1.1.1. THE QUESTION OF TAXATION

I believe, sir, when the Convention adjourned on Saturday, the pending question was to lay the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , on the table. As the Convention is very thinly attended this morning, I presume the gentleman who moved to lay the resolutions upon the table would withdraw it for the present. The present time is unpropitious for a discussion upon these resolutions, and it would be important, moreover, when we take a vote upon them, that the Convention should be tolerably full. If the gentleman will withdraw his motion I will renew it again if the gentleman desires.

I cannot withdraw the motion. My object in making it was to prevent any discussion which was calculated to create division and to throw a fire-brand in our midst. I think it would be very unwise and indiscreet to discuss this question at a time when we have other matters of great importance to consider. I am apprehensive that a discussion of this question now would lead to sectional strife and division, which would impair the influence of our action upon the great questions which more immediately led to our assembling here. I cannot withdraw my motion for the reasons which I have just stated.

The resolutions of Mr. WILLEY not being published in full on yesterday—only two of them being read—we give them to-day. They read as follows:

Resolved, That taxation should be equal and uniform throughout the Commonwealth, and that all property should be taxed in proportion to its value.

Resolved, That a committee of thirteen members be appointed to prepare and report to the Convention such alterations of sections 22 and 23 of Article IV. of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, as shall conform said sections to the principle of taxation enunciated in the foregoing resolution.

Resolved, That a committee of thirteen members be appointed to take into consideration so much of Article VI. of the Constitution of this Commonwealth, as relates to the Supreme Court of Appeals, the

District Courts, Circuit Courts, and County Courts; and that they report such amendments and modifications thereof as they may deem necessary and proper.

Resolved, That the basis of representation in the two Houses of the General Assembly should be the same; therefore be it further

Resolved, That a committee of twelve members, to be selected in equal numbers from the four great divisions of the State, be appointed to apportion representation in the Senate according to the number of the qualified voters in the Commonwealth, and that they report amendments of the IV. Article of the Constitution accordingly.

I rise to a question of order.

Under the rules adopted by this Convention for its government, it is not in order to transact any business until a quorum is present. With a view to ascertain whether a quorum is present, I move a call of the House. It is a matter of importance to the people of Virginia that they should be informed who are present and prepared to transact the business of the Convention, and who are not.

Will the gentleman withdraw his motion for a moment?

I cannot withdraw it. It is not competent for the Convention to discharge any business until a quorum is present.

A call of the House was then made, when the following gentlemen failed to answer to their names :

Messrs. Baldwin, James Barbour, Baylor, Blakey, Blow, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Bruce, Cabell, Carlile, Cecil, Chapman, Coffman, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, James Cox, Richard H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Dent, Dorman, Dulany, Echols, Fisher, Forbes, Graham, Gray, John Goode, Jr., Hale, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Hoge, Peter C. Johnston, Kindred, Lawson, Lewis, McComas, Macfarland, Chas. K. Mallory, Marshall, Marr, Marye, Sr., Miller, Montague, Morton, McD. MOORE, Nelson, Pendleton, Preston, Price, Randolph, Rives, Robert E. Scott, Sheffey, Sitlington, Southall, Staples, Alexander H. H. Stuart, Summers, Thornton, Tredway, Tyler, Waller, White, Willey, Williams, Wise.

1.1.2. EXPLANATION OF CAUSES OF ABSENCE

Mr. GOGGIN, when the name of Mr. GOODE, of Bedford, was called, said:

Mr. President, I desire to say that my colleague is necessarily absent because of illness.

Mr. PARKS, of Grayson, when the name of Mr. WALLER was called, said:

Mr. President, Mr. WALLER is necessarily absent on account of illness.

Mr. HOLLADAY, when the name of Mr. WHITE was called, said: That his colleague was unavoidably absent from the city.

Mr. President, I am requested by Mr. CARLILE to say that he was very anxious to attend the Convention this morning with a view to record his vote upon these resolutions. He is, however, prevented from being present by severe indisposition.

Mr. A. M. BARBOUR, when the name of Mr. JAS. BARBOUR was called, said :

Mr. President, Mr. BARBOUR is absent from the city. Even if here, I do not think the feeble condition of his health would justify him in sitting here during this long session.

Mr. PARKS, when the name of Mr. CECIL was called, said that he was absent on account of indisposition.

Mr. PARKS also presented, as an excuse for the absence of Mr. GRAHAM, that he was waiting on his sick colleague, Mr. CECIL.

Mr. SEAWELL, when the name of Mr. MONTAGUE was called, said :

Mr. President, Mr. MONTAGUE has been confined to his room from severe indisposition for several days. I have not seen him to-day, but I am satisfied his absence is caused by a continuance of that indisposition.

Mr. SEAWELL also represented that Mr. CHARLES K. MALLORY was necessarily absent.

The result of the call of the roll was announced as follows: Number present 85.

The mover of these resolutions is a member of the Committee on Federal Relations and necessarily absent.

It would not be altogether fair to him that we should proceed to consider them. To relieve the difficulty I move to pass by the unfinished business.

Before any motion is in order it is necessary to dispose of the question of the call of the roll. I move that further proceedings be dispensed with on that subject.

The motion was agreed to.

I now move that the matter under consideration be postponed for the present, to enable the mover of the resolutions to be present.

The pending motion is to lay on the table. That motion is not debatable.

I would again make an appeal upon personal grounds, to the gentleman from Campbell [Mr. SLAUGHTER] , to withdraw his motion to lay on the table.

Mr. President, I will yield to this appeal and withdraw my motion.

I desire to say a few words in relation to these resolutions.

It has been charged, sir, upon the North-western portion of the people, that I in part have the honor to represent, that they are Abolitionists, that they are unkind in their feelings towards the institution of slavery. Sir, if that were true I should not have a seat upon this floor. I am not only interested directly in the institution of slavery, but have vindicated it as one highly conservative; one that is ordained of God himself for the purpose of redeeming the African race from barbarism. I have said before my people again and again, that but for the opinions of the Christian world, and we must in some degree give way, I would be willing to see the last African picked up and brought under the influence of Christianity and civilization; and yet, sir, no opinions of this character that I have expressed before my people have militated against me or been objected to by them, whenever I sought their suffrages. It is unkind, therefore, to charge upon that people hostility to slavery. Let me tell you, sir, that your institution—that that particular property, and not only that, but every kind of property that you have is much safer in the care and keeping of that people that have been denounced as Abolitionists here, than in the care and keeping of that mixed crowd that you see on your streets here shouting in a disorderly manner and at unusual hours. Gentlemen may stir up an element here, sir, much more dangerous to the institution of slavery and to all their interests, than they possibly can stir up in the West. We are a calm, dispassionate people. We regard the rights of all, and if that institution is never injured until the people of North-western Virginia disturbs it, it will never be injured or disturbed.

It is true, sir, that they believe, honestly believe, that that peculiar property—slave property—ought to be taxed in common with all the other property of the Commonwealth. They believe in the doctrine that property that seeks the security of the laws of the land, should bear its equal proportion of the burdens of Government. It is a doctrine that they honestly believe, and one, sir, that they will never cease to insist upon until it is carried out. But, sir, I am not prepared to say that they will seek to get it by secession or revolution. They are a law-abiding people, and I doubt, sir, if ever they attempt to intimidate your representatives—I mean the representatives of Eastern Virginia—by threats of violence for expressing their honest opinion in any assemblage that may be called for the purpose of consulting upon the public weal. Sir, they are not disposed to threaten nor to revolutionize. They have been charged with being submissionists. Sir, in one sense of the .Page7 word, if it means submission to the laws of the land, they are submissionists. Sir, I have had occasion to look back a little to the history of the anti-submissionists, of the secessionists, in other words. They are not a recent party. I believe, sir, the first anti-submissionist was found in the original government given to our first parents. Eve, sir, would not submit to one single restraint; she rebelled against the government given to her by God himself. We in Northwestern Virginia are not prepared for revolution or secession. We view secession and revolution as dangerous expedients, while they may be resorted to in extreme cases. We acknowledge the right of revolution when all efforts to obtain our rights shall be exhausted, but not before. Sir, we look upon the robber and murderer as anti-submissionists, for they will never submit to the laws, and we regard them as the most precipitate secessionists of all others in the world, for the moment they commit their terrible crimes they fly precipitately away. We do not believe in any such system of secession as that. We desire to be a law-abiding people and are opposed to any course of action in conflict with that principle.

With regard to the resolutions now under consideration, I will say, that I am anxious that they shall be acted upon, and that this committee shall be raised, fairly raised, to consider the subject referred to in those resolutions. I know, sir, if the appointment of that committee is left to you it will be a fair and impartial committee. I trust, sir, that we shall have a committee to consider this delicate subject, and that measures will be inaugurated for the purpose of reconciling the East and West upon that delicate question, and that equal and full justice will be done to all the Western people.

Sir, they are unwilling to see partial legislation in reference to this institution, especially at a time when our interests have been so much disturbed in consequence of the rights of that peculiar property being disturbed or assailed. Let me say, sir, that we will stand by you to the last; we will stand by the principle of justice to the last; we will defend you against aggression from your enemies; but let me beg of you to remember that we have rights, that we are peculiarly sensitive upon this subject of equality. We may not have as much property as you, we may not have as much of that peculiar kind of property as you have, but we are unwilling to see one man pay $500 taxes and his neighbor pay $5 upon property of probably equal value. It is all right when assessed upon the ad valorem principle. Would you have your neighbor pay as much taxes as the man whose property, under the same assessment, would be far above his in value? It is unfair to require it. Sir, we are not all equal in property; we are not, in fact, equal in anything.

If we are a homogeneous community that ought to live in peace together, we ought to have a rule by which the burthens should fall in equal proportions upon all. I desired to say simply what I have said, to put myself right, and I trust it will be the pleasure of the Convention to raise a committee to take this subject into consideration. It may be that the committee could not act upon it during this session, but I wish the people of the West to know that this Convention has indicated a willingness to consider it. I offered a resolution a few days ago to raise a committee to which all resolutions relative to taxation should be referred. I have no choice, however, as to the form in which an enquiry shall be made, but I want it to be made; and if it shall be the opinion of a committee, fairly and impartially raised, that no action should be taken in the matter, why, I will submit.

I desire to say in relation to the remarks of my friend from Preston [Mr. BROWN] , that some of them seem to me to have been inappropriate to the present occasion. His remarks in relation to submission, would have been more appropriate, it seems to me, in discussing the question upon the resolutions reported by the Committee on Federal Relations.

But will my friend from Preston, while insisting that the North-West will not consent to occupy a position unequal to other portions of the State, maintain with equal firmness, that they will submit to no inequality in representation or taxation in the General Government? From what has taken place here, we are to infer that at least some of the gentlemen from the North-West are willing to submit to inequality in the Federal Union.

Now, sir, I am indisposed to submit to inequality either in the State or Federal Union. If my friend will carry out, in good faith, the plighted faith of North-Western, Eastern and Western Virginia—the plighted faith, pledged in the Convention of 1850 to leave this question undisturbed until 1865, I will meet my friend; and then if he shall satisfy me at that year it is necessary to consider whether or not any inequality exists as to taxation or representation; whether we may want a re-assessment of the value of lands that are rising so rapidly as that the best calculator cannot estimate their value, especially those lands in which the oil springs are situated, less than $1,000 or $2,000 an acre. And, perhaps, when we come to an adjustment of this question, we shall ascertain that we gain as much by a re-assessment of the lands in the West as we lose in Eastern Virginia by taxing slaves under twelve years of age.

I am sure that my friend does not mean to inflict any injustice on .Page9 Eastern Virginia. I am sure that he has taken the same view of this matter that has presented itself to the minds of many other Western men on this floor; but they, like him, will find their estimates of the advantages now looked for from the proposed change to turn out very differently from what they now imagine.

But, sir, it seems to me it would be a breach of faith on the part of Western Virginia to disturb this question before the year 1865.

Will my friend permit me to make an inquiry?

Certainly, sir.

Do I understand the gentleman as conveying the idea that the taxation question was to remain undisturbed until 1865?

I was under the impression that such was the understanding.

It was not, sir. The only question that was to be left undisturbed until 1865, was the basis of representation, and you know that, Mr. President?

It follows as a necessary consequence that taxation is not to be disturbed, because representation in the Senate is based upon taxation and population, while in the House of Delegates it is based upon population alone. When, therefore, they consider the question of representation, they will have to consider the question of taxation.

I understand, too, sir, from the "Examiner" of this morning, that the man who ought to be the representative of the whole Commonwealth—the man who ought to be the embodiment and representative of all the great interests and prosperity of every portion of the Commonwealth—has said that this Convention was convened with no view to the consideration of domestic matters. I suppose, sir, that when this Convention was called, no one dreamed that it was to consider any other matters than those that specially pertained to what I will call our international relations. And it would be grossly unjust, as it seems to me, when convened for a special purpose, for us to go into the consideration of other matters that are altogether foreign to the intentions of those who cast their votes for us at the polls, on the 4th of February last. But I repeat, if my friend and the gentlemen from the Northwest—I do not mean to impute to these gentlemen any want of patriotism, I have no reason to doubt that they are as patriotic as any other portion of the people of this Commonwealth—but, I repeat again, if the gentlemen who represent that portion of our State will give us what is suggested in one of the morning papers—although, according to my understanding, we are not authorized to enter into any such understanding—yet, I will shake hands with my friend, and say to him .Page10 that if he will give us an ordinance of secession, and go before his people pledging himself in good faith to make the effort to induce them to confirm that ordinance, I will go into a consideration of this question of taxation and representation. I will say for myself, sir, whether my constituents will endorse it or not, that if these gentlemen give me an ordinance of secession that shall be adopted by their people and the Commonwealth, they shall have taxation upon slaves under twelve years of age, and all slaves over that age shall be taxed according to their value.

I am unwilling, sir, to remain under a sense of inferiority, and am now in favor of this Commonwealth's resuming all the power that she delegated to a Government from which she can obtain no justice; nothing, in fact, but insults and injury. Shall we continue to allow the stamp of inferiority for ever to be put upon us, or shall we not rather now postpone the consideration of mere domestic questions and do something to relieve us from the degraded and degrading position of inferiority in which we are placed in this Federal Union? Sir, do you suppose that when we are not recognized as equals with these men at the North; when we see that these people that ought to be the same with us in feeling and interest, are, before the civilized world, declaring us their inferiors and unworthy of their association, do you suppose, sir, that the people of this Commonwealth ought to continue in association with that people under the same Government? For myself, I can hardly realize the possibility of their submitting to such a degradation. And yet I cannot doubt but that all here are convinced that they are occupying an inferior position in this confederacy. If they were not so convinced they could not consistently give countenance to a single resolution or proposition made by this Committee on Federal Relations. I say there is no gentleman in this Convention so stultified as not to recognize the fact that our rights have been invaded, our interests paralyzed, our honor infringed, by the Northern States of this confederacy. Let them come up and relieve us from this degraded condition that we occupy; and I say to the gentleman from the Northwest, that whatever is right and just shall be cheerfully conceded to his section. We ask our friends from the North-west to aid us in securing for the Commonwealth the position that she ought to occupy and we will yield all that is reasonable and just. Relieve all the great interests of the Commonwealth from the paralysis which has seized them; relieve the stagnation which has been brought upon the business of the people of Richmond, against whom my friend warns us as being more to be dreaded than the people of the North-West; I say, relieve these .Page11 great interests, and then we will enter into a consideration of the State question which seems to occasion peculiar trouble to the gentleman from the North-West. I fear, sir, that the inaction of this body will bring starvation upon the mechanics, operatives and laborers and their families, and the result will be that we shall breed riots in Richmond as there will be in Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York, before 60 days, as is now very well known.

That may come, sir, but it will only come from those people in the city of Richmond whose families are in a state of starvation, and who will rise in their strength to make a demand which may be respected. I hope, sir, my friend from Preston has had an opportunity of making the explanation he desired; that now, as two or three speeches have been made on the other side, and views of the gentlemen from the Northwest have gone and will now go before the country, that I may be allowed to renew the motion that this question be laid upon the table.

I trust that the gentleman will withdraw his motion for a moment.

Mr. FISHER withdrew his motion.

I trust that the gentleman mark of my friend from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , which casts some imputation upon the fair dealing of gentlemen upon this floor from the Northwest, in relation to the question of taxation. I do not understand —and if I had the Code of Virginia here containing the new Constitution of the State, I could show—that the present Constitution in any way attempts to interfere with the question of taxation in the future; that it only provided for the time and the manner in which the taxation was to be distributed. It only provides for a re-apportionment of representation in the year 1865,. and does not contemplate in its language, in any way whatever, that a Convention was to be held at that time. I do not presume that any gentleman for one moment proposes that any Convention, by its action, can bind the people of a State so as to prevent them, through their Legislature, from calling another Convention, whenever they desire to do so. In reply to the imputation against the gentlemen on this floor from the Northwestern portion of the State, I desire to call attention to the act of the Legislature calling this Convention together, the very language of which is susceptible of only one construction. The law says:

"At the same time the said Commissioners and officers shall open a separate poll to take the sense of the qualified voters as to whether any action of said Convention dissolving our connection with the Federal .Page12 Union, or changing the organic law of the State, shall be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection."

It is true the Legislature could not have control over the subjects which would be brought before the Convention when it was assembled; and a fair interpretation of this matter is that the Legislature intended —at least this was the view conveyed to the people of the West, and I think it is a fair interpretation of the act itself—that the Legislature contemplated when it concluded to call this Convention, that the organic law should be changed. I know nothing about any arrangement or understanding with the last Convention, and upon the face of the Constitution then adopted there is nothing to show that there was any understanding as to the future action of the North-West upon this question of taxation. And it is known by the gentlemen from the East that the people of the West have been agitating this question before the Legislature in order to obtain a new Convention for the purpose of discussing this question.

One more word, and I have done. The bid that the gentleman throws out, I, for one of the gentlemen from the North-West, cannot accept. I came here without reference to the question of taxation particularly, but to do what is my duty to promote the interests and welfare, and to preserve the honor of the State. That duty I will perform, under all circumstances, so far as I know how, but at the same time I should press, with whatever ability I was possessed of, other questions of more local interest which I deem of vital importance to the people I represent. Upon this question of Federal Relations I think that, in considering that question, we should look at it as common citizens of the whole State, with a view to the welfare and the honor of the entire Commonwealth; but when we come to consider other questions of local interest they should receive that degree of interest which their local importance demands. I would suggest to the gentleman that, before he tries to induce North-Western men to get sounder, he should find some inducement to hold out to his Eastern friends to make them come up to the mark. I think that if some gentlemen are a little low down on the question of States Rights, they are shaking hands with Eastern men who are equally as low down upon the subject as themselves.

But there is another suggestion which I wish to make in this connection. I rise to a point of order. It was submitted on Saturday. I do not know whether the question was decided or not. It was submitted that resolutions are now upon the table directly looking to this question, which resolutions I will call the attention of the Chair to. Those resolutions look precisely—only clothed in different language— .Page13 to the same result. They are upon the table, and before any resolutions, looking to the same object can be submitted, those resolutions on the table, of the same nature, must be taken up and amendments or substitutes offered to them. That is the point of order which I wish to make.

Mr. President, if the faith of the State was pledged by the action of the Convention in 1850 not to disturb this question of taxation until 1865 I want to know if the proposition that I understand the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] to make to the northwestern representatives in regard to this question, would not equally violate that faith? Why, sir, if we should succeed in making that bargain with the gentlemen from the northwest what would become of my friends from Pendleton and Halifax, Union men, representing the largest slaveholding counties in the State?

I have seen an intimation in the newspapers that a bargain was on foot between the Northwestern men and the Union men in Eastern Virginia; that if the Eastern men would go against Disunion the North-Western men would yield this question of taxation. I have never heard, except by that information through the newspapers, that any such bargain was on foot. But we hear it now submitted to the gentlemen of the Northwest, that if they will support an ordinance of secession, notwithstanding this plighted faith of the State in 1850 not to touch the subject, the gentleman from Northampton, and I presume those who agree with him on that question, are ready to disturb this question of taxation.

I wish to say that I have had no consultation with any man upon the subject. I speak for myself.

That is all I have to say upon this question. How can the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , insist that the gentlemen from the North-West shall not require a change, if he is willing to yield it himself, upon certain conditions. If the faith is pledged it equally binds us in the case of secession as in any other case. As the gentleman said, the bill provided for a change in the organic law. A great many gentlemen from the East voted against a reference of that question to the people. But there was a very large majority of the popular vote in favor of referring any action of the Convention to the people for ratification, whether an ordinance of secession be adopted, or any change be made in the Constitution. In my section of the State this question of Union and dis-union over-rode every other question. I am not now prepared to vote for any change in the organic law of the State. I am not committed, except so far as a representative is bound to remember the views of the majority of his fellow-citizens; further than that, I am in no way committed to the present Constitution. .Page14 I fought it in every way from its inception to its adoption. There are a great many provisions in it which I would like to see changed; but I am not prepared to interfere with the organic law at this time, unless some changes in the relation of your State are brought about rendering it necessary to interfere with it. I am willing to vote for a proposition for the appointment of a Committee to which all these resolutions shall be submitted, for the purpose of having them enquire into and report upon the subject. I suppose it is pretty well ascertained that we will have an adjourned session of this Convention. This Committee could be organized, and during the recess of this Convention they could be preparing a report, and in the meantime we would have an opportunity of consulting our constituents. And if the resolutions are so modified as to have them submitted to a Committee of enquiry, I would be very willing to vote for such a proposition as that.

Mr. President, I regret very much to have heard from gentlemen on this floor so much distrust manifested of the disloyalty of the people of that portion of the State which I have the honor to represent in this Convention.

In the course of the debate much has been said to the disparagement of the North-western portion of the State. I think it is time that the Western men in this body should defend their section of the Commonwealth. Sir, we have a record also as old as Virginia herself. That record has been one of steady and unceasing loyalty and devotion to the State.

I hope the gentleman did not understand me as wishing to cast any reflection on the Western section of the State.

I refer more particularly to the remarks of the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] . It is said that we are Abolitionists. It is true there are some Abolitionists in North-western Virginia, but I venture to assert that you have more Abolitionists in the city of Richmond than there are in the whole of my Congressional District. It is said we are a free-negro-loving people. This is unjust. We have a law upon the statute book providing that free negroes shall not be allowed to remain within the limits of the Commonwealth. The statistics show that in the tide-water, in the valley, and in the Piedmont districts, the free negroes have increased from three to twenty-two per cent. since 1850, while in the North-west they have decreased twenty-seven per cent. The number of free negroes has been decreasing in the North-western part of the State because we enforce the law requiring their removal, Which has been a dead letter so far as the Eastern part of Virginia is concerned.

Concerning the progress of improvements I will remind those gentlemen, that, for a quarter of a century we knocked at the door of your capitol, asking permission to build roads over our soil, with our own money, and for many years it was refused. At the same time the General Assembly was pouring out countless millions of money to make improvements in the Eastern portion of the State. If there is no community of interest between the two sections, it is because Eastern Virginia has refused us the means which were necessary to build the improvements that would bring it about.

We are told that it is a breach of faith to bring up this question of taxation at this time. Now I am willing to carry out in good faith, under all circumstances, and against all opposition, any plighted faith on the part of the people of the State of Virginia. I say, sir, this question of equal taxation ought to be calmly reflected upon. We should not let our passions over-rule our judgment. We ought to look at the facts as they exist. We have an extensive and valuable property in Eastern Virginia, a large portion of which is now exempt from taxation. Our whole country is jeopardized and threatened. Threatened by what? By the negro interest. It was the African slave that brought on the present dangerous condition of our affairs; and, my word for it, Mr. President, and I will make this prediction here to-day, that if something is not done to make taxation more equal we will soon have a conflict, a dire and awful conflict in Virginia. Not a conflict between the people of the sea-coast and of the mountains, but an irrepressible conflict, I fear, between the laboring man and the slave owner.

Look at our tax laws. A man who toils day by day for his daily bread, and if his wages amount in the year to five hundred dollars (I believe) he is heavily taxed; while opulent slaveholders, resting upon pampered wealth and fortune own a valuable property in young negroes that is not taxed. Is that just and equitable? The slaveholder is exempt, while the laboring man is burdened with taxes. Shall the laboring man continue to groan and groan under taxation, and the slaveholder enjoy his valuable property, without being subject to at least equal taxation. The people of Virginia will say no. I think that this matter should be looked to; it is a subject of vast importance to the laboring men of the Commonwealth. If our existing difficulties shall yet assume the worst aspect, and this peculiar kind of property, slaves I mean, shall be the means of bringing war upon us, that which has been the means of producing the difficulty, ought to be taxed to the same extent as other property. I understand from the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. EARLY] , that there is some bargaining between the .Page16 Eastern and Western portion of Virginia, involving the questions of secession and taxation.

Will the gentleman allow me to explain. I said I saw some intimation in the newspapers that there was a bargain, but that I had heard of no such thing among the members of this body. I utterly repudiated the idea that there was any such bargain in existence as that to which reference has been made among members of this Convention.

I will shake hands with the gentleman from the county of Franklin upon that subject. I have come here with the determination that so far as I am concerned, whatever will preserve the honor and interest of Virginia shall be done. I have come here prepared to use all my efforts to sustain the interests equally of all parts of Virginia. More true and more loyal friends of the negro interest are no where to be found than in the Western part of the State. But if we are to fight the battles of that interest, we contend that they should be subjected to the same rule of taxation as other property. We have no bargain to make, no measure to propose, but such as we believe will best promote the interest of Virginia. If she is to remain in the Union, we remain; but if we can get the proper assurances that our rights shall be respected and protected, we see no reason why we should sever. We do not wish to be hasty. We believe that with deliberation we can guide our Ship of State and steer her safely to the shore. We are disposed to deliberate; we are disposed to investigate the whole subject thoroughly and perfectly; we are inclined to exhaust all possible, all legal, all constitutional and honorable means to correct the evils and adjust the existing differences. If, after all our efforts, that cannot be done, then the time will arrive for us to assume a different position.

Mr. President, I merely wished to make a few remarks on the subject of taxation, and to do what I thought was necessary in order to place in a proper position the North-western portion of Virginia. I will say no more at present, but at some future time, when I am relieved from the cold which I have to-day, I expect to give my views upon the question of our federal relations.

Mr. President, I have just arrived in the Convention from my home, and I perceive that a very exciting subject is now before this body. I am quite surprised to see so much excitement manifested upon such an important question at this period of the Convention. It seems to me that the question of secession now agitating the people of the State of Virginia and the whole country is sufficient to occupy the whole of our time and attention at this moment. I have not had an opportunity of reading the exact terms of .Page17 the resolution now under discussion, but I understand it is a resolution involving simply the tax on slave property, appointing a committee to investigate that question, for the purpose of raising the tax on slave property. I think, sir, that at the proper time, that is say, when this Convention determines that the State of Virginia shall disconnect herself from the other States of the Confederacy, if it shall so determine, the organic law of the State should be revised and re-modeled. I regard the maxim as true, that every man should pay taxes according to his ability to pay them. If that rule is carried out, the principle involves every species of property which a man possesses, everything that a man is worth. And I maintain that the property in slaves should be valued according to their worth to the planter in working them in Virginia, and not according to their worth in Texas or Mississippi.

If you value a negro in Virginia to be worked on a plantation here, according to the value of a negro in Mississippi, you must at once see that you lose all the negroes. They will be taken into those States where they can be worked more profitably; and when the exodus becomes more rapid, you will see that there will be but a small proportion of slave property to be taxed, and the agricultural, the mineral and manufacturing interests will have to pay away a very large proportion of the forty millions of dollars now due by the State. We cannot afford to lose our slave labor by over taxation.

The time has not yet arrived to agitate this question, but when the Convention shall have determined that the State shall leave the Union, then there should be a re-organization of the organic law upon the basis above stated, which I say cannot be controverted. I am surprised to hear the gentleman speak in the manner in which he has in reference only to negro property. Has he forgotten that the mercantile interest pays about one quarter of the whole tax of the State of Virginia? And does he ask us to increase the tax on negroes, and not to reduce it on the mercantile interest—to which class I belong, and of which I am an humble member. We pay more taxes than any other class of men in Virginia. Does the gentleman not know, if he is a lawyer—and I presume he is judging from the able manner in which he has presented his views to this Convention [laughter] —that if he has an income, say, of $1800 per annum, by his profession, that he only pays $95 tax—a half of one cent interest on his income, making $90,2Mr. Branch's calculations at this point appear incomprehensible. and $5 for a lawyer making $95; while I, if I make $1800, have to pay $360 tax? Now is it not perfectly plain that the tax should be equalized; and if the matter is attempted we should scan the whole subject of taxation and put it on a basis of equality? I trust the gentleman from Harrison, .Page18 will take a more comprehensive view of the subject of taxation. For myself, I have but few acres of land and few slaves. I have but little money; and if it can bear the same proportion of tax as other property, I am willing to pay it. But, sir, it is unnecessary to proceed further on that subject. I am not now called on to elaborate that point, I ask the gentleman to let the resolution be laid on the table, and if the State determines to go out of the Union, the subject can then be considered before our final adjournment.

I propose to let a Committee be appointed for the purpose of ascertaining and reporting if it be expedient to take action upon the subject of taxation. I wish to make a further remark, namely, that according to the present rate of taxation, the Northwestern portion of the State defrays its own expenses and returns to the State every dollar received out of the public treasury for public improvements in that section. So that we are in advance of appropriations.

I do not mean to go into a detailed argument upon this question, but I wish to suggest the impropriety of taking up a matter which we cannot properly consider at this time, and which involves a question concerning the organic law. I say we have no right according to sound morals before God or man to take up this question unless we first go out of the Union. Why? In 1850 we had a Convention, and adopted a constitution upon a compromise. The people have accepted it, and have agreed to live under it until 1865. Having entered into that compact, we ought never to touch the Constitution of our State unless some extraordinary cause requires us to do it. Of course such an event as Virginia withdrawing herself from the Confederacy, would be such an occasion and would justify it. That contingency not having been anticipated in 1850, but having arisen since, why, sir, that extraordinary cause would bring about the extraordinary necessity of remodeling the Constitution and equalizing the taxes. But until we do determine to go out of the Union, we should not touch it.

Does the gentleman mean to say that he means to lay an additional tax upon negroes? Sir, I cannot believe that the gentleman apprehends the subject in all its bearings. I am in principle for equality in taxation, and I believe that the man who has got property should pay taxes upon that property. The poor man should not be obliged to pay upon his labor. It may take all he can get by his labor to support himself and family, and he should not be compelled to pay taxes upon hard-earned wages. Under the present organic law, that man has to pay taxes upon his income. I do not mean to charge any improper motive upon the .Page19 Legislature that enacted such a law, but I contend that it is unjust and oppressive. I am a laborer myself, and I feel it myself, in my own pocket. I contribute more than I can afford to pay to this Government.

I want to call the attention of my friend from Petersburg to a resolution which was offered a few mornings since, to raise a committee on Finance, to which should be referred all resolutions relating to State and county taxation. That resolution was intended to protect all classes, and to equalize taxation; to remove the very hardship of which the gentleman complains.

I merely rose to reply to the argument of the gentleman over the way [Mr. WILSON] . By way of conclusion, I say that I will never vote for touching the present Constitution unless we determine to go out of the Confederacy. It would not be just to the people— they are not prepared for it, and the Convention would never have been called for any such purpose. It was called together in view of the extreme position of the South and the state of our Federal relations. I do not think that we ought, in advance of the separation from the Union, to change the organic law.

I desire to say something in answer to the suggestion made by gentlemen as to the propriety of laying this resolution upon the table, and granting the committee asked for, leaving the subject open to be disposed of at a subsequent meeting of this Convention. I think that that course would have an unhappy effect upon this subject. We are here endeavoring to obtain from the Northern people such concessions and such guarantees as will enable us to continue in the Union with them. We know well that those people will grant those guarantees very much in proportion to their apprehensions as to what may be the ultimate action of this State. We present these demands to them with the implied declaration that if the demands are not accorded, we will separate from them. If they have any ground for disturbing the earnestness of this declaration, they will, of course, be slower in according to us those demands, and if we exhibit to them the fact that there is a domestic trouble in reference to that very property, which has caused all these national difficulties, it will have the effect to retard them in their efforts—the conservative portion of them—to bring about an adjustment of the demands which we make. That will be the inference which they would draw from the fact that there was now pending before this body a proposition with respect to this very subject of slavery which in all probability might so divide the State as to prevent any unity of action in regard to the question of separation. I say then, for that consideration, that I am opposed to acting upon the .Page20 resolution at this time. I am in favor of saying to the Northern people that we are for the time determined to sink all questions of domestic strife, and to dispose of the great national questions which we were called here to consider, before we act upon anything touching merely our State interests.

But, Mr. President, the question is not now whether the principle of taxation embodied in our State Constitution is right or not. Upon that proposition, I find myself with the mover of the resolutions; with the gentleman from Preston [Mr. BROWN] , and all who advocate the principle contained in them. The gentleman from Preston well knows that our views were the same in the Convention which framed this law. But I am opposed to action now, because it is not the proper time for such action, on account of the peculiar circumstances under which we assembled. Although there is no express provision to that effect in the Constitution, yet there has been an implied understanding that this system of taxation would be continued until the end of the year 1865. Why do I say implied understanding? This subject was very much connected with the great subject of the basis of Representation. And although it was not a matter of compromise, although you may say it was forced upon the Western people, still the Northern people having required so much in the arrangement of that great and paramount question, the basis of Representation, were contented to take the constitution with this provision upon the subject of taxation as that indicated by their vote ratifying that instrument.

From that time up to the present, I am not aware that there has been presented to the General Assembly of Virginia, one solitary petition asking for a call of the Convention, with the view of changing the organic law in this particular. One gentleman who addressed the Convention this morning, I think the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] , referred to some action that had been taken upon the part of his people with reference to this particular subject. It may have been that that question was agitated there, but so far as I am informed, that question has never been presented by the people of Jackson or by the people of Virginia to the General Assembly of the State.

The gentleman misunderstood me. The question was agitated in Jackson, and it was agitated in some other sections of the West.

It matters not. I have no doubt it has been the subject of complaint, and I have no doubt it may have been the subject of agitation on the part of some people in some portions of the State. But what I affirm is, so far as my knowledge extends, that there has .Page21 not been one solitary petition presented to the General Assembly of the State asking that a Convention might be assembled for the purpose of affording that redress. Why then, should we press this matter now upon the consideration of this Convention? This Convention was called with reference to no such object. If a Convention had been asked for any such purpose, I presume it could not have been obtained. This Convention was called under peculiar circumstances and exigencies which may never, perhaps, occur again in the history of this Commonwealth. And having been obtained under these circumstances, do these gentlemen think it right, proper and becoming to bring, forward this proposition now?

I wish to ask the gentleman one question. If I understood my friend, he says, that this Convention could not have been had but for the question of Federal Relations.

Yes, sir.

Then I want to make this inquiry of him. Can you have any hope that we ever can have a Convention that will change the organic law? If we could not have one now, could we have one two or three years hence?

I will answer the gentleman. I apprehend it could be had at that time which seems to have been looked to as the proper time for reforming and changing the Constitution with respect to this and other subjects. To be sure, the Constitution does not provide that in 1865 there will be a Convention. The calling of the Convention may be superseded by the Legislature, but still it was contemplated at the arrangement of this great question of the basis of representation, that the Constitution should be changed in 1865, and the people of this Commonwealth have seemingly acquiesced in this arrangement.

May I ask the gentleman one question. I have heard it said and repeated here that there was some understanding in the Convention of 1850-51, some plighted faith, by which we are precluded now from considering this question of taxation. The gentleman from Monroe [Mr. CAPERTON] as well as myself, were members of that Convention. I should like to know in what that understanding or plighted faith consisted.

The gentleman did not hear it from me. I made no such declaration. I did not affirm that there was any such understanding. I mentioned that it was an inference from the action of that body, from the acquiescence of the people in the postponement of that subject until the year 1865. The great subject which called that Convention together, was the subject connected with the basis of representation. .Page22 That was a subject upon which the West were more concerned than upon all other subjects, and the basis of representation was arranged so as to satisfy the demands of the Western people, and it would only have been so arranged by their having granted certain guarantees and concessions to the East. I do not admit that this was one; I do not admit that this arrangement of taxation was one which the members of that Convention did assent to, a consideration upon which they should get the white basis; but that was an arrangement made by the Convention; and that arrangement was sanctioned by the people in their adoption and ratification of the Constitution.

Sir, the people having accepted the Constitution under these circumstances, a Constitution that looked to a change of the instrument itself in 1865, the inference was, that the organic law was to remain unchanged until the year 1865. It is a matter for the judgment and determination of the people. They are under no constraint. They could have called at any time a convention for the purpose of reforming the organic law in this particular. But, sir, now is of all others the most improper and inopportune time for any such call.

Why, sir, the gentleman says that this whole difficulty has originated from this particular species of property. It is known that this particular species of property abounds in this portion of the State and but very little is found in the Western portion, and it is also known that the people in this portion of the State are more alive, more apprehensive, more filled with dread consequences of the great trouble now upon us, than the people inhabiting the Western portion of the State; and I submit to gentlemen whether it would be right to extort from their fears and apprehensions that which they would not obtain under other circumstances. If the people of Eastern Virginia are so apprehensive upon this subject, and their dread is worked up to such a pitch that they are willing to do now what they would not do under other circumstances, in order to have united action in resisting encroachments on the part of the North, I submit whether it would be right and proper for us and for them, situated as we are, to avail ourselves of this occasion. Would we value concessions obtained under duress—for that is the effect?

Now, sir, when the proper time comes, we will unite with these gentlemen in endeavoring to obtain this reform in respect to the question of taxation. This I do not regard as the proper time. I regard the effort now, as having an injurious effect upon our interests in respect to the great questions touching our national difficulties. I regard it as not fair towards our neighbors of the East, to avail ourselves of the .Page23 peculiar emergency in which we find them placed, to obtain from them that which they would not be willing to accord under different circumstances. In view of these considerations, I shall vote for laying this proposition upon the table, and I shall at every conceivable stage, resist the consideration of this subject during the sessions of this Convention.

I had not intended, Mr. President, to participate at all in the discussion of this question. I would not do so now, but for the very singular charge which emanated from my friend from the county of Harrison [Mr. WILSON] , whom I understood here to-day, as saying that there are now more abolitionists in the city of Richmond than there are in North-Western Virginia. May I ask my friend by what authority he makes this assertion?

The gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say that there were more abolitionists in the city of Richmond than in North-western Virginia. I understand that we have some abolitionists there. I understand that there are abolitionists here. Your public prints have informed me of the fact, and from what I had seen and heard, I stated it as my belief that there were as many abolitionists in the city of Richmond as in my Congressional District; but I desire my friend to know that we have very few out there.

I trust that there are none there, as I am confident that we have none here. If I may be permitted to take that liberty with my friend, I would say to him that he should seek authenticity for his information, beyond the calumnies which are daily circulating in the newspapers of the city of Richmond.

Sir, as one of the representatives of the city of Richmond, and the humblest, I repeat the assertion, that there are no Abolitionists here. I am not prepared to say that there are any in the District from which the gentleman comes. One thing is certain, that there were votes recorded in his District for Abraham Lincoln, and that the poll book will show none in the city of Richmond.

