer a substitute at the present time.

Mr. GROESBECK:-Then I will call it a motion to strike out and insert, which, certainly, is in order. I, therefore, move to strike out the whole of the third section and insert the following:

SECTION 3. Congress shall have no power to abolish or control within any State the relations established or recognized by the laws thereof respecting persons held to service or labor therein.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have no power to legislate respecting the relation of service or labor in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, but within States where that relation is established or recognized, and while it continues, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of such States; nor abolish or impair such relation in the District of Columbia, without the consent of Maryland, and compensation to persons to whom such service or labor is due.

SECTION 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal from any State or Territory of persons held to service or labor therein, to any other State or Territory in which persons are so held; and the right during removal of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist, but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory without its consent. No higher rate of taxation shall be imposed on persons so held than on land.

Three objects are sought to be obtained by the third section as proposed by the committee: one is, the declaration that Congress has no power over slavery in the States; the second, that Congress shall not legislate respecting slavery in territory under its jurisdiction, but within the limits of States, without the consent of such States, nor abolish slavery in the District without the consent of Maryland; the third concerns the subject of the removal of slaves from place to place. It is desirable that these three subjects should be so presented that one or more of them may be adopted, and the others rejected; a purpose that cannot be accomplished if they are all embraced in the same section. My substitute is plain and simple, and I think covers the whole ground.

Mr. ROMAN:-Has not the gentleman entirely left out the

provision relative to bringing slaves into the District of Columbia?

Mr. GROESBECK:-I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary. Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within the District cannot be taken from the owner under any authority of Congress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensation would in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, or elsewhere. Under the Constitution, slavery cannot be abolished without compensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in the subject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolish slavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner.

Mr. SEDDON :-The owner should always have compensation, it is true; but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property in slaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalent for the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself the question whether he will part with his property upon receiving suitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this right would be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is a farther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The North denies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensation also, unless compelled to make it under the Constitution. The North holding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolish the institution without paying for it.

Mr. GROESBECK:-I am willing to amend Section 4 of the substitute I offer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relation without making compensation, and the section may be thus considered.

Mr. DODGE:-I wish to support the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK; and let me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; we should use language which common men can understand, and which does not require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have some confidence in each other.

Mr. BARRINGER:-There is another entire and important omission in Mr. GROESBECK's proposition: there is no provision whatever for the Territories.

Mr. DENT:-I think the Conference had much better adhere

to the section reported by the committee as it has been already amended. We have all read and studied that section. We understand it. A State that will not adopt the whole of the section will not adopt any part of it, and so there is no use in severing the subjects provided for. I am opposed to the adoption of the substitute. We understand the original article better than we can any other.

Mr. WILMOT:-I think the original proposition the best; the word "regulate" has been struck out of it, leaving only the words "impair or abolish."

Mr. MCCURDY:-I ask leave to revive my motion. I regret having withdrawn it. I think I have the right to renew it now. The PRESIDENT (Mr. ALEXANDER in the chair) :—The motion of the gentleman from Connecticut is out of order.

Mr. CRISFIELD:-I understand we are now considering the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. GROESBECK). If so, I move to insert in his proposition after the word "abolish" the words "or impair."

Mr. GROESBECK:-I think the amendment improves it. I will accept it.

Mr. CHASE:-There is, certainly, a misunderstanding as to the effect of the vote laying the amendment offered by Mr. Hгтснсоск uроn the table: it was offered as a substitute to the HITCHCOCK upon third section; if it did not carry the whole section to the table, then motions to amend that section are in order. In that view, I think Mr. McCURDY's motion is in order either way: to amend the article proposed by the committee, or to amend the amendment of Mr. GROESBECK.

Mr. RANDOLPH:-I think Mr. MCCURDY's motion is entirely out of order; it has once been passed by informally.

Mr. CLEVELAND:-Is it not in order at any time to make a motion which will render the proposed substitute more perfect?

Mr. McCURDY:-I do not wish my proposition ruled out upon any technical construction of rules. I will now move it as an addition to the third section.

Mr. FOWLER:-I move to reconsider the vote adopting the motion proposed by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. HALL). Mr. FIELD:-I oppose the motion. The amendment is