I trust that I may not be understood as making any assault upon any section of the State. I, for one, as a representative of the city of Richmond, am also a representative of this whole State; and I think we are dwindling down and condescending very much in this discussion, when we permit ourselves to criminate and recriminate one another upon local prejudices. We have a higher duty to perform here—we have a holier and more sacred function to discharge. Our country is in danger. The cause of republican liberty is at stake. The most magnificent temple of republican freedom that ever glittered in the sun, and that was ever vouchsafed by God or ordained by Him, is now tottering; .Page24 and, for one, I protest against complicating the consideration of that great, comprehensive question with the question of taxation, or with any other local questions calculated to excite local prejudices. What good can be produced? What harm will not be produced, if we should allow ourselves to be drawn off into the consideration of other subjects than the great question? How can the rights and the dignity of the occasion be maintained, and how shall we do justice to the great and solitary question which we were called here to consider? I, therefore, protest against any attempts on the part of gentlemen from any part of the State to excite local prejudices, and to complicate and embarrass the consideration of the first great question which we have to consider.

We have now from the lips of the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] a proposition made upon this floor, to the West, that, if they will disrupt this Government, they can have their own terms of taxation. I had heard rumors to this effect before, that such a proposition was entertained, but I thought it unfounded; but I hear the proposition from the gentleman himself made to the gentleman from Preston, that, if they will come over and disrupt the ties which bind us to our Union and the Constitution, then they can have their own terms upon the subject of taxation.

The gentleman from Northampton made the statement he did upon his own responsibility. I make this statement because the gentleman is absent.

But I was correct in saying that he made the proposition this morning. And he had the temerity, at the same time, to say that he did it without consultation with his own constituents. I trust in God that he will not be sustained by his constituents upon that reckless proposition, but that he will stand solitary and alone. It does seem to me, therefore, that we are not meeting this question as we should do. Gentlemen from the East and from the West, whatever may be their local interest or their opinions upon the question of taxation, should lay aside all petty considerations, for I regard the subject of taxation in the present crisis as no more than the smallest particle of attenuated matter that floats in space, of universal creation. I shall with pleasure vote for laying the resolution on the table, hoping that the gentlemen from the West will see that it is an inopportune occasion to press the consideration of the taxation question and that the effect of it can only be to embarrass the consideration of the great question which we are here to consider.

Mr. WOODS addressed the Convention at some length upon the same .Page25 subject, but the hour of half past twelve having arrived before he had concluded his remarks, [The speech will be given entire, when finished.]3This speech by Mr. Woods was printed in the Enquirer as if entirely contained in the Proceedings of March 19. However, the Daily Dispatch published, on March 19, an abstract of the first three paragraphs of the speech, and related proceedings, as part of the Proceedings of March 18.

Mr. DORMAN moved that the farther execution of the order be suspended.

I trust that my friend will not insist upon his motion now. This subject is to be ventilated for a longer time than the Convention would now be willing to accord, and it would therefore be more agreeable, I have no doubt, to the friends of the resolutions, that their consideration would no longer be proceeded with for the present.

I withdraw my motion.

Before vacating the chair I beg leave to lay before the Convention a communication that I have received from the Hon. Wm. Mitchell, E. F. Chambers, Wm. Henry Norris, Isaac D. Jones and J. Hanson Thomas, citizens of the State of Maryland, a Committee lately appointed by a Convention held in that Commonwealth, with a request that it be laid before this body.

The communication was then read as follows:

I move that the communication be laid upon the table and printed.

I hope that it will not be printed. I think we have been annoyed enough already with county meetings and speeches in our own State; but when gentlemen come here from another State, authorized by, I don't know whom, not by the authority of the State, at least, to suggest what we ought to do or not do, I think we ought not to give so much respect to their communication as to print it.

I am sorry I differ with my friend from Rock-bridge [Mr. MOORE] . I know something of the character of the gentlemen .Page27 whose names are signed to that communication, and I think that their character alone, if nothing else, entitles them to respect.

I move, if it be in order, that the communication be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, to see whether any plan can be adopted to promote the object indicated in that communication.

I hope the gentleman will include in his motion, "and that they be printed."

I also move that the communication be printed. Both motions were agreed to.

1.1.3. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The Convention then went into a Committee of the Whole on the reports of the Committee on Federal Relations, Mr. SOUTHALL of Albemarle in the Chair.

Mr. GEO. W. RANDOLPH being entitled to the floor resumed his address. He spoke for nearly two hours, but had not concluded when the Committee rose. He will resume again to-morrow. His speech will appear in full hereafter.4Mr. Randolph's entire speech is given in the Proceedings of March 16. See note 3 on those Proceedings.

It is perfectly obvious to the Convention that the gentleman who has the floor is physically unable to pursue his argument to its close to-day. As it is a very interesting and important one, I now move that the Committee rise, in order that the gentleman may finish to-morrow.

I feel unwilling to throw myself again upon the indulgence of this body. They have indulged me so often, that I should be unwilling to trespass again upon their time.

I would appeal to my friend to entertain no such feelings of delicacy. He has spoken a long time, and I trust that the motion that the committee rise will prevail.

The motion was agreed to. The committee then rose and the chairman reported progress.

Mr. DORMAN offered the following resolutions, which were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations:

"Resolved, That the Committee on Federal Relations inquire into the expediency of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, being submitted by this State to other States of the Union, providing and declaring (1st) that electors of President and Vice-President shall be chosen on the District system; and (2nd) that persons of African blood, in whole or in part, are not and shall not be citizens of the United States, or citizens within the meaning of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the Federal Constitution.

"And, further, whether such amendments should form part of any ultimatum laid down by Virginia or the border States of the South, or should be submitted separately and distinct from such ultimatum."

On motion of Mr. HAYMOND, the Convention then adjourned.

1.2.1. PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Before the debate commences upon the business regularly before the Convention, I propose to set myself right, not only before this body, but before the people of the Commonwealth, in respect to the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

I observe in the Richmond "Whig" of this morning, that my remarks upon those resolutions have been very much misunderstood. It seems to have been supposed by the editors of that paper, that I made a proposition in my representative, or some other capacity, to the Convention. Mr. President, I made no proposition. On the contrary, I stated distinctly that I was not authorized by my constituents to act upon this question of taxation in this Convention. I stated distinctly that it was a question which had not been considered by them as coming legitimately within the scope of the action of this body at the time I was elected.

I am very sure that if the editor of the "Whig" had known my position as I stated it—because I know that he had no motive to misrepresent me—he would not have indulged in the comments which appear in the columns of that paper of this morning.

I was unfortunate in being misunderstood, even by some gentlemen upon this floor. My friend from Richmond [Mr. JOHNSON] who took part in the debate while I was warming my feet in the Secretary's office, and who I, therefore, did not hear, I find by the report of his remarks, this morning, alluded to a remark from me as a proposition coming from me. He seems to suppose that I had offered a carte blanche to the West, if they would accede to another proposition.

Now, sir, as I have remarked, I made no proposition, and I deem it due to myself to re-state the position I assumed in regard to the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia. I referred, without quoting it, to an article which appeared in the "Examiner" of yesterday morning, and I remarked, as I say now, upon the same principle which controlled our ancestors in forming the present Federal Constitution, as an individual, while I could not act for my constituents, I say, as an individual, I would agree that a tax should be placed upon slaves under .Page30 twelve years of age, and upon all slaves according to their value, as upon any other species of property, if they would give me an ordinance of secession. My friend, however, supposed that I made the proposition in my representative character, which I not only did not attempt to do, but which I expressly disclaimed. Sir, I repeat, that, as an individual, I am ready to say to the North-West and to every portion of Virginia, that if they will give me an ordinance of secession which will place the people of this Commonwealth, as the brightest star in the Southern Confederacy, they may have an adjustment of this question of taxation. I made that remark as an individual; I reiterate it now, and, in so doing, I am acting upon the same principle on which our ancestors acted in the Convention which framed the Federal Constitution, when they consented that three-fifths of our slaves should enter into the basis of representation and taxation. That is my position as an individual; and if such an expression of opinion by me, is of sufficient importance to meet the consideration of gentlemen from the North-West, they can have it as often as they please. The portion of the article in the "Examiner," to which I made allusion, is in these words:

"The introduction of these resolutions are not, however, to be much regretted. Since the first day of this Convention, the proposition of Willey and his Republican friends has been held over the head of the State as the last and dire resort of the Submissionists to reduce her to subjection. If Virginia will not rest quiet under Lincoln, and leave off talking of secession, resistance and the like, then Monongalia and the Pan Handle shall be let loose on them, and high taxation put on the negroes. This has been the sheet-anchor of the Submissionist party. Now we have their threat before us; this is their coercion. We know the worst that they can do; and so far from being frightened at it, we are sure that every slaveholder in the State is ready, if necessary, to make this bargain with Willey and his pedlars, that the East will surrender the basis in the Senate, and vote for the taxation of negroes without a protest or a delay, if they, on their side, will pass the ordinance of secession. There is no Virginian slaveholder who is not ready to encounter higher taxes on his negroes to gain this security, that they will still be his without the necessity of an exodus. But to make this Convention, called for the State's deliverance, the mere instrument of a new robbery and oppression without that equivalent, is more than honest men, of any section or any political persuasion, will support."

Will the gentleman from Northampton permit me to ask what paper he is reading from.

From the "Examiner "

At what point is that paper published?

In the city of Richmond.

Is it?

It is published in the city of Richmond, as the gentleman from Preston has very good reason to be well aware of. I referred to this paragraph, Mr. President, and expressed my concurrence in it as an individual.

In regard to another matter. I find myself unfortunately reported in the "Enquirer," in the remarks I submitted yesterday in regard to the action of one of the highest officers of our government, in bringing before this body this question of taxation. I referred to another portion of this same article in the "Examiner," and in that connexion, as reported, I am made to praise the man whose conduct I intended to condemn. The paragraph to which I referred is this:

"When a signer of the Ruffner pamphlet, who had through much apparent repentance gotten to be a high officer of the State, and whose violent propositions had done more than anything else to produce that re-actionary panic and confusion through which that thoroughly bad body of Black and Brown Republicans, Federalists and Abolitionists, who make the majority of the Convention, crept and climbed and leaped into their places; when this son of Ruffner heard the result of the election he declared with a joy too triumphant for concealment, that the Convention, called to defend the South against Abolition, would 'just put up ad valorem taxes on all slave property, change the basis of representation and then go home.'"

That sentiment, thus expressed by one of the chief officers, was what I meant to level my anathemas at. I intended to denounce the action of a high officer of this Commonwealth which had for its object the bringing on of a domestic as well as an international quarrel. I need say nothing in regard to the editors of the "Examiner" who made the allegation. They are able to vindicate and defend themselves.

It is my purpose not to be offensive to any gentleman upon this floor, and it is for that reason I have deemed this explanation necessary to show that my remarks have been misunderstood.

I beg now sir, to say in conclusion, that I have offered no proposition except as an individual. I stated distinctly that my people have never been called upon to consider the subject, but that I as an individual, will agree to make a contract for maintaining the integrity of the Commonwealth and to promote her interests and vindicate her honor.

The pending question is upon the adoption of the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , .Page32 and upon that question the gentleman from Barbour [Mr. WOODS] , is entitled to the floor.

By the kind permission of the gentleman from Barbour [Mr. WOODS] , I propose this morning to offer a resolution to be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, and to accompany that resolution, sir, with a remark or two, which will occupy not more than five minutes. I will read the resolution before sending it to the Secretary's desk:

Resolved, That the Committee on Federal Relations are hereby requested to report the Constitution of the Confederate States of the South, as Virginia's ultimatum, and that they recommend the same to the Northern States of this Confederacy for their adoption or rejection, and in order to give them time to act on the same, this Convention will adjourn to meet again on the first Monday in October, 1861.

Now, sir, we have heard a great deal of talk about the Union, the love of the Union, the reconstruction of the Union, and all of this sort of thing. If gentlemen who are extra Union men, desire and want to perpetuate or reconstruct this Union, they cannot object to this proposition. I take it for granted, sir, that they are all in love with the present Constitution of the United States; that they have no objection to many of its provisions and that they will take them as the basis for their action. I imagine, sir, that there is hardly a man on this floor who does not concede the propriety and the necessity of amendments to the present Constitution. I take it for granted, sir, from the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, also from the various resolutions referred to that Committee, that this body is unanimous in demanding additional guarantees or, at least, amendments to the present Federal Constitution. But there is a great variety of opinions about this matter—what these amendments should consist of, and especially as to the manner of getting at them. I imagine also, sir, that it is the desire of this Convention, of the representatives of the people of Virginia, to bring back, if possible, our Southern sisters to this Confederacy; and it has been circulated that Mr. Seward, the high Priest of the present order of things in this Confederacy as well as the papers of the North, have said, repeatedly, that they were ready to give us all we might ask for. They are represented as having said to us: state your demands, let us know what you want, what are your grievances—state them in plain terms so that we may know exactly what you desire, and we will satisfy you—we will give you what you demand.

We find that the people of the Confederate States went to work, taking the present Constitution of the United States as their basis, and .Page33 have made some twelve important amendments to that great instrument. The Constitution which they have adopted is nothing more nor less than the old house dressed up, repainted, and fixed to suit the present order of things.

The first of these twelve important amendments provides that the President's term shall be limited to six years, and makes him ineligible for a second term. That sir, will strike every man as proper and wise.

The third amendment provides that representatives shall be of a certain age; but there is no limit as to the length of residence or the number of years that he shall live in the State after becoming a citizen.

The fourth amendment imposes a restriction upon persons of foreign birth, not citizens.

Now, sir, that provision will strike every man as a matter of prime necessity. We all know that in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, and other Western States, that men, not more than ten days in the State, nor probably more than ten days from Europe, have often controlled the elections in those States. I have been myself for a few years a resident in the West, and am somewhat familiar with the facts which I state. I think, sir, that no man will question the propriety of this restriction.

The fifth amendment provides that no person shall be removed from office without a specification in writing to the Senate, by the President, setting forth the reasons of dismissal.

The seventh amendment provides that all bills for appropriation shall specify the amount of each appropriation and the purpose for which it is appropriated; and also provides that no extra compensation shall be allowed to contractors.

The eighth amendment provides that every law shall relate to but one subject. Under this, you are prevented from passing an omnibus bill embracing various objects.

The ninth amendment provides that the principal officers of the Departments, or at least their Cabinet officers, shall be entitled to seats on the floor of Congress. It does not, however, give them the privilege of voting, but merely the privilege of explanation, such as is possessed by the Cabinet officers of the Queen of England.

The tenth amendment provides that the President cannot pardon in case of impeachment; and it is also provided that the General Government may impeach, and that a State may impeach. And finally it is provided in the 12th amendment that the word "slave" shall be substituted in the Constitution for the word "servant."

Now, I appeal to the Union gentlemen on this floor, and I appeal .Page34 to the members of the Committee on Federal Relations, and especially to its distinguished Chairman [Mr. R. Y. CONRAD] —I appeal to him, as he has indicated the purpose of the Committee to report amendments to the Constitution—to take this Constitution adopted by the Confederate States and recommend it to the Convention for its adoption.

The resolution was then read as follows :

Resolved, That the Committee on Federal Relations are hereby instructed to report the Constitution of the Confederated States as Virginia's ultimatum, and that they recommend the same to the Northern States of this Confederacy for their adoption or rejection, and in order to give them time to act on the same, this Committee will adjourn to meet again on the first Monday in October, 1861.1This version of the resolution differs from what Mr. Hall had read out when he proposed the resolution. Probably the version on page 32, which agrees with the version given in the Journal, is correct.

I move to lay the resolution on the table.

I rise to a question of order. We have now a question pending before the Convention upon the resolution of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] . I submit whether it is competent to offer any resolution at this time, requiring the vote of the Convention. The gentleman who offered these resolutions, as I understand, got leave from the gentleman from Barbour to introduce them, as I suppose, for the purpose of having them read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations. The point of order I make is, whether these resolutions can be offered in the form in which they are now presented, while this other question is pending.

The practice of the Convention has been by general consent early in the morning for gentlemen entitled to the floor to give way for various motions. This resolution under the statement of the gentleman from Wetzel, the Chair supposed would, as a matter of course, go to the Committee on Federal Relations. The Chair finds that it is one of such a character that it cannot go to that Committee without the consent of that body. The motion to lay on the table would, therefore, be in order.

The question was taken, on the motion of Mr. CONRAD, and it was agreed to.

So the resolutions were laid on the table.

1.2.2. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL RELATIONS

May I ask the consent of the Convention to make a report from the Committee on Federal Relations?

It will be in order if the pending question is laid upon the table for the purpose of receiving the report.

It might be done by general consent.

The Chair hears no objection, and the report that the gentleman desires to offer will be in order.

The Committee on Federal Relations have had under further consideration the reports referred to them, and have directed me to make a report upon the subject of the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which I will send to the Clerk's desk. These amendments, I may state, in general, are neither of the schemes precisely which have been submitted for the consideration of the Convention, to the extent of being properly termed either the one or the other. They are Virginia's propositions of amendments to the Constitution, combining, in view of the Committee, all the advantageous features of both of Virginia's schemes that have hitherto been before the public mind.

I move that the report be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

The report was then read by the Secretary as follows:

The report was laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

With the permission of the gentleman from Barbour [Mr. Woons] , I desire to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That in future, until otherwise ordered, this Convention shall meet as at present at half-past 10 o'clock, A.M., remain in the session until half-past two o'clock, P.M., then take a recess, and again assemble at quarter to 8 o'clock, P.M.2A correction (March 21) notes that the resolution regarding a night session of the Convention was offered by Mr. George W. Hull, of Highland, and not by Mr. Hall.

I move that the resolution lie on the table.

The motion was agreed to, so the resolution was laid on the table.

1.2.3. PROCEEDINGS OF A MEETING AT PETERSBURG

I beg to intrude upon the time of the gentleman from Barbour for a few moments. I hold in my hands a letter from Wm. T. Joynes, of Petersburg, chairman of one of the largest meetings ever held in my city, covering resolutions passed by that meeting, addressed to this Convention, and requesting them to take cognizance of them. I will ask the Secretary to read them, and then I would like to make a few remarks upon them.

The resolutions were then read by the Secretary as follows:

Mr. President, the resolutions having been read to the Convention, I shall make no allusion to them, except that portion which makes reference to myself. The members of this Convention well know my position here, they know upon what platform I have stood, and stand now in my own individual opinion ; and that is, to demand all the just rights of Virginia in the Union, and if they are not granted, to leave the Union. I was elected upon that platform. Previous to the election, during the most interesting, pleasant, and excited canvass I ever witnessed, I even stated that I believed in the right of instructions ; that my people had only to make known their wishes to me and I would carry them out to the best of my ability, or I would vacate my seat and they might fill it with some other person more worthy to represent them. Of course you readily see I acknowledge mandatory instructions, instructions by request, or by the known will of my people coming from my quarter; I consider them all synonymous, and I believe it to be my imperative duty to carry out the will of the people whom I represent.

Having made those few remarks, I am bound to say further, sir, that I now bow with submission to the will of my constituents. I am satisfied, from the vote which was taken most excitedly and anxiously by both parties, that it is the will of my people that this Convention should pass an ordinance of secession. And I have that assurance not only from the vote upon the resolutions, but I have it upon the authority of gentlemen who took an active part in opposition to them. My people have changed very suddenly [laughter] , and they have a right to change again so soon as the daylight breaks upon our hopes; and when they do, I shall be ready to carry out their views then. [Renewed laughter.] I do not know that it is necessary for me to say anything more than that I make these remarks simply that my position might be fully understood in this Convention. I will ask that the resolutions be printed and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

They were so referred.

Mr. President, if the gentleman from Barbour will allow me, I desire to make a motion which will not detain the Convention a moment.

I am compelled, very much against my will, to decline yielding the floor any longer at this time.3It appears that the first three paragraphs of Mr. Woods' speech were delivered on March 18. See note 3 on Proceedings of that day.

Mr. President, I trust in the few remarks I may have occasion to submit to the Convention this morning, that I shall not suffer myself to be carried away by the whirlwind of excitement which seems to be passing over this body, the moment this great question of State interest is broached here. I am sorry to see it. I would much rather have preferred—my people would much rather have preferred—if the gentlemen from Eastern Virginia, who are the peculiar champions of this interest, would have manifested the magnanimity that our people expected they would have done, and upon their responsibility, to present this question in such a shape, that the members from Western Virginia would have had nothing but to endorse it. I am free to confess that I am somewhat surprised at the latitude which this debate has taken. I understand that the proposition is merely for the purpose of raising a Committee to whom all these questions may be referred, that they may take such action upon it as they deem proper.

I regret, then, to see so much tenderness manifested in regard to this question. I regret to see the members of this body exhibiting so much feeling in regard to this matter, and intimating that we have sought a most inopportune time in which to consider the single question of taxation of negro property, when there are other interests, in which some of these gentlemen who participate in the deliberations of this body feel themselves personally concerned, that should also be considered. I, for one, feel myself at liberty to say to every gentleman, that every question of grievance of which any portion of the citizens of Virginia justly complain, ought to be considered by this Convention, and such action taken in the premises as will remove this just cause of complaint.

Sir, it has been said upon this floor, by various gentlemen this morning, that the effort to raise this question now in this body will tend to strengthen the hands of the enemies of Virginia in the Northern States, and will tend to prevent them from according to us our demand. Unless the indications that we see in this Convention are very much misunderstood, we will not ask any thing that any State, even Massachusetts, may not be willing to give us. I do not believe that this Convention will rise to the dignity of asserting its demands, and I feel humiliated and disgraced by it. I come from that much despised portion of Virginia known as North-western Virginia, and I hear it repeated flippantly every where that North-western Virginia is not sound, and not to be trusted. Why, sir, my people despise this spirit that is willing to go .Page42 with hat in hand, and bended knee to Abraham Lincoln—asking that they can have just enough of right left to them to allow them to remain in the Union. I love the Union of these States. I love it as I love the memory of my mother, but I do not love this Union well enough to be willing to lay down all my rights as a freeman to remain in these United States. I do not love it so well, that when my old mother Virginia calls her sons in council in the hour of her peril and calamity, and asks them for counsel and advice, that I will say to her—"my proud old mother, lay down your robes of purity and power in the dust of humiliation and disgrace; come down from your exalted position, and with ashes upon your head, and sack cloth upon your loins, bend your suppliant knee, and ask the Federal Government at Washington to be permitted to remain in this glorious temple."

At the time I was tempted to engage in this discussion, I had no expectation of trespassing for any considerable length of time upon the attention of this Convention; not, sir, that I did not feel the subject which is under discussion to be one of transcendent importance to my people; not that I am not fully committed to an examination of this question before this Convention by my people; but because I hoped and because I expected—and as I supposed, with a reasonable expectation—that this discussion would be conducted by other gentlemen from other sections of the State, much better qualified than I am, and much more accustomed to participate in discussions of this character.

I have, to a considerable degree, been disappointed in this regard; and I find myself, therefore, compelled to undertake the performance of a part of that duty, as I best am able; and consequently, sir, I address myself to the consideration of these questions with a good deal of diffidence. I have undertaken the discharge of this duty with a great deal of reluctance; but feeling it to be a duty, and once having the assurance that the line of duty lies in a certain direction, I desire to walk in that way, and, according to the best of my judgment, to discharge that duty. And in attempting it, sir, I trust that it will be scarcely necessary for me to assure any person who knows me, that I am not to be intimidated by any mode of procedure that may be adopted in or out of the Convention, and prevented from expressing my opinions whatever they may be. If it affords amusement to any body to ridicule the plain and just proposition now pending before this Convention, I tell you, Mr. President, there is no person enjoys a hearty laugh more than I do, even when it is at my own expense. But, sir, when I understand, as I do understand, in the discussion of these questions, that great questions of public policy, of constitutional .Page43 law, are involved, I apprehend, sir, that however much amusement they may afford to facetious gentlemen here and elsewhere, I and my constituents regard these as matters of substantial and real importance. I was tempted yesterday to suffer myself to become somewhat excited over and above what I ordinarily do in the discussion of any question. I found excitement in this hall, and I found that that excitement was as infectious as the small pox; and if I suffered myself to manifest any of it, I trust the Convention will pardon me.

Before I proceed to present the views that I entertain in reference to these questions, I must be permitted respectfully and most kindly, Mr. President, to pay my respects to the various gentlemen who have preceded me in this discussion. And, I shall not be compelled to confine my remarks to those who oppose me, for I find myself very unpleasantly situated this morning, and obliged to protest somewhat against the proposition presented by the honorable gentleman from Preston county [Mr. BROWN] . Having known him, and known him favorably for many years, and having always known that he possessed a record without spot or blemish, as a staunch, conservative, State Rights Democrat; I say it gives me some pain to be compelled to recur to the singular position that he was pleased to assume in the opening of his remarks yesterday. He was pleased to draw into the discussion of this domestic question, a great question which now pervades the minds of all classes of people in this State. I am aware, Mr. President, that while we have been sitting here patiently, and laboring for the last six weeks, and I must confess, thus far to very little purpose, that the nation has been standing on tip-toe, that every eye has been directed towards us to see what we would do, and every ear has been strained to hear what we would say.

But my friend from Preston [Mr. BROWN] , saw fit to refer to the party which he thinks proper to designate as secessionists in this body and in the State, as being an ancient party; as having derived our lineage so far back that the "memory of man runneth not to the contrary." He has been pleased to refer us back to the garden of Eden. Well, sir, I know that we are, all of us, descendants of mother Eve, and that she committed an act which brought all our ills upon us, but it never occurred to me before that we were her descendants as a political party. It never occurred to me before that Eve was a secessionist, and I am the less disposed to credit the lineage, when I recollect that history records her unfortunate act to have been very closely connected with the Devil. [Laughter.] I say then, that I was sorry the honorable gentleman found it necessary .Page44 to refer the rise of this party to so ancient a source; and I was sorry, moreover, Mr. President, to find that he deemed it necessary to class us, not only with the lineal descendants of mother Eve, but to regard us as being guilty of something even worse than that of being her descendants.

He says: "Sir, we look upon the robber and murderer as antisubmissionists, for they will never submit to the laws, and we regard them as the most precipitate secessionists in the world, for the moment they commit their terrible crimes they fly precipitately away."

As a rhetorical flourish, I have no objection to this historical allusion, but I protest against it as argument against the views held by gentlemen upon this floor in that regard.

The gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , too, it seemed to me, was a little unkind. It seemed to me that he lacked that kind of care and caution, which he ought to have possessed when speaking respectfully of a section of the State or Union. When speaking of the people of North-western Virginia as submissionists, I regret that he did not except the county which I have the honor to represent upon this floor. I must insist that when that gentleman, or any other gentleman, speaks of the North-west in connection with submission, he shall except Barbour as a county, and myself as an individual. We are not submissionists, and we despise those who are. But I apprehend that when this matter comes to be fairly understood, it will be found that there is not nearly so much difference of opinion between us as is now imagined. I apprehend that those gentlemen who are always singing psalms in praise of the Union of the United States, and not of the Union of the Constitution, are not the peculiar friends of the Union; and I apprehend that those who may be said to travel a little slowly in their march towards the ultimate result, and who, therefore, have been termed "submissionists," are not, as the event will show, liable to the application of that term in the offensive manner in which it has been used. I think that a little charity, and a little more charity than has been exercised towards one another, would enable us in a very short period of time—and perhaps in a much more brief period of time than many of us anticipate—to stand side by side, and shoulder to shoulder, upon the same platform.

I have not yet seen any man who was willing to commit himself to unconditional submission, but I have seen a great many who were willing to commit themselves to submit to a great deal more than I am willing, and more than my people are willing to submit to or to tolerate. But .Page45 I cannot consent when gentlemen even hold such views, to denounce them as it has been the practice of some gentlemen in this body.

I trust, then, that when my friend from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] comes to look over the fair fields and rugged declivities of Northwestern Virginia, he will remember that those mountain fastnesses are not inhabited by slaves, and that they are not inhabited by submissionists, for I believe that history affords no instance in which mountains have ever been infested by such a disreputable race of inhabitants. No, sir, the people of North-western Virginia, though they may not enjoy all the luxuries which those in other parts of the State possess, have honest hearts, brave hearts, and strong arms. They are a brave people, ready to do, to dare and to suffer in defence of the right, and who will never submit to wrong.

But, Mr. President, I find from the gentleman from Northampton, and I believe from every other gentleman who has opened his mouth in this body in opposition to these resolutions, that we are reminded that this attempt, at this time, to disturb this question of domestic taxation, is a breach of plighted faith; and, therefore, notwithstanding the knowledge, and I believe no one of them has failed to acknowledge it—that great injustice in some regard, is done to Western Virginia in respect to this question of taxation, still they insist that it is a breach of plighted faith to disturb that question now. They have most eloquently reiterated that proposition again and again.

Now, sir, in the first place, if that were a fact, it might be worthy and deserving of some consideration. In the next place, if it is an argument, I am unable, I confess, to appreciate its force or its logic. But is it a fact? Is there any breach of plighted faith in attempting to disturb this question now, that these gentlemen should feel themselves so wronged, so utterly disgusted with our want of patriotism in seeking to bring this question before the Convention at this time, and in the shape in which it is now presented? Why, sir, my recollection of the history of this question in Virginia, does not teach me that it is a breach of plighted faith. I recollect that in 1850 when the last Convention was called, or rather when the bill calling the Convention was under consideration, it was resisted in my section of the State, because it failed to recognize the great principle of equal representation all over the State. I recollect, if my memory serves me correctly, that we had at that time in Western Virginia a majority of one hundred and thirty thousand of the white population of the State, while the terms of the Convention bill placed us in a minority of seventeen in that body.

We elected our delegates; we went into the Convention, and we felt .Page46 what everybody knew that we were bound hand and foot; and, like men in that condition, we were thankful for small favors, and we took all that we could get, trusting to the returning sense of justice of our Eastern brethren to give us our just rights in the future.

It has been said upon this floor, that because the present Constitution postponed the consideration of this question of representation until 1865, it is in exceeding bad taste for any of us to attempt to raise the question now. That question, sir, we were obliged to postpone until that time, not because we desired it, but because we found ourselves in a position in which we could not avoid it. And why was it made a part and parcel of our present Constitution, that in 1865 this question was to be referred to the people of Virginia in the cumbrous, unwieldy and uncertain manner, proposed in our present Constitution?

Why, sir, it was to avoid, if possible, the disturbance of this question. It was intended to place us in a position giving us the power, it may be, if we could secure it at the polls, to occupy a place in both Houses of the General Assembly on the terms which now regulate representation in the House of Delegates, but at the same time to withdraw from the action of that Legislature a very large proportion of the subjects of taxation. Then, Mr. President, we did not deserve much consideration at the hands of our Eastern brethren for submitting to this. We could not avoid it; but they did deserve at our hands—and we never failed to accord it to them—some degree of consideration for having acknowledged a principle which, in the end, must eventually work out our equality. We were willing to wait until 1865 ; but one gentleman, I think the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. CAPERTON] , pressed it upon the attention of the Convention yesterday, that because no petition had come up to the Legislature of Virginia from the various counties, asking for a Convention, that therefore it was to be taken for granted they did not desire it. I tell the gentleman, that in my section and in all sections West of the Alleghany mountains, we find it a very troublesome thing to keep our people quiet until 1865.

But, sir, you have asked your representatives to call a Convention; you have obtained a Convention; you gave us the white basis in the election of our delegates, or the basis of the House of Delegates; and it has been said by gentlemen that if anybody had ever dreamed that this Constitution was to have been disturbed in this Convention, it would not have been called.

I tell you, sir, that the Legislature would not have dared to call a Convention upon any other basis. We were willing to wait further; but when the representatives in that body undertook to call a Convention .Page47 we did not expect that they would commit political suicide by issuing a call for a Convention upon any other basis; and I tell you if the members of this body could but realize the feelings of gratitude which that act of liberality and justice had aroused in the minds of the people of Western Virginia, they would, I am sure, appreciate them.

Now, sir, it has been said by various gentlemen upon this floor, again and again, that this question was never considered among the people; that the delegates elected to this body were not elected upon that issue —that the people never dreamed of it, and that, therefore, this Convention ought not to touch it: that it would be bad faith for us to touch it. What does that imply? I don't know how it strikes the minds of other gentlemen, but it strikes me that if the people who are represented here had supposed that this question was to be disturbed they would have filled the seats of these gentlemen with other representatives. That is a fair deduction; that is the conclusion to which this argument leads me; I have no idea, however, that their seats could have been filled more worthily than they are filled.

But if they think differently from me in this respect, let me make a suggestion in the kindest spirit, that every one of them resign their seats, and suffer their places to be filled by men whom the people would be willing to trust. But, sir, I have no idea that the good people of the State of Virginia would desire to change the seat of any gentleman here, because I am well satisfied that whatever may be said, that for ability and zeal in the cause of their respective constituencies, they never could be surpassed by the people of Virginia. But, sir, why not disturb this question now? When will there be a more convenient season than the present? When will the people of Virginia be more convinced of the necessity of this change? Why, my friend, the gentleman from Petersburg [Mr. BRANCH] , tells us that he will never consent to disturb this question, until Virginia shall go out of the Union, and until this Convention takes her out of the Union. How does that interpret itself to me, sir? Why, that she will never go out. I don't think that this Convention would drag her out if it remained here until 1965. But, sir, I may be mistaken. Significant indications are coming up all over the country; and I am very glad to find that my worthy friend, the gentleman from Petersburg [Mr. BRANCH] , has had his pace considerably accelerated in that direction, and it does my heart good to find that this acceleration has had the desired effect, and that he stands ready to advance or recede, just as the circumstances of the case may require.

Before I forget it, and lest my silence may be misunderstood, I desire to refer to the question, which has disturbed the equanimity of the .Page48 gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] . I refer to his invitation to Western gentlemen to come up and give him an ordinance of secession by way of offset for an agreement to yield this demand for equalizing taxation.

Mr. President: I understood his proposition just as he explained it to us this morning. I was not misled by the playful manner in which he made this proposition. I came here not to bargain, or beseech for my rights, but to ask, demand them, and insist upon them, because I hold in regard to the rights of citizens of Virginia in Virginia, that a right that is not worth asking for ought to be abandoned. I am not willing to consent to occupy an inferior position in the Confederacy of the United States, if I can help it, nor to consent that my people shall occupy an inferior position in the councils of their native State. Whilst I recognize the inequality of Virginia, in the Confederacy of the United States, and shall insist, so far as my abilities will permit, that every thing shall be done, suffered and borne, necessary to vindicate our rights; whilst I shall be willing, as an humble individual member of the Convention to do, and suffer every thing that may be necessary, to vindicate the rights of my people, I have no idea that the offer of my friend from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , will be misunderstood, or that it will operate to the prejudice of any body. It might possibly be for the interest of some to prefer it, but I am well convinced that it will not have that effect in the State.

My course in regard to this great question shall be dictated by my sense of duty and right with reference to that question, and that alone, and I am ready to meet that and every other question when it rises, and to give to it such consideration as it may deserve.

But I desire to recur again to the pregnant admission made by the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. CAPERTON] , the gentleman from the city of Richmond [Mr. JoHNsoN] , and I think by other gentlemen, certainly by the gentleman from Petersburg [Mr. BRANCH] , that the principle of this resolution is right and just in itself.

I beg leave to say that I was not aware that I uttered one word susceptible of the construction which he has given it.

I do not desire to misrepresent the gentleman. But the gentleman from Richmond, Mr. President, whom I cannot successfully undertake to imitate; whose beautiful flights of fancy I could never aspire to follow, has, in the richness of his imagination and in the beauty of his imagery, painted the Union of the United States as the most magnificent temple of liberty upon which the sun ever shone.

But, sir, he has fallen most unwittingly into an error that is pervading the country—an error that ought to be corrected here, that ought to be corrected in every man's mind; and it is this, that we were indebted to the late Union of the United States for liberty; for all the laws which secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sir, I do not so understand the constitution of my country. I do not understand that any right is secured to me by the government of the United States as a citizen at home, in the enjoyment of all those things which render life desirable and happy.

Sir, if I be wronged in my person, or good name, or in my property, I do not resort to the federal laws for redress. I resort to my State laws. If I desire a public improvement for my county, I do not resort to Congress and petition that body for this privilege. I resort to my State Legislature. I think it is high time, Mr. President, when we are asked to condescend to the General Government, to remember that we have a most beneficent government at home, which challenges our admiration, to which we owe our allegiance, which gives us protection, which ought to be preserved, and which must be preserved, if we desire to preserve our liberties.

It is said that the eagle when warned by his instinct that a storm is approaching, instead of preparing himself to breast it, plumes his flight and soars above it, and then looks down with complacency upon the raging elements below, and so the gentleman from the city of Richmond, when this question is presented, like the eagle soars above it all and looks down upon the turmoil and strife that we are engaged in and never condescends to meet these questions with a single argument. I would much prefer, Mr. President, that that gentleman and every other gentleman in this Convention should meet these questions by argument; and I desire to say most respectfully to one and all, that the song of the Union has been sung out, and like the harp of a thousand strings it ought to be hung upon the willows.

But, Mr. President, the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. CAPERTON] , made, in my opinion, a most unfortunate and unjust reference to our friends of Western Virginia. He said to us upon this floor yesterday, that we ought not to extort from Eastern Virginia, in this hour of her peril and her calamity, those rights of ours which he, almost in the same breath, entertaining, as he did, the same sentiments as the honorable gentleman from Preston [Mr. BROWN] , asserted to be eminently just and proper. Sir, I am inclined to think—and I hope that I am correct in this apprehension—that no such necessity could ever arise. It never occurred to my mind before, that our friends of Virginia, in any portion .Page50 of the State, while admitting the existence of a right, and at the same time admitting that they withheld it from those entitled to it, could be induced to relinquish it, unless extorted by fear. I think it is unjust to our friends in Eastern Virginia, and I expect them to come up manfully to this subject, and indicate, by a liberal and generous support of this proposition, the just appreciation that they have of the affection of Western Virginia.

Now, sir, having disposed of the remarks of these gentlemen, I propose to submit a very few plain common sense questions for the consideration of this body. First, then, in what does the present Constitution of Virginia require any amendment in any regard whatever? Is it so perfect, that we would hand it down to our posterity and expect them to be content with it? Does it meet all the questions of State interest in such a manner as to secure to the citizens their respective rights, and, at the same time, guard them against the abuse of the authority conferred upon various agencies that they have established to carry out their government?

If it does, then no change is necessary now, or will be necessary hereafter. But, sir, I apprehend that a very casual, a very careless review of the statutes of Virginia, will point out very many things to the enquiring mind—especially, if that mind be educated through the experience which we get from day to day from all parts of the State—that need to be changed; a great many reforms that ought to be introduced, some very material and essential, and others of less materiality.

We find that representation of the State of Virginia in both Houses of the General Assembly, has not been properly apportioned. This was a compromise given to us in 1850. They had the power in both Houses; but seeing that it was so palpably unjust to retain it altogether any longer, they gave us the compromise by which we obtained our rights in one House, with the possibility that in 1865 we might obtain the same in the other. We find biennial sessions of the Legislature instead of annual sessions; and I contend that there is no man who hears me, with the experience of ten years past before his eyes, and with the portentous experience of ten years in the future before his mental vision, but feels that in this regard it would be well that the Legislature should assemble from year to year, leaving to other representatives the correction of such abuses as may occur, and leaving to the same persons, in like manner, to judge of the interests of the State.

Another question suggests itself to the minds of every intelligent gentleman here, and especially every lawyer. Why, sir, we have an .Page51 intermediate Court of Appeals, a District Court, established by the Constitution of Virginia. Who does not feel that it is a most miserable abortion? Who does not feel that that Court has utterly failed in every reasonable and just expectation that was entertained in regard to it? Our County Courts, sir, are a peculiar institution in Virginia, if indeed, she has a peculiar institution. Why, sir, in earlier times it had the prestige of great names. It sustained vast expectations. It was confided to a body of men who, unfortunately, do not possess power in these later days. It was not then an expensive Court in the positive sense. But I have learned, and I am satisfied that the people of Virginia have learned, that within the last ten years, while it has been the most expensive Court it has been the most inefficient; that it has been a most perfect caricature on a court of justice that has ever been devised by man. And it is made a Constitutional Court, and whatever may be its inherent defects, its practical imperfections, yet it is beyond the ordinary power of the Legislature to abolish it.

I must confess that I have never been able to appreciate the justice of that system of taxation which, if my property consists in lands, and is taxed to the full extent of its value, enables me to relieve myself of all taxation by merely changing the character of my property. The common masses of the people throughout the country are at a loss to understand that kind of logic which renders it eminently just and proper that my property, when consisting of lands, shall be taxed to its full value, but when that land is exchanged for negroes under twelve years of age, that property is exempt from taxation. And I have no idea that they will ever be able to understand such a proposition as that; I think they will never try to understand it, and most assuredly, sir, I never will endeavor to instruct them in any such logic.

One gentleman has said that this taxing of slaves is a tax upon labor. What is labor? what is capital? what is money? It is but the result of the accumulation of labor; and you cannot place your finger upon a single article of property in the Commonwealth, or in the world that does not represent labor, and labor almost exclusively. And why should the 239,000 slaves in Virginia, under 12 years of age, worth $119,500,000, be exempt from taxation? Gentlemen say that it may be possible that we will not obtain as many benefits from it as we expect; and more, that it is possible our burdens will be increased. But if the principle be correct, you have no right to resist the application of it. Leave the consequences to us: if it increases our burdens we are willing to bear the additional load. But, I apprehend that if a well founded apprehension existed that it would increase our burdens, a proposition .Page52 of this kind would not have been resisted. It will diminish and not increase our burdens.

But, it has been stated on this floor, by the gentleman from Petersburg [Mr. BRANCH] , that if any extraordinary occasion were to arise in the history of this State, then it would be proper, and he would consent to disturb this question of taxation. Why, let me ask the gentleman, or any other gentleman on this floor, if extraordinary circumstances have not arisen? Have no extraordinary circumstances arisen—circumstances that were never thought of, never dreamed of? Who ten years ago supposed that we would now be sitting, convened in another convention assembled by the order of the people, discussing the probability and the possibility of remaining under the Government of the United States? Who at that time did not think that that question was one which their descendants to the latest generation would never be called upon to determine? Who ever thought that the State of Virginia, by the practical operation of the aggressive doctrine of Northern abolitionism, would be invaded by an incendiary and murderous force, and that the citizens of Virginia would be murdered in cold blood in their own streets? Who ever dreamed that the State of Virginia, when she undertook to execute the law and to impose the highest penalty on her malefactors, would have to surround the gallows with an army of two or three thousand soldiers? Who expected that, on account of this Northern interference, we would find it necessary to expend half a million dollars on the Armory in Richmond, to supply arms to the State? Who thought that an extra session of the Legislature, and this Convention called by the people, would be found necessary to be assembled at the same time, to provide against this extraordinary contingency? Who ever expected that the militia system would have to be re-organized, and an immense expense for these undertakings have to be borne by the people of Virginia? And will we be asked to believe that, notwithstanding all these evils, and innumerable others of greater magnitude which threaten us, that we should sit still and bear all the burdens, while we permit that vast property in negroes to remain exempt from taxation? Upon looking over the statement of the public debt, I find that it has increased, in round numbers, from eleven millions of dollars in 1852, to forty millions in 1860, requiring $2,556,687 to pay the annual interest upon it. The present session of the Legislature in order to supply the extraordinary demands of the country for protection is required to appropriate $1,000,000, and has done so since we have been in session here. The present session will require, I am told, some $150,000 to defray its expenses, and this Convention .Page53 will require as much more, for I see it indicated by the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. EARLY] , that there is to be held an adjourned session of this body for the purpose of determining these questions further. It seems to me that nothing will arrest this current of extravagance until the people come to realize that, while their representatives spend their money, they will have it to pay.

I know, Mr. President, and just here, I may be permitted to allude to the argument, that it is represented that the portion of the State where slave property exists to the greatest extent, already pays a large portion of the taxes. I admit it; but it is also true that with equal generosity they have appropriated to themselves the lion's share of the expenditures, of which I complain nothing. I have before me a statement showing that there have been expended in Virginia for internal improvements in the various districts of the State, the following sums, viz:

In Tide-Water District $15,000,000

In Piedmont District 13,000,000

In Valley District 8,000,000

In South-West District 8,000,000

In North-West District 2,000,000

The estimated receipts from the several Districts, for the year 1861, are as follows:

From Tide-Water District $1,132,342.68

From Piedmont District 972,044.15

From Valley District 523,086.82

From South-West District 289,616.53

From North-West District 404,195.22

These Districts, according to the present rates of taxation, will return said sums to the Treasury in the following periods :

Tide-Water District in about 8 years

Piedmont District in about 13 years

Valley District in about 16 years

South-West District in about 27 years

North-West District in about 5 years

Then, Mr. President, it appears, as I have stated, that that portion of the State which pays the largest portion of the taxes, has judiciously appropriated to itself an equally large proportion of the expenditures. I am not here to complain of that course, but I am here to protest against the mortgaging of the inheritance of my children for all time.Page54 to come by increasing the public debt of the State; for I know that every dollar of increase of that public debt is a mortgage upon the inheritance of my children, and that they will have it to pay. I know that the property of the people of my section of the State, consists, to a greater extent in landed property, which, from its nature, is permanent and will go on increasing in value, while the species of property which it is now proposed to bring within the power of taxation is variable in its value, and may, in a few years, disappear entirely from Virginia.

I ask you then, Mr. President, have we not an interest—have we not a substantial interest that ought to excuse us if we make these demands upon this body? Have we not such an interest as should entitle us to ask and to demand at the hands of this Convention that all the property of the State shall be taxed for the purpose of meeting these enormous expenditures? It seems so to me, and I trust that our friends will therefore excuse the zeal with which we approach this question. As a proof to my friends from Eastern Virginia that every description of property in the State, including slave property, should be taxed alike, I call their attention to the fact, that with the comparative exemption from taxation they have enjoyed, the public debt has increased in the last 9 or 10 years from $11,000,000 to $40,000,000—and I insist that equality of taxation is necessary if we would make ours an economical Government. I know that these enormous appropriations ought to be restrained; and, although I do not feel myself competent to indicate what would be the best method of accomplishing that result, it is perfectly evident that unless these extravagant expenditures are curtailed, the State of Virginia, however she may be degraded by it, is marching forward, steadily and rapidly forward, towards repudiation. No State, more than an individual, can go on from year to year increasing its indebtedness, without realizing its ultimate ruin. Gentlemen admonish us that there may be a re-valuation of the lands of Western Virginia. Sir, we have already had one or two re-valuations of our lands since 1850. We have paid for it and we are ready to do it again. All we ask is that you shall give us the principle of equality, that we shall all be placed upon the same platform, and whether our lands be valued high or low, we will be satisfied.

It has been intimated to us that we will gain nothing by this adjustment of the question of taxation; that the coal fields and the oil fields of Western Virginia will increase the value of our lands, and that we will get no more from you than you will from us. Be it so. Give us the principle and we will submit to the result, whatever it may be. If the result is for the benefit of Eastern Virginia, rather than for that .Page55 of the West, be it so; let justice be done and we will not complain of the consequences.

I ask again, is it not sound policy for Virginia to adopt a system of equal taxation in view of the condition of things that is upon us? We, in Western Virginia have found it a formidable undertaking to keep the people of that section of the State quiet upon this question. It has been falsely thrown in our teeth, continually, that the Democratic party, which has ruled the State, has ruined it. I say, to the gentlemen upon this floor, that the people of the West will have justice done them. I will not say, as other gentlemen have intimated, that if the particular measure we ask for is not granted, we will inaugurate revolution or violence. We make no threats; we appeal to your native magnanimity; we appeal to your sense of justice and right, and we still believe that that appeal will be met with that fraternal spirit in which it ought to be met. We deem it of the utmost importance to Virginia, at this crisis in her history, that there shall be no division of sentiment among her people, no cause of division, whether ostensible or real, but that she shall be united as one people, from the Ohio to the Chesapeake. We are one in interest, and I trust the day will never arrive when we shall be two in fact. I cannot look to the possibility of a rupture of the good old Commonwealth of Virginia without feeling that her glory will have departed forever. Everything which makes a Virginian raise his head with pride, and claim his birth right, will have passed away, and he must hang his head with shame when he acknowledges himself to be a citizen of a State which, by wrong and injustice, accomplished her own destruction. I cannot, for a moment, entertain the possibility of such a thing. I drive away the thought from my mind; but I must be permitted to say that the way to attach the people to the Government is to do equal justice to every section.

Mr. President, I did not intend when I was drawn into this discussion to have trespassed so long upon the patience of this body, but I cannot resist the temptation to refer to a few figures and facts in regard to this question of the public debt so that the people of Virginia may see how steadily and rapidly the State is marching forward towards repudiation. I find upon examination the progress and condition of the public debt within the last nine years, to be as follows:

On the 1st of January, 1852, the debt was $11,971,838.30. Increased in-

1852 $2,979,087.00

1853 4,605,916.87

1854 4,112,184.37

1855 1,504,403.09

1856 2.653,570.00

1857 630,260.00

1858 1,866,800.00

1859 1,454,600.00

1860 3,573,125.00

23,379,946.33

From this deduct amount already paid 1,462,993.00

21,916,953.33

Debt existing Jan. 1, 1852, now unpaid 10,271,113.99

32,188,067.32

Amount debts due on account of internal improvements 7,563,993.24

39,752,060.56

Deduct debt existing Jan. 1, 1852 10,271,113.99

Total increase since 1852 is $29,481,946.57

What may be the increase which the necessary expenditures for the session of the Legislature now progressing or of this Convention, or what additional appropriations it may be necessary to make, to secure our rights in the Union or out of it, I cannot state; but it must be evident to every gentleman. I can understand distinctly, and the people of Virginia will understand distinctly that the best means of restraining these extravagant appropriations is to make all the property of the State taxable, so that every man will feel that he is interested in restraining the extravagant expenditures of the Government.

I shall not longer trespass upon this Convention, but will merely express a hope that it will be the pleasure of the Convention to consider this question; to raise the appropriate commmittee and then it will be for us to present propositions. If we cannot agree, then let us disagree; but do not stifle enquiry—do not say to the people of the West that you will not even entertain the proposition. I tell you, sir, that eternal political perdition awaits the man who will stifle, by his voice, free enquiry by the people of Virginia in relation to this question.

I desire to add a single word. On yesterday, sir, a question of order was made by the gentleman from Jackson, which, I supposed it would be .Page57 the province of the Chair to decide before debate proceeded. The question of order was to the effect that a proposition somewhat similar in its character to that submitted by the gentleman from Monongalia providing for the appointment of a committee, had been on the table, and that it was proper that the question should be first taken upon that.

The hour has arrived for the Convention to go into committee. I desire to secure the floor with a view to offer some remarks upon the pending question when the proper time arrives.

Mr. R. Y. CONRAD offered a resolution changing the time for the Convention to go into a committee of the whole from half past 12 o'clock to 11, A. M., which was adopted.

The Convention then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair.

When the Committee rose yesterday, it had under consideration the various reports submitted by the Committee on Federal Relations. This morning another report from the same Committee in relation to additional constitutional guarantees has been referred to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration.

The gentleman from Richmond is entitled to the floor.

Mr. GEO. W. RANDOLPH resumed his remarks, and concluded about half past one o'clock, having occupied the floor nearly an hour and a half. His speech will appear in full in a day or two.4Mr. Randolph's speech is given in the Proceedings of March 16. See note 3 on those Proceedings.

No member claiming the floor,

The CHAIRMAN stated that the question before the committee was upon the first clause of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

I hope no vote will be taken to-day upon that report. I think there are other gentlemen who desire to address the Convention upon it. I understood that a gentleman whom I do not see present desired to follow the gentleman from Albemarle.

To which gentleman from Albemarle does the gentleman allude?

I intended to say that I understood that a gentleman who is not present desired to follow the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] . For that reason I move that the Committee rise.

I hope that the Committee will not rise. If there is no gentleman ready to take the floor to proceed with further discussion, I think we are prepared to vote, and I think it is exceedingly important .Page58 that we shall vote. Of course if any gentleman is prepared to go on with the discussion, I am ready to hear him; but if not I hope that we shall vote, and vote quickly.

The question was put on Mr. FISHER'S motion, and the Committee refused to rise.

No gentleman claiming the floor,

The CHAIRMAN again stated the question to the Committee.

I desire to discuss the general subjects of the various reports of the several Committees. I had supposed that some gentleman, entertaining different views from my friend from Richmond, would address the Convention to-day. An intimation was given yesterday, by a gentleman, that he desired to speak in the same general line of argument pursued by the gentleman from Richmond. Having made no preparation, therefore, it would be altogether out of my power, with any satisfaction to myself, to enter upon an argument to day, without the references before me which I propose to use. I would, with the utmost pleasure, yield the floor to any gentleman who is ready to go on. Indeed, I would much prefer hearing some gentleman entertaining different views from those expressed by the gentleman from Richmond; but if it is not the purpose of any gentleman upon the other side to discuss the general question before the Committee any further, I would ask the indulgence of gentlemen to renew the motion that the Committee rise, and I promise to be ready by to-morrow morning.

I hope the Committee will not rise. If gentlemen desire to continue this debate they certainly ought to be prepared to go on. I desire to extend to the gentleman from Albemarle the courtesy he desires, but the Committee has been occupied for several days by the gentleman who last addressed it, and if every gentleman here is to occupy as much time, I ask when this Convention is to adjourn? Three times 152 days is a longer time than the most of us desire to remain here.

It seems to me that the Committee might rise and report progress and the proposition of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , be taken up. By that course we should lose no time, and allow the gentleman from Albemarle to go on with his speech in the Committee to-morrow.

If it is proposed that the Committee shall rise with that view, I have no objection.

I rise simply to make an inquiry upon the question of order. If we go on now and dispose of some of the propositions reported by the Committee on Federal Relations, may not the gentleman .Page59 from Albemarle then proceed to-morrow to discuss the report, and still have the general subject open for debate?

If the Committee proceeds to act upon the propositions before them seriatim as they arise, such as shall have been acted upon will have passed from before it, and will not be open for discussion.

Still the report made this morning from the Committee on Federal Relations would be under consideration, and I desire to ask if that would not open up all those general questions which we have discussed? If we were to proceed and act upon some of the resolutions now before us upon which there is no controversy, it would expedite our business.

I hope, sir, it will be the pleasure of the Committee to extend what seems to me is the usual courtesy, to the gentleman from Albemarle.

It is manifest that there has been a little hitch in the programme, that another gentleman was expected to follow the gentleman from Richmond, in the debate, and that the gentleman from Albemarle whom, I am sure, all of us are exceedingly desirous to hear, did not come this morning prepared to enter into the discussion. Even if we should lose the remainder of this day, I do not think it ought to be weighed in the balance against the courtesy that is due to that gentleman; but in point of fact, I do not see how we will lose time at all. We have a subject under debate in Convention, and we have a subject under debate in Committee of the whole. Now, sir, if the Committee rises, the balance of the day can be appropriated to the discussion of the subject which was under debate when the Convention resolved itself into a Committee of the whole. By doing this we shall lose no time, while at the same time we would be extending to the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , what is but a common courtesy.

I shall certainly vote for granting the courtesy to the gentleman from Albemarle which is asked for. It is with great pleasure I do it, sir. He has not been troublesome at all during the session of this Convention; but whilst I shall vote to have this courtesy extended, I think there ought to be a stopping place. I rise now to say, that after this I shall expect those who intend to make speeches will be here prepared at half past twelve o'clock, when the Convention goes into Committee of the whole.

11 o'clock.

11 o'clock. I hope, sir, that gentlemen intending to .Page60 speak will be here at that hour to take their position to reach the goal. If you recollect, sir, when we first met here the honorable gentleman from Princess Anne remarked that if a man had not made up his mind what he would do upon this question at that time, he would not do it until doomsday. It appears, however, that nobody is ready but my young friend over the way. I saw on last Saturday—I was not here, sir, but I saw from the record—that when a vote was taken upon the question of meeting at half-past 10 o'clock that those who were going to go out of the Union before the 4th of March voted against the resolution proposing to meet at that hour. Now, sir, if those gentlemen who are entitled to the floor are not ready to proceed, and there is nobody else prepared to take it, we will go on and take the vote. I think that is the proper course; and then let us adjourn and go home.

The question, "Shall the committee now rise?" was then put, and decided in the affirmative.

The committee then rose, and reported progress.

1.2.4. THE TAXATION QUESTION

The pending question is on the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , and upon that question the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HAYMOND] , is entitled to the floor.

Mr. President: I had not expected to address the Convention to day upon this subject. The Convention, however, having adopted a resolution by which it is provided that after to day it will go into Committee of the Whole at 11 o'clock in the morning, I fear if I shall postpone the remarks which I have to submit to the consideration of this Convention I shall have no opportunity to submit them to-morrow, or perhaps at any other time, unless I should ask the Committee to suspend its deliberation on the subject of Federal Relations. I prefer, however, not to do so, and shall therefore avail myself of this opportunity of presenting to the Convention the views I entertain upon the subjects embraced in the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

Mr. President, the questions involved in these resolutions, especially the first resolution, are of the highest importance to what I conceive to be the best interests of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I shall attempt to show, sir, that a proper consideration and proper action upon the part of the people of Virginia, upon this subject, is essential to the best interests of the State, and essential ultimately to the maintenance of the honor and glory of Virginia.

But, sir, before I proceed to the discussion of these questions, which I propose to do to some extent, I beg leave very briefly to call the attention of the Convention to some objections urged by the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. CAPERTON] against the consideration of this subject by this body.

The first objection urged by him was, that we are now considering the propriety of perpetuating our Union with the Northern States—that is, sir, the Union of Virginia with the Northern States, and, if possible, the reconstruction of the Union composing our confederacy as it stood some few months since. In the estimation of the gentleman from Monroe, to discuss our family differences, in view of the other questions to be settled, would have the effect of showing to people abroad that the citizens of Virginia were divided upon their own internal policy. The effect of this would be, in the gentleman's opinion, to impair the force and efficacy of any proposition of compromise and adjustment that we may present to the Northern States.

Mr. President, it seems to me, sir, that the very reason which the gentleman urges against a consideration of this question now, is the strongest argument that could be presented in favor of its consideration.

Is it not known in the Northern States of this Confederacy that the chief portion of the slave property of this Commonwealth is East of the Blue Ridge, and that we have two systems of labor in Virginia to some extent? And is not our Constitution known to the Northern people? Don't we see in the newspapers published in the free States, almost daily that in Virginia inequality exists in representation and taxation, and that it is an existing cause of contention and complaint among her people? They are perfectly conversant with these difficulties. They are perfectly familiar with all our distractions and internal heart-burnings, and in order to make ourselves powerful and efficient in the eyes of those Northern people, in my judgment, our first duty is to become reconciled to each other. We should harmonize this Commonwealth from one end to the other, and make Virginia one and indivisible in sentiment and feeling. I know, sir, that in the Western part of Virginia there is no want of loyalty to any of the institutions of Virginia. I believe that in my portion of the State the people are as sound and as emphatically Southern as the people of Richmond or the people of any other portion of the Commonwealth.

Another objection which the gentleman from Monroe made to the consideration of this question is, that at the time of the adoption of the present Constitution by the Convention of 1850, there was an agreement, .Page62 if not an express, a tacit or implied agreement, that the provisions of that instrument should not be interfered with until 1865.

I can only reply to that by saying that if there was any such agreement, it is not contained in the bond, and I apprehend that when the people of Virginia voted upon the question of the adoption or rejection of that instrument, they voted for it as it was, and not according to any outside understanding of any kind among the members of the Convention before they left the city of Richmond.

What is that instrument? Does it provide on its face the remedy for the evil of which we complain? Does it provide any kind of remedy for the removal of the injustice and inequality in taxation of which we complain? No, sir. The only provision in that instrument, looking to change, is one in regard to representation; and that provides not that in 1865 there shall be a Convention to reform and amend the Constitution, but that the General Assembly, if it cannot agree upon some terms of representation, shall submit the question to the voters of the Commonwealth as to whether they will have the two Houses organized upon the suffrage or mixed basis, and if a majority of the people then vote favorably to the mixed basis, then each House shall be organized upon that basis. If a majority vote for the suffrage basis, then each House will be organized upon that basis.

But how is it with regard to the subject of the courts, because our courts are constitutional courts—the Circuit Court and the County Court—and the Legislature has no power to abolish either of them? How is it with regard to the subject of taxation, and other provisions touching the finances, &c., &c.? I understand from high authority that more than one fourth of the Sheriffs are defaulters for the past year. And, sir, there are many reforms needed in our Constitution which are necessary to our welfare and prosperity. And none of them except that relating to representation can be changed except by a Convention.

But, gentlemen say, let it remain until 1865. Why let it remain until then? If any of the provisions of the Constitution are wrong, is it not the duty of the people, through their representatives in this Convention assembled, now to correct them, and not put it off to another time, in order to incur the expense of another Convention?

Suppose that it had been the belief of the members who composed the Convention of 1850, that no Convention would assemble again until 1865. Does that alter the case? I presume the members of that Convention never contemplated, for a moment, that before 1865 Virginia would be invaded by a John Brown, and she compelled, in.Page63 consequence, to expend a large amount of money for the maintenance of the honor and dignity of the Commonwealth, and punish him and his associates in crime. I presume that no member of the Convention of 1850 anticipated that any necessity would arise, as the gentleman from Barbour [Mr. Woons] remarked, for the expenditure of $500,000 for the construction of an armory in the city of Richmond. It is not to be presumed either that they apprehended a necessity for the appropriation of one million of dollars for the defence of the State, and the protection of the institution of slavery. None of the members of that Convention, I presume, then supposed, that at this time this Convention would be assembled here for the great purposes which brought it together. Sir, circumstances have changed since that time. The position of Virginia has changed since then. She is now considering her relations with the Federal Union, and whether she shall sever her connection from the Federal Government; whether that temple of human liberty in which it has been hitherto our pride to dwell, shall be destroyed, because of its insufficiency to promote the object of its construction.

Yet, sir, this Convention is assembled. I admit that it was not anticipated in 1850; but what has occurred that has led to the expenditure of so large an amount of the public money for the purpose of procuring arms and instruments of war and death, and placing them in the hands of our people? What, sir, has involved Virginia in the position to make it necessary for her to consider whether she shall longer remain within the Union? Sir, it is not with a view of prejudicing the institution of slavery—for I am a slaveholder myself, to a limited extent—that I answer, that all has grown out of the institution of slavery. I do so because I cannot otherwise account for it, and because, in fact, that is the true cause of all this difficulty. I say that the institution ought to be maintained and protected at all hazards. It ought to be protected as property to the fullest extent; but while this is so, it ought to be subjected to a fair proportion of the burthens incurred for the support of the government and for its protection. It is alone the dangers which threaten that institution that has made it necessary for Virginia's citizens to come together and consider solemnly whether the protection and safety of her interests, as connected with that peculiar institution, does not make it necessary for her to destroy the Union.

This brings before us, sir, a very different question from any that arose before the Convention of 1850. We held, however, in 1850, as we now hold, that it is a sound principle of political economy and of the .Page64 philosophy of government that each citizen shall contribute towards the support of government in proportion to the amount of protection he receives; or, in other words, that each citizen of the community should contribute to the support of government in proportion to his ability. Every true and wise man holds this to be a sound principle in political economy. A citizen who has nothing but himself, has, of course, not so much to be protected by government, as he who has his farm, his cattle, his slaves and various other species of property. To protect the individual does not require as much expenditure as is necessary for the protection of the person and property of the property holder. According to the principle I have announced each citizen would contribute to the support of government in the degree that he requires protection. Now, let us see how this principle has been carried out, and we should see that it is carried out now, because I contend, with all due respect, of course, to gentlemen who may differ in opinion with me, if there never was a time before when slaves ought to be taxed as other property is taxed, that now is the time when the owners of slaves should be taxed as the owners of other property in the State are taxed. Should there be a distinction in property? Does it not cost as much, and even more, effort on the part of the government to protect slave property as any other species of property. Why, then, if it costs as much to protect slave property as it does any other species of property, should it be exempt from taxation, in whole or part, while all other property is taxed upon the ad valorem principle? Is there any reason for it? Can there be any sound, substantial reason urged against taxing that property as other property is taxed? Is it not as valuable? Will it not command high cash prices? and is it not of ready sale? Does it not sell as readily for cash as any other species of property which we have?

Now, sir, in discussing this subject farther, I do not mean to discuss it as purely a sectional question, because I maintain that it is not altogether a sectional question, but a question, as I consider it, that affects different classes of persons and property holders, and in all sections of the State. Let us see : A large majority of the people of this Commonwealth are not slaveholders; they are not confined to North-western or South-western Virginia, or to the valley of Virginia. I apprehend that the majority of the people in tide-water and in Piedmont are also non-slaveholders. Now, sir, I put the question to you and to all these people in every portion of the State, not only to nonslaveholders, but the slaveholders, why it is that every other species of property in this Commonwealth should be taxed and this peculiar property be exempt from taxation to the extent it is at present? What .Page65 is the result? The result is that the species of property which costs the government the least to protect pays the largest amount of the tax, and contributes the money which goes to the protection of the institution which does not contribute to its own protection in the proportion of other property.

Mr. President, my object in urging this question upon this body is not to tax harshly or unreasonably the slaveholder. I do not desire to oppress him, nor do I desire that any portion of the citizens of this Commonwealth should be oppressed. But, sir, as the blessings of this Government, like the dews of Heaven, fall upon the heads of all alike, I do think that the burthens to be borne in support of this Government, should be distributed and borne by the people in proportion to their ability.

It has been intimated in this Convention that the section of the State from which I hail is not altogether sound or true with regard to the institution of slavery. I recollect observing, in a Richmond paper, not very long ago—a year or so since—just after the Gubernatorial election, in which my friend from Bedford [Mr. Goconsr] , was one of the contending parties, and the present incumbent of the Gubernatorial chair the other; that my friend from Bedford was defeated by the votes of North-western Virginia, and that North-western Virginia was not sound upon the slavery question. I know that it did not come from the gentleman himself, because I have no idea that he entertains any such views, but it was in a journal of the day; and I find, since I have been in the city of Richmond, the same sentiment and feeling prevailing in this city and Convention, to some extent, in relation to that people, whose sentiments, I, in part, represent upon this floor. This impression I indignantly repudiate and denounce as false. But to proceed with my subjects. I wish to satisfy you, Mr. President, and the members of this Convention, if I can, that we are not asking for any injustice to be done to the slaveholders; but, in fact, we are advocating that which is most truly and greatly to the interest of the owner of that species of property.

We all recollect, Mr. President, that after the labors of the Convention of 1850-'51 had ended, we were told in the country that Virginia then had an immense debt upon her; that she had engaged largely in internal improvements, but that by provisions in the Constitution, the log-rolling system, which had existed in the General Assembly for years, would be effectually broken up by that provision in the Constitution which required a majority of the votes of all the members elected, composing each House of the General Assembly, to pass any bill into a law which appropriated money out of the public .Page66 treasury. Sir, the people of my section of the country were very much pleased with that provision in the Constitution, under the idea that the debt of Virginia, by its operation, would not be increased, or that the taxes imposed upon the people by the government to pay the public debt, or the interest thereon, would not be increased.

They voted for the adoption of the Constitution by an overwhelming majority. But instead of this provision preventing an increase of the public debt, the very first Legislature that met under it, according to my present recollection, appropriated to works of internal improvements in different portions of this State an amount of money equal to the whole debt of Virginia, which existed at the time of the adoption of that instrument.

The various bills passed by the first Legislature convened under that Constitution, amounted to about eleven millions of dollars, and since that time, as remarked by the gentleman from Barbour county [Mr. WOODS] , our public debt has increased from eleven millions to forty millions and upwards. How is this debt to be paid—how is it to be kept down—how is the honor and credit of Virginia to be maintained? Is this debt to be increased? Are there to be no restrictions thrown around the public treasury by which the credit of Virginia is to be reinstated; by which her credit is to be restored and the people protected from being ground to the dust by unjust and oppressive taxation? Yes, sir, in my judgment there is a remedy and I believe that remedy is in the very proposition contained in the first resolution offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] . I wish to make all the property holders of this Commonwealth interested in her legislation. I wish each one of them to become interested as the guardian of her treasury. What is the fact in relation to the slaveholders of this Commonwealth?

I know that generally they are the most wealthy and the most influential persons in the various counties in which they live; in fact, it may be said with truth that they control the Legislation of the Commonwealth. If, therefore, their peculiar property, their slave property, is taxed as other property is taxed, what must be the result? Why, sir, when this large and respectable class in Virginia—because I apprehend there is no more respectable and patriotic class in any land than the Virginia slave owners—become more deeply interested in watching the votes and action of their delegates upon those various schemes of internal improvements, which eat out the vitals of this Commonwealth and consume the substance of the people, they will require and demand a different course and a different policy of legislation in regard .Page67 to taxation and the public debt. Why was it that before the adoption of the Constitution, our debt was not so much increased? We then had various schemes of internal improvements projected in various sections of the Commonwealth. Why was not the debt increased before? Why were not these works of internal improvements progressed in then at State expense? If you will look at the tax bills previous to the adoption of that Constitution, you will find that the proportion of taxes which the slaveholders then paid upon their negroes, was a very different proportion to that which it now bears to that fixed upon their property. It is true that the tax then was per capita and not according to value. But then it will be remembered, that the tax upon other property—although the tax upon slaves previous to that time was small—was insignificant and almost nothing to what it now is. If we adopt the ad valorem principle, we will bring to the relief of the property of the Commonwealth, other than slaves, which is now taxed according to its actual value, under the Constitution, that immense amount of slave property which, as I will show you before I take my seat, will yield necessarily to the treasure of the Commonwealth, if it is taxed as other property is taxed, over $600,000, and it will enable the Legislature, unless they still increase the debt, to reduce our taxes upon all other species of property about one fourth.

Now, Mr. President, is this unjust to the owners of slave property? I am willing that they shall be protected to the fullest extent. The sons of my native hills are willing to protect them, not only with their money and their property, but with their strong arms and their blood, if it shall be necessary. I ask again, if those who happen to have land or personal property, other than slaves, and who are compelled to pay taxes upon the full value of that property—whether it is not right and proper that those who own slaves, and who need so much protection and who get so much from the Government of Virginia, should contribute to the support of that Government and to defray the expenses of the Government for its protection, as the owners of the property? Let us see for a moment, what will be the result.

I have made a memorandum, with a view of laying before the Convention, and the country, through the Convention, the value of this property which is exempt from taxation, with the view of showing the propriety of the owners of that species of property coming to the rescue and relief of the owners of other species of property. I find from the Report of the Auditor of Public Accounts, that in Virginia—I believe it was in 1859—there were 239,000 and a fraction, of slaves under twelve years of age; 272,000 and a fraction, of slaves over .Page68 twelve years of age. Now, sir, let us see the operation of this Constitution. It provides that all slaves twelve years of age or over, shall not be taxed at a higher rate than $300 worth of land ; and that all slaves under twelve years of age shall be totally exempt from taxation. Thus you see that the Constitution values all slaves at twelve years of age and over, at $300. That is the average value. If they are only worth $50 they are taxed as though they are worth $300. If they are worth 1500 or 2000 dollars, they are still taxed only as though they were worth $300. But, Mr. President, is $300 the average value of slaves 12 years old and upwards. Previous to 1850 this species of property did not sell so high as now—slave property has doubled, yes, thribbled in value, within my recollection. I see that the Auditor of Public Accounts after considering this subject, estimates the slaves at 12 years and over as being worth in Georgia over $600. I do not expect to arrive at their exact worth here, but my object is, however, to approximate it, and to show by a system of calculation what would be the result, or at least to approximate it, if this property was taxed as in my judgment it should be taxed. I have estimated the average for the sake of the calculation of all slaves twelve years old and upwards, as being $600, just double what the Constitution fixes the value at. If that be correct, by the operation of the Constitution, there is just one-half of the slaves over twelve years of age exempt from taxation. The number of that class of slaves thus exempted from taxation, is 136,000. Take that number (136,000) of twelve years and upwards at $600, and you have the sum of $81,600,000 invested in that species of property which pays no taxes whatever to the Government. The tax on that property will yield, at the same rate that other property is taxed, $326,000 annually.

Let us look for a moment to those under twelve years of age. I remarked, a few moments since, that there were 239,000 and over of that description. I take the average value fixed by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WrLLE] —and I believe it is about correct—if slaves are as valuable in Eastern Virginia as they are in my country, and I apprehend they are. Now, then, you have 239,000 of this species of property, worth $300 each—which, to a great extent, has been the cause of convening us together—which has convulsed the country from one end to the other, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Maine to Georgia, and from its centre to its circumference—I say you have that amount of property totally exempt from taxation; but it is worth, at $300 per head, $71,700,000—which would yield annually, if taxed as other property in the Commonwealth, $286,000.

Now, sir, putting together the amount of taxes which those under twelve years of age would yield if taxed, and those above twelve years of age, which are undervalued by the present Constitution, and you have a revenue denied to the Commonwealth of over $600,000 annually to be applied to the extinguishment of the present public debt of the Commonwealth, and to the relief of the other tax-payers, who are already greatly oppressed throughout the country.

Now, sir, before I conclude this branch of the subject, I desire to call the attention of this Convention to the amount of taxes which the slave property of the Commonwealth does pay. I know that it is said by gentlemen, that we who live in the North-western part of the State, and those who live in the South-western part, do not pay much taxes; that we make a great clamor but do not bring much of our money into the coffers of the State. In North-western Virginia, we pay between four hundred and five hundred thousand dollars of taxes annually to the Treasurer of the Commonwealth. In South-western Virginia, they pay two hundred and eighty-nine thousand dollars annually, according to the last estimate of the Auditor of Public Accounts. Taking the whole together, Trans-Alleghany pays annually upwards of six hundred and ninety-three thousand dollars. Very little of that amount, I apprehend, sir, is paid upon slave property. We have some slaves in my section of the country, but I do not know that we could call it involuntary servitude. We live so near the free States on the border that our section of the country has been almost entirely depopulated of its slaves, by the influence of Abolitionism; and I say to you, my brethren, members of this Convention, that if, upon Virginia's broad domain, any of her sons have a right to be opposed to Abolitionism, it is the citizens of North-western Virginia. They have suffered more from Northern aggression than all the rest of the State put together.

We have not so large a number of slaves as you of the Eastern section have. It is not because we don't desire to have them; it is not because our soil will not support that kind of population—for I undertake to say that we have as valuable soil as can be found in any portion of the State, not only for its agricultural production, but also for its minerals, and fluids recently discovered; but it is because we cannot keep them. Take this estimate to which I have referred, and you will find that this vast amount of slave property, worth two hundred and thirty-four millions four hundred thousand dollars, pays into the treasury of this Commonwealth only about three hundred and twenty-six thousand dollars. And, sir, the portion of slave property which is exempt from taxation by the Constitution, which does not contribute .Page70 one dollar to the support of the Government which we are all willing to protect, and which we say shall be protected to the extent of every legal and constitutional right, even if it is to be done with our blood—this species of property amounts to one hundred and fifty-three millions three hundred thousand dollars, and exists in portions of the State which to that extent do not pay one cent towards defraying the expense of the Government or the expense of protecting this property.

But it is said, Mr. President, that we are not sound. Well, sir, if Trans-Alleghany Virginia is not sound upon Southern rights and upon the political philosophy of the South, what part of Virginia is sound? I should like to know upon what portion of Virginia several of the gentlemen who now ask an immediate dissolution of the bond of the Union—many of them whom I have heard speak, and heard with pleasure—rely most confidently in political conflicts? Is it not upon the portion which I have the honor in part to represent; which is always right side up; always in favor of the interests of the South; always in favor of Southern principles, even to standing upon the principle upon which the gallant and glorious Breckinridge stood during the last Presidential canvass? My own county [Marion] within twenty miles of Pennsylvania on the one side and forty miles of Ohio on the other, stood upon that platform by a majority of 769, when Eastern Virginia stood upon the platform of "the Constitution, the Union and the enforcement of the laws." Sir, we unsound! If we of Trans-Alleghany are unsound concerning Southern institutions and Southern people, I should like to know where you can find your friends? But, Mr. President, why is it that in all assemblages in which I have ever served in Virginia, men of the West are spoken of as being unsound? Sir, I observed it to my sorrow and mortification, in the Hall of the House of Delegates of your General Assembly, in which I have had the honor to serve, whenever Western Virginia is spoken of by many Eastern gentlemen, it is as being unsound; and her sons, if possessed of any ability or distinction, no matter what their politics, nor how ardently devoted to the interests of the State, are held up as unsound and disloyal to the institutions of the State, especially if they were before the people as candidates for their suffrages; and for no reason save that they manfully and rightfully dare assert and contend for the rights of their people. If you think we are unsound, what will you have us do to make us sound? Do you require us to get down on our knees? Do you require us to make confessions? This we will never do. I ask you, Mr. President, and I ask the members of this Convention, to judge of our soundness by our political action, by our principles, which we never.Page71 evade, to which we have ever stood, and to which, I trust in God, we will ever stand.

But, sir, I acknowledge the equality of the States and of the people of the States under the Federal Constitution, and the right of the people to emigrate to the territories with their slave property, and to be protected there in the use and enjoyment thereof as other property is protected, and I claim that the same principles of common justice and right teach and require equality of representation and taxation in Virginia. I have been glad to hear my friends from Eastern Virginia, who have been addressing you and the other members of this Convention, talk about the equality of rights; to hear them say that that was the great object in the formation of our Government; that under the wholesome and wise provisions of our Federal Constitution, not only the States were placed upon exact equality, but the citizens of each and all the States were placed upon exact equality, and are entitled to equal privileges. Sir, that is our position. We have submitted to the injustice which has been done by the Eastern portion to the Western portion of the Commonwealth as long as we feel able or willing to submit. And why have we submitted to it? Because we are all sons of the same old mother, glorious as she is. We are members of the same political family as you of the East, and we regard Virginia as a sovereign State, as a consolidated Government in which the majority of the people have the indubitable right, to govern and rule; her people are one people in a political sense, and in this respect her Government differs materially from that of the Federal Government. And, sir, we have submitted to this thing a long time. We have submitted because you are our brethren, and we supposed, in the course of human events, it would be your interest as well as your pleasure freely and generously to tender to us that which is our right. But it has not been done. And now, sir, I say to the members of this Convention that I hope they will not consider that I am unnecessarily consuming one moment of their time; I am sure I have not thrust myself on the deliberations of this body, and I would not claim your attention now but for the fact that I would be ashamed to go back to my people thus wronged and thus outraged, as I conceive them to be, and as they themselves feel that they are, by their own mother, although they are true and loyal to her, without having raised my voice in their behalf and without demanding at the hands of the Convention their just rights.

But, sir, I have shown that it was just, that it was proper that slaves, which we regard as property—for we acknowledge slaves to be property .Page72 in the fullest sense of that term—I say it is just to us, and just to your neighbors, that you should pay as much tax upon that kind of property as they pay upon theirs. Is it not your interest to do so? I have shown you that, in all human probability, if you get that species of property interested in legislation more deeply than it is now, it would perhaps produce a reform in financial expenditures. But, sir, have you not a direct interest in it otherwise? I have shown you that this property has contributed and is contributing to the increase of our State debt, and our taxes. I have shown you its immense value; and if you tax it in the same proportion as other property is taxed, it will yield over $600,000 revenue. Suppose you apply that $600,000 annually to the liquidation of the State debt, and to the payment of the interest on that debt—you relieve your neighbors who are not interested in the same species of property, of at least one-fourth of the amount of taxes they have now to pay, and to that extent you interest them in your slave property. They become interested in the protection and in the security of that property, and thereby make it more valuable to its owners. And why so? Because it comes to their relief by contributing towards the payment of the public debt, and adding its fair and just proportion to the amount annually paid into the Treasury. It is therefore the interest of the owners of that species of property, not only so far as they themselves are concerned, but so far as the honor of Virginia is concerned—for I fully concur in the remark of the gentleman from the county of Barbour [Mr. Woons] , that unless this system of extravagant expenditure, which has been indulged in by our legislative assemblies for the last ten years, is speedily stopped, Virginia will fail to pay the interest of her public debt, and I fear will be driven to the verge of repudiation, if not to actual repudiation. Shall that disgrace ever rest upon Virginia? Shall it be said in the financial marts of the world that Virginia has failed to meet her contracts, has failed to meet her pledges, and failed to sustain that honor about which we have heard so much, and, in consequence, be forever disgraced and degraded in the eyes of the sovereign nations of the earth? I trust not, sir. And I hope, in order to avoid this inevitable result, that the slaveowning population of this Commonwealth will come forward to the relief of the other class of our property owners, and contribute their just proportion to preserve the honor of Virginia, and to pay their mite of the taxes which are necessary to defray the current expenses of the Commonwealth.

On motion of Mr. TURNER, Mr. HAYMOND not having concluded his remarks, the Convention adjourned.

1.3.1. CALLING THE ROLL IN COMMITTEE

I desire, sir, with the leave of the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HAYMOND, who was entitled to the floor] , to offer a resolution. It is one similar to a resolution offered in the Convention of 1850.

The resolution was read as follows :

Resolved, That the ayes and noes may be taken in Committee of the Whole in the same manner as in the Convention.

The resolution was adopted.

With the permission of the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HAYMOND] , I will ask leave to offer a resolution.

I will make no word of comment upon it; but merely ask that it be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

The resolution was read as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on Federal Relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting to the Convention two ordinances, to be submitted to a vote of the people for their approval or rejection on the Thursday in May next—one providing for a resumption, by the State, of the powers heretofore delegated to the General Government; and the other as an alternative proposition, the series of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which may be agreed on by the Convention to be submitted to the Northern States as an ultimatum, on the acceptance of which this State will continue in the Federal Union; with the proviso that if not accepted by the day of , the Convention shall have the authority to pass an ordinance of secession without referring it back to the people for their ratification.

If the Chair understands the resolution correctly, it contains an instruction to the committee.

It is simply a resolution instructing the committee to enquire into the expediency of carrying out what is there indicated. Mr. EARLY—I move to lay the resolution on the table.

I ask for the ayes and noes upon that motion.

The call was sustained, and the roll being called, resulted as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Janney [President] , Aston, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brent, Brown, Burley, Campbell, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, Couch, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Masters, Moffett, Orrick, Osburn, Patrick, Porter, Pugh, Sharp, Sitlington, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, White, Willey-46.

NAYS—Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, Blakey, Blow, Jr., Bouldin, Boyd, Branch, Bruce, Caperton, Chambliss, Conn, R. Y. Conrad, James H. Cox, Richard H. Cox, Fisher, Flournoy, Garland, Graham, Grant, Gregory, Jr., Cyrus Hall, Haymond, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Marmaduke Johnson, Kent, Kilby, Leake, McComas, James B. Mallory, Marshall, Marye, Sr., Miller, Montague, Morris. Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Parks, Preston, Price, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Wm. C. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Strange, Sutherlin, Tredway, R. H. Turner, Franklin P. Turner, Whitfield, Wilson, Wysor-60.

Mr. OSBURN, when the name of Mr. A. M. BARBOUR was called, said that that gentleman was necessarily absent.

Mr. HUNTON, when the name of Mr. GOGGIN was called, stated that he was requested by Mr. G., if the roll should be called, to state that he was unavoidably absent.

When the name of Mr. GOODE, of Mecklenburg, was called, he stated that he had paired off with a friend who was absent. Under other circumstances, he would have voted "no."

Mr. EARLY, when the name of Mr. SAUNDERS was called, stated that he was absent on account of illness.

Mr. PORTER stated when the name of Mr. TARR was called, that that gentleman was absent because of illness in his family.

Mr. TAYLOE, when called, remarked that he paired off with the gentleman from Dinwiddie [Mr. BORSSEAU] . He said he would otherwise have voted no.

I would like to hear the resolution read. I was not in when it was offered and cannot therefore vote intelligibly. If it is not in order to report the resolution while the roll is being called, I should like to hear from the Chair the substance of the resolution.

The resolution was read, whereupon Mr. WILSON voted no.

The result of the vote was announced as follows—yeas 46, nays 60. So the motion to lay on the table was lost.

The question was then taken on referring the resolution to the Committee on Federal Relations, and decided in the affirmative.

1.3.2. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The hour of 11 has arrived.

I move to suspend the order for the purpose of .Page75 enabling the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HAYMOND] , to finish his speech. I understand the gentleman will conclude in a few minutes.

The question was taken on the motion to suspend, and decided in the negative.

The Convention then went into committee of the whole, Mr. SOUTHALL, of Albemarle, in the chair.

When the committee rose yesterday it had under consideration the reports of the Committee on Federal Relations to it referred. Mr. HOLCOMBE, of Albemarle, is entitled to the floor.

There are, no doubt, Mr. Chairman, many members of the Committee who can recall the feelings of a landsman, unfamiliar with the terrors of the sea, overtaken by a night of storm and danger in the midst of the Atlantic, the ship pitching upon the waves, the fog too dense to be pierced by any human eye, the shrill tones of the alarm pipe sounding every moment in his ears, and more fearful by far, than wave, or mist, or blast, the rapid fall of the barometer indicating the close proximity of that most appalling because most irresistible enemy of the sailor, the tremendous iceberg, by whose fatal contact the most powerful vessel may be dashed to pieces in an instant of time. I only recollect an overwhelming, pervading sense of utter helplessness, a feeling that the weakness of infancy was strength itself, when compared with the ability of man, aided by all the agencies of the highest art, to contend face to face with the great elemental powers of nature.

We, sir, are tossing upon the surges of revolution; clouds and darkness cover our future track; an unerring moral instinct warns us of approaching collision between repulsive masses, in whose awful shock all that we love and value may perish.

Under such circumstances the highest statesmanship might well bow in mute despair of its own resources, and in humble submission to the direction of an invisible but all-controlling power. For myself, sir, profoundly convinced that upon this assembly depends the decision of an issue as momentous as ever devolved upon any deliberative body in the history of the world ; almost sinking under a sense of public responsibility, the prayer which the oldest of poets has put in the mouth of a patriot hero on the eve of battle, recurs to my memory, the simple and sublime prayer for light. Feeble as is my arm, I would raise it in behalf of what I believe to be the cause of liberty, of peace, and of civilization, and, from the depths of my heart, reverently and fervently. the aspiration ascends to the Father of all Lights, that illumination. broad and steady, may be poured along our path of duty.

In the argument which I shall submit to the Convention, there are some general propositions underlying the whole, that I shall assume without discussion. The institution of slavery is so indissolubly interwoven with the whole framework of society in a large portion of our State, and constitutes so immense an element of material wealth and political power to the whole Commonwealth, that its subversion through the operation of any unfriendly policy on the part of the Federal Government, whether that operation is extended over a long or short period of time, would, of necessity, dry up the very fountains of the public strength, change the whole frame of our civilization, and inflict a mortal wound upon our liberties.

"The spirit of great events strides on before the events themselves." And if there is danger to an interest of such importance, serious danger, although remote, there can be no higher duty which any Christian or any patriot owes to his country, than to resist it in its first approaches. Mr. Calhoun once declared in the Senate of the United States, "that wrongs were most sensibly felt and most easily resisted at the extreme limit of right." He had learned this lesson, he declared, from our patriot fathers, who met wrong promptly, and repelled it in the beginning. I believe that this danger is impending; that it is of overshadowing magnitude; and that there is no rational hope of escaping from it, but in the prompt severance of the relations of this Commonwealth through the Federal Government, with the free States of the North.

In maintaining that such is the policy, the interest and the duty of the Commonwealth, I rejoice to feel that I am fortified by the approbation and stimulated by the direction and voice of my immediate constituents. The largest and most enthusiastic meeting of voters held in the county of Albemarle within the memory of living man, took place upon the very day on which at the Capitol, in Washington, a revolution in the whole principles and policy of the government was inaugurated. That meeting with most unparalleled unanimity, at the very hour when the present President of the United States was proclaiming doctrines utterly subversive to the principles of that immortal instrument dear to all Americans, but if possible, dear by an especial emphasis of affection to the people of Albemarle, in whose bosom lived and died its illustrious author; at that very moment these people were sending forth their voice in unmistakable tones for another Declaration of Independence.

I also rejoice that in the consideration of this question, we shall be so little embarrassed by Constitutional difficulties; that so large a number .Page77 of the gentlemen of the Committee, as we may fairly infer, are represented by our Committee on Federal Relations, place the rights of the States and the rights of the people upon such high ground, that I feel there is no obligation upon me to vindicate either the right of secession; or, what approaches closely to an equivalent to it, the right of revolution, not in the English sense, of a right to resist a long course of oppression by forcible subversion-of the public authority, but in the American sense—the right of the people to change their government, peacefully, when ever they become dissatisfied with it; in other words, the principle embodied in our Bill of Rights, that all governments rest for a legitimate foundation upon the consent of the governed.

I propose, sir, very briefly, to review the history of this slavery question so far as it is connected with the present condition of the country. I desire to ascertain, in the first instance, what course a proper regard for her own honor and duty would have pointed out to Virginia, if her decision, had been in no wise embarrassed by the action of other communities, and then to inquire how far her policy should be influenced by her relations to them.

That prophetic apprehension of "a geographical line coincident with a moral principle, once held up to the angry passions of men, never to be obliterated," which filled the last days of Mr. Jefferson, and I may add Mr. Madison, with anxiety—that apprehension has become melancholy history. That line, rendered deeper and deeper by successive irritations, has at length severed the unity of the nation, and divided us into two distinct and unfriendly people. Prior to the creation of that line in 1820, slavery in theory was condemned universally, at home and abroad ; but the condemnation was a mere passive sentiment of indifference. It was a sleeping abstraction, as inoperative for any practical purpose of mischief, as if it had been a dream, instead of an opinion and sentiment. It hardly embarrassed the reclamation of the fugitive; it scarcely offered an obstruction to the transit, when it was convenient, of slaves through free territory; it suggested no offensive discrimination in private or public life; it hardly left upon any of the forms in which the thought of the age found expression, a perceptible impression of its existence. We lived together in peace and in friendship, as members of a great family of freedom. On this subject, at least, no angry discord marred what the poet calls, "the unity and married calm of the States." Our attachment to the Union was universal, was manly, and was rational, because the blessings of the Union were solid and real. In every section an equal pride was felt in its glory, an equal participation in its benefits, an equal zeal and .Page78 interest in its perpetuity. It was a common centre of patriotic attachment and hope. This Republic of free States at that time, bade fair to surpass in power and in fame, even imperial Rome itself; not only in the extent of its territory, in the beneficence of its government, but in the duration of its empire, and the fruitful immortality of its institutions. Well may the heart of her humblest citizen have kindled with a glow of noble pride at the reflection, not extravagant, that from the great light which filled his own rejoicing sky of freedom, every morning star which should herald the dawn of liberty to other lands, would gild its horns.

By the operation of a long train of causes which it is unnecessary for me here to describe, that passive sentiment of indifference, that sleeping, harmless abstraction, has been awakened and converted into a principle of active and dangerous aggression. The public conscience of the Northern people has been aroused, and pervaded with a conviction that it is within their power to suppress this institution, and that it is their duty to assail such an embodiment of moral, social and political evil, by the exercise of the public authority in every Constitutional form, and by the rebuking pressure of public opinion at every accessible point. Antagonistic forces have been working during the same period upon the hearts and minds of the Southern people, producing a revolution as complete but in another direction. It has become their universal conviction, that African slavery constitutes the wisest and most beneficent adjustment possible of the relations between the two races, and that it is to be cherished and defended to the last extremity.

Now, whatever other elements of dissatisfaction may have contributed to bring upon the country this fearful strife, there can be no doubt that the convulsive throes which are now rending its bosom, spring mainly from an irrepressible conflict of opposing opinions and sympathies on the subject of slavery.

Look, sir, at the expression of this conflict, not only in the action of legislative bodies in the free States, because we might hope that such action—the action of the agents—would be corrected and rebuked by the principal; but, in popular demonstrations, in innumerable places, and in every variety of form. The old association of the people has been reduced to a mere formal intercourse on the lines of travel, and in the great centres of commerce and manufactures; the old friendship has departed; the decaying heart of the body politic scarcely throbs with one living pulsation of a comprehensive and unselfish American patriotism; the great fellowships of Church and State, which formerly embraced in one broad and unbroken communion every portion.Page79 of the country, have been rent in twain; and between the people of the North and the people of the South there lies to day a moral gulf of angry and jealous passions, wider and more impassable than that by which the rivalship and feuds of a thousand years have divided the people of France from the people of England. The Northern people have covered themselves, by the repeated obstructions they have offered to the execution of the fugitive slave law, with the reproach of a standing infidelity to the most sacred compact of the Constitution. They have cherished in the bosom of their society, associations extensive in number and wealth, openly avowing their purpose to incite and aid the escape of our slaves, and not infrequently expressing sympathy with insurrection, rapine and murder. If a similar state of facts existed between any two great powers on the continent of Europe, it would instantly break the peace of Christendom. If France, for example, permitted a society to exist in that country from which money and emissaries were sent to India, to disturb the relations between the English residents and the native race, precious as is the cause of peace to both of those great nations, it would not endure for an hour. This same people, forgetting that the only bond of unity which can or ought to keep together an empire of freemen, is an equal participation of rights and privileges, have avowed the fixed and deliberate policy of excluding us from our fair and legitimate portion of the public domain, acquired by the common blood and treasure, and of localizing and discrediting an institution, which lies at the very basis of our prosperity and our civilization. Finally, sir, disregarding the solemn lessons of the Fathers of the Republic, the earnest appeal, of a patriotism not yet wholly extinguished, the warning premonitions of an outraged sentiment of liberty, they have, by a purely geographical combination, taken possession of that Federal agency which was established for the equal maintenance of the rights and honor of all, to execute this systematic injustice; thus converting the very forms of our Constitution into an instrument, for the destruction of the great ends it was ordained to accomplish. It is as complete a revolution, as that by which Augustus, uniting in his own person offices which, under the theory of the Roman Republic, were to be held by independent and distinct functionaries, acquired absolute authority. And it is a revolution as fatal to the independence and honor of the Southern people, as if their liberties had been lost in a disastrous battle with a foreign enemy.

I speak these words, Mr. Chairman, in sorrow, and not in anger. I cannot discover any ground of rational hope, upon which to expect a change in the relative feeling between the two sections. The great .Page80 masses of the Northern people are not accessible to any argument or any appeal which it is within our power to make. We are not brought into communication with them, except upon the thoroughfares of travel, and in the commercial and manufacturing cities of the seaboard; and the population of this limited section cannot control the opinions or action of the great agricultural region in the interior.

This revolution which has taken place within the last forty years in the theories, the opinions and the views of public policy, respectively entertained at the North and in the South, renders it, as I honestly believe, impossible for us any longer to live together, in peace and in prosperity, under a common government.

It is no doubt, the first wish of the people of Virginia to preserve this Union, if it can be done upon terms of equality, of honor, of friendship, and of justice to all; but not upon terms of inequality, injustice or degradation to any section. It is also true, that the public voice has declared in unmistakable terms, that the period has arrived, when the whole question must be settled forever, either by a permanent dissolution of the Union, or a solid and enduring pacification, upon which we can rely for the enjoyment of our property, for the security of our rights, and for the quiet of our society, through ages to come.

Now, what elements should enter into such a scheme of adjustment? I shall not, at this time, undertake to compare either of those competing propositions which have been submitted to the country—the Crittenden propositions as amended by the Virginia Legislature, or the Resolutions of the Peace Conference—because there is wanting in each of them, what I regard as an indispensable element of any honorable or safe arrangement. One of these schemes does recognize our right of property, does recognize our right to equality; but yet provides no securities by which that recognition is to be rendered available. It has been the habit of our race, of our English forefathers, of our American ancestors, whenever questions of liberty came up for consideration and decision, to demand appropriate guaranties of power; power in their own hands, to protect their own rights. The English Barons, when they obtained from King John the great charter at Runnymede, demanded power to secure the execution of its provisions. Twenty-five of the King's castles were placed in their possession, with the privilege of making war upon him for a violation of the rights declared in that memorable charter of freedom. It was power in another form, power over the supplies, which has gradually given emancipation and liberty, to the commons of England. It was for power—power to direct the disposition of their own property, that our forefathers .Page81 went into the struggle of the revolution. Power to protect themselves, was claimed and given in the Constitution to the small States, against the large States. And power was accorded, power that was deemed adequate at the time, to the slave States, in the apportionment of representation, to protect themselves against the free States. With all its securities, our fathers accepted that Constitution in fear and trembling, under a species of moral duress, to escape the anarchy of the old Confederation. Had they anticipated the facts which exist to-day, the disparity in strength of the two sections, the antagonism of principle and feeling between their respective people, they never would have formed the Union or established the Constitution, without provision, introduced into the organic law, securing an equilibrium and balance of power between the sections.

Now, I take it, sir, that the question for us to decide, is not what the North is willing to give us, but what our rights, what our honor, and the security of our property entitle us to expect and require. The necessity for this adjustment has been created by our Northern brethren; it is, in consequence of their breach of Constitutional obligations; it is because they have trampled upon the letter and spirit of the written covenant of the Union, that we are obliged to call for a revision of the fundamental law. The political equilibrium of the sections that in substance existed when the Constitution was formed has been destroyed; every year adds to the relative strength and predominance of the North; the manifestations of hostile and unfriendly feeling cannot be mistaken. Under these circumstances, we are entitled not simply to request, but to demand from their justice, the amplest security against every form of injury, which can reasonably be apprehended from their power.

I shall not, at present, undertake to discuss the details of any form of guarantee, but merely to indicate the great purposes and objects for which guarantees of power are wanted—viz: the power of expansion, and the power of protection from the danger of anti-slavery agitation, and from the humiliation and injustice of sectional ascendency. And, first, unless we have positive power in some form placed in our own hands, for the expansion of this institution of slavery beyond its present limits, and its protection as it goes, its extinction, and that, in a comparatively short period of time, will be rendered inevitable. Can we rely upon any of the provisions suggested in either of the competing schemes of adjustment for this power of expansion? I am glad to see in one of the propositions—and it is incorporated, I believe, in the report of the Committee on Federal Relations to this body—a recognition .Page82 of the great principle of a guarantee of power, in the concurrent vote of Southern and Northern Senators, which is made necessary for the acquisition of territory. But I do not see in that proposition, any adequate security. The hostility to slavery and to its expansion in the North, will lay an interdict upon future acquisitions of slave territory—except in the barely possible case of a chance, to obtain Canada and Cuba at the same time. I can see no contingency in which we could, through this provision, make a bargain with the North. The acquisition of free territory is of slight importance to the North, when compared with the acquisition of slave territory by the South; with the former, it is a question of political strength, and extended empire—no expansion is necessary to its safety. For hundreds of years, with the largest emigration from Europe, there will be ample room in the bosom of our present free territory for its accommodation. Expansion with us, is a question of existence. The races cannot be amalgamated; they cannot be severed; their diffusion, under such circumstances, over an area which will prevent a dangerous superiority, in any section, or at any point, of the black race, is a necessity of our position, and essential to the preservation of our civilization itself.

Now, if there is any obstruction by which the natural and legitimate channels, for the overflowing of a redundant black population, are closed, the emigration of the white, or the emancipation or destruction of the black race, at some future period, are rendered certain.

This policy of ultimate extinction, by contraction, "compelling slavery, like a scorpion girdled with fire, to sting itself to death," was proclaimed by Lord Brougham and other English abolitionists, in a memorable debate in the House of Lords—a debate which led to the commencement of negotiations by the United States, resulting in the acquisition of Texas. The same views have been uniformly avowed by the leaders of the Republican party in this country, and unless we can reverse the great laws of political economy, and change principles of human nature hitherto considered as immutable, its truth and justice must be acknowledged. There are now four millions of slaves in the United States. According to the ordinary tables, indicating their ratio of increase, they will, in the short space of fifty years, amount to sixteen millions—one-third more than the entire population, black and white, of all of the Southern States, at this time.

There are laws now in operation, and which will not fail, impelling the black race in mighty currents, towards the warm latitudes of the South—the pressure of the free States upon the North, and the greater productive value of black labor in the South. Whilst the slave population .Page83 is thus constantly gravitating towards the tropics, their presence discourages white emigration to that region, and the character of the climate and soil render exposure to the sun in the culture of cotton and rice, unendurable by the white man. I might add that the statistics of the census illustrate and confirm these statements. They exhibit the fact that the white is gaining upon the black population in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and, to a slight extent, in Virginia, whilst the black is gaining on the white in all of the Gulf States and in some of them very rapidly.

What is to be the ultimate solution of this immense problem, it would be idle to inquire; for, with our limited understanding, it would be impossible to discover. We know what lies before us; we know that with the diffusion of our slaves over a large surface of country, the proportional density of the white population constantly increases; and that this diffusion is therefore an element of safety. Notwithstanding the immense superiority of the white over the black man, there is a numerical equilibrium which is essential to preserve in peace, the requisite subordination and control. To adopt any policy by which slavery would be hemmed in, within its present limits, does appear to me, when we look at the growing disparity of numbers between the races, the perpetual stimulus to dissatisfaction which will be held out to the negro, and his enlarging capacity and increasing facilities for mischief, to be providing for a renewal upon our own soil of the scenes of St. Domingo, and the destruction of the race or the relation, amid national and social convulsion.

The Southern States, especially those to the South of Virginia, are deeply interested in this policy of expansion. To them it is of more vital importance even than to us. The destruction of slavery would bring upon Virginia a blight and ruin, from which she would not emerge for centuries; yet it is possible that the lands of Virginia may be cultivated by the white man. But the question of cultivating cotton and rice with white labor does not admit of debate; in the cotton and rice States the existence of African slavery becomes a question of civilization. They could not acquiesce in any principle or policy in the administration of this government, by which the expansion of their institutions, as the exigencies and opportunities of the future might require, should be prevented, without betraying that sacred trust, the guardianship of an inferior race, which has been committed to their keeping by God himself, and purchasing an ignominious lease of security to slavery during their own lives, at the price of its ultimate extinction within the lives of their children, amid the probable horrors of.Page84 servile war. No Southern statesman under such circumstances, could, with reason, anticipate any other result, as time unrolled the curtain of the future, than one of two alternatives—either that his countrymen would be prepared in a debasing school of political degradation for civil and social equality with their emancipated slaves, or that from its darkness would burst

"Some dread Nemesis, crowned with fire, To tread them out forever."

If the Southern people, in an exigency by which the whole course of their history and the future fortunes of this vast continent were to be determined, had not taken counsel of that wise and provident fear, which Burke describes as "the mother of safety," and resolved, whilst their destiny under Providence was in their own hands, to meet the enemy in the gate, their irresolution would have covered with undying reproach the very name of free institutions. In this great necessity of power to diffuse, and to protect slavery as it goes, we shall, as I believe, find a rock upon which all schemes of reconstruction will be wrecked.

But there are other reasons why we should require guarantees of power. We want power to put an end to this irritating strife, because it is fatal to our peace, dangerous to the security of our property, and through the sectional ascendancy which it has established, irreconcilable with every principle of liberty.

How are we to control the further agitation of this subject? If the concurrence of a majority of the Southern members of the Electoral College was rendered necessary to the appointment of the Executive (some new provision being made to meet the contingency of a failure to elect by the College) , and the assent of a majority of the Southern as well as Northern members of the Senate, required whenever either of such majorities should call for a sectional vote, to the performance of any act, which under the Constitution is submitted to the Senate, whether the enactment of a law, the negotiation of a treaty, or a confirmation to office, you would go far towards rendering it impossible, to use the agency of the Federal Government in any form whatever to the prejudice of slavery, and thus strike at the very root of this political agitation.

I shall not now inquire how far these guaranties would be consistent with the practical administration of the government. In my opinion they would secure its just and would not impair its efficient action. We have in the Constitution of our own State this day a concurrent majority, .Page85 requisite to the action of the Legislature, the East controlling the Senate, the West the House; and the principle of concurrent majorities for the protection of a minority runs through all the great provisions of our Federal Constitution. An amendment, such as I have indicated, to that Constitution, would take away all power of mischief from extreme men, North or South, and would place the government of the country in the hands of its moderate men. There would be a strong motive offered to ambitious men in all sections, to calm, and not to inflame sectional irritation and prejudice. No man could be elevated to any high office who rendered himself peculiarly obnoxious to the North, or to the South. If there is any adjustment under which it is possible for our people to be brought together, and their differences to be so completely removed, as to enable them to live in peace, and like the Patricians and Plebeians of Rome, when they returned from Mount Sacer, to build another temple to Concord, it must be upon the broad and enduring basis of guaranties of power.

Machiavelli, in one of his discourses, tells us that—"Liberty needs new securities every day; but as every day does not afford an opportunity for obtaining them, that the statesman is most culpable who fails to improve any occasion, upon which they may be procured." If the Northern people are not disabled from making concessions in consequence of the moral principles involved; if they will yield theoretical acknowledgments of our right of property and of our right of equality, such as are contained in some of these amendments, they will be ready or they ought to be ready to make such concessions of political power, as will render the declarations of right of practical value to us. If their objections to re-adjustment, do not arise from conscientious conviction, but considerations merely of expediency, the value of the Union to them, upon any standard of calculation, industrial or political, would repay much larger sacrifices.

Without security against the continuance of this agitation, not only will all useful legislation be obstructed ; not only will the irritated passions, that now inflame the sections, be perpetuated, but a danger, already formidable to the very security of our fire-sides, will continue to increase in magnitude. Sir, the centre of anti-slavery sentiment has been brought from Chicago and Boston to the borders of our Commonwealth, and endowed with a hundred fold power by securing the express or implied countenance and sanction of a public authority—possessed of mighty and pervading energy in every State of the Union.

Have we not the best of reasons to apprehend danger? Look at the experience of the past, and take a lesson from it. The struggle between .Page86 the races in St. Domingo commenced long before the enactment of the French Assembly, decreeing liberty to the blacks. It began with the public discussion of the question, out of, as well as in that body. The tragedy at Southampton, in our own State, has been traced to the influence of agitation. The John Brown raid was its offspring. Recollect that we enjoy our slave property by a different tenure, from that which secures to us our land and chattels. Unless these are taken by the arm of the law, or by the strong hand of violence, we are safe; but the slave is a man as well as his master. He is an ignorant man, and liable, therefore, like all ignorant men, to be misled by extravagant expectations—by false hopes held out to him; and with the noise of a mighty movement for his emancipation sounding always in his ears, can you expect aught else than that, from time to time, there should be outbursts of violence in your society, which will fill the master with continual apprehensions, and render it necessary for him to provide safeguards so costly and so burdensome, as that the institution itself will become intolerable? Have you any reason to think that, with a settlement of the question as to the territories, and with amendments to the Constitution providing that the subject shall never be touched in the States or in the District of Columbia; that the agitation would cease? Upon what grounds do you form this expectation? Is it that there will be no opportunity to connect the abolition of slavery with party strife? May it not still remain a test of qualification for the highest office in the Republic—a test of qualification for members to either branch of the Legislature in the free States or to either House of Congress? Will there not be left means of assault under the forms of the Constitution in the hands of the Northern people, and which they will be stimulated to use by the same motives, that have prompted them to resist the extension of slavery into the territories? Putting the government perpetually on the side of freedom, and against the slave power; waging an uninterrupted war upon it; concentrating the public indignation of the world; stimulating discussion and hostility in your own community; adapting the governmental policy to the advantage of the free States over the slave States—are not these, objects, that will be ever present to the Northern mind; objects, as legitimate as the contraction of the area of slave territory, and which will associate the Northern people in party combinations, unless you can strike at the root of the mischief, either by taking away from them all ability to use the powers of the government to the prejudice of slavery, or, by changing the opinion and sentiment of duty, which now unites them in party association, to discredit and destroy it. Can you do the latter? Do you expect by any.Page87 force of logic, or power of eloquence to reach the conscience of the North, and to alter its sentiment and opinion in relation to slavery? As I have said before, it is impossible for the Northern people to become acquainted with the facts on which an intelligent judgment can be framed. They do not read our newspapers; they do not hear our public speakers; they do not meet us in personal intercourse except upon the great highways of travel. The existing anti-slavery sentiment is encouraged and strengthened every year by an immense emigration from Europe, of men imbued with still profounder ignorance of the nature of slavery, and still more radically opposed to it. This Republican party has not been founded upon a question of expediency, which may change with time and circumstances; nor upon a local issue which may be absorbed in one of paramount importance; but upon convictions of right and wrong, convictions of duty, which whenever they constitute an element of political association must commit men to its support, until they have accomplished their purpose. The sentiment of hostility to slavery is more generally diffused, and is as strong in the minds of the Northern people, as any passion with which a nation has ever been animated. It is stronger than that love of dominion, which carried the eagles of Rome on the wings of conquest over the globe. It is stronger than that passion for military glory, which has precipitated France into every great war that has taken place upon the continent of Europe, for a thousand years. It is the irrepressible out-birth of the conscience of the North, expressing its highest intelligence and purest virtue. Bring the case home to ourselves. The Northern people have put on record their belief, that slavery is a twin relic of barbarism, with polygamy. Now if Mormonism existed in a number of the Free States, if this new and worse form of Mohammedanism was rapidly spreading into those territories, to which we have looked as the future seats of Christian civilization, and a great party was once formed in our midst to prevent its wider diffusion, and to discourage and suppress it as far and as fast as this object could be accomplished by the agency of the Federal Government, would not such a party, thoroughly organized, be invincible until its mission was performed?

Mr. Chairman, I shall not read the platform of the Republican party, because that platform, bad as it is, has been moderated so as to embrace the most conservative portion of the anti-slavery element of the North. The temper of a party is best seen in the spirit and opinions of its representative men. I could quote from the most eminent leaders of its conservative as well as radical wing, such as Hale, Banks, Burlingame, Wilson and others, acknowledgments that it was not the purpose or the .Page88 wish of the party to legislate in reference to this institution in the States, but proclaiming that agitation for its ultimate removal by the action of the States themselves, was its purpose and policy.

I will not, however, fatigue myself and the Convention, by reading the extracts I had marked for this purpose. You will bear in mind the letter read yesterday, by my friend from Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] , containing the sentiment of Mr. Lincoln, that no man who owned slaves ought to be free, and, under a just God would not long remain free. We all remember, no doubt, also that ferocious exhibition of fanaticism on the part of Mr. Chase, which has been recently made public in one of the papers of our city—a fanaticism displayed, too, in view of the present condition of the country, and authenticated by the testimony of a distinguished gentleman of our own State.

As regards Mr. Seward, there is nothing, Mr. Chairman, that seems to me to exhibit a more striking evidence of the infatuation which may overtake a people than that any declaration, on the part of Mr. Seward, at this time, should be accepted as an earnest or reliable pledge of safety to Southern institutions. Why, sir, he is the very apostle, not only of the irrepressible conflict, but of a law higher than the Constitution. His whole public life has been devoted to the service of this fanaticism, and there is nothing in the past which he has scrupled to perform for its advancement. There is one single exhibition to which I cannot recur without the strongest feelings of resentment, not only as a lover of my country, but as a member of that noble profession against whose honor his attack was particularly levelled. When the Dred Scott decision was rendered, Mr. Seward, to impair the authority of the opinion of the Supreme Court, charged in his place in the Senate, not only without the shadow of evidence to sustain him, but in the face of facts, which have been adduced by Mr. Reverdy Johnson and Senator Benjamin, to show the impossibility of its truth ; insinuated again ; and scattered the charge and insinuation broad-cast over the Northern States, that this decision was rendered in a sham cause, made up for party purposes, by means of a corrupt coalition between the highest magistrate of the country, and the venerable Judges of the Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman, I remember the words of a great English writer, in reference to Aristophanes, the common libeller of antiquity. He says, that he attacked all conditions of men, calumniated the magistrates, reviled the public assemblies, blasphemed the priests and even the established gods; but that he did not venture to cast one licentious imputation upon that venerable judicature, the awful Court of the Areopagus. The infamy which was spared the Athenian satirist, has been reserved to the American .Page89 Senator. By insinuations falser than ever emanated from the polluted pen of Aristophanes, against a Court exceeding in its purity, its wisdom and dignity, all the Courts of antiquity, in the base service of party, the Senator from New York struck a vital blow at the integrity of a free Constitution, and the unity of a great people. Mr. Chairman, it may be, that now he would retrace, in a measure, his steps; that he would not have the country plunged into that civil war, upon the verge of which it seems to stand ; and he may find that, like the evil being of whom the great poet has told us as unbarring the gates,

it is too late to undo the mischief, and redeem the wrong. If this controversy is ever closed in an issue of blood, if the God-given strength of freedom should ever be profaned in fraternal strife, impartial history will lay upon his head, whose life has been devoted to kindling and blowing the fires of sectional hate, all the horror and all responsibility. If such consummation should occur, well may he, as he approaches the hour of death, envy that barbaric chieftain who, in a similar moment, re-calling the provinces he had desolated and the cities he had sacked, desired that a mighty river should be turned from its channel, his remains deposited in its bosom, and then the waters turned back upon their ancient bed, and the place of his burial forever concealed from the eyes of men; and prefer the dying petition, that some overflowing tide of oblivion, might forever hide his name and memory, from the execrations of after ages. [Applause.] But, sir, this agitation is not only attended with imminent and increasing danger to our peace, but impossible as it is, to terminate it, until the moral sentiment of the North has been changed, it will perpetuate a sectional ascendency that is destructive of all constitutional freedom by depriving us of the great rights and privileges of self-government. That man, Mr. Chairman, has not gone beyond the horn book of liberty, who will confound parties which represent different opinions of the people, intermingled through the whole extent of a country, as to the policy which would promote common interests, with parties existing only in sections, and struggling for the triumph of sectional opinions, passions and interests. The one, into whatever excesses of faction the insolence of prosperity may lead it, although an evil, is an admitted necessity of all free governments; the other, as truly pointed out by that great French statesman, De Tocqueville, ought not .Page90 to be called a struggle of parties; it expresses a struggle between distinct nations, a struggle by one people for the government of another. Whenever parties become geographical under a free Constitution, government should also become geographical.

There is an interesting discussion by Mr. Madison in one of the most luminous papers of the Federalist, in which he points out the securities to which the framers of the Constitution looked against the dangers of a sectional ascendency, through sectional majorities. The extract is as follows:

"If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by a regular vote. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government on the other hand enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and, at the same time, to preserve the spirit and form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. * * * By what means is this object attainable. Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented ; or the majority having such co-existent passions or interests, must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. * * * A pure democracy, by which I mean, a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every instance, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. One of the great points of difference between a democracy and a republic, is the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of Democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. * * * Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens, or, if such common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it, to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. * * *.Page91 The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through other States; a religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy, but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it, must secure the national councils against any danger from that source; a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it. * * * In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore we behold a Republican remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government." (No. 10 of the Federalist.)

The same views are presented again in the 51st No., by Mr. Madison.

It will be observed, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Madison, in this most interesting and philosophical paper, anticipates that a security against factious combinations of a majority will be found in the extent of our Federal Territory; and the difficulty which would thence arise of uniting a sufficient number of the States, in schemes of oppression, and of obtaining the necessary concert at the precise opportunity. For a long time the experience of the country attested the justice and sagacity of these anticipations. With widely different interests—manufacturing, commercial, planting and agricultural, in different sections, their free play and collision furnished us security, against any serious abuse by sectional majorities, of the public power. But a moral principle has subordinated to itself all industrial and material considerations; a principle embracing in its influence, the entire North, and binding together parties, discordant in every other respect, by the powerful cohesion of hostility to slavery. The introduction of this disturbing element into its machinery, has rendered worthless all the checks and balances of the Federal Constitution.

You will observe, that a party having only one idea, and that idea not necessarily antagonistic to any industrial policy of the section in which it prevails, holds a balance of power between parties divided upon other questions, which will enable it, in time, to incorporate its own dogma into one or the other of their platforms. Sir, I recollect, fifteen years ago, hearing Mr. Chase enunciate this principle, and I remember being struck, at the time, with its truth, and anticipating the certainty of its triumph. He said, in substance, that the anti-slavery party, in the State of Ohio, contained some twenty or thirty thousand members; men who hated slavery so much that they would vote for Whig or Democrat, would stand upon a Whig or a Democratic platform, as the one or the other would take anti-slavery into its creed.

That policy has achieved its first great triumph—and that policy is invincible, unless you can bring about some re-adjustment of the Constitution, which will repress and control this fanaticism, by rendering it utterly impossible, to employ the Federal Government in any way in its service.

Shall we rely upon the good faith, the good feeling or justice of the Northern people for security against the wrong and the degradation of a sectional ascendancy? Jealousy, not confidence, has been the tutelary genius of English and American liberty. Shall we believe that men are better than their principles, or shall we bind them in the chains of the Constitution? Will not the Executive patronage be prostituted in the North, to reward the active enemies of slavery ; in the South, to reward those who, at least, are willing to sprinkle incense on the altars of fanaticism? In regard to the Legislative department, is there any security against the most partial and unjust laws? Prudence or fear may withhold, for a time, the heavy hand of oppression, but where the impulse, the power and the opportunity coincide, sooner or later wrong must come.

There is one result to be apprehended from this sectional domination, which has made a deep impression upon my own mind. It renders utterly worthless to a Southern freeman, the great franchise of liberty. It transfers the decision of all questions connected with the public policy of the country, from the South to the forum of the North alone. Look at the last election! What issue was decided by it? It was the exclusion of slavery from the territories, the placing of the government on the side of freedom. This policy was discussed in the North, but in the North only. It will be the same hereafter in reference to all other great questions, so long as that ascendency continues. Unless some division should occur in the ranks of this Republican party, before the next Presidential election takes place, the North, being able to control the election, and that party having the ascendency in the North, would it not be the merest mockery to open a poll for an electoral vote in the South?

Now, sir, the great difference between the peasantry of England and the laboring men of the United States, arises from the exercise and enjoyment by the latter of the elective franchise. Look at the English peasant, and you will find him blank, stolid, uninquisitive. The English law protects his rights of property and his rights of person, as sacredly, as our Constitution guards those of an American citizen. The laboring man of our country is inquisitive, aspiring and intelligent. There is no single cause more operative in producing this difference, than the .Page93 fact that the laboring man of England has no vote, and the laboring man of the United States has a vote. But this sectional ascendency would render the vote of the Southern laboring man worthless in his hands. Sir, it has been, through the discussions addressed to the people, that the laboring men of our country have been elevated. They have learned to respect themselves as men, and as freemen; to enlarge their sympathies beyond the narrow circle of their own homes and business; and to embrace in their thoughts and affections the great interests that involve the destiny of their country and their race.

Now, I do not consider that the material blessings which Liberty brings in its train, constitute its highest claim upon the gratitude of mankind. I value it not only because it awakens all the dormant springs of peaceful industry in a country, because it embellishes life with prodigal creations of taste and art, because it covers our property and our persons with an invincible shield, but because it performs a yet nobler function. It establishes a great school for the education of the people in the sentiments and principles of patriotism, justice and honor; and I would not exchange the moral discipline imparted by the exercise of the high trusts and responsibilities of a freeman, for all the material advantages it secures; and whenever we surrender it, the battles of the Revolution will have been fought in vain, the cause of the Revolution will be lost, and that power of self-government acquired by our fathers at the expense of so many sacrifices, and under so many dangers, will have perished. No future foreigner, like De Tocqueville, when he visits our Southern land, will gaze with admiration upon the grand Olympic spectacles of a free people, the enthusiasm of the immense mass meetings, the magnificent displays of the highest genius in popular oratory, the Press teeming with wit, and eloquence and logic addressed to the reason and passions of the people, on the great questions of public policy. Instead of this life, animation and enthusiasm of liberty, we should have the apathy, the torpor, the brooding, waveless calm, of a despotism.

There is yet another feature in this sectional ascendency. It is that element which rendered so bitter the oppression of the Jew by the Christian, of the Moor by the Spaniard, of the Saxon by the Norman, the element of humiliation ; not only the iron hand of oppression, but the insolent spurn of contempt. Other despotisms have frequently made compensation for the loss of liberty in the protection of property, but it is the peculiar feature of this despotism not only to rule but to ruin, not only to ruin but to degrade.

Mr. Chairman, it was the boast of Demosthenes, in reference to .Page94 Athens, that she had expended more for the common cause of Greece, than any other city for its own advantage. I take up that memorable declaration, and, looking to American history, I renew it, in all its proud significance, in behalf of our own Virginia. Heroic struggles for independence, miraculous refinements in the construction of governments and constitutions, just and liberal principles, inaugurating new eras in public law, wise, honest and beneficent administration of public affairs—miracles of liberty—upon whatever page they are recorded, is impressed the noble image of this Commonwealth. Are we so recreant to the exalted strain of our great fathers, as to be willing to endure the humiliation and ruin of a sectional ascendency, worse than colonial vassalage; to permit ourselves to be stript, on pretexts as insulting as they are injurious, of our fair proportion of the public domain; to allow that common authority established for the protection of our rights and our honor, to accumulate in the bosom of our own society, elements of danger and destruction, which at a future day must close our long line of glory in the deepest tragedy. Contemptu famae, contemptu virtutis,2Perhaps the tag should be Contemptus famce, contemptus virtutis. is a great moral law. When any people lose that self-respect which is the spring of public virtue and private honor, the public spirit and public conscience, which constitute the most valuable possession of a nation, must become extinct. And, taking up the words of the distinguished gentleman from Kanawha, I say that when this takes place, all will have been lost that is worth defence. It is wise and rational to pause on the threshold of revolution, because while man knows when and where it may begin, God only knows when and where it will end. But there is another lesson which we should also take to heart, a lesson exemplified in all history, and expressed in that great retributive law of Providence, by which, sooner or later, ruin overtakes every people who surrender their rights to their fears, and prefer their ease to their duty. Can gentlemen anticipate that living under a Union which is already the instrument of inflicting upon us such degradation—a Union which threatens our future destruction—can they expect that any strain of eulogy on this Union, however eloquent, will awaken responsive echoes from the hearts of a free people? Tell me not, sir, what our ancestors have said in their day; they delivered to us sentiments and maxims that were just and appropriate in their own time. In my opinion, true veneration is shown for our fathers, not by applying their precepts under circumstances entirely different from those which they contemplated in giving them utterance, but by acting in our day and generation, as we believe that they would have acted, had they.Page95 been standing in our places. No doubt they desired this Union to endure forever. It was their wish that its links might remain as fast, and firm, and bright, as the links of that sacred chain which holds the jarring elements of nature in peace. No doubt, it was their fervent aspiration that Liberty and Union might ever be one and inseparable. But there is an inspiration in their "lives sublime," which teaches us another and a yet higher sentiment—a sentiment which breathes in those fragments of the eloquence of Otis and Henry, which have been borne to us on the winds of tradition—a sentiment which is embodied in that glorious scene commemorated by the genius of painting, now so fitly gracing this Hall,*Referring to a Painting of Washington crossing the Delaware.in which issues of liberty are to be decided—which is revealed in the majesty of that form, in the serenity of that brow, in the lustre of that eye, as amid the wintry torrents of the Delaware, the Father of his Country pours into a dismayed and desponding patriotism, in its hour of darkest trial, his own unfailing heart of hope—a sentiment which, from every memorial tomb of the mighty dead, through all our borders, bursts into speech—"Whenever this Union and your liberties cannot exist together, throw the Union to the winds, and clasp the Liberty of your country to your heart."

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to express the earnest hope, that if any word has escaped or shall escape my lips which may sound harshly in the ears of any gentleman in this body, he will believe that I have no stronger desire than to treat with most respectful consideration those who may differ from me in opinion on this great question, and that he will pardon much to one who believes, most sincerely, that all in life of value to him as a man, a freeman or a patriot, is depending in a large measure upon the decision of this Convention. Momentous as is the material interest of the Commonwealth at stake, the material value sinks into insignificance, in the presence of other considerations. Appalling as would be the calamities of war between the two sections of our country, there is a profounder depth of misery and degradation towards which we are approaching, and in which we may be lost. I regard the issue as ,one between the enjoyment of Constitutional liberty, and the inauguration under the forms of the Constitution and the law of the most odious despotism on which the sun ever shone. I regard it as an issue between the uninterrupted reign of the arts of civilization and social order, and a frightful chaos of anarchy and of crime.

I have endeavored to prove that there is now an irrepressible antagonism of feeling and opinion between the two sections of the Union; that although error ceases to be dangerous when truth is free to combat it, yet error is dangerous so long as it is inaccessible. I do not despair of the final triumph of Truth :

Passion and ignorance and weakness may banish or discredit her for a season, but God himself will throw around Truth the shield of His Providence, and finally establish her throne upon the ages of Time. It is thus that I confidently anticipate the final vindication of the purity, and the wisdom of our institutions, and not from any power, on our part, for a century to come, to reach the hearts and minds of the Northern people. Sir, their prejudices and their passions would not only be advocates against us, but they would be witnesses against us. They would give credence to no faithful description of slavery. Here and there in their great cities, along the seaboard, may be found clergymen and statesmen who are now ready to do justice to the South. But, in the heart of the country, in the vast Northwest, in the interior of New York, and of New England, the regions where lies the seat of empire and power, it is impossible for any man to lay his finger upon any encouraging indication of an important change in public opinion, upon this subject.

I have endeavored to prove the absolute necessity to our peace and security of various forms of power—power of expansion, power of protection against constant political agitation, and the infinite humiliation and wrong of a sectional ascendency resulting from it. I have also maintained, that, with friendship gone, equality gone, liberty gone, this Union, if it was commended to us by the ignoble dictates of prudence, would be spurned by the truer and more generous instincts of manhood. Unless it can be planted upon the everlasting rock of justice, the sooner it is overthrown the wiser, and manlier, and better. Whether the Northern people would be willing to give us the guarantees of power which I have suggested, is not, it seems to me, a question fit for discussion in this assembly. Are they necessary and just? We are entitled to claim a full measure of security against their own wrong. Our constituents expect us to exercise moderation in any demand we may make, but the only moderation they will appreciate or commend is an heroic moderation—that moderation which, whilst asking nothing more than a free people ought to expect, under a.Page97 government established for the protection of their rights and their honor, will accept nothing less.

Mr Chairman, if we stood here to-day surrounded by no complication from the action or attitude of other States, it would have been appropriate for this Commonwealth, it would have been in keeping with all her past, to have inaugurated a movement demanding full security in the Union, and declaring her fixed determination, unless it was given, at once and forever to leave the Union. That same spirit which committed our fathers, in advance of any other colony in 1765, to the principles of the revolution; that spirit which committed them, in advance of any others in 1776, to the Declaration of Independence; that same spirit which, after the formation of the Constitution, impelled them in '98-'99 to lead in a struggle for the restoration of its primitive integrity; that same spirit would have pointed us to our accustomed place, in the van-guard of a battle for Constitutional liberty. I utter these words not in the spirit of reproach, but in the spirit of regret—regret that the State has lost a great opportunity of fame—but I do not acknowledge that any reproach can be justly cast upon the principles, or the temper of her people. Her situation might well have induced her to linger longer in the Union; her own peculiar relations to it; her part in its formation; her central position; her variety of interests and population; the burthen and the misfortune of a violent party feud—all these circumstances would naturally produce greater deliberation on the part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, than of the States to the South, without justifying any reflection upon the spirit of her people—their love of liberty or their devotion to principle. Sir, the reproach will be deserved if, when the time for action comes, she does not then move with the power, and with the unity, befitting her strength and her fame.

We do not, however, sir, find ourselves in that attitude. Neither States nor individuals can isolate themselves from the consequences of events that transpire around them. It is not for Virginia to say that the Union shall be preserved upon certain terms, or dissolved, if these terms cannot be obtained.

We are standing amidst the ruins of the Union; the Union has been shattered, and there is no human architect that can rear the temple again. A number of our sister States—seven, soon in all human probability, to become eight—have not only left the Union, but have actually organized a new Union, and have established a permanent Constitution. They are frequently accused of hot haste, in not having shown proper deference to your opinions, and your feelings in changing .Page98 their Federal Relations, without appeal to you? It is more natural for man, Lord Shaftesbury remarks, to commit two errors than to retract one. Let us have the magnanimity to do justice, although it may involve our own condemnation. Let us bear in mind that it is hardly twelve months since Mississippi and South Carolina sent a mission to Virginia, and that Alabama would have taken the same course, had there been any indication that it would be acceptably received.

The object of this mission was to obtain a conference of all the slave States; a conference, by whose decision it was expressly declared that South Carolina, as well as Mississippi, would be bound, however opposite it might be to their own views of the policy to be pursued. They had previously, by Legislative resolutions, expressed their own conviction that, in the precise contingency which has since arisen, and which was then imminent, the Southern States should withdraw from the Union. That the responsibility of acting upon their own judgment in this grave crisis might not be forced upon them, they appealed to Virginia to meet them in general council.

Taking no part by reason of my official position, in the ordinary contests of party, I was invited, a short time before this mission, to address a public meeting in the county of Albemarle, composed of gentlemen of all parties. Upon that occasion I expressed the opinion that it would be wise and proper for Virginia, in anticipation of the probable election of a Black Republican President, to call together her sister slave States, that they might make a common demand upon the North for security and indemnity, or withdraw in a body from the Union. That declaration not only exposed me to personal censure, but the noble institution with which it was my fortune to be associated, to unmerited hostility. In vindicating myself, as I felt called upon to do, from the charge of unseemly and improper interference with the politics of the day, and proclaiming my desire to restore harmony and friendship to our divided people, I also expressed the apprehension that in consequence of the division and irritation which would result from our policy, I might outlive the Union and Constitution of my country. For the prudence and patriotism of those counsels, and the reasonableness of that apprehension, I this day, claim the melancholy vindication of time. But again, Mr. Chairman, anterior to the election of Lincoln, there was not the slighest indication of public sentiment in the border States from which the people of the Gulf States could have anticipated that another proposition for conference would have been received with more favor. No alternative was left to them, but .Page99 to acquiesce in our decision, or to take such course as, in their own judgment, might be requisite for the protection of their rights.

I believe it is stated in the preamble of the majority report that Virginia has more interest in this controversy, than any other State. I take issue with the report upon this point. I maintain that the cotton States are more deeply interested than Virginia. So far as the number of fugitive slaves is concerned, the statistics published recently, and said to be from official sources, show that the facilities of escape by sea, from the Atlantic coast, and by the Mississippi and its tributaries in the South-west, are such that the actual number of slaves lost this way, is about as great in those States, in proportion to white population, as in Virginia or Kentucky. But this is as dust in the balance, compared with other considerations.

The degradation of enduring a sectional ascendency, will as deeply wound their honor and liberty, as it would wound our honor and our liberty. On the great issue of expansion and future protection to slavery, they are more vitally concerned than we are. They want future acquisition of Territory, that the normal relation of the races may be preserved for all time, and that there may be no great struggle for existence or supremacy between them at any remote day. We are in no danger of such a contest in Virginia. The Southern States will receive all our slaves, but the Southern Territory with the slaves of Virginia emptied into it, will not be adequate to the peaceful accommodation of the black race, which will be ultimately concentrated in its bosom.

Agriculture may revive from the depression consequent upon a loss of your slave labor, but if you confine the slaves to the cotton States within their present limits, you will compel the white population of that region either to abandon it to the black, or to endure the debasing consequences of an admixture of races. Thus they have to decide a question both of existence and civilization, as well as of liberty; with us it is equally a question of liberty, so long as we remain a slaveholding community, but it is not a question of existence or civilization. From the position of the border States they may have more to fear from the dissolution of this Union ; but the cotton States, from their position on the Gulf, have infinitely more to fear, from its duration. Delaware is nominally only, a slave State. Maryland will soon be a free State; and so it is with Missouri, and Kentucky. Is it to be expected that States, which by natural and political laws are compelled to be slave States forever, will surrender the keeping of their destiny to States, which may at no distant day, give up this institution?

If there has been any ungenerous expression of sentiment towards Virginia, from any quarter in the South, from any newspaper, from any public man, can we not recall sentiments as offensive, from sources as distinguished and presses as influential, and widely circulated in Virginia, towards the people of South Carolina? Does not every sentiment of justice and patriotism command us to cease this crimination and re-crimination? It was a solemn duty resting upon the people of the cotton States, to take an attitude which should place their vast interests beyond the reach of peril. Their Confederation has become a fixed and irreversible fact of history, and that fact is one which the sooner we realize the better.

Upon what do you ground the hope of a reconstruction of the Union? Do you think it will be voluntary on the part of the Southern people? To bring about such a reconstruction, you must not only repeal their fears but their resentments. They have been living for the last three months, in anticipation of being called upon to defend their homes and their property, from desolating invasion by a Northern army. During this time all the deadly and all the noble passions of human nature, have been aroused and inflamed. Do you think that the men who have been sleeping upon the sand banks of Charleston, expecting nightly and hourly to be brought into deadly collision with the Northern people, are ready to come back and mingle with them on terms of friendship in the administration of a common government? No, sir; the image of the poet truly describes the relative condition of these once fraternal, but now divided States; like cliffs that have been rent asunder by the thunder bolt,

"A dreary sea now rolls between."

Do you believe that the men who have organized this government, and the great popular body that has sustained it so far, can be brought back into this Union, and induced to submit to Black Republican rule, but by *bloody revolution at home or subjugation from abroad? Are they not able to maintain themselves, in their independent condition? We frequently see in the public prints wholesale falsehoods, like the letter that has. just appeared, purporting to be from Judge Lyons, of South Carolina; with details of enormous taxes, interference with private property, mob laws, &c., in the seceded States. I trust that the only weapons we shall use in this controversy will be those of truth and fair argument, and that we will lend no countenance, in any form, to a shameless policy which finds its appropriate counterpart in the course of that ancient Deity, who, unable to secure the aid of the .Page101 Heavenly powers to wreak her vengeance upon its object, turned, in her wrath, and invoked help from the furies of hell:

These States contain a white population larger than that of the thirteen colonies when our independence was achieved, a territory more compact and defensible, vastly superior resources in money, trained soldiers and all the muniments of war, and a great staple, which makes it almost a necessity, for every civilized nation to preserve with them relations of peace and commerce.

From the most reliable accounts, the prosperity of these States has never been greater than at this day. Their ability to maintain their government, the fact that it will be a more economical one when it has been once permanently organized, and that the taxes necessary for its support, will be actually less than the proportion which the Southern people now pay towards the maintenance of this Federal Government, can be established by indisputable evidence. Will the Government at Washington, be able to bring them back by force? How will it be attempted? It has at length discovered, that to blockade the Southern ports, and attempt to collect the revenue outside of them by armed vessels, would not only cost more than the duties would pay, but would, in all probability, involve the Government in war with foreign powers. Neither France nor England would submit for a moment to the exaction of one duty out of the port, and another in the port. To close the Southern ports as ports of entry, by an act of Congress, when the people are repudiating the Federal jurisdiction—and the Government, by its own conduct, confessing inability to maintain such jurisdiction—would be regarded by every Government in Europe, as equivalent to a paper blockade, and be resisted as a violation of the rules of public law. Can an army be collected and supported, sufficiently numerous to establish the Federal authority? I have heard a friend of mine relate a conversation which occurred in his presence, at the dinner table of a distinguished gentleman of Boston, between men who were regarded as conservative in that city, in which conversation the opinion was generally expressed, that if an attempt should be made to dissolve the Union by the Southern States, Northern capital could and would employ a force of foreign mercenaries sufficient, to subjugate them, without shedding a drop of Yankee blood. We learn from history, Mr. Chairman, that when the Persians invaded Greece, they carried with them the marble with which to build a column to Victory, and that upon the plains of Marathon, a temple was raised from that marble to avenging Nemesis; and, if necessary, .Page102 the long sleeping echoes of those warning lessons which Greece gave to Persia, which Switzerland gave to Austria, which the Netherlands gave to Spain, and which our forefathers gave to England, will be revived on many a battle field of freedom, upon our Southern soil.

No, sir, the Federal Government can neither tempt these States to return, nor can it force them to return. Without some change in its own policy, according to the reliable statement of the New York "Evening Post"—the most conservative and the ablest Republican journal in the country—without some change in its policy, in consequence of the unequal operation of the Southern and the Northern tariff, the Government will be bankrupt, before the next crop of corn is ripe. In this condition, let us enquire, what policy is suggested by the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, to Virginia? The policy recommended, is to initiate a proceeding, which cannot be consummated in less than from six to twelve and eighteen months, with the view of obtaining amendments to the Constitution, which may possibly result in a re-construction of the Union.

Now, Mr. President, every material interest of this Commonwealth is going to wreck under the uncertainty as to what is to be her future policy. Whilst we ought to exercise all the deliberation requisite for an intelligent and well considered decision of this momentous issue—yet deliberation protracted one moment beyond that period, would not only be a weakness, but a crime.

Whilst we are making a movement, hopeless in all human appearance from indications North, as well as South, as to its main object, what precious interests are we not putting in peril? We are exposing the cause of peace. If blood is shed, it is conceded by all that an inextinguishable feud, not to be healed in the lapse of generations, will be opened between the sections. The most violent and ultra organs of the Black Republican party have acknowledged, that if Virginia acceded to this Southern Confederacy; if her voice of strength and influence, called for negotiation, and recognition of independence, this fact alone, would make peace a necessity. But we have no assurance from either party, no certainty in the attitude in which the State would be placed by the action contemplated in this majority report, that hostilities might not begin in a month. And what would be our condition, if war, under these circumstances, should break out? Our own territory would in all likelihood, become the battleground. The federal authority having been employed in the meantime in concentrating troops upon our borders, if not within the State itself; every Virginian in the army and navy that could be sent to a distant .Page103 territory or a foreign port, withdrawn from the call of his native Commonwealth; no organization or connection with our Confederate States, so as to secure that unity in the defence which will exist in the attack, the war would be prosecuted by us, under every disadvantage.

Why should we defer our decision, until we have more fully ascertained the opinion of the border States? The eloquent gentleman from Kanawha reminded us the other day, that we should think of Maryland lying, as it were, in the lap of Virginia, and Kentucky, leaning upon her shoulder. Will this policy of procrastination, preserve the peace of Maryland, and Kentucky? If that is the object at which you are aiming, is it not most likely to be accomplished, by a decisive expression of your purpose to associate Virginia with the States to the South of her? It is uncertainty as to our course which alone puts the peace of the country in jeopardy, and which may, and probably will, precipitate upon Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky and all the border States, the horrors of civil war.

If this Border conference will not contribute to this end, for what do you ask it? Is it that you may commit the destiny of Virginia to the decision of a majority of the Border States? It must be borne in mind that Delaware is really a free State. Maryland has little upwards of eighty thousand slaves, and, according to Mr. Chase's declaration in the letter previously referred to, the Federal Government would pay for these, rather than permit her to withdraw from connection with the North. Missouri has only one hundred thousand slaves, and in five or ten years, is likely to become a free State. Kentucky lies separated by the river only from Ohio, with an almost virgin soil, equally adapted to the growth of the staples of Ohio, with a large proportion of white population; and with a strong anti-slavery feeling in existence, is destined at a later day to lose her slaves. Are we prepared to commit the fortunes of Virginia into the keeping of States so unequally interested, in the preservation of this institution? Unless we intend to be bound by the action of the conference, it is more likely to result in division, than in union.

But, sir, the only real issue for this Convention to determine, is as to the permanent attitude of Virginia. Shall she remain in a Confederacy with the North, or associate with the States of the South? Our efforts to reconstruct the Union, will prove abortive. They may, in their consequences, involve the Commonwealth of Virginia and her sister Border States, in a war which could have been averted. But, sooner or later, you must decide with which of these Confederacies, you will link your destiny. One gentleman has said that Virginia .Page104 will go nowhere. In other words that she will stay where she is, in connection with the North. Suppose the government pursues a pacific policy towards the Southern States, resulting in the recognition of their independence, is that the opinion of this Convention, as to our future position?

I shall not attempt to reproduce in any form the argument so luminously and so exhaustively stated, by my friend from Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] , as to the necessity of a union by Virginia with the Southern States, for the advancement of all her manufacturing, mining, agricultural, and commercial interests. Our customers are in the South—our rivals in the North. The manufactures and commerce that now enrich them, might enrich us. But there is one point in connection with our industrial interests not sufficiently developed, to which I will allude for a moment. If Virginia remains with the North, the uncertainty as to the security of slave property, the repugnance, moral and political, in the minds and hearts of a large portion of her people to such a connection, must be speedily followed by an immense emigration of slaves and their masters, from the Commonwealth. What effect will be produced upon all our great interests, by this loss of capital, and population? The price of land will be depreciated ; the towns which depend for their prosperity upon the prosperity of the country, will languish and decay; the custom of the merchants will be reduced ; the employment of the artisan and mechanic will be diminished; the pressure of the public debt will fall more heavily upon both the East and the West; private ruin and public bankruptcy, social anarchy and civil convulsion will overwhelm the Commonwealth.

Look at it, in its political aspect. It is association, without power or influence, with an unfriendly Confederacy. One of seven slave States, in a Union with twenty free States. Virginia has been accustomed to lay down the rule for the construction of the Constitution, and to fix the principles of public policy, which should guide the administration of the Government. It may not be her proud fortune to lead the procession of the States, in triumph up to the Capitol, but I wholly mistake the temper of her people, if she is ever willing to follow, a spiritless and degraded captive, in the train of the victor.

There are moral, as well as industrial and political considerations, which unmistakably point us to the South. There is to be found our own form of society; there are our nearest kindred ; there are the habits and institutions of our own people; there we may wield the noblest form of power—a moral and intellectual dominion; there we.Page105 may improve and perpetuate our own peculiar type of civilization; there we may build up a splendid Confederacy, homogeneous in its feelings and its interests—a Confederacy that will change the moral sentiment of the world in reference to slavery, because Europe will then cease to look at it through the discolored media of Northern prejudice—a Confederacy that will march in unity, in power, in glory and in liberty, upon that great and ample territory, which will be its own, of nearly half a continent.

The course which has been pursued by the Confederate States, so far from inducing any despondency as to the capacity of man for self-government, furnishes the most signal proof of the power and immortality of the principles of liberty. As the degree of our apprehension, in the presence of any danger, is generally measured by the value which we place upon the object that is exposed, many of our best and most patriotic citizens are filled with fear, lest all the lights of freedom and civilization should expire with the Union. My reading of history, leads me, to no such unfilial trust in Providence. I find that no great revolution has ever occurred which did not leave the world in a better condition than it found it; and I confidently expect that the great luminary of constitutional liberty, which now seems to many to be setting in darkness, will, on the morrow—

"Repair his golden ray,

And warm the nation with redoubled flood."

Why should we not form this association? The apprehension of becoming responsible for the re-opening of the slave trade, must have vanished. The permanent Constitution of the Confederate States, settles it forever. The fear of a revenue, to be derived from direct taxes, has, in the same way, been put to rest. The most serious difficulty that disturbs gentlemen, seems to be uneasiness as to the condition of the border, which Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky would then constitute. Now let us calmly inquire, what are the dangers of the border? As to the escape of fugitives, it is said the Canada line will be brought down to the Ohio. My own impression is, that the Canada line, for a long period, has been very near the Ohio, and that the security of our slaves is rather the result of our ability to keep them at home than our ability to recover them, when they reach the free States upon the border. But if the Southern Confederacy is established on a permanent footing, the Northern people will soon recognize the necessity and advantage of favorable commercial treaties with it. They will then learn that one of the terms of good neighborhood between contiguous .Page106 nations is, that neither should permit its citizens to disturb their neighbors, in the enjoyment of their property; and a refusal on the part of the Southern Confederacy to receive Northern manufactures and produce upon terms equally favorable with other foreign nations, would lead to a treaty, in which they would stipulate to pay for fugitive slaves, not delivered, their entire value.

The most serious danger arises from the exposed frontier, which the Border States would present in the event of war. Apprehension has been expressed, lest we should have the European system of standing armies, introduced upon our continent. This seems to me a phantom, which will disappear in the presence of reason and examination. Why do such armies exist on the Continent of Europe? It is simply because the people have not the control over their governments. There are standing armies in Germany, because the ambition of the Emperor of France, or of the Emperor of Austria, may disturb the peace of Europe, at any moment. If the people upon the Continent of Europe, were able to direct to the same extent, as in England, the policy of the State, not only standing armies, but war itself would soon become a barbarous anomaly. The history of the last fifty years—certainly up to the accession of Louis Napoleon—establishes the fact, that peace is being recognised more and more, as the standing interest and policy of all civilized nations. Mr. Legare states, in a report which he made to Congress many years since, upon the propriety of establishing a tribunal to arbitrate national difficulties, that between 1815 and 1838 innumerable causes for war between the neighboring States of Europe, which in the previous century would have led to the most desolating conflict, had been closed by peaceful negotiation. This great re-action is to be attributed to the spread of humane and Christian principles, the more intelligent appreciation by the mass of men of their true interest, the multiplied relations of commerce, and, above all, the increasing influence of the people upon the policy of their government.

England within the last fifteen years would, on more than one occasion, have declared war against the United States, but for the strength and political power of the manufacturing and commercial classes which it would have prostrated. Will not these considerations apply with equal force, between the Northern and the Southern Confederacies? What will induce the Northern people to maintain large armies on their side of the border, from whence the necessity is anticipated of keeping up a similar force upon our side? They must be supported by a fund, raised from direct taxation. With the .Page107 abstraction from their revenue, of an immense amount of duty now collected in Southern ports; with the injury to their manufacturing industry which must result from the permanent withdrawal of a portion, at least, of our patronage, with the expenses of the Government by no means reduced in proportion to the loss of revenue; their territory stretching from ocean, to ocean, will prove a source of weakness, rather than strength. Be assured, sir, the agricultural, manufacturing and commercial people of the North will never court the burthen of sustaining upon their frontier, an immense army, to repel an invasion they have no reason to anticipate or fear, or to prosecute a war of aggression, they have no motive to undertake, and no means of rendering successful.

We have, at this moment, a standing and conclusive answer to this apprehension. We have an immense border on the North—the Canada border—between our country, and a great military power. Yet there are no standing armies collected upon either side of that border. On neither side do the people live in constant apprehension of war. They rely for security, not only upon their courage and their arms, but upon those great economical and commercial reasons, which make peace the interest, and therefore the policy of their governments.

Yet, sir, our Canada border is more exposed, or would be in the event of war, than the border of the Southern Confederacy; because the country upon that border is, to a large extent, a champaign country, through which large armies may more easily advance into the interior. Our border is, to a considerable extent, a broken and mountainous region, in which small bodies of men would be able to check the advance of an immensely superior force.

Is it expected that the spirit and scenes of the feudal age would be revived; repetitions, across the Ohio, of the plundering forays of the English and Scotch outlaws of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries? Even in old border song, it runs that "there are beeves on both sides of the border." Probably, in this instance, the fattest beeves would be found on the North side, and this, I imagine, in itself, would be a sufficient security that the peace would not be broken in this form, from that quarter. Again, sir, the Southern people along that border are eminently military in their spirit and habits. They are the descendants of men who reclaimed that land from the ruthless savage; men who went serenely to their couches at night, when there was constant danger that they might be roused from their slumbers by an Indian war whoop or a blazing roof; the descendants of the men who fought, at Point Pleasant, and of the men of West Augusta, to whom Washington .Page108 looked in the darkest hours of the revolution. If their border was ever invaded, these proud historic memories would lend an inspiration of courage to its defence which, like the miraculous light that blazed on the crest of Diomed, would strike terror into the heart of every foe.

Mr Chairman, a great change has taken place, not yet sufficiently appreciated in the conditions of the world, that must render aggressive wars upon any country containing a large and brave population, almost impossible, unless by immense and well disciplined armies. I refer to the greater facilities afforded by railroads and telegraphs, for purposes of defence, than for purposes of offence. They can only be extensively employed in a friendly country. An invading army may be brought, by railroad, to the verge of the hostile border, but, when it crosses into the enemy's country, every step of its progress must be made as it was a hundred years ago. An obstruction placed upon the track by a single hand would cause the destruction of hundreds of lives. They must travel slowly, dragging a weary length of waggons, and camp equipage, and ammunition in their train. They must leave garrisons along the whole line of their route, to keep open a communication with their base of operations. But how is it with railroads and telegraphs, for defensive warfare? As soon as it could be known, that an enemy was approaching the line of Virginia, Maryland, or Kentucky, the busy lightning, in an instant of time, would proclaim the fact to the remotest frontiers of Texas or Florida, and throughout the whole South, every railroad facility would be used to concentrate an overwhelming force upon the point of attack. Under ordinary circumstances, the railroad car is a magnificent and impressive symbol of power, but our hearts would kindle with the rapture of patriot enthusiasm, when we beheld this most powerful agency of nature and art, pressed into the noble service of liberty, crowding with untiring speed by night and by day, towards the post of danger, and pouring all along the line of the border, thousands upon thousands of freemen, ready and able to cover their country with a living wall of impassable fire.

In the event of hostilities, I have always thought that the most exposed point to the enemy would be our seaboard, and not our Western border. If we ever separate, we must have a border line upon our frontier, instead of that which now separates us from Canada. Sir, I ask our friends from the West to consider this whole question, and to place themselves in imagination in our condition; look at it for a moment in the light in which we view it. The North-western district of Trans-Alleghany has, according to the statistics of the last census, .Page109 about 8,000 slaves, while there are more than 400,000 in Piedmont and Tide-Water. The rest are distributed through the Valley, and the South-West. Of these 8,000 slaves in the North-West, 3,300 are in the county of Kanawha. Your people can never, therefore, be disturbed by any apprehension of present or future servile wars. The destruction of slave property, would only affect you by the re-action of our ruin. We, as a great slaveholding people, whose whole civilization is interwoven with this institution, may naturally be more sensitive to all which threatens its disgrace or its destruction. By all the hallowed associations of our common ancestry and common glory, I invoke you, gentlemen of the West, to let us march, keeping step together, through all the future, as our fathers have done in all the past. Let us ever be as ready, as they were in their generation, to cover with interlocked arms, the rights, the institutions, and the honor of the whole State. The poet tells us that liberty has two voices, one of the mountains, and one of the sea. The mingling and blended echoes of both those voices, sounded in the ears of our glorious dead. Let the West stand by the East in this hour of the greatest peril, in all its history; and with a people whose unity no trial or temptation could sever, with a territory never to be dismembered, a splendid heritage of power and fame never to be divided, the lofty strains of liberty will ascend from all our borders, in grand and unbroken chorus, so long as mountain floods shall thunder in the West, or ocean surges bellow in the East.

But, sir, suppose the policy of the Federal Government is not pacific, but coercion is attempted, where will Virginia go then? I am glad to know that the voice which says Virginia will then go nowhere, is very faint and low. If a coercive policy should be adopted, as is now, at least, probable, the question which will be presented to us, is one that must be decided by the heart, and not by the head. It is one that does not admit of debate. True, sir, every material interest we possess, would be destroyed by the subjugation of the Gulf States; all the principles of Constitutional liberty we have cherished, would be trampled in the dust; but there are stronger considerations yet, which would never permit us to stand by, and witness such a consummation—irrepressible sympathies and instincts of nature. We could never sit around the council board of the nation, with States which presented themselves in garments dripping with fraternal blood. No, sir, if this administration should be so deaf to the commanding voice of justice ; so deaf to the mournful appeal of the wounded, but yet living sympathies of our ancient brotherhood ; so insensible to the public opinion of the civilized world, to the common sentiments of humanity, and to the .Page110 principles of liberty, as to inaugurate this policy of coercion, upon whatever other point there may be uncertainty, there is no doubt, then, that this Commonwealth

History informs us that Louis XIV, in the latter part of his life, when stripped of the territory acquired by a long career of conquest, broken in spirit, humbled in his fortunes, ready to purchase peace from his adversaries by almost any concession, broke up the conference of Gertrudenburg rather than acquiesce in the suggestion, to turn his arms against his grandchild on the Spanish throne; and the native magnanimity of his hereditary enemies, subdued the insolence of triumph, and applauded his noble pride. This gleam of generous spirit shed around his closing hours a brighter lustre, than was imparted to them by all his earlier conquests.

Sir, will Virginia be found lending the sinews of war and the prestige of her name, to enable this government to execute a policy of coercion? Sir, for nations as well as individuals, there is something worse than death. Sooner than behold this glorious Commonwealth stoop to the abasement and degradation of this course, I would see her perish in some convulsion of nature, whilst a fading lustre from the parting footsteps of liberty and honor, yet lingered upon her monuments of glory. Rather let her, like that famous ship of war, the "Royal George," in the presence of assembled multitudes, in the full blaze of day, with every man at his post, and every gallant streamer flying from the mast-head, upon an anniversary of fame, go down to the depths of the ocean, and only leave a floating signal to mark the place of her disappearance. Infinitely would I rather see her fall in a glorious struggle for her own rights, and the rights of her sister States, and leave to future history the memorable response in her behalf, "dead upon the field of honor."

Sir, the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , alluded most touchingly, most beautifully to his devotion to this old Commonwealth. The bones of my forefathers are buried, like his, in its soil. There, too, repose the more precious ashes of my own household. I cannot say, like him, that I have not been often beyond its borders, but I can say, that wherever I have wandered, I have dragged at each remove, a lengthening chain; and that my heart untraveled, has ever fondly turned to her. I can say, that whether upon the Gulf or the Lakes of our .Page111 own continent, or in the cities of the old world, that sentiment has filled my bosom, which the great master of fiction puts into the mouth of his Highland hero, as he is led to execution in the dying prayer, that his head, when severed from the body, might be planted upon the North gate of the capital, and the eyes swimming in death, yet look towards the blue hills of his nativity.

But, much as I love this Commonwealth, if in this great hour of trial and temptation, she should forsake that noble course of glory which has given to her an immortal history, I, and many another worthier and better son, who could not have been induced to leave her in any extremity of adversity or misfortune, will rather abandon the ashes than the principles of our fathers, and will say, with the old Roman, that "where Liberty is, there is my country."

The President of the Convention, in his opening address, most felicitously and beautifully directed our thoughts to the flag of our country. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when my heart leaped with enthusiasm, whenever that flag was unrolled. I saw in its glorious fellowship, of stars and stripes, a pledge of mutual friendship; a symbol of equal strength and liberty, and a type of common fame forever. It was followed by the benedictions of patriotism wherever it floated, whether in holidays of peace, or nights of tempest, or days of battle. But, when I think of that flag lending its lustre and sanction, to the mockery of free government, which now dishonors the land ; when I reflect that it may soon wave over floating batteries of destruction, seeking with shot and shell to reduce to ashes Southern cities, or be borne in advance of Northern armies, carrying the desolation of fire and blood through Southern homes; the stars which beamed together in light and glory, fade from my vision; I see only the emblematic stripe in the red field of blood; and, turning, pained and indignant from the desecrated banner, the native sentiment of liberty and patriotism comes bursting from every fountain of feeling in my bosom; "the true colors of your country are the spirit and the principles of your fathers; live under them in freedom, or perish with them in honor."

As the gentleman from Albemarle is not in very good health, and is exhausted, I will submit the motion that the committee rise.

I take it for granted that the Convention will accommodate the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle, and not require him to go on to-day; but I ask the gentleman who has made the motion that the committee rise, to withdraw the motion for the .Page112 purpose of enabling me to occupy the attention of the committee for a few minutes, not in reply to the gentleman from Albemarle at all, but upon a different subject.

I have no objection to withdrawing the motion for that purpose, and will withdraw it.

I desire, sir, to submit an amendment to the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, which is now under consideration, in the nature of a substitute. If it be in order, I will send to the Chair and have read my amendment, and will then ask the attention of the Convention upon it for a short period.

I did not understand that to be the object of the gentleman when I withdrew my motion, and I will now renew the motion that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the Chair, the Chairman [Mr. SOUTHALL] , reported progress.

The PRESIDENT stated the business before the Convention to be the resolutions submitted by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , upon which the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HAYMOND] , was entitled to the floor.

1.3.3. PUBLIC MEETING IN HENRICO

with the permission of the gentleman from Marion, I desire to present to the Convention the proceedings of a meeting of a portion of my constituents, recently held in the county of Henrico.

There being no objection, the proceedings were read as follows:

It is with some reluctance, Mr. President, that I obtrude upon this Convention a matter which is peculiarly personal .Page115 to my constituents and to myself. But, sir, desiring always, so far as I can consistently with my views of propriety, to comply with every request made by any portion of my constituency, it has afforded me pleasure to comply with that part of the request which requires me to lay the proceedings of this meeting before the convention.

Having done that, I have done all that I can do in compliance with the requests of that meeting. The resolution of the majority of that meeting, declare that in their opinion the State of Virginia should resume its sovereignty, and request their delegate upon this floor to give his vote for such resumption.

That meeting, Mr. President, as stated in the official account which has been read, was composed of about 100 persons, many of them citizens of the city of Richmond. I have the honor to represent, upon this floor, a constituency numbering more than 2200 voters. In the account of this meeting, which I see in the local columns of the Richmond "Dispatch," I see it stated that the Union men there withheld their votes upon these resolutions, declaring that they had sufficiently instructed me at the polls. That instruction I recognize, and I intend fully to carry out upon this floor. But, sir, I have to say to those who composed this meeting of less than 100 persons, out of the 2200 voters of the county of Henrico, that, under the circumstances, I have no hesitation in respectfully declining to comply with their request.

Having settled that, I perhaps have said as much as it is necessary that I should say; and were I a politician, I unquestionably would pause here, and leave the course of future events to take care of themselves, and to be met as they arise; but, sir, I conceive that the use of frankness and candor is one of the golden rules of life, which should always guide every man in his course of action; and I propose to go one step further, and state what will be my course under all circumstances. In order to do so, I will have to trespass more at length upon the indulgence of the Convention than I desire to do, and go into a brief history of the manner in which I have been called to represent the people of the county of Henrico.

I fear that I may bring upon myself somewhat the charge of egotism, in what I shall say. I certainly should not do what might bring that charge upon me, did I not consider that it was proper thus to justify myself before my constituency and this Convention, for the course I have determined to pursue.

Two years ago, I was engaged quietly and peacefully in the, to me, more pleasant pursuits of agricultural life, than the busy turmoil of .Page116 politics. Against my earnest protestation, I was called upon to become a candidate in the Senatorial District, in which I reside. Against my urgent remonstrance, I was forced to accept the position of that candidacy. I was elected, and it has ever since been my earnest effort faithfully to perform the duties of that office and advance the interests of my constituency, and I have had the good fortune to acquire the confidence of that constituency.

Having taken the first step, it was easy to fall into additional steps in the progress of political life. When the presidential canvass came on I took an active part in it—and whenever I addressed any assemblage of my constituency, I told them that the issue of that canvass was Union or dis-union. I advocated the side of Union and opposed that of disunion. I went further and declared before the result of the Pennsylvania State election was known, that Lincoln's election was certain, and that it was therefore more important that the voters of the State of Virginia should cast their votes for Bell or for Douglas and against Breckinridge, than it would be even if they could secure the election of Bell; that if the vote of the State was cast for Breckinridge it would at once be asserted that it was in indication that the people of Virginia desired to carry out the policy of the South Carolina school of politicians, and to carry the old State of Virginia out of this Union into the vortex of disunion.

These opinions, sir, were fully and freely expressed by me before the public in every section of my district.

The election came on, sir, and Lincoln was elected ; and at the December Henrico Court, I attended a meeting of the people, and there expressed again my sentiments of attachment to the Union and devotion to its interests.

The Legislature met, sir, and a bill for the call of a Convention was passed. I published an address to the constituency which I have the honor to represent in the State Senate, pointing out to them the dangers which were about to environ them, warning them to guard against the wiles of the disunionists, and the influence of the secession cry which was raised to entice them from the path of conservatism and moderation. I told them that disunion was no remedy for the ills upon us, and urged them to make every effort to maintain the rights of Virginia and yet to preserve the Union.

Shortly after, sir, nominations were made for the Convention through the papers, of several prominent gentlemen of the county, men of the highest standing and respectability and of the greatest influence, holding, however, opinions at variance with those entertained .Page117 by the Union party of the State. A considerable number of

my constituents sent to me a letter of which the following is an extract :

"Feeling the great importance of having a conservative man to represent us in the approaching Convention, and feeling assured that we cannot get a man who will more truly represent the sentiments of a majority of the people of Henrico county, we call upon you to allow us the use of your name as a candidate for said county."

Sir, I used my best efforts to procure some friend, in the county of Henrico, who entertained the same opinions with myself, to undertake the canvass. Failing in that, I at last consented to become a candidate, and in that way come before the people of the county, my opinions having been fully expressed and generally known. They chose to elect me, and I became their representative. I now stand here entertaining precisely the same opinions that I did when elected. I stand here ready to defend Virginia's every right; but, at the same time, determined to use every effort to preserve the Union. I stand here acknowledging allegiance to Virginia first of all; but believing that that allegiance will be best discharged and the interests of the Commonwealth best promoted by the preservation of the Union. I desire to say that I have no sympathy with those gentlemen, who, while they profess to be the peculiar guardians of Virginia, avow their purpose, if this question is not settled as they desire, to cast off their allegiance and leave Virginia. I, for one, am determined to stand by Virginia; to stand by the allegiance which I owe to Virginia, and, come weal or come woe, to remain upon her soil, and, with every breath, to maintain and advance her interests. Should it be my misfortune, that the constituency whom I represent should dissent from my opinions; should it be my misfortune that they should change their opinion, of which I have no fear, I shall still be guided by the programme I proclaimed before the election, and be governed by the principles which I advocated at that time. I shall carry out those principles in view of which I have been elected, and should I have the misfortune to incur the displeasure of that constituency, I will trust to time, sir, that curer of ills, to see that justice is done to my motives and actions; and if I do not recover the confidence of that constituency—should I be so unfortunate as to lose it—I am satisfied that their children will say to my children, "your father has boldly maintained our rights, and consistently vindicated our honor and our interests."

I have said so much, sir, because in the first place, I felt it right that I should justify myself to my constituents; and, secondly, knowing that an effort has been made, by some gentlemen, to embarrass .Page118 me in my position, I deem it proper to show them that no attempt that they might make, and no pressure that they might seek to bring to bear upon me, will have the effect of causing me to change the views which I have entertained, and do now entertain, upon the subjects to which the proceedings submitted by me refer.

And lastly to assure that Union-loving constituency that sent me here, that they have not mistaken their man, but that I will fully carry out those principles which they elected me to advocate.

I now move that the proceedings be referred to the committee on Federal Relations.

The motion was agreed to.

The pending question is upon the resolution of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

With the permission of the gentleman from Marion [Mr. HAYMOND] , I would ask leave to submit the proceedings of a meeting of my constituents.

Does the gentleman from Marion yield the floor.

I do, sir.

I beg leave to present the following proceedings of a meeting of my constituents, which I would ask to be referred to the committee on Federal Relations.

The proceedings are as follows:

The proceedings were ordered to be referred.

THE TAXATION QUESTION

Mr. President, I feel somewhat embarrassed in rising to address the Convention at this time, by way of concluding the remarks commenced by me on yesterday. I am aware, sir, that the Convention to-day has already been detained for a considerable time by a gentleman much more able and eloquent than myself, and upon a subject in which a large portion, perhaps the largest portion of this body, on this particular occasion, feel a deeper interest than the subject I have under discussion. I should not now proceed to the discussion were it not for the fact that I feel it to be my duty to the constituency whom in part I have the honor to represent, to conclude this discussion and ask a vote, as soon as possible, upon the proposition now before the Convention.

Without recapitulating or referring particularly to the remarks that I offered to the consideration of the Convention on yesterday, I shall proceed at once with the subject.

I was endeavoring to show, by an assumed mode of calculation, which I believe to be right in the abstract, the amount of taxes collected by the officers of the Commonwealth from the slave property therein according to the provisions of our Constitution as they now exist, with a view of showing to the Convention and to the country, that that Constitution, as it at present exists, is erroneous and ought to be changed. It will be perceived that in the remarks I have submitted, I have assumed that slaves over twelve years of age were worth, upon an average, $600 each, and that slaves under twelve years of age were worth $300 a head. Now, sir, according to that assumption, as I stated on yesterday, the value of the slave property of the Commonwealth is $234,430,000, but according to the provisions of the Constitution as it now exists, $81,600,000 worth of that property only is taxed. And, sir, we also find by carrying out that calculation, that instead of receiving $326,000, as we now do under the provisions of this Constitution, we should receive from that species of property, if taxed as other property, according to value, $629,600.

It will be seen, sir, by a reference to the calculation which I have .Page120 submitted, that I suppose the average value of all the slaves of the Commonwealth, young, old and middle age, to be about $450 each, and, in my judgment, that is a reasonable estimate of the value of that property, and if that estimate be reasonable, if it be proper, as I remarked a minute since, we should receive into the treasury of the Commonwealth, from that property, $629,600, instead of $326,000 which it now pays under the provisions of the present Constitution.

But suppose I should be mistaken in estimating the average value of that species of property at $450, suppose that it be not worth more than $300 a head, I mean averaging the whole, what would be the state of affairs in this regard? Taking the 511,000 estimated by the auditor as being the number of slaves in the Commonwealth, and estimating them at at $300 each, the amount of money we would receive from that property in taxes would be $613,200 instead of $326,000 which we now receive, being a difference of $287,200.

But suppose that each of the estimates that I have made should be too high, why, sir, it does not change the principle which I am endeavoring to force upon the Convention and community, namely, the justice, the propriety and the equality of the ad valorem system of taxation. That species of property should contribute for the support of the government, and for the protection of itself as well as the protection of other property in the Commonwealth.

But, Mr. President, I was endeavoring to show on yesterday, that the best interests of the Commonwealth required that the Constitution should be amended in this particular—that the harmony of the Commonwealth required it, and that the honor of the Commonwealth in future, so far as her protection was concerned, absolutely demanded it.

I remarked yesterday that the debt of the Commonwealth of Virginia was over $40,000,000. I shall now proceed to state to the Convention what is the amount of that debt, and what, in my judgment, is just and proper for this Convention to do in order to prevent the increase of that debt and bring about a decrease of the now oppressive taxation.

By reference to the Auditor's last financial report, we ascertain exactly the amount of the present debt; I mean the funded debt and the debt which is not funided—the debt for which taxes are now required to be levied, and the debt authorized by law, for which taxes will be required to be levied, whenever the bonds of the Commonwealth can be disposed of under the acts making the appropriations. I find in the Auditor's financial report, under the head of the amount .Page121 of State debt for taxes, that the aggregate amount of it, including $537,875 of the bonds of the James River and Kanawha Canal Company, amounts to $35,889,659.63. That I understand to be the amount of the actual registered debt of the Commonwealth of Virginia, for which our Legislature is required to provide by taxing the people, or rather property.

But, sir, that is not the whole amount. We not only have this enormous amount of debt hanging over Virginia and resting upon us a blighting incubus, but we have, in addition to this, another large sum which has been appropriated by the Legislature—a debt directed to be contracted, and which the tax-payers of Virginia will be required to pay in time to come. Under the head of appropriations not funded, in the same report, it will be found, without specifying or enumerating particularly the several items, that the aggregate amount of the authorized debt which has not yet been funded, is $7,563,993.24.

But, sir, these are not the only liabilities of Virginia. In addition to these liabilities already accrued and authorized by law, Virginia has guaranteed the bonds of Internal improvement companies and cities for a large amount of money, amounting in the aggregate, as stated in the Auditor's report, to $1,638,500.

Now, sir, adding these items together, and what do you find the present debt of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be, provided for by taxation upon the property of the people. It is $45,092,152.87. Then how do you find the financial condition of Virginia to be? How is her credit at present in the great money marts of the world. We find that this debt, by what I consider to be extravagant and improper appropriations, has been increased to such an enormous amount, and such an amount of our bonds has been thrown into the market, that absolutely, instead of being honored as she was years ago by her credit being at par, her bonds are now 25 per cent below par. Yes, sir, in all parts of the United States, the bonds of Virginia are sold at 25 per cent below par. Is this right and proper? Should such a state of things as this exist in this Commonwealth, in this day of our trouble, when it may become necessary to raise her arm in battle in defense of our own honor and the rights of our own people? Is this debt to go on increasing and increasing, not only by appropriations to works of Internal Improvements, but for matters of defence and for arming the people in defence of the honor and the institutions of the Commonwealth?

Mr. President, I endeavored to show, yesterday, to the owners of .Page122 slave property, that it was for their interest to have it taxed as other property is taxed. I proceeded to assign various reasons why the Convention should proceed to amend the Constitution touching taxation, &c. There are now two other reasons which I beg leave to state to this body; one of which is in answer to objections made by gentlemen who have already preceded me. It is said that this Convention should not consider this subject, because it was not called for that purpose, and the people had not this subject in view at the polls, and, therefore, the Convention should not spring it upon them. Let us look at the act of the General Assembly. We will find by examining this act that this Convention was called as much for an amendment of the organic law of the Commonwealth as it was for the consideration of our Federal Relations. Does it not provide upon its very face that the action of this Convention, dissolving our relations with the Federal Government or amending our organic law, shall be submitted to the people for their ratification, if they so voted. Yes, sir, it is explicitly enumerated and stated, and there can be no mistake or misunderstanding about it.

I maintain, therefore, that the objection to the Convention considering and making amendments to the Constitution on this score is unalterable.4Perhaps this last word ought to be "unacceptable" or "unallowable."

My reply to it, as before stated, is that the act of the Assembly itself shows that it was in contemplation to amend the organic law, or that it might be done. I would remark to the members upon this floor, that in the region of country from which I came, this subject was considered and agitated as much as that of Federal Relations.

But there is another remark I wish to make. The gentleman from the county of Bedford [Mr. GOGGIN] and other gentlemen, have offered for the consideration of this Convention ordinances of secession. Aye, sir, an ordinance has already been offered and laid on the table, to abide the order of the Convention, by which Virginia is declared to be out of the Union. Resolutions have been offered here by gentlemen providing, in view of the action of this Convention in relation to an ordinance of secession, that the military of the Commonwealth shall be called out and instructed in military tactics at such convenient points and places as in the judgment of the Governor may be proper. If that ordinance of secession be granted, what is to be the state of things? Virginia must at once place herself in a condition for war. She must place herself upon the defensive, if she does not assume an aggressive position. How many men is she to call into the field? How many is she to arm? How many muniments of war is she to distribute?

How much will it cost before the Revolutionary war, which is to be inaugurated, ends? Can any man inform us? What is the expense of the standing army of the United States? I believe that it comprises some 17,000 men. It costs the government of the United States, as I understand it, from seventeen to eighteen millions of dollars annually. Sir, if that small and insignificant army costs the government of the United States that immense sum per annum, how much will the army of Virginia cost, which is to be called out if she dissevers her relations with this Union, in order to defend and vindicate her dignity? It will be millions on top of millions. Am I to sit here as a member of this Convention, representing a population who are not slaveholders, but who are compelled to pay taxes on every cent that they are worth, keep my mouth shut and be prevented from bringing to the consideration of this body the question of taxing slave property according to its worth, upon the ad valorem principle.

But, the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , tells me—I do not now see him in his seat—and he tells my colleagues from the section of country from which I come, that if we will unite with him in having an ordinance of secession passed, then, although he does not speak by the authority of his constituents, yet, upon his own responsibility, he will grant to us that equality of taxation which we demand as a right.

The only reply I have to make is this. We maintain that the great principle of ad valorem taxation is a just and proper principle, and if it be right, just and proper to adopt the principle out of the Union, it is right and just to adopt it in the Union. And I say, moreover, to that gentleman and his constituents, if he represents them, that we decline any such bargain. My constituents may not have as much of this world's goods as the constituents of some other gentlemen, but there is one virtue which my constituents have, and I thank God for it, and that is that they can neither be bought or sold, and I trust in God that representatives upon this floor will be true to the will and virtue of their constituents. I demand here for my constituents what I believe to be their right, and I am willing to do what is right for others. I am not here representing the principle of ad valorem taxation as applying exclusively to my section of the State. I maintain that it applies to the slaveholding as well as to the non-slaveholding sections of this entire State, and those two classes should be harmonized from the Atlantic upon your East, to the Ohio on your West.

But, Mr. President, another resolution has been offered here which I do not wish to fail noticing. It is a resolution offered by the .Page124 gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , a few days since. It seemed to be offered in view of the fact that the General Assembly of Virginia might fail to increase the debt of the State beyond what it now is. This resolution provided, by direct ordinance, for the appropriation of a million of dollars from our Treasury. It seems, although the ordinance was not entertained by this body, that it had the effect to awaken into life in the mind of the General Assembly, the necessity of the passage of such a bill, and they accordingly passed it a few days since. What expedient is resorted to, in order to carry it into effect? They have legislated away, appropriated away and destroyed the credit of their own Government—Virginia now stands in the moneyed markets of the world with her bonds below par, with depreciated credit—a credit not equal to that of many of her solvent citizens.

The Legislature decline to authorise the banks of the Commonwealth to issue small notes for fear of corrupting the currency. I believe that this is right. I agree with them in principle in this respect; but how do they propose to carry into effect this bill appropriating a million of dollars? Why, Virginia, this proud old mother of ours—about whom we have heard, so many thrillingly eloquent remarks—has gone into the shin-plaster business, under the name and title of treasury note bills. Yes, sir, we are to have that species of currency in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and what are we to lose by it? If the bonds of the Commonwealth are 25 per cent below par, will not her treasury notes, which are but simple promises to pay, be dishonored to the same extent, and will not Virginia lose 25 per cent exactly upon every dollar that she expends by virtue of the law authorizing the issuing of these treasury notes?

To illustrate : Suppose the Governor of the Commonwealth undertakes to make a contract with any person, to provide for the defence of Virginia at any point where he may deem it necessary, and he proposes to pay the contractor in treasury notes instead of gold and silver. Will he not charge the Government of Virginia 25 per cent more than he would if he were paid in gold and silver?

I mention these facts in order to show you the true condition in which Virginia is placed. Look at her currency, at her finances, from one end of the country to the other. What do you find to be the fact? There is in circulation but a very small amount of specie, and I presume there is but a small amount of actual specie in the vaults of our Banks. Not one dollar of the issue of the Bank notes in .Page125 circulation, which you are bound to receive in payment of your taxes, is convertible currency.

Thus you have before you the true financial condition of Virginia—her credit twenty-five per cent below par—her people furnished with a currency utterly worthless, even in the adjoining States, or in your own midst. We who are here representing the people of the Commonwealth, as best we can, are paid in this unconvertible currency, and if we want a small amount of change, we must go to a broker and submit to a shave of from three to five per cent. And yet gentlemen speak of the honor of our old mother, and refuse to lay their hand upon her organic law, unjust, odious, and oppressive as it is. I appeal to the members of the Convention from the East and the West, if it is not high time, and imperatively necessary, that this reckless and extravagant expenditure should cease, and that the debt of Virginia, instead of being increased, should be decreased.

Mr. President, the grand criterion of sovereignty is to command and to be obeyed, and to require obedience by protection—protection from imposition, from fraud, from partial taxation, from all odious inequalities, wrongs and injuries. Virginia should deal with all her children alike and not favor any exemptions from burthen, as to one class of her sons, which she does not favor and commend as to all. Then let this exemption of slave property from the principle of ad valorem taxation be stricken from the Constitution. Do this and you will have accomplished a great end.

But, Mr. President, a word or two more and I am done. The course of proceeding in relation to our demands here has appeared to me to be singular in the extreme. We represent upon this floor, I undertake to say, the wishes of the majority of the voters of this Commonwealth. The grievances of which we complain are the grievances of those voters.

We have simply asked this Convention to inaugurate a Committee of Enquiry to investigate these complaints and these grievances in regard to our present Constitution. And, sir, every time a proposition of that kind has been offered, it has been met by a motion to lay on the table, so as to cut off debate; and we, who represent that class of people, are compelled, upon the mere motion for a committee, to discuss the merits of every proposition that we may contemplate bringing before the committee, or of which the committee could take cognizance.

Is there any precedent for such a course of procedure? Where has such an example been set? Not in the General Assembly. No section .Page126 of the Commonwealth that has ever come before that body, complaining of injuries and asking for redress, has been refused a committee, or been strangled in their very first efforts at vindication and redress. Will this Convention set such an example? Are dear rights thus summarily to be treated?

Mr. President, I have endeavored to show to the slaveholders, by actual and dispassionate argument, as I trust, taking in connection with what I have said to-day what I said yesterday, that it was their interest and their duty to come to the relief of the Commonwealth of Virginia and to the tax payers, with their species of property, and that it was just, and that it was eminently proper that they should do so at this juncture of time.

Now, I have a word or two to say to my brethren of the West, delegates with me on this floor. I ask them how long it has been since their constituents and their constituents' fathers have prayed as Virginians, arid for the sake of Virginia, and for Virginia's honor, that the free white men of this Commonwealth not contaminated by crime, should be permitted to convene in a body like this, upon terms of perfect equality? And for what purpose? For the purpose of breaking those manacles which have oppressed them so harshly during the entire life-time of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have here a majority of fourteen I believe. While we are here, there are many of those who represent patriotic constituencies in the East, who would be willing to join with us in correcting this error in the Constitution, as I believe, if we are but united. Are we now to desert our constituents? When will we have another opportunity to redress their wrongs by correcting its existing evils? Some say in 1865. How would we have an opportunity in 1865? Our Constitution does not provide for the calling of a Convention like this. Then it does not provide for an equalization of the taxes, or for relieving them from any of the burthens and inequalities of which they have complained so long and so justly. Can we place our hands on our hearts and before our God and our country plead that it is not right now to amend the Constitution? If we fail to amend the Constitution now, will we, can we justly expect to retain the respect and confidence of our respective constituencies? These are matters about which we should consider, and consider wisely, and particularly in full view of our responsibility. I trust each one of us will discharge our duty and our whole duty in this particular. If we prove unequal to our duty and fail to reform our organic laws, I fear the consequences will not be favorable to the peace of Virginia. And that our constituents will justly conclude that .Page127 we, for the want of proper courage and wisdom, have riveted upon their necks the yoke of inequality and oppression.

Mr. President, I deeply regret the necessity which required me to trespass on so much of the time of the Convention. I have done so in the discharge of a simple duty, the highest duty I owe to my constituents. I feel that their grievances are grievances in fact, that they ought to be removed, and there is no excuse upon the face of the earth for the failure of this Convention to remove them. And if there ever has been a time in the history of Virginia when it was improper to retain in her Constitution odious inequalities such as I have named, it is at this very period when that species of property to which Virginians are so much attached, and which we are all willing to defend with blood if need be, is the cause, the sole cause of all this extraordinary expense now being incurred, and of the universal mourning which is spread all through our beloved country.

I would like to ask the gentleman if he is willing to take up the organic law of the State and make the necessary amendments to go into effect in 1865, provided this Convention deem it proper to make such amendments?

The gentleman will understand me to say, that I contend that the ad valorem principle is now and has always been right, and that the Constitution ought to be so amended as to put that principle in operation now. That is what we contend for. If we cannot get anything better at the hands of this Convention, than the proposition of the gentleman to adopt the ad valorem system to go into effect in 1865, of course we would be bound to receive5The pronoun "it," or some noun, must have been left out here.; but I contend that it would be unjust and wrong to compel us to wait until the expiration of that time when so much peril and additional expense is rendered necessary by reason of this property.

Again I thank the Convention for the kind attention with which they have listened to my remarks.

I move to lay the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , on the table.

I hope the gentleman will not make that motion at this time.

I must decline to withdraw the motion.

I ask for the ayes and noes on that question.

I think if the gentleman from Mecklenburg, intends to press his motion, that the ayes and noes should be called on the question.

I do not wish to make any amy remarks upon the subject.

I will yield the floor to the gentleman from Monongalia, with the understanding that he will renew the motion.

Then I decline to yield the floor.

I desire to inquire whether the question should not be taken on the first of the resolutions?

The motion is to lay the whole on the table.

I move that the Convention do now adjourn.

On this motion a division was called for, and the motion to adjourn carried by a vote of 51 to 37.

1.4.1. FEDERAL RELATIONS

I desire to offer the following resolution that it may be laid upon the table and printed. Its object is to direct the Committee on Federal Relations to inquire into the expediency of appointing a Commissioner to the Confederated States, and the border State Convention, if such Convention should be called, and also to appoint a Commissioner to each non-slaveholding State, and invite their participation and concurrence in some adjustment of the difficulties now impending over the country.

The resolution was then read by the Secretary as follows:

Resolved, That the Committee on Federal Relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing for a Border State Conference as recommended by the report of the majority of that Committee, and a Conference with the authorities of the Confederated States as recommended by one of the minority reports, and a commission to each of the non-slaveholding States, and invite the authorities thereof to initiate such proceedings as will be acceptable to the slaveholding States now in the Union, and to the Confederated States.

The resolution was laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

I desire to offer the following substitute for the first section of the amendments to the Constitution reported by the Committee on Federal Relations, which I ask to be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

"In all the present territory of the United States, North of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of North latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory of the United States South of said line of latitude, involuntary servitude, or slavery of the African race, is hereby recognized as existing, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding; and no law shall be passed by Congress or by the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of persons held in slavery or involuntary servitude from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the

same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts, according to the remedies and practice of the common law, and said relation shall be protected by all the departments of the territorial government. When any territory North or South of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as such Constitution of the State may provide. In all territory which may hereafter be acquired by the United States, involuntary servitude is prohibited, except for crime, North of the latitude of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes; but shall not be prohibited by Congress or any Territorial Legislature South of said line."

The substitute was ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

I desire to offer the following resolutions which passed at a meeting of some 75 or 100 of my constituents, in the county of Spotsylvania, and which have been sent to me with the request that they shall be read and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

TAXATION

The pending question is the motion of the gentleman from Mecklenburg [Mr. GOODE] , to lay upon the table the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

I hope the gentleman from Mecklenburg will .Page132 withdraw his motion, in order to enable me to make an appeal to Western members to postpone the question until fall.

I will cheerfully yield to the request of the gentleman from Lynchburg [Mr. SLAUGHTER] , to withdraw the motion for a moment to give him an opportunity to address this body. I desire to say a single word in reference to the motives which have prompted me to make the motion to lay on the table the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [WILLEY] . In making that motion, sir, I designed no discourtesy to the mover or to gentlemen from Western Virginia; nor do I desire to cut off these gentlemen from a full and thorough discussion of this question.

I regard it, however, as a most unfortunate time for the introduction of such a question into this body. We were assembled here at a time of great public exigency, when Governments were dissolving around us. We were commissioned here to take counsel together for the interest and the honor of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Sir, standing in the presence of a mighty foe, before we have accomplished one single thing looking to the accomplishment of the great object for which we are here assembled, a fire-brand is thrown into our midst, and a subject was introduced which is to give rise to internal strife—at a time, too, when we should stand here, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, as men and brethren to confront a common peril. I do hope that it will be the pleasure of the Convention, and I appeal to my brethren of the West, to forbear pressing this agitating question upon us at this time.

My sole object in rising at this time is to make an appeal to the gentlemen from the West to postpone the discussion of this question until we meet in the Fall. It is perfectly obvious that we are to have an adjourned meeting of this body. At present we have matters of vast importance before us, and the agitation and discussion of this question is calculated to promote discord in our midst, and arraign1This word should perhaps be "array." Western Virginia and Eastern Virginia against each other. The very agitation of the question is calculated to produce excitement out of doors, which is not promotive of the object for which we are met together. If you have a test question upon the subject of raising a committee, and it is carried against the West, you will find Western members feeling aggrieved by the action of the majority of the members; if it is carried against the East, you will find them also excited and feeling aggrieved, and jealousies will exist in the minds of the Convention, one against another. Demagogues from both sections are seeking to array one section of the country .Page133 against another. Many persons are seeking now to say that this Convention is wasting time in the discussion of matters which are not pertinent to the objects for which we were called together. Let us do nothing to add to this excitement; let us go on and consider only the question for which we were called together, and when we have discussed and settled that, then we can go on, and properly turn our attention to other matters which may be deemed proper for us to consider.

I appeal to those gentlemen that they will not now introduce any discord by the agitation of this question. The Union is dismembered; it is bleeding at every pore; I call upon them to do that which will restore the Union, and when that is done we may call up this subject of taxation. I call upon them, as loyal Virginians, at a time like this, not to be disputing in regard to the burdens which we have to bear among ourselves; but let us all come up to our high duties and save Virginia and this institution to which we all profess to be so much attached; and when that is done we can talk about the subject of taxation. Let us not be engaged in a controversy among ourselves, a controversy between the East and the West; but let us stand up boldly as one man, and present a united front against our common aggressors. Let it not appear to the North, let it not go abroad, that Virginia is divided herself—that she would suffer her great united power to be taken away by any such paltry consideration when more important issues are involved. What would you think of a crew which, when a ship was in the midst of a tempest, tossed by the breakers, and the effort of every hand was necessary to save the ship, would be disputing among themselves in regard to the inequality of their labors. Let us save the ship, let us bring her safely to the shore, and then you can see how this inequality ought to be adjusted. I appeal to my friends of the West to withdraw this agitating subject from our midst. In the Fall they will stand a better chance to secure their purpose. Then they can strongly appeal to their friends of the East, and press their point, that that institution of slavery ought to be taxed as they propose. If, on the other hand, we succeed in obtaining a favorable adjustment of our more serious grievances, we will be in such good spirits, we will all be so over-joyed at the result, that I think they will have no cause to agitate that subject. At all events, let us postpone the matter; let us not be agitating that question at this time; but let us all unite now for the purpose for which we have convened. When this is done we can proceed to adjust other matters. I desire that the gentleman will withdraw his motion for the ayes and.Page134 noes. This question of taxation can be taken up, if it is thought proper, after we have done with the subject of Federal Relations. We can then discuss that question in a spirit of calmness and patience, in a spirit which will enable us to do justice to the gentlemen on the other side, when something can be effected which will be agreeable to all parties. But this is not the time and this Convention is not in the proper mood to discuss it. I renew the motion that the resolution be laid on the table, with no view of making it a test question, but simply to pass the subject over until we have settled upon some plan of general adjustment.

The motion to lay the resolution on the table is withdrawn.

I never hear a proposition or an appeal, sir, designed to promote the interests of this Union without responding to it. I will ask of my friends if silence should be preserved for the present, they are willing to pass a resolution which I hold in my hand and which I will send to be read and laid on the table; and if so I presume my Western friends will agitate the question no more at the present.

The resolution can be read to the Convention, but not to be acted upon.

I design it as a compromise, and I want it to be done by unanimous consent; and then we will go to work in earnest for the Union.

The resolution was read as follows:

Resolved, That the President appoint a committee of fifteen members whose duty it shall be to enquire if it be expedient to change or amend the organic law of the State, and if so in what particular or particulars, and report thereon to an adjourned meeting of this body, should the Convention adjourn to meet at some future day.

That raises the whole question, sir.

There is no question before the Convention except that on the adoption of the resolutions presented by the gentleman from Monongalia.

Mr. President, I assure you, sir, that I had no disposition, no intention, no expectation, .in offering the resolutions which I had the honor to present to the Convention a few days ago, of producing any strife. On the contrary, sir, my object was to produce peace and good will; my object was to let it go out to the constituents whom I represent, and to a considerable portion of this Commonwealth, that there was a disposition here and now to .Page135 remove those abiding causes of dissension which are disturbing the deep sentiments of the hearts of a large portion of the Commonwealth. Sir, I deprecate all strife. I deplore a disposition to beget strife, especially at this hour; and to the sentiment of my friend from Lynchburg in that behalf, I respond most cordially. I have listened, with pain, Mr. President, to every manifestation of a desire to sow dissension in this body or this Commonwealth; to every threat and menace. I offer this measure as a measure of peace. I want no war, I want no strife, I want no dissension. So help me God, sir, rather than to stir up the spirit of a Brutus that would rid our country of agitation by striking down her oppressor, in this age of Christian civilization and refinement, I would rather be a Curtius, to throw myself into the chasm now opening between the North and the South, as a peace-offering to the gods of strife, if thereby goodwill and harmony and unity can be restored to our disturbed land. My object in introducing those resolutions was peace; and I verily believe that the principle involved in those resolutions, if adopted in the organic law, instead of producing dissension, would produce peace; instead of dividing, would consolidate the Commonwealth; instead of producing dissension, would beget a spirit of harmony all over this land.

I, sir, do not present this as a measure of Section, and I deny the assertion that it is sectional in its character.

Mr. President, I am not here, at this moment, for the purpose of discussing the merits of this measure, but merely for the purpose of explaining to gentlemen upon the other side, what is its character. I repeat, sir, that this is not a question of section. It is applicable to every portion of the Commonwealth; and if it is not settled before long, my opinion is that it will become a question between classes and not between sections. But, sir, in urging this measure I have no desire that it shall embarrass any other matter before the Convention. If we can have any assurance that this question can be better settled at an adjourned session of this body, within any reasonable time, I am the last person to stand in the way of such a course. All my people want is, that they may have the assurance of this Convention that this question shall be adjusted within some reasonable time. Give them that assurance, and if it is the opinion of this body that it can be better adjusted at an adjourned session, they will be content that it shall go over for the present.

I believe the hour has arrived for going into Committee of the Whole, and I will not, therefore, detain the Convention longer at this time. Before the final question is taken upon the proposition, I would .Page136 be obliged to the Convention if they would afford me an opportunity for a brief discussion of its merits. The time for closing the consideration of the morning business, however, having now expired, I will yield to the will of the majority.

1.4.2. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The hour of 11 having arrived, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] .

The CHAIRMAN stated the question before the Committee to be the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

Mr. HOLCOMBE resumed and concluded his remarks, which will be published entire hereafter.2Mr. Holcombe's entire speech is given in the Proceedings of March 20. See note 1 on those Proceedings.

At the conclusion of Mr. HOLCOMBE'S speech, there was considerable applause, which was promptly checked by the Chair, who called upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to clear the galleries.

I hope the Chair will withdraw the order. It is an extreme measure.

The Chair indicated yesterday, and has repeated the warning some two or three times to-day, that if there was any further manifestation of disorder either in the gallery or the lobby—

If the Chair will allow me—

The Chair will conclude what he has to say before recognizing any gentleman. There were demonstrations of disorder yesterday in the gallery and lobby, and the Chair then indicated his purpose to order both places to be cleared upon its renewal. The same manifestations have been repeated to-day and the same warning given; and, as these warnings have not been regarded, the Chair must issue a peremptory order to have the gallery cleared. The Chair is perfectly satisfied, at the same time, that some of the disorder is within the bar of the Hall. If it be among members, the Chair has no right, nor is it his disposition to rebuke them. They have adopted rules of order for their government, and it is for them to say whether or not they shall observe them ; but it is the duty of the Chair to see that no disorder shall come from outsiders.

I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, from my observations—for, at the moment of the applause, my eyes were directed towards the gallery—that there was no applause in that part of the building, and that the disturbance was mainly upon the floor of this Hall. [Cries of "good," from the gallery.] I think that the warning of the Chairman was strictly and rigidly observed in the gallery and in the lobby, but was not observed, as I believe, upon the floor of this .Page137 Hall. I think, sir, when the gallery has observed the warning of the Chair strictly and properly, it ought not to be made to suffer for disorder upon the floor.

Permit me to say, sir, that upon no occasion on which the public heart has been moved to the extent that it has been upon the present occasion, have I ever observed greater order than has been observed here. It is impossible to suppose that upon an occasion like this, under appeals of eloquence that all must feel, the public can be cold and indifferent. Whatever applause might have been manifested upon the floor, in the galleries or in the lobby, was entirely in response to noble sentiments, honorable to human nature; and, for one, I am willing to say, whilst I wish order could be preserved, I could not help sympathising and participating, under the emotions of my heart, with the sentiments which have been expressed. And if it be the pleasure of the Chair to execute this heartless order, for a mere harmless manifestation in response to a noble feeling of human nature, I am satisfied it will be done in opposition to the sentiment of the House.

I rise to a point of order. The gentleman, in referring to the order issued by the Chair, has used the word "heartless."

The Chair is aware of that.

Permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, that in the warmth of debate it is impossible for one so little gifted in language as I am, to use precisely the terms that may be parliamentary. If there is anything that I have said which has been disrespectful to the Chairman, or disrespectful to any member of this body, I cheerfully retract it.

I will conclude simply with a request that the execution of the order of the Chair will not be enforced, since the feelings which led to the applause, were sympathized with by members upon this floor, as has been truthfully stated.

I hope it will be the pleasure of the Chair not to enforce the order which it has made. I take it for granted that the order for clearing the galleries was not intended so much for punishment of past offences as a preventive for the future; and as it is my fortune to follow the distinguished and eloquent gentleman who has just finished his address, I think I can offer a guarantee to the House that there will be no manner of occasion for disorder.

I am sure sir, that with the concurrence of the entire Convention, I may make an appeal to you to withdraw the order.

Whilst the present incumbent of the chair occupies the .Page138 position which he now fills, he will see that the order of decorum is observed, and as he feels that this Convention, as well as this committee, requires him to enforce order, he would have no discretion but to see that every rule is strictly carried out. Under existing circumstances, whilst candor requires the CHAIR to say that the disorder was as much upon the floor, and within the bar, as in the lobby or gallery, yet it is for the CHAIR principally to see that outsiders do not disturb the deliberations of the committee. But, as various members of the committee have appealed to withdraw the order to clear the galleries, and as no one seems inclined to dissent from these appeals, the CHAIR takes great pleasure in doing so under the hope that there will be again no necessity to repeat that order.

I concur, Mr. Chairman, I assure you most heartily in the sympathy which has been expressed by the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] , for the sentiments of deep devotion to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and to everything that tends to promote her best interests, which have been so eloquently expressed by the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] .

Sir, I participate, as I am sure this Committee does, most deeply and earnestly, in the feelings of responsibility which have been recognized by that gentleman as growing out of the importance, the difficulty and the delicacy of the high duties which we are here to discharge. Sir, this is emphatically a Virginia assembly. It is not an assemblage of Virginians in the ordinary administration of our State government, but it is a Convention called together to consider the fundamental rights of this Commonwealth, to make one of those recurrences to first principles which we have been told are of so much importance to the preservation of civil liberty. I regard it, sir, as a most august assemblage, and as one of its members, I join most earnestly in the prayer for "light" which was offered by the distinguished gentleman who has just preceded me [Mr. HOLCOMBE] . Sir, this is, as I have said, an assemblage peculiarly Virginian, and I claim for the county I have the honor to represent upon this floor, a right to be heard in any representative body of Virginians. I put forward no claim because of the historic associations to which the gentleman has referred, but I claim for the county of Augusta a position now as a living, acting community—I claim for her the proud position of being the Queen county of this great Commonwealth, in point of population, and of wealth; in point of varied production and pursuit, in every particular that goes to constitute a great people. She is represented in the great popular branch of the General Assembly by three delegates, and by an.Page139 equal number on this floor speaking the voice of the largest constituent body in the State. In the Senate of Virginia she speaks by her own Senator, representing there a county which stands first, aye, sir, first, upon the list in point of wealth and contribution to the common government. Situated at the centre of the State, connected with both East and West by the great lines of travel and improvement, and with the great Valley, midway of which she stands, she is connected with each and all by every tie, social and industrial, that can bind communities together. She occupies a position in the great heart of the Old Dominion, and I claim that he who represents her people is entitled to speak for a representative county of this Commonwealth.

Sir, in behalf of such a county as this, I desire to be heard; not merely for the reasons that I have stated, but because she is identified with every interest and every institution that is recognized as of value in Virginia; and in regard to them all occupies what I might call a great central, conservative position.

If anywhere in Virginia there are extremes of opinion on the one hand or on the other, if there are extremes of prejudice in one quarter or another, Augusta county and her people know nothing of them. They stand central in point of geographical position; central in point of sympathy, interest and association; ready to engage in a conservative yet earnest consultation, about whatever concerns the rights, the interests, or the honor of the Commonwealth.

Well, sir, what is the great cause that has assembled this august body here to-day? What is it that has already divided and distracted our people and that threatens to overthrow completely the great fabric of this government of ours? What is the moving cause so far as Virginia is concerned? Understand me, I wish to consider these questions from a Virginia standpoint. I wish to confine myself in their consideration to their effect upon Virginia's rights, Virginia's interests and Virginia's honor.

I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is but one single subject of complaint which Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery. Why, sir, what is the position of Virginia on other subjects? What is the position of this Commonwealth in regard to all the great principles of government, in regard to all the great measures of administration which have been in progress since our government was first inaugurated? It is the pride and boast of our people that on all the great questions of administrative policy, on the great doctrines of constitutional construction, Virginia .Page140 has from the beginning given tone and direction to the opinion and the policy of this nation; that from its earliest foundation, with very rare and brief exceptions, the administration of this great government of ours has been, if not in the hands of Virginia's own sons, in the hands of men of Virginia's own selection whose principles, whose opinions, and whose policy have been time and again approved and ratified by the people of Virginia. Not only in the Executive department has this been true, but over and over again, year after year, we have been informed that the legislative policy has been shaped by the principles which have been taught by the sages of Virginia, and that judicial department of the Government has had its principles impressed upon it by Virginia; and thus, as to all the departments of this Government, in all its administration—in all its dealings with the great affairs of State, we have Virginia standing this day estopped from denying that the Government has been administered to her satisfaction.

But, sir, the great cause of complaint now is the slavery agitation, and the questions growing out of it. If there is any other cause of complaint which has been influential in any quarter, to bring about the crisis which is now upon us; if any State or any people have made the troubles growing out of this question, a pretext for agitation instead of a cause of honest complaint, Virginia can have no sympathy whatever, in any such feeling, in any such policy, in any such attempt. It is the slavery question. Is it not so? We have heard, for days past, the great issues before the country discussed by able and eloquent gentlemen upon this floor—and I ask this Committee if any man has yet been heard, in all the recounted injuries that we are alleged to have suffered from the administration of the Government—if he has heard, in the long list of apprehended wrongs in the future, the slighest reference to anything else, to any other ground of complaint, except this subject of slavery? Thus we have it confessed, upon all hands, that in the main—with this one exception—this great government of ours, from its origin down to the present time, in its administration, in all the departments that concern the industry, the energy, the business of thirty millions of people, has been conducted upon the principles and in a manner satisfactory to the people of Virginia. [Here Mr. HOLCOMBE nodded assent.] Put down that admission before we proceed to consider the grievances alleged to grow out of the slavery agitation.

Sir, when I come to consider this question of slavery and the agitations growing out of it, I cannot ignore the fact that here in Virginia .Page141 there seems to be an impression entertained in some quarters, and industriously disseminated, that upon this great question Virginia is divided—that some of the people of Virginia, in some portions of the State, and some of their representatives upon this floor in this great Convention of her sovereignty, are, for some reason or other, not to be trusted upon this great paramount interest of Virginia. Sir, this idea is not new to me, or to the members of this body. I have heard it, with pain and sorrow, for years; not coming from abroad, not alleged against us by our enemies. No, it has come up from the midst of our own State family. It has come from Virginia's own sons—the insinuation, the suspicion, the charge, that the people of particular localities —that the people of particular political associations in Virginia, are not to be trusted to deal with this great leading, and most important institution of the State.

Sir, for years past I have seen this thing industriously resorted to for the baser ends of party, and not of one party alone; I have seen it in turns resorted to for the baser ends of all parties in this Commonwealth. What has been the effect of this sort of thing upon the standing and influence of Virginia, in the councils of the nation, and before the nation itself? It has had the effect of leading on fanaticism against us by representing that we are a divided people. It has had the effect of increasing, in boldness, the attacks made upon us by the fanatical enemies of our institutions, under the impression, disseminated by our own citizens, that the people of Virginia were not true to Virginia; but that we were a divided and distracted people in regard to our own highest interests. Sir, this, as I say, has been resorted to in times past for the baser ends of party. This insinuation seems to be now resorted to as part of a species of terrorism, that is to be brought to bear upon the people and the people's representatives in Virginia, in the vain hope that it will repress, if not freedom of thought, at least, freedom of speech. Sir, this terrorism, thus attempted will be hideous, if it were not that it is exceedingly ridiculous and contemptible. I hope, when I proceed to define my position in regard to this great interest, that I shall not in any quarter be deemed to defer, in any respect, to a clamor, which I despise.

As my opinions upon this subject, Mr. Chairman, may influence the course which I intended to pursue in this Convention. I deem it to be due to that candor of debate which, I trust, will characterize us all in this deliberative assembly, to declare from what stand-point in regard to this great institution I look upon this question of Union.

Sir, in regard to the question of slavery, I hold views which were .Page142 regarded at one time as peculiar, but I am gratified to know that they are becoming, day by day, the opinions of all kinds and conditions of men in this Commonwealth. I have always held the same opinions, from my earliest recollection, on this subject; I have had to undergo no change, such as was described in his own case, by the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] , and it may be owing to the fact that I have none of the fierce zeal of the new convert, that I am unable to follow him in his violent measures for summary redress. I have always entertained the opinion that African slavery, as it exists in Virginia, is a right and a good thing—on every ground, moral, social, religious, political and economical—a blessing alike to the master and the slave—a blessing to the non-slaveholder and the slaveholder. I entertain these views and opinions now. Sir, I am not one of those who look forward with expectation or desire, to its extinction at any time or in any place. I am not one of those who look with any sort of sympathy upon attempts to restrict it to any particular locality, but, so far as I am concerned, if it can be done by fair, legitimate and honest expansion and extension, I have no objection that this mild, beneficent and patriarchal institution may cover the whole earth as the waters cover the great deep.

These are my own opinions upon this subject—opinions, not now expressed for the first time, but entertained and expressed all my life, everywhere, and perfectly understood by the constituent body that sent me here. My people who have sent me here with these avowals upon my lips might be regarded, I suppose as sound even a little farther South.

Sir, I wish, in the consideration of all these questions, that it shall be remembered, however my views of what concerns the interest and the honor of Virginia, may differ from the views of other gentlemen in other parts of the State, that I take them from the stand-point of a pro-slavery man, representing a slaveholding constituency; aye, sir, representing a constituency who have in men and in money, more resources than any other people in this Old Dominion, and who hold all their resources at the call of the Commonwealth, to protect and defend this great interest as earnestly and devotedly as any other interest whatever.

Let us come then to the consideration of the grievances of Virginia growing out of the institution of slavery. Having by consent narrowed the inquiry down to the question of slavery, let us now treat it more closely and more exactly. I undertake then to say, that upon the slavery question the mouth of Virginia is stopped as thoroughly.Page143 and as completely to charge misconduct on the part of the Federal Government, as upon any of the other great subjects of administration in this country. Aye, sir, I go further, and undertake to say that Virginia is estopped more completely, more thoroughly to charge anything against the Federal Government in relation to slavery, than she is upon any other subject; because if there is any matter in the whole round of administration in regard to which it has been the pride and boast of the politicians and statesmen of Virginia to claim the ascendancy, aye, the undivided ascendancy of Virginia ideas and Virginia principles in the administration of the General Government, it is this question of African slavery and its accompaniments.

Now I challenge the entire body of the Committee to put a finger upon a single act of the General Government of the United States on this subject in any one of its departments, from the foundation of the government down to the election of Abraham Lincoln, that did not either at the time or afterwards, receive the sanction and approval of Virginia. I know, sir, that this may take some gentlemen a little by surprise, this broad sweeping announcement; but it is true, and cannot be controverted. It is an assertion made in full view of the history of all the administration upon this subject. And I challenge a contradiction in regard to any one single measure of the General Government, from its foundation down to the late Presidential election. Mark me. I do not say that Virginia approved each one at the time it was done, but I do say that if in any case she failed to do it then, she gave it her approval afterward, distinctly, fully, unequivocally. Aye, sir, if there has been an irrepressible conflict waging in this government, or among the people on the subject of pro-slavery, Virginia is bound to admit, Virginia is bound to declare, that in that irrepressible conflict, the government in all its departments—the General Federal Government of the United States—has been on her side; and that in that conflict, call it irrepressible or what you will, the people of the United States, in large majorities, have always stood on the side of Virginia. I challenge contradiction upon this point; and I would suggest, as to the future progress of debate here, that if we are ever to be indulged in anything like an exact discussion of the merits of the crisis in which we are engaged, it is time for gentlemen who take up the language of lamentation for oppressed people, gentlemen who speak of the past oppression of Virginia and the South, to do something more than indulge in generalities upon the subject; and point out by specification when, where, how, and by whom the rights, .Page144 interests and honor of the people of the South have been assailed so far as the General Government is concerned.

Sir, it is true of the slavery question, as of every other question of administration in this government of ours, whatever some of us at home here may think of the policy which has been adopted and directed by Virginia; yet it cannot be controverted that she has been upon all subjects of administration, including this great question of slavery, the directing spirit of this government, from its foundation down to the election of Abraham Lincoln. Sir, we may not have agreed with her in all—I have not, I confess, agreed with her in all the policy that she has impressed upon the nation ; but, as a Virginian, I cannot help feeling an honest pride when I think that such has been her influence in the councils of the nation, such the respect and consideration which she has commanded among her sister States and their people, that, even when I thought she was wrong, she has commanded, and directed and shaped the policy of the nation. Sir, who has ever had a better right than Virginia to the celebrated exclamation "L'etat, c'est moi"?

I know, sir, that much is said of late about the degradation of Virginia. Ah, the degradation of Virginia! Who calls Virginia degraded? Who dares to call Virginia degraded in any presence? Alas! alas! it is reserved for her own sons, in this her council of State sovereignty, where all her mighty interests and her great destiny are at stake, it is reserved for her own sons to point at her the finger of scorn and to dare assert the degradation of Virginia. Is she degraded? Does this sentiment find an answering echo in the hearts of Virginians here? Is Virginia degraded? No, sir! no, sir! I answer never! As one of her humblest sons I fling back the imputation with scorn, contempt and defiance! Virginia degraded? Why, look to her past. It has been pointed out to you in words of glowing eloquence by the distinguished gentleman.

If the gentleman refers to me I would say that I did not speak of the degradation of Virginia in the past.

I refer, sir, not especially to you in that particular, but with others who have spoken.

I understand you to make a declaration that some imputation has been made of degradation upon Virginia, which you repel with scorn and contempt?

I certainly understood you to say so; your remarks gave me that impression.

I say, sir, that if Virginia should persist in the .Page145 policy proposed, bearing in mind the declarations upon which I base my remarks in reference to the sentiments and the feeling with which I would treat every gentleman.

I understand you now to have spoken about the future.

I have spoken of it in the future. Do you refer to those remarks?

No, sir. You have a right, of course, to picture the future. But I repel the imputation that she has been degraded; I repel that everywhere. Gentlemen have a right, unquestionably, to argue the effect of any policy upon Virginia in the future; no one can gainsay that; but the complaint I am uttering, the protest I am making, is against any inference that Virginia has been degraded by anything in her history, that she is degraded by anything in her present.

The gentleman will allow me another single remark? He will bear in mind that I deplore, without reference to the past, the condition of Virginia. I spoke in no tone of reproach; it was in reference to the possible future that I spoke; and all that I then said with all conceivable emphasis, I now renew.

Certainly, sir. I accept what the gentleman says as the just and fair construction of his remarks. I have no desire whatever to place any imputation of that sort upon any man. Certainly I did not understand the position of the gentleman as he now states it. But I cordially yield his perfect right to construe his remarks.

It was my declaration, and not my construction.

Certainly, sir, I admit and yield the point with perfect frankness.

But, sir, it is nevertheless true, not in regard to that gentleman [Mr. HOLCOMBE] but in regard to many persons. Everywhere you go you hear talk about the degradation of Virginia. You hear it in this hall; you hear it everywhere. Sir, look at her past, as it has been eloquently and justly depicted by the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] . It is needless to recount it. It is the history of mankind. It is the history of free principles and free Government all over the world. I ask you not to delay with me in going over the great and mighty history of Virginia's past. I ask you not to go with me to the Revolutionary period in which her contributions to the common cause have been so well compared by the gentleman to those of Athens for a common Greece. I ask you not to dwell upon, but simply to glance at the history of her contributions to the formation of our Constitution. I ask you to look, as I have looked in .Page146 passing, at her influence in shaping, directing and controlling the policy and administration of the Government, and tell me, is Virginia degraded?

Sir, her past has been glorious; her past has been one march of glory. But it was reserved for her present to crown her with immortal honor. Sir, look at her now! Does any man doubt for a moment that the course which Virginia has pursued and is pursuing in regard to the great questions which now agitate and threaten to overthrow this great Government of ours, has placed her in the position this day that beyond all dispute, beyond all denial she holds the destiny of this Republic in her own hands? Can any man deny that that is her present position? That this day the peace of this nation depends entirely upon the judgment which Virginia shall pronounce? Does any man question that? Sir, look at this assembly, this constituent assembly of the people of Virginia this day justly attracting the attention, and the interest, and the prayers of the friends of free government over the world. Look at this assembly this day, having committed to it more of all that concerns the weal or woe of man, more of all that concerns the high destiny of a free people, more that concerns the great interests of civil and religious liberty throughout the world, and for all time, than was ever before committed to the keeping of any one assembly of mortal men—look at this assembly, and tell me if the position of Virginia to-day does not crown her with immortal and undying honor? Friends, shall we meet this high occasion? Shall we rise to the high duties which this position devolves upon us, or shall we shrink back incompetent to deal with the great issues that are now committed to our hands? Friends, let us, in this great council of Virginia, to which is entrusted so much that concerns the welfare of mankind—let us join hands with one another here and swear, before high Heaven, that as the Ark of the Covenant of Constitutional Liberty has been committed to us we will be true to the high trust and will, with God's help, lift up our bleeding country from the dust and set her free.

While Mr. BALDWIN was speaking,

It is apparent, sir, that it would be more agreeable to the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] to suspend his remarks; and I move that the committee rise.

Before that motion is taken, as the hour for adjournment has not arrived, and as I propose to occupy a few moments of the time of the Committee, if the gentleman will withdraw the motion, the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] can suspend his .Page147 remarks, and when I have addressed the committee I will renew the motion then. Of course I am aware that the gentleman from Augusta retains the floor for to-morrow.

The motion that the committee rise was withdrawn.

I propose to the consideration of the committee an amendment to the report under consideration, and after it is read, I will, with the indulgence of the committee, detain them for a short time with a few remarks assigning my reasons for proposing that amendment.

Mr. CARLILE'S amendment was read then as follows:

Whereas, the Peace Conference which was called by the Legislature of this State, and in which twenty-one States (fourteen of them nonslaveholding) of this Union, were represented, after much anxious deliberation and careful investigation, has recommended for the adjustment of our present national difficulties the adoption, by the people of the several States in the manner provided for amendments to the Constitution of the United States by the fifth article thereof, the following propositions :

1.4.3. "ARTICLE XIII

"SECTION 1. In all the present territory of the United States north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, involuntary servitude, expected in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the status of persons held to service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as such constitution of the State may provide.

"SECTION 2. No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery and for naval and commercial stations, depots and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from the States which prohibit that relation; nor

shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States herein before mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the ratification of such treaty.

"SECTION 3. Neither the Constitution, nor any amendment thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish or control, within any State of the United States, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining and taking away, persons so held to labor, or service, nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized ; nor the power to prohibit the removal or transportation of persons held to labor, or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage; and the right during transportation, by sea or river, 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, or of sale or traffic against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to labor or service than on land.

"The bringing into the District of Columbia persons held to labor or service for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as merchandise, is prohibited.

"SECTION 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to prevent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforcing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due.

"SECTION 5. The foreign slave trade is hereby forever prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor in the United States and the Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof.

"SECTION 6. The first, third and fifth sections, together with this

section of these amendments, and third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States.

"SECTION 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the same; and Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of the several States."3In the Proceedings of March 25, page 299, Mr. Carlile asked to have the words "citizens of" inserted before "the several states."

Therefore, be it resolved, by the representatives of the people of Virginia, in Convention assembled,

1. That it be, and is hereby recommended to the people of the several States comprising the United States, to hold in their respective States, Conventions to consider the said measures of adjustment and express their approval of the same, and request their Senators and Representatives in Congress assembled, either in extra or regular session, at its first meeting, to adopt the same by the constitutional majority of two thirds of each house, so that the same may be laid before the several States of this Union, in the mode pointed out by the said fifth article of the Constitution aforesaid, for ratification or rejection.

2. That this Convention, for and in the name of the good people of this Commonwealth, do declare their approval of the said propositions, and will, if adopted as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, accept the same as an adjustment of all our national difficulties, and that we do hereby request our Senators and Representatives in Congress, at its next session, whether convened in extra or regular session, to use their best efforts to have the same adopted in their respective houses by the constitutional vote required, to the end that the same may be laid before the people of the several States of the Union, to be, by them, ratified or rejected in the manner provided in the Constitution, through the action of State Conventions or the Legislatures of the several States.

3. That it shall be the duty of the officers conducting the election for members of the next General Assembly of this State, to see that a poll is opened at the several places of voting in this Commonwealth, to take the sense of the voters of this State upon the said measures of adjustment recommended by the Peace Conference. And the better to secure

a correct poll-book, the Governor of this Commonwealth is requested to have prepared and transmitted to every county in this Commonwealth a sufficient number of poll-books to supply each county with as many books as there are places of voting in the same, said books to be headed "Poll book for taking the sense of the voters upon the adoption of the measures of adjustment recommended by the Peace Conference," and to have two columns, the one headed, "For the adjustment," the other headed "Against the adjustment." And it shall be the duty of the said conducting officers, each and all of them, to see that the names of all persons qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly, and who present themselves to vote at the respective places of voting, are allowed to vote for or against the said measures of adjustment, and that the names of all those who vote for adjustment are recorded in the column headed "for the adjustment," and all those who vote "against adjustment" are recorded in the column head "against the adjustment," said poll books to be returned and their correctness certified to under oath by the officers conducting the election within two days after the said election to the clerk of the respective county or corporation court, as the case may be, in which the said conducting officers reside; and it shall be the duty of the respective county and corporation clerks of this Commonwealth to certify to the Governor of this Commonwealth, attested by their seal of office, the result of the vote upon the question aforesaid, in their respective counties and corporations aforesaid, within two days after the said poll books shall be returned by the conducting officers aforesaid; and the Governor of this Commonwealth, upon receipt thereof, is hereby requested to ascertain the result of the said vote in the State, and to make the same known by proclamation; and if a majority of the votes cast shall be in favor of the said Peace Conference adjustment; he is hereby requested to communicate to the Governor of each of the States of this Union the foregoing resolutions, with the result of the vote aforesaid, with a request to each to take such steps as the Constitution and laws of his State may require to be taken, in order that a Convention of delegates may be elected by the voters in each State, and convened, to whom shall be referred the foregoing resolutions.

The proposition of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , is an amendment, by way of substitute, to strike out the report of the Committee on Federal Relations and insert what has just been read as a substitute therefor. The Chair would avail himself of the present occasion to repeat, to-day, the opinion he indicated the other .Page151 day, as to the course of action upon the part of the Committee of the Whole touching the report of the Committee on Federal Relations now pending before it. He is induced to do so, because of the report of what the Chair may have said on a former occasion, as seen in the public prints, in which his opinions and views did not seem to have been properly published, if they were properly understood by the members present.4The Chair referred to his remarks in the Proceedings of March 15, pages 700-701. As there seems to be no substantial difference between the two statements, the Chair may have been finding fault with a report in some other paper than the Enquirer.

The opinion which the Chair then expressed he now desires to repeat, so that no member may be taken by surprise, and that every member, especially the minority upon every question, may have their views properly and distinctly presented for consideration.

As remarked the other day, the CHAIR, under the peculiar circumstances attending the various propositions which have been referred by the Convention to the Committee of the Whole, deems it proper, and but reasonable, to relax, to some extent, the strict parliamentary rule. That rule would require the Committee of the Whole to take the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, containing, as it does, distinct and independent propositions, and act upon those propositions seriatim, rejecting or adopting each as it arose; but after it should have been adopted or rejected, the judgment thus pronounced could not be re-considered or reversed by the Committee; and, therefore, those gentlemen who might desire to offer a substitute for the entire report, would be, to say the least, embarrassed in presenting their competing propositions, a part of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, or the whole having been adopted.

The CHAIR, therefore, in order to secure to any gentleman dissatisfied with the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and who prefers some substitute for it, whether that substitute in the form of a minority report, as now before the committee, or any other proposition which may hereafter be offered by any member of the Convention, indicated that he would pursue this course, that he would receive a motion—which has now been made by the gentleman from Harrison—to strike out the entire report of the committee and to insert in lieu thereof a substitute for the whole. This, as the CHAIR supposes, would protect, as well as secure to any gentleman not concurring with the Committee on Federal Relations, the opportunity of bringing directly in competition any report or any substitute which he may desire to offer. But the substitute, when offered, as is now the case, as a substitute for the whole report of the Committee on Federal Relations, cannot of itself receive any amendment, by way of substitute, that is to strike out the pending amendment and to insert something as a substitute for the whole. It is.Page152 open to amendment as is the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, both being now open for amendment as they stand before the committee. Any gentleman who may be dissatisfied with both the report of the committee on Federal Relations, as well as with the substitute offered by the gentleman from Harrison, but prefers some other substitute for both, can only suggest his intention to the committee to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute, when the pending amendment shall have been disposed of, and state the character of his proposed amendment, and his purpose in proposing to offer it. The committee then being in possession of the contents and character of such second substitute, all those who would agree with the gentleman thus desiring to offer such substitute, would unite in voting down the substitute now pending, and in giving the opportunity of presenting the second one; and so on until a motion to strike out and insert some pending substitute, shall be decided in the affirmative.

The CHAIR hopes that he is now understood. He will further remark that the various minority reports which have been referred to the Committee of the Whole, do not come up as a matter of course, but any gentleman desiring to have action upon any one of them, may move it as an amendment, by way of substitute.

Mr. HARVIE—I understand the Chair to decide that we are to take separate votes upon each branch of the majority report when we come to act upon it.

But not now.

I mean to say when we come to act upon it finally.

When the Committee comes to act upon it finally a separate vote will be taken upon each individual proposition. The Chair should have added that if the report of the Committee on Federal Relations overcomes all opposition, and the substitutes are all voted down, it will then be open, as it is now open, to amendment, but the action on each resolution being a distinct proposition, adopting or rejecting it will be final.

I wish to be informed whether after we have voted on the various propositions of the majority report the vote will be taken upon adopting it as a whole?

It will not.

The vote upon the adoption of each separate proposition then is to be final?

After all the propositions in the nature of a substitute have been voted on, if they are all rejected, as the Chair has already stated, the propositions contained in the report of the Committee .Page153 on Federal Relations will be taken up seriatim and disposed of, and there will be no subsequent vote taken upon them in committee as an entirety.

The reason of the enquiry I make is this: I understand that in the report of the Peace Conference, there was no vote taken upon the award of that Conference as a whole. After separate votes had been taken upon the separate parts of it, the aggregate of those parts was taken to be the sense of the Conference. Now, sir, it may turn out, and I think very probably will turn out, that, while each proposition taken separately, may get a majority of this Committee, the whole could not get a majority; that the opinions of gentlemen might be changed by adding on something to the segregate parts which had been acted upon. I wish, therefore, the Chair to consider whether he will entail upon this Committee as its judgment, by the adoption of the rule he has suggested, that which, if voted upon as a whole, would not be the judgment of the Committee.

The Chair will, as he has stated, only relax the strict parliamentary rule so far as to enable gentlemen who oppose the report of the Committee on Federal Relations to offer competing propositions. But he repeats that if that report overcomes the opposition of all competing propositions in Committee of the Whole, when it is finally acted upon, each proposition will be acted upon seriatim and if adopted, there will be no vote taken upon the report as an entirety.

The gentleman from Amelia, will recollect that the gentleman from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] , in giving a history of the action of the Peace Conference stated that he made the same decision, and therefore one of the representatives from Virginia, who desired a vote upon the report as a whole, was denied the privilege of such a vote. The Chair thinks the gentleman from Charles City, then the presiding officer of that Peace Conference, decided correctly.

I ask further for information, although I suppose there is no doubt about the fact, whether it will be competent for me, whenever the question arises, at any stage of the proceedings, to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Certainly.

It is not necessary then that I should controvert the position of the Chair at this time.

The Chair has only thrown out these suggestions in order that if the Committee acquiesce, the matter may be understood. The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , is entitled to the floor.

In support of the resolutions which I have had the honor to submit to the Committee, and which I propose shall be adopted as a substitute for the report made to the Convention by the Committee on Federal Relations, now under consideration in this Committee, it is not my purpose to detain this body with any comments upon the several propositions, or upon the many abstractions contained in that report. It is sufficient for my present purpose to say, that the proposition for a border slave State Conference does not command the approval of my judgment.5In the Proceedings of March 22, page 160, Mr. Carlile complained that his remarks of the day before were badly reported in the Enquirer. He added that he had written out a correction, which would be published in the Whig for March 23. In the Richmond Daily Whig for March 23, Mr. Carlile published a version of his remarks which combined what he said in this and subsequent paragraphs into an apparently continuous speech. The two versions show a considerable number of minor differences in wording and arrangement of sentences, but no substantial difference in meaning between the two versions can be discerned.

I rise to a question of order. Without intending to do anything to interfere with gentlemen, I desire to know whether it is in order to have two discussions progressing at the same time upon the same subject? That is the effect, if I understand aright, of the mode of proceeding now being carried out.

In what respect?

The gentleman from Augusta is entitled to the floor upon the discussion of the subject before the committee. He has yielded the floor to enable the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] to introduce a proposition bearing upon the same subject, which that gentleman now proposes to discuss. This, I take it, will interfere with the order of discussion as it now exists.

It may interfere, for, in the opinion of the Chair, the floor cannot be transferred. The gentleman from Harrison having obtained the floor, it is competent for him to offer any proposition to the Committee he may think proper, in connection with the subject before it. The gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] yielded the floor with the understanding that he would have it to-morrow.

As I understand, the gentleman from Augusta will not be entitled to the floor to-morrow, unless he chances to catch the Chairman's eye.

The Chair will consider the circumstances under which the gentleman from Augusta yielded the floor, and see that he does not lose the opportunity to proceed with his address.

It is a fact, sir, that is pressing upon the people not alone of this Commonwealth, but of the people of the whole Union, that the great business interests of the country cannot much longer bear the present agitation. And, sir, I believe it is a fact that this is the only agitating body now in session in the Union. The ship of State has been tossed for months past by a boisterous sea; the crew now want repose. We have enough of extra Constitutional assemblies. The border slave States have not asked us for a Conference, and it may be well inferred .Page155 that they don't desire it. The effort with them has been to suppress agitation, and to save their people as much as possible from the ruins brought upon our common country by heartless agitation, reckless precipitators and disappointed hungry placeseekers—men who see their only hope in the destruction of the best government the sun ever shone upon—and who would march over their bleeding and prostrate country to gratify an ambition prompted by selfish considerations alone. What care these men for the ruin of the people whom they can no longer use for their base purposes? It has been well said, Mr. Chairman, that the love of power, with a desire to display it, when it can be done with impunity, is inherent in the human heart. Turn it out at the door, and it would come in again at the window. Add to this the fact that they are no longer in a position to deceive the people whom they had used while they could, and we may well imagine, that for such men death itself would be preferable to a return to the masses to earn, with them, by honest toil and industry, the means of support.

With these facts before the people, they can have no difficulty in discovering now whence comes sensation articles, sensation appeals and those other various efforts to arouse their prejudices and produce revolution, bloodshed and civil war. Look into it, poor people of Virginia, and see who it is that will not let you rest; who is disturbing your peace; who were they that refused to yield to you an opportunity to give an expression to your will at the ballot box—who were they that hushed every demonstration in favor of the Union—that Union which our revolutionary fathers won for us by their valor and cemented with their blood? Who were they that worry you in the town meetings and cross road meetings that they may send forth the ravings of their madness and of their hatred to the government secured to us by Washington and his compatriots at a cost of a seven years war—bequeathed to us by the great statesmen who formed it as the richest inheritance ever bestowed upon man? There are many who spit upon and trample under foot the glorious flag, bearing upon its ample folds the stars and stripes—the emblems of our Union, of our greatness and our power.

Mr. Chairman, the border slave States with fourteen of the nonslaveholding States responded to the call of our Legislature for a Peace Conference. That Conference after weeks of laborious investigation and anxious deliberation agreed upon measures that ought to be accepted, and will be, I have no doubt, by the people, if you will but allow them an opportunity to give expression to their wishes, as a just and fair and honorable adjustment of all our national difficulties. If we desire peace and the restoration of fraternal feelings, we should .Page156 accept the recommendations of that Conference. I feel confident, sir, and in this I am strengthened by a letter which was read before this body from one of the Commissioners of that "Peace Conference" who does not sympathise with me, and as I believe, with the great body of the people of this State. I allude, sir, to the one presented to this body from Judge Brockenbrough, in which he says:

"It was supposed that, as a matter of course, the vote would be taken upon the scheme as an entirety, and, then announced to one of you that after the most anxious deliberation I had come to the conclusion that, distasteful as the scheme was to me, I felt it to be my duty to cast a representative vote and sustain the measure as a whole. I was convinced that Western Virginia, which I in part represented, would so have voted by an immense majority, if her voice could be heard within that hall; and, acting under that strong conviction, I would have done homage to that great principle of representative government which demands that the representative yield his individual sentiments and give utterance to those of his constituents. But no vote was taken on the plan as a whole, the Chair having ruled that each section being successively adopted, the entire plan was adopted, and no further vote was necessary or admissible under the parliamentary rule."

Sir, the proposition which I have offered as a substitute provides for bringing before the people of this Commonwealth these propositions, and taking their sense upon them at the polls. And, sir, I have confidence that our constituents from the sea shore to the banks of the Ohio, from the Maryland and Pennsylvania line to the North Carolina and Tennessee border, will, if you only allow them an opportunity in a constitutional way to pass upon them, accept these measures as an adjustment of our national difficulties. If we desire the perpetuity of the Union, why not accept them? We should take that settlement which the public mind is prepared to accept, and to which it is, to a certain extent, pledged by the action of the "Peace Conference." Why refuse to the people the privilege of giving expression to their will upon these measures, at the polls? Their voice should be heard—their will, not ours, should be done. Why ask to substitute for them the Crittenden resolutions? These have been abandoned for the resolutions reported from your Committee on Federal Relations. The Crittenden resolutions were before that Conference, and, for one, I greatly preferred, as a citizen of a slaveholding State, the measures of adjustment as recommended by that Conference, to the resolutions of Mr. Crittenden; and I understand the old patriot has declared his preference for them over his own resolutions. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that all the .Page157 guns of the disunionists are leveled against the work of that Conference, and if they express a preference for the Crittenden, or any other plan of adjustment, it is for the purpose of concealing their real design, which is a determination to oppose any and every settlement that may be proposed; and it is because they fear that the measures of the "Peace Conference" will be accepted by the people that they oppose this measure with so much perseverance and zeal. Their opposition should be to us the highest evidence and the best reason why we should accept these measures. To all men who place party success and personal advancement above the interests of their country, of course the "Peace Conference" recommendations are distasteful. The effort with them is to destroy the Government that has, for the greater part of a century, protected us in the full, free and absolute enjoyment of all our rights, civil, political and religious, as no Government ever protected a people before.

Mr. Chairman, there is away down in the bottom of every man's heart whose nature has not been perverted, a deep seated attachment for his country. The patriotic throbbings of that heart are felt, and its beatings are heard every where to-day among the honest masses of this land. This is evidenced by the fact that wherever the voice of the people has been heard, it has spoken in favor of the Union, and they have manifested a strong determination to protect it from an internal, as they would defend it against an external enemy. Virginia, if the opportunity had been allowed her, would, as North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky have done, have voted down the proposition for a State Convention. There are higher and weightier considerations of public policy and of individual interest that call aloud upon Virginia to pronounce, and pronounce now in favor of peace. State credit, corporation credit, individual credit is prostrate; every industrial interest is paralyzed, and bankruptcy is staring us in the face. Confidence in the stability of our Government is fast giving way, and the melancholy truth is pressing the patriot's mind and weighing down the patriot's heart, that this Government is fast drifting towards destruction, and that another Government, challenging, as this has done, the admiration of the world, will never be reared upon its ruins. Let Virginia's clarion voice go forth this day from this Hall in favor of the work of that "Peace Conference;" let the people be assured that the opportunity will be afforded them of passing upon the work emanating from the representatives of twenty-one of the States of the Union; and let them not be kept in further doubt, by looking forward to the assembling of other bodies whose recommendations will probably be regarded with .Page158 as little favor and treated with a little respect as seems to be shown on their part to some of the recommendations of that Peace Conference. Let us do this this day. It is cruel, aye, is it not criminal, to continue the present excitement, to keep the country in doubt as to what shall be its ultimate fate, and prolong that policy which threatens to beggar thousands, and has brought thousands already to bankruptcy?

Who does not want to hear again the hum of industry? What eye that would not brighten up to see the sweet smile again upon countenances now bowed down with anxiety and care for home, country, and for all that makes life desirable? Let us declare our approval today of the measures recommended by the Peace Conference, and let us place them before the people, in order that they may have an opportunity to pronounce their will upon them. If the telegraphic wires could but bear intelligence of the fact that this Convention had spoken in favor of the measures of the Peace Convention, and had taken steps to place them before the people, it would at once restore confidence to this land from one end to the other. If we do but utter that voice, our land will smile again, as has been its wont in days gone by. Again will the people of this country bask in the sunshine of a renewed and awakened patriotism, and again will the ship of State float proudly upon the bosom of a calm and placid sea; and, sir, when we shall have done this, may we not congratulate ourselves that we have not lived in vain, and may we not reasonably hope that the monument of a more perfect Union, erected by our own Washington, Madison, and their revolutionary associates, will last until time shall be no more, and that it will only disappear with all things earthly?

I will detain the Convention but for one moment longer, while I read to them an extract from a speech said to have been delivered by one [Ex-President TYLER] , who has occupied the highest office in the gift of the people of this whole country, and who now adds dignity and character to our body by being a member of it:

"Sir, I have looked into the distant future, and have there beheld the greatness of free America. I have beheld her walking upon the face of the mighty deep, and carrying glad tidings of great joy into distant nations. I have seen her stretching her arms over the whole earth, and overturning the strongholds of despotisms in the old world. Wo, wo betide the man who shall endeavor to sow the seeds of disunion and anarchy among us. Better for him he had never been born. If he call .Page159 upon mountains to hide him—nay, if he bury himself in the very centre of the earth—the indignation of man shall find him out, and blast him with its lightnings."

In accordance with the promise which I made upon obtaining the floor, I now move that the Committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and the President having resumed the Chair, the Chairman [Mr. SOUTHALL] , reported progress.

The PRESIDENT stated the business before the Convention to be the

resolution submitted by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

On motion of Mr. E. B. HALL, the Convention then adjourned.

1.5.1. REPORT FROM THE AUDITING COMMITTEE

With the permission of the gentleman, I will present a report to the Convention. The Committee charged with auditing certain accounts, have prepared a report which I am directed to submit, containing three resolutions. I beg that it may at once be acted upon.

The report read as follows:

The report was adopted.

1.5.2. THE QUESTION OF TAXATION

Mr. President, from the organization of the Convention until now, I have not opened my mouth upon any .Page161 question, save to vote and to offer one or two resolutions. I have preferred to listen rather than to speak; but upon the question arising on the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , I feel that those whom I represent and by whom we are surrounded, have certain interests, which, when I see a disposition manifested here upon the part of some to prevent us from having a fair hearing on this question, I feel constrained, in behalf of those I represent, to ask that my voice shall be heard upon our interests which are involved in this question.

We have but half an hour to employ in the discussion of any question previous to the time at which the Convention has decided it will resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. I cannot, therefore, fully enter into a discussion of the merits of the question, and give all my reasons for demanding a proper consideration of the subject now before the Convention. But there are some suggestions in addition to the reasons mentioned in the able argument of the gentleman who preceded me, which I should like to make in reference to this matter.

We are told, sir, by gentlemen who urge that this question shall not be considered by the Convention now, that it would be a breach of faith, and that this Convention was called for no such purpose. This objection has been answered by those who preceded me, but I beg to add further on that point, that there never was a Convention in this Commonwealth which had the power to circumscribe the action of this Convention, or to dictate its recommendations; and those who are familiar with the manner and the circumstances connected with the calling of this Convention by the Legislature, know that it was understood distinctly at the time, that this question of taxation would be before this Convention. I beg that gentlemen will remember that, when this question was before the Legislature, a member of the Senate proposed that they should recite in the act calling this Convention, that they deemed it proper that this body should take into consideration the question of taxation. Knowing that they had no power to circumscribe this Convention, or to dictate what it should or should not do, they proposed to suggest in this Act that it would be improper to enter into the consideration of this question. It was the general impression in the Senate that that would be a fatal proposition, and an immediate adjournment was moved and carried. Next morning a motion was made to withdraw the proposition, and it was withdrawn. And withdrawn why? Because it was found that the feeling in relation to considering.Page162 this question was such that it was necessary to waive that objection.

I know, sir, that the members from the West, never voted for calling this Convention with any other expectation—never would have voted for it if it had been restricted, or required not to enter upon the discussion of this matter. I assure you, sir, that our people have felt the weight of this burden for years. And it is said that we have ratified the Constitution by which it is agreed that we would wait until 1865, before we sought a further agitation of the matter. I beg gentlemen to look at the article and they will find that there is no such provision whatever.

But suppose there was; suppose that question of taxation had been connected with that of representation, has that any obligation upon us, with reference to this matter? What did we get in 1850? Because of a helpless minority we got only what we could get, in agreeing that we should suffer this inequality no longer than necessity compelled us to submit to it.

But we are told this is an improper time to consider it because we have other questions before us, and that it evinces to the world that we are divided among ourselves and destroys our power and influence with reference to other questions. Now I ask you if you can conceal any longer that there is a dissatisfaction among us? I tell you you cannot do it. I come from that section of the State whose people are denounced upon this floor and outside the hall, as Submissionists, Abolitionists, and all these things. But I tell you, sir, that we have been submissionists because we must; and now we are disposed to be so no longer. I care not, sir, for names; the difference of names is played out; I care not by what name I am called—submissionist or what not. I would not wish to be understood as believing that gentlemen who urge that this subject shall not be agitated, do so with any other than a proper motive; but let me ask how would it embarrass this matter by considering it now? We have resolutions proposing what? The raising of a committee to enquire into the propriety of these amendments. Now, sir, if we raise a committee it can sit without occupying any of the time of this body. It is important that we hasten to some action upon all the questions before this Convention, in order that we may adjourn as soon as possible and go home to our people. If this committee be appointed it would expedite our business.

And why is it eminently proper that it should be done now? Why, sir, it has been admitted upon this floor, I believe, by all those who gave an expression of opinion on this question, that what we ask, that the .Page163 principle for which we contend, is right and just. Who, I ask, has denied that it is our right? And when that is already admitted, how long would it detain this Convention to say that it is right? I want to see perfect harmony throughout this State; I want to see perfect equality of rights; I want to see the burdens equally borne in each portion of the State; I want to see harmony prevail throughout all its parts. But why postpone this matter? It has been said outside—and those matters have been brought in here and read—it has been said outside, that the West who have an interest in this matter—although, as was remarked by my colleague and others who preceded me, that this was not a question of East and West, but that it was really a question between those who did and those who did not hold slave property—and that is the true position—but it has been said outside that the East and the West were engaged in a bargain in reference to this question. It is suggested that the gentlemen from the East were willing to forego their objections, if the conservative element from the West, who are anxious to have this matter settled now, were willing to co-operate with the Eastern members in passing an ordinance of secession.

Now, sir, if there has been any such understanding upon the part of any gentleman representing this interest, I have been unable to find it. But what do we find? We find that after the suggestion has gone forth in the public prints, the proposition is deliberately made upon this floor, that if we will join in voting for an ordinance of secession and then go home and labor with our people to procure the ratification of that ordinance, we can have an adjustment of this taxation question.

Will the gentleman allow me to ask him if he desires to be understood as making that charge upon the whole secession party?

No, sir. It has been stated upon this floor, however—I am not able to state precisely who did make the assertion,3Mr. Hall corrected this statement in the Proceedings of March 25, page 249. but that proposition was made upon this floor, and made not as the gentleman from Barbour [Mr. WOODS] , would say "jocularly," because, in the disclaimer afterwards made that, in presenting the proposition, the gentleman did it only upon his own individual responsibility, he reiterated the proposition seriously and soberly.

Now, Mr. President, I beg to say that I hope there is no man representing this or any other interest who is ready to enter into any bargain. We came here not to purchase but to ask what we conceive to be our right. We ask it not as a condition on which we will agree to any other proposition, but we ask it as a right, and we are entitled to receive it unconditionally. I scorn a proposition to sell anything in order to obtain our rights. I believe there is no such sentiment upon the part .Page164 of any man representing or holding the views that I do and desiring the result which I desire in this particular, and I believe there is no such gentleman who has had any participation whatever in any such proposition as this. I cannot believe it. But what are we to infer from the circumstances? I can come to but one conclusion. When I see that there is a disposition, by moving to lay the resolutions on the table, to cut off all debate, to defeat the resolution, and not even accord to us the raising of a committee to enquire into the propriety of making any further provision in this regard, which is usually granted as an act of common courtesy; when I see a disposition to preclude, in advance, any consideration of the subject, I am bound to come to the conclusion —I hope I may be wrong, but I can come to no other result, and I can see no other legitimate conclusion, than that this matter is to be held over us, and to be granted only on the condition that we will accord to other gentlemen the course they desire the Convention to pursue in regard to the questions pertaining to Federal Relations.

I say I hope there is no man in this body representing any portion of the freemen of the State of Virginia who would permit himself to be influenced in his action upon any question with the view of obtaining the concession thereby of some other right pertaining to some other matter. I hope gentlemen are not to be sold in the market here. I will never yield to such a proposition though it cost me my life, and I will never believe that any man who co-operates with me in this idea or policy will agree to it.

Now, Mr. President, with the position in which this question is presented to us, I think it is due, I think it is eminently right and proper that it should be considered, and considered now. What will be the effect, what construction will be placed upon the refusal of the Convention to consider it? Simply this, that it is refused, that it is held back for the purpose of ascertaining if it could be used as a lever, as I before indicated, for the accomplishment of another purpose.

There are many questions requiring our consideration, but it seems that in order to avoid this one question in reference to taxation, gentlemen here are unwilling to entertain any question in relation to any amendment of the organic law of the Commonwealth. I do not know how it may be with other sections of the State, but I know that in my section it is believed that our organic law should be changed in other respects. We have an inefficient incumbrance upon our judiciary in the shape of a county court, which weighs upon us as a burthen under which our people are literally groaning. In these times, they are anxious to be relieved from all unnecessary expense and to have efficiency .Page165 in all the departments of Government by which they may maintain their rights as was contemplated in the organization of these institutions.

That there are features of our Constitution which require amendment, defects which the people since the adoption of the Constitution have seen really to operate against their interest and require amendment and reform at once, no one can doubt. I hope therefore that it will be the pleasure, and I appeal to men from all parts of the State to allow us to consider this matter; to let us be heard upon this matter; to appoint a committee to determine and report upon these various questions to this body. Such a committee would consider these matters, mature whatever action they should see proper to recommend, submit it to us and it would require but little time for the Convention to act upon it. If it is right that we should at any time have an adjustment of this question of taxation, it is right that we should have it now. We ask that you will grant it now. And what is the reason given—what is urged as the reason why we shall not act upon it now? I have heard no reason except the simple declaration that there was an important question outside of this for which this Convention was called. I admit the importance of the other question, and I would not trammel it by any other that shall embarrass its consideration. But I appeal to gentlemen to place themselves in our position, asking for what it is universally admitted is their right to have as a matter of common justice; and suppose we refuse to accord them that right, what would be the effect of it?

Why, sir, the effect of this defect in our organic law is not confined to any one section of the State; it operates upon all; but we in the West feel its injurious effects more than they are felt in the East, because we have fewer slaves there. But it is urged that we are unsound, unsound upon the slavery question.

Before Mr. HALL had concluded his remarks, the hour of eleven arrived, and he was interrupted by the President.

1.5.3. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The committee, in pursuance of its standing order, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal relations, the pending question being the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. CARLILE, upon which Mr. BALDWIN, of Augusta, was entitled to the floor.

I was endeavoring, yesterday, Mr. Chairman, as far as I could, .Page166 during the time that I occupied the floor, to narrow the issues presented by the question before this body. I think I have discovered a tendency —I will not say a disposition—on the part of members participating in this discussion, to introduce into it matters that have nothing to do with the merits of the subject about which we are engaged, and to avoid what seemed to me to be questions of real, vital and pressing interest before us. In the effort that I was making yesterday to call back the Committee to what I regard as the true issues, I undertook to assert—and I understood the assertion to be distinctly admitted to be correct—that the State of Virginia, in regard to all the great questions of administration which have occupied the attention of this country from the foundation of the Government down to the election of Abraham Lincoln, had no cause of complaint to urge against the General Government, unless it might be in regard to the question of slavery. I undertook to re-call to the mind of the Committee, that, with but short intervals, the high offices of the Government of the United States have been in the hands mainly of the sons of Virginia—that the great principles upon which the Government has been administered, and which were, until recently, thought to be the established principles of our country, were impressed upon the administration by the minds of Virginia's sons, and that, in all the departments of the General Government, Virginia influences have been predominant, and hence that she was bound to say that, substantially, in regard to all the great matters of concern to our people—now thirty millions in number—the Government had been in the main administered satisfactorily, wisely and well. This proposition I understood to be distinctly admitted.

May I inquire of the gentleman by whom that admission was made?

I understood it to be made distinctly by the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , who preceded me immediately in the discussion.

In answer to the remarks of the gentleman, yesterday, I intended to do nothing more than to acknowledge, so far as I was concerned, my individual opinion, that no action had ever been taken by the General Government up to this time, upon any subject unconnected with slavery, that would, for a moment, have justified the people of Virginia in raising an issue of Union or disunion. But I intended, by no means, to make the admission that the policy of the General Government had been always such as the people of Virginia would approve; on the contrary that there were instances—that there were many instances—in the policy of that Government, that they .Page167 could not approve. But I said that I was ready to admit, that, with the exception of the slavery question, Virginia had no grievances upon which to make an issue of disunion.

I did not understand the gentleman as intending to speak for any one but himself, but understood him to assent distinctly to the general proposition that in the main, in the administration of the General Government, substantially, the Virginia policy had governed. I do not expect to find that gentleman or any other gentleman here, undertaking to endorse item by item all the matters of administrative detail that have occupied the attention of our Government from its foundation. I did not expect, nor do I desire, that the admission of any member on this floor would be tortured so as to extend to any such sweeping acknowledgment as that; but the direct proposition remains, that, whatever might have been her opinion now or then, as to this or that particular measure of administrative policy, that in the main, upon the whole taken together in the series of years, the administration of the Government of the United States has been satisfactory to Virginia.

This, sir, has the effect, then, of narrowing down the subject of inquiry to the issues growing directly out of the slavery question, and upon that question I undertake to assert and to challenge a contradiction from any quarter, that so far as the administrative action of the government of the United States has been concerned, it has never, from its foundation down to the election of Abraham Lincoln, done anything in regard to the subject of slavery or taken any measure in regard to the institutions of the South, that was not either approved at the time, or concurred in by Virginia, or at some time subsequently received, approved and distinctly acquiesced in by this Commonwealth.

Sir, I might rest here if I could rely upon the recollection of a body like this—I might rest here, upon the challenge which I have given, until some one of the distinguished gentlemen who represent the grievances of Virginia shall come forward and put his finger upon the answer to that challenge. But I will not rest content with that. I propose, now, in confirmation of what I have stated, to glance briefly at some of the most prominent measures which at different times have been made the subject of complaint—at the measures of restriction in regard to the institution of slavery. Why, sir, it astonished me, and I am sure it must astonish any man who will make the investigation, to find how thoroughly Virginia has been committed all the while to every one of the restrictive measures in regard to slavery, that have at any time been undertaken or carried out by the General Government.

The first great slavery restriction in this country was the ordinance of 1787, by which Virginia gave this great North-west territory for the common good, and at the same time affixed to the grant, the condition that in all that territory, out of which were formed five great States of the Union, involuntary servitude, except for crime, should thereaftei be forever prohibited. I presume it will not be denied here or anywhere else that that measure received the distinct sanction and approbation of Virginia, of her government and her people. I know it is fashionable now to refer to that as one of the errors of a dark age; but, sir, it is but a moment in the history of a nation; and when we are seeking causes of complaint, we are bound in common honesty, as it seems to me, to withhold our censure from those measures in regard to which our approval was sought and gained at the time.

The next step of slavery restriction undertaken by the government of the United States, of which I have any recollection, was in the act of Congress dividing the territory of Orleans, after its acquisition by the government of the United States, and imposing a restriction upon the importation of slaves of a certain description into that territory. That act constituted a part of the administration of Thomas Jefferson ; and, sir, so far as I remember, I have never yet heard of its being complained of in any quarter; and yet it was an act of slavery restriction.

What was the next? The next was the Missouri Compromise, by which the line which has been so eloquently denounced by the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , was established; the celebrated line of 36 deg. 30 min.; a compromise by which slavery north of that line was forever prohibited, while South of that line it was left to be determined by the people according to their desire. What is the history of that measure? I suppose it will hardly be controverted here in a Virginia assembly, that that measure received the support of Virginia's Senators in the Congress of the United States, the approval of Mr. Monroe, the President of the United States, a Virginian, and of his Cabinet, composed of a majority of Southern men, Calhoun, Wirt and Crawford. That was the Missouri Compromise; and, sir, it not only received that sanction at the time; was not only sustained by the voice of Virginia, at that day, but it has since distinctly, over and over again received the approval of Virginia, as we shall see.

The next instance of slavery restriction was during the administration of the distinguished gentleman from Charles City [Ex-President TYLER] , now a member of this body, a measure which received his distinct approval and support.

Will the honorable gentleman from Augusta give way for a moment. In regard to the Missouri Compromise I was an actor upon the stage at that time—a member of the Congress of the United States. The gentleman has very correctly stated the proposition. He has given you the history, but he has forgotten one portion of it, of which I beg leave to remind him, and that is, that Virginia being represented by 22 persons upon the floor of the House of Representatives, the negative to that proposition was sustained throughout, and would have been sustained, as I verily believe, to the present moment, by 18 members out of the 22 represented. The gentleman is aware of that fact.

In regard to my own agency in that connection, my humble vote has been recorded throughout against it, and I would have stood there until I perished, before I would have recognized that line. I believed it to be unconstitutional. I believed it to be, moreover, if the gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him thus longer, to be the opening of Pandora's box, which would let out upon us all the present evils which have gathered over the land. In regard to my own action in the administration of the government, I am entirely persuaded—

The distinguished gentleman might have waited for the attack to be made before offering his defence.

I did not understand that I was attacked. I merely designed to make an explanation of my course.

I hope the gentleman before he replies, will allow me to state the case. I believe the prosecutor is entitled to the opening and closing of the argument.

I was merely entering into an explanation of this matter of the Missouri Compromise line in connection with the annexation of Texas, which was spoken of by the distinguished gentleman [Mr. BALDWIN] . Mr. Chairman, it is essentially a different matter between a question of original jurisdiction and right on the part of Congress where you have a Territory like this in question, to draw discriminations unfavorable to any portion of the country, and to stipulate for terms in the negotiation of treaties for the acquisition of a new Territory. Why, I should no more question the right of the government in the event of our feeling a desire hereafter for the annexation of Canada to the United States, to stipulate with Great Britain that slavery should never exist within the Canadas. And so in negotiating with Texas, we had a right not only to present our terms, but we had also a right to consider the terms to present to it; and when therefore it occurred to us

that it would be wise to throw off the 36 30 line, we had an unquestionable right to do it in that treaty. I remember to have seen this statement upon a previous occasion, and it was answered by me at the time, for I wanted to stand right in the forum of history. Whatever there is of me, is altogether of an historical character. I want above all things to preserve the little space I may occupy upon the page of history, legibly and correctly written. I never would have yielded to that Missouri Compromise, I would have died in my shoes, suffered any sort of punishment you could have inflicted upon me, before I would have done it. In regard to Texas it was altogether the acquisition of new Territory, and we were authorized to stipulate our terms. I beg pardon for having occupied so much of your time in making this explanation.

You will observe, Mr. Chairman, that it was not a question of Constitutional power, that I was considering. I was not enquiring whether the gentleman had ever conceded the question of Constitutional power; but I was speaking of the recognition of the slavery restriction. I claim that under the administration of the distinguished gentleman from Charles City [Ex-President TYLER] , and in a measure which he and his friends have ever claimed as the crowning act of his administration, entitling it to consideration before the world, that in that very act he recognized the extension of this odious Missouri Compromise line, as to which, he says, he would have died before he would have allowed it to be established; he recognized and approved the extension of that very line through this newly acquired Territory of Texas. It is that, sir, I speak of, and that is, as the gentleman says, in reference to the course of his life, a matter historical.

But, sir, I referred to this matter as showing but one of the series of recognitions of this Missouri Compromise line by Virginia. In 1846 comes the next slavery restriction; in which we have first a recognition by Virginia of the power of Congress over the subject of slavery restriction, and then a recognition again of the Missouri Compromise line. How is that, sir? Upon the establishment of the Territorial Government of Oregon during the administration of Mr. Polk—to which administration Virginia is always proud to point as one exemplifying sound Virginia principle—during the administration of Mr. Polk, I repeat, the Territory of Oregon was established, and in the bill organizing it, was inserted the proviso that had been used in the ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude forever in the Territory of Oregon. That measure passed both Houses of Congress, and was approved by Mr. Polk. And why? On what ground did he place his approval? He certainly must be taken to have conceded the Constitutional .Page171 power, because, I presume he would hardly have felt justified in signing a bill which he regarded as unconstitutional; but, sir, he placed his approval of it upon the ground that the Territory of Oregon lay North of the line of 36 30; and he declared it to be his policy to recognize the Missouri Compromise as applying to all the Territories of the United States whether embraced by it at the time or not.

That was the position assumed by Mr. Polk; and in taking it, he has been over and over again justified, endorsed and sustained by the people of Virginia.

In the year 1847, this subject came up before the Virginia Legislature, who, undertaking to denounce the Wilmot Proviso as applied to the Territories of the United States, declared it to be unconstitutional, and a measure that ought to be resisted; but feeling that they were upon tender ground in regard to the act of a Southern Administration which had approved the restrictive Proviso in the Oregon bill, they adopted the curious expedient of denouncing the Wilmot Proviso as contrary to the spirit and principle of the Missouri Compromise. They recognize it thereby to be a proper thing to apply the Wilmot Proviso wherever it would be consistent with the principles of the Missouri Compromise ; by which I understand, Virginia to mean that she recognized 36 deg. 30 min., as the true division line, and that she would not complain of the restriction North of that line.

Where then is the next matter of complaint in regard to the institution of slavery? Why sir, the admission of California, and the enactment of the law in regard to the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Those measures were resisted by Virginia as part and parcel of the Compromise measures of 1850. I remember that upon those measures the State of Virginia was very much divided at the time of their adoption; but since that time the State of Virginia has given to that adjustment and that Compromise, in all its parts, the sanction of her unanimous approval.

In 1852, there was a Presidential election, in which two political parties came before the people of the country, and before the people of Virginia for support. Both placed their candidates distinctly upon what were called platforms, in each of which was a distinct ratification and endorsement of the Compromise measures of 1850 as a final settlement of all the questions to which they relate; and, sir, all gentlemen here present, whatever may have been their political status at that time, I presume, were found in one or other of the two political parties .Page172 which, in solemn form, gave the stamp of their approval and ratification to those measures.

Then, sir, where, is the measure in regard to the institution of slavery in the history of the administration of this Government, in reference to which Virginia has not either at the time participated actually in the adoption, or in the subsequent progress of the country and of the government distinctly at some time or other expressed her approval? I think, then, sir, that I am warranted in saying, as I said yesterday, that I challenge and defy the production of a single instance in the history of this country in which the action of the Federal Government in regard to the institution of slavery, has not at some time or other received the direct approval of the people of Virginia. I repeat the challenge, and I wish it borne in mind in the future progress of the discussion, if any gentleman shall do me the honor to notice anything that has fallen from my lips in the course of this debate, I trust he will do me the pleasure to give his special attention to this challenge which I now here throw down in the presence of this assembly.

I take up the glove, sir.

When the glove is taken up, I wish the gentleman to recollect that the battle is about to begin.

And it will be a long time before it is ended.

I undertook yesterday, sir, to speak of the talk that we hear of the degradation of this Commonwealth—of the degraded condition of Virginia. It is a subject in regard to which I admit I have some warmth of feeling; and I find upon reflection, that in my own estimation, and I fear in the estimation of others, I perhaps used a harshness of expression that is not consonant with my own feelings or with correct taste or good usage. I regret that I have done it, and I wish to disclaim any idea of saying anything offensive to any gentleman on this floor or elsewhere. I have no desire to indulge in any asperity of feeling—

I hope my friend will not understand me concerning what he said that I took it up as a challenge; but with a sweet smile I took up that glove.

I had no reference to that. Sir, I have no feeling of asperity whatever. I admit that I have a deep and earnest feeling and conviction in regard to the propriety of the course in which I am now engaged, that it moves every feeling of my heart, every energy of my mind; but I thank God that I am so constituted that I can tolerate the most enlarged freedom of opinion, and that I have no.Page173 disposition whatever to carry into the discussion any excitement whatever that the subject might give rise to. But, sir, I can hardly regret having used this language, when I remember that it has given an opportunity to the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , to come forward as he did promptly, eagerly, gracefully, to disclaim here in the presence of this assembly, any desire or intention to impute to our proud and peerless old Commonwealth anything of degradation.

So much for that, Mr. Chairman. And now allow me to proceed to consider—

I hope the gentleman will permit me to interrupt him in order that I may put myself right. I did not yield that I needed any opportunity of disclamation. I feel that in the most explicit language which it is possible for, man to employ, I have directly and pointedly declared that what I had said in reference to the Commonwealth of Virginia was not said in a tone of reproach, but merely of regret that she had lost an opportunity to exert her influence, and in no way involving any reflection upon the principles or the spirit of her people; and when I interrupted the gentleman it was not for the purpose of putting any construction upon the remarks that I made, but to bring to his attention, what evidently had escaped it, my clear, unmistakable declaration.

I certainly have no desire to hold out the idea that any disclaimer was necessary to the gentleman, but he cannot deprive me of the satisfaction that I derive from his more specific declaration.

I have no desire to deprive the gentleman of that satisfaction.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have brought the history of the question which this Convention is engaged in considering, fairly down to the time of the election of Lincoln. Let us see what there is in that. That election has been spoken of by both the distinguished gentlemen who have preceded me [Messrs. RANDOLPH and HOLCOMBE] , as an overthrow, or a subversion of the Constitution, by the use of its own forms. I do not understand them to say that the mere election of Lincoln of itself, would have been a sufficient justification of disunion; but I understand them to say that it was an expressive fact which justified dissolution, because of the existing feeling which it represented.

Sir, I take issue with the gentlemen here. I deny that the election of Lincoln, or of any other man, could, in any just sense, be regarded as justifying disunion or secession in any quarter.

On the contrary, I undertake to establish here that that very election .Page174 devolved upon each State in the South a new -duty and a new obligation of the highest and most imperative character, to stand by the defences of the Constitution and to defend and uphold the rights of her sister States under it. Sir, I regard this assumption, that the election of any man to the Presidency can justify disunion, as a direct assault upon the fundamental principles of American liberty.

What is American liberty? Is it like any other liberty? Or is it not distinguished from all by some striking peculiarities, as American liberty, American Constitutional liberty, American representative liberty, American Confederated liberty? Sir, I regard any attempt to dissolve this Union because of the election of any President, or at the time of the election of any unfriendly President, to be a direct assault upon every one of those peculiar features which distinguish American liberty from all other liberty. American liberty is not the license of one man or of many; it is not the power of one or the power of the few or of the many in any unrestricted sense. American liberty is founded, upon confidence in the virtue and intelligence of the people. That is its foundation and chief corner-stone. But, sir, it is built up in that wise distrust which has been well characterized here as the parent of safety. It is built, in the first place, with that distinguishing peculiarity. The Constitutional compact, limiting the power of the Government, in all its departments, within certain circumscribed boundaries which are regarded as insuring safety against tyranny and oppression.

It has not only this restriction, but the contract, although resting upon the integrity and the intelligence of the people, does not allow the majority of mere numbers, the opportunity to disregard, if they would, or thoughtlessly to violate the solemn obligation to maintain limitations established for the defence of Constitutional liberty. The powers conferred upon our government which the Constitution limits, defines and restricts, are all distributed according to a discreet precaution in our system among the different departments of government, for wise and prudent purposes; as a restraint and check upon outbreaks of popular will, or popular excitement. They are divided among coordinate departments of the government to operate as checks upon one another, in order to secure that the constitutional powers of the government shall be exercised with calmness, deliberation and discretion; and with due regard to the rights of the people and to all the great interests of the country. Sir, this is our idea of American constitutional representative republican liberty.

Well, sir, why is it that all these checks and balances have been resorted to? Why did not our fathers rest the liberty of the country, the .Page175 rights of the States and the rights of the people upon one single guaranty? Why was it that they did not allow them to stand the chances of the overthrow of one single defence against encroachment? Sir, they have built them up; one, two, three, four, five distinct barriers. One may fail, two, three, four may fail, and yet the fifth may remain and be sufficient to protect the Constitution from overthrow. Why is this? Our forefathers, with that wise forethought which distinguished them in regard to all those matters, anticipated that the time might come, aye, in all probability would come, when the excitement, turbulence, violence if you choose, incident to all free government, might overwhelm the popular assembly, when the House of Representatives, fresh from the people by short tenures, might yield to the popular clamor of the moment, to the excitement of freemen roused in regard to any great question, overstep the bounds of constitutional limitation and encroach upon the liberties of the minority of the people or upon the rights of the States.

And, sir, to avoid that, they erected another barrier, the United States Senate, removed farther from the turmoils and excitements and passions of the multitude. As another barrier against this encroachment they armed the President of the United States with the great conservative veto. And yet another in the Supreme Court of the United States. Then they reserved to the people themselves, at the polls, the power which after all is the great safeguard, and one which the people, if they are wise, will never let go—a check by which the administrators of this entire government must come back at last to the people for judgment in regard to their public conduct.

Why was all this? Was it the anticipation of our forefathers that the time would come when any portion of the American people would desert the Constitution upon the first assault? Was it in the contemplation of those gallant men, educated in the principles of Anglo-Saxon representative liberty, that their descendants would ever come to that time when on the first assault upon the Constitution they would give it up, surrender it? throw it away as a worthless and a useless thing? Now, sir, these barriers were erected as an injunction upon the part of our fathers which it will be well for us to heed. It was an admonition to us if we are true friends of free principles, of popular right, of Constitutional liberty, if we are beaten in the popular branch of the National Legislature, to appeal to the Senate. If beaten in the Senate, to appeal to the Constitutional Executive veto. If that fail, to appeal to the Supreme Court to declare the just construction of the charter by which all power is held and withheld. And, if all fail, when all these .Page176 means of protection have failed, not to give up the ship, but to appeal from the false agents of the people, from the faithless administrators of broken trusts to the people who conferred the trusts, from the servants of the people to their masters at the polls; and only upon the consent of those who framed the government—only upon the consent of those for whose benefit its powers are wielded, if wielded justly, only upon their consent agree to give up the great experiment of American Constitutional representative republican liberty.

Well, sir, at the time of the election of Lincoln, what had been the condition of things in regard to all these great departments of government? It will not be pretended here that the enemies of the South had ever been in a majority in either branch of the Legislative department of the government. It will not be pretended that the Supreme Court had ever failed, justly and fairly, and with a sufficiently Southern aspect, to say the least of it, to expound the Constitutional rights of the South. Then in the Senate of the United States, on the day of Lincoln's election, the south and the friends of the South were in a majority. In the House of Representatives on that day, the South and the friends of the South had control. In the Supreme Court the South and the friends of the South were in the ascendant. In this condition of things, the Presidential office was gained by the Republicans as the result of a party contest before the American people. What then? Immediately the cry was that the government had been seized. The government, the government, Mr. Chairman. I fear very much that we have gotten into the habit of exaggerating, grossly exaggerating the importance of the Executive office. We have come to attribute to the Presidential office more power, more influence, and more consideration, than justly belongs to it according to a fair estimate of our system. And I think I see, resulting from this, the exaggerated importance attached to the position of Abraham Lincoln in the Presidential office. Why, sir, my opinion is, and has been for years, that the President is the weakest department of the government. It has the duty of disbursing patronage to hungry office seekers, and while there are more who want office than there are offices to be bestowed, this will always be a source of weakness rather than of power. Then I undertake to say that the Republican party, in the election of Abraham Lincoln, obtained possession of the weakest department of the government, and one which, if anything could bring them to an untimely end, will have that effect beyond a doubt, beyond a controversy.

Well, sir, what was the duty of the South under these circumstances? She had not votes enough it is true, but she had friends enough in the .Page177 Congress then sitting and in the Congress next elected, to insure, if every man stood firm to his constitutional duty in defence of the rights of the South, that no successful assault could be made upon them. And, sir, who is responsible before God and man for the fact that the Republican party is this day in the ascendant in the different departments of the government? At the time of the election of Lincoln,

I have shown, the bulwarks of the Constitution, except the Presidential office, stood unbroken.

If our adversaries, our enemies, our oppressors, or whatever you choose to call them, are in the ascendant now, who is responsible? Who has withdrawn fourteen Senators from the Senate of the United States, and left us in the lamentable condition of being in a hopeless and helpless minority in that body? Who, but the seceding States of the South, that have also withdrawn more than thirty members of Congress from the House of Representatives, and left us in a minority not only in the Congress just closed, but in the Congress that is to assemble next fall?

Understand me, Mr. Chairman; I have no intention and no disposition to undertake any denunciation of the seceded States or of any other States. This is not the time for denunciation. I would rather say what might promote peace and harmony, than to add anything whatever to the distractions of our unfortunate country. But it is due to the truth of history, it is due to justice and right and fair dealing that this matter should be placed in its just and fair light. What was the duty of these States to us? Had we ever done them wrong? Had we failed to do them right? Were we not to a large extent identified in interest, and ought we not to have been identified in feeling and in action? Why is it, then, that they have left us—left us helpless in the hands of those that they tell us are our enemies? Sir, there are circumstances connected with this matter that fill me, when I think of them, with the deepest pain and sorrow. When I heard, sir, of the fact that the election of Abraham Lincoln, which all of us must deplore as a great disaster, as a great wrong done to the entire South, was received in the city of Charleston, South Carolina, with the firing of one hundred guns, I must confess that I was compelled to inquire whether we have had an earnest seconding of our efforts to defeat him from people who thus rejoice over his election. I must confess that I did doubt whether we have been in heart and soul a united South, in earnest, honest opposition to the ascendancy of the Republican party.

Sir, it seems to me that the plain duty and policy of the whole South was that we should all confer together and take our action, .Page178 whatever it might be, together. Was there any necessity for our leaving the Union? None, sir; none whatever. The Constitution itself provided sufficient guarantees and sufficient protection. While we had the Legislative department we had the guarantees of power spoken of by the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , as being possessed by the Barons of Runnymede. We had the power of withholding the supplies of Government until we compelled them to yield justice, and protection and safety to the South. Sir, the reference to the Barons of Runnymede, brings to mind the principles and practices which have prevailed among our English ancestry. I cherish the maxims and usages of Anglo-Saxon and Norman liberty which we have inherited, and which I fondly believe we have improved upon. I cherish that practice of English liberty that forces from power the concessions due to right by withholding the supplies of Government; we had that power, we had that right, and we had, moreover, a long line of illustrious and brilliant precedents to guide us.

Were we justified, sir—will we be justified in impartial history—in the judgment of mankind—for thus deserting the great experiment of American Constitutional liberty—for abandoning our strongholds of defence and fortifications, upon the mere taking of an outpost? Is this in accordance with the practices and principles which have always distinguished English liberty, which I had supposed would ever distinguish American liberty? So far as I am concerned, I confess that my instincts, that my impulses were not to fly from the Constitution and seek refuge in other resorts; but I felt impelled to throw up defences around the Constitution and, with the friends of the Union, with the friends of the South and with the friends of Constitutional right and Constitutional liberty, to gather, within solid phalanx, around the Constitution of the United States—broken if you will, threatened if you will—but, because it was broken, because it was threatened, because it was in danger, I felt disposed the more to rally, with all my might and heart and soul, to the defence of this last hope—as I verily believe, of the permanent success of civil and religious liberty in the world. That was my disposition; and that, I think, should have been the disposition of all the South. But, sir, it was not done. A new idea—a new practice has been introduced into the Constitutional history of America. Sir, since the Constitution of the United States was formed—since its foundations were laid deep down, as it was supposed, in the very hearts of the people of America, new ideas, new inventions have come to pass; and we have now the railroad, the steamboat, and, and greatest invention of all, we have .Page179 the magnetic telegraph, as the great precipitation, by whose magic influence government is overthrown, civil liberty prostrated and the reign of violence, of confusion, and of anarchy, inaugurated. Sir, it seems to be regarded now as degrading to a man, as something derogating from his manly spirit, to take counsel upon the great question now distracting the country, and to await mature consideration of what affects our most vital interest. In the good old times, just in proportion to the magnitude and importance of the interest at stake, it was regarded as a higher duty to think, to pause, to weigh well every step, to consult together. How is it now? We are urged every where to take counsel of our passions, instead of our judgment—to be guided by the instincts of resentment, rather than by the suggestions of reason. Upon these our Southern brethren have acted. They have refused counsel. They say that they are justified in not conferring with Virginia, because Virginia refused to go into conference with the Southern States a year ago. That, in my opinion, has no just bearing upon the question. A proposition is made to Virginia to go into conference avowedly for purposes of disunion. She is already satisfied, without conference, that the time has not come for disunion, but that each State has, within the Union, sufficient power and sufficient means of self-defence and self-vindication, and therefore she declines to go into a conference, called for the avowed purpose of disunion. Does that, at all, justify the idea that if Virginia had wanted disunion she would have been at liberty to disregard, altogether, the interests and safety of South Carolina, and to go into action without consultation? It is a very different thing to decline a proposition for action which, when declined, disturbs nothing, breaks up no interest, alarms no commerce, destroys no safe-guards. It is a Very different thing to decline a conference then, and to decline it now, and follow up the refusal by an act of violent disruption as these seceded States have done. Look at the position they have placed us in. We have been connected together by ties, social and commercial, of a sort such as have never bound together the people of States before. These ties were of such a character that the people of South Carolina were bound to regard them in any action that they might take for their own safety. But immediately upon the election of Lincoln, without waiting for conference, but, on the contrary she, disclaiming it, undertakes to raise the standard of secession, to break up all intercourse, social and commercial, all business relations of every kind and to shake the credit and confidence of the financial world by inaugurating a revolution. She undertook it all without consulting anybody but South Carolina,.Page180 and looked to no interest but her own. She disregarded every other consideration, and pursued a policy which has brought upon the country the embarrassments and disasters which now oppress it.

And here let me remark, that much is said upon the subject of these financial embarrassments, and they seem to be presented as arguments to induce men to go for secession, upon the ground that if this state of things continues we will be ruined. Who brought about this state of things? If the causes of the disruption of this government were so deep-seated as to render it impracticable and unadvisable for the people of the North and the people of the South to live together, would it not have been in accordance with the spirit of the age that they should confer together in a manner due to their past associations of common interest, and make a severance of peace, thereby securing all the commercial and social advantages, and avoiding as far as possible all the evils that would follow upon such a separation. Was it in accordance with the spirit of the age that a violent disruption should take place which would effectually destroy all hopes of peace in the future, and all the advantages which would result from social and commercial intercourse. All these things seem to have been disregarded, and we are plunged now into that financial embarrassment which is ever the result of uncertainty in regard to the future. How disunion and further disruption is likely to restore confidence or give assurance of peace, I am at a loss to understand.

But, sir, this disruption has taken place, and seven States have withdrawn, de facto, whether de jure or not. It is too late now to draw the precise distinction between Constitutional and revolutionary, or peaceful and violent remedies. Seven States, de facto, have undertaken to withdraw frorri the Union, and have undertaken to establish a government for themselves. And it becomes necessary for us to consider the new relations which devolve upon us. In the first place let me consider our relations to these cotton States. I deny the assertion that we are in any sense dependent for our policy upon them. I deny that it is either a physical, moral, or commercial necessity, that we shall follow their fortunes. I deny that we are so "hitched on" to them as to be "dragged after" their destiny. I hope, and I will not abandon the hope, that some day or other, sooner or later, the people of these States will see, what I think I see now, the utter hopelessness in any business, in any commercial, financial, or international sense, of their obtaining a Government, such as will satisfy any people who have once lived under the stars and stripes. I do not pretend to deny that they may establish a Government which may satisfy the fancy of some .Page181 people, but, sir, with all the talk about the glory of a Southern Confederacy, with all the talk about the splendors of a Confederacy, which, as the gentleman from Albemarle has said, is to have for its theatre half a continent— it is after all but a Southern Confederacy, which is to have but half a continent; and those of us who have lived under the glorious Confederation of these United States, embracing a whole continent, may well refuse to go into ecstasies of admiration over the proposition to become members of a dismembered half, aye, less than half, of a continent. It seems to me that this argument, this idea of the brilliant future which is in store for the people of the South, if it proves any thing, proves too much for that side. It only proves the magnificence, the splendor, the great advantages of the glorious Union which we had, and which I trust in God we may have again.

Sir, it may suit the fancy of some to wander amid ruined cities and admire the proportions of broken columns and crumbling arches, but I prefer the cities of living men. I prefer the haunts of busy industry and of thrifty enterprise. It may be reserved for the philosophic antiquarian hereafter, to trace out, in the future history of this continent, how this great and mighty republic underwent, time and again, disruption and disintegration, and how at each step downward, it still retained a large share of the brilliancy and magnificence of its original proportions.

But, sir, after all it must be admitted everywhere and under all circumstances that each rupture, each division, will have a ruinous effect upon this glorious Confederation of ours. The broken fragments of the brightest diamond into the market to be valued ;4Something seems to have been lost from the beginning of the sentence, such as "Send" or "Take"; or perhaps "go" was omitted after "diamond."compare their aggregate value with that of the unbroken jewel, and you will have a faint illustration of the condition, in the estimation of mankind, of this Union of ours unbroken and its condition with ever so many confederacies erected out of its ruins.

But, sir, some of the States have left us, and their action has brought us into new relations with the other States. What are our relations to the border States—our physical relations? Look, Mr. Chairman, at our relations to North Carolina. She has acted by her Legislature and by her people—solemnly consulted at the polls. What has been her voice? She has refused even to call a Convention to consider the question of secession or disunion. How is it in regard to Tennessee? She has done the same thing. And so in regard to Kentucky. In Maryland no meeting of the Legislature or Convention has been had. How, then, are we situated? Why, sir, I asked a boy in the street, the other day, how Virginia would go out of the Union? and the reply.Page182 was: "I suppose she will have to go by water, in a dugout." [Laughter.] How are we to act now? It must be by separate State action, I suppose. How will we join the Southern Confederacy? Ah, when we ask any of our earnest and rapid friends how this thing is to be done, they tell us that the voice of Virginia will be potential with North Carolina, and that North Carolina, in deference to the voice of Virginia, will reverse her matured and deliberate opinion, and will go South with us. Do you not think, to say the least, that it would be a little respectful in us, to ask her whether she will? Does it not strike you that it would be more consistent with a proper self-respect, on our part, and a proper respect to a sister State, who has acted as she has done, and declared her purpose so recently—to ask her whether her voice is to be controlled by our action, and whether she is prepared to reverse her conduct at our bidding. The border States have all the claims upon us that the Cotton States have, and some additional. They have the claim, that the Cotton States have, of past association, and they have in addition the claim of present association. The Cotton States have the claim of similar institutions; so have the border States, and, in addition to that, they have the claim of similar dangers, and similar wrongs. Then they have the higher, the stronger and the better claim upon us. I think we would be derelict in duty to ourselves, would act in disregard of common prudence of the rights, feelings and interests of those States, if we were to undertake to move one step without a conference with them. The proposition of the Committee of Twenty-one before this Committee now for its consideration, provides for such a conference.

Our relations towards the free States are changed. We not only have the same complaints against them, but much more serious complaints than ever the cotton States had. We not only have causes of complaint against them, common to the Border Slave States, but we are exposed to new dangers which we must guard against by new precautions and new guarantees. This is one of the occasions, as it seems to me, when distrust becomes the parent of safety. It is an occasion when it becomes the Border Slave States to stand firm together, and to demand from the people of the North guarantees and securities, ample and complete, and overflowing in their abundance, against the new dangers to which we are to be exposed, and against the recurrence of this miserable, abominable agitation which has brought us into this serious difficulty. It is the duty of the North to give them to us promptly and earnestly. They ought to hasten to give to us, who are remaining under a common government and who are .Page183 appealing to our Southern brethren to return to the ancient household, such guarantees as will afford us safety for the future and as will, or ought to, bring back our sister States of the South. If they refuse under circumstances thus appealing to their sense of justice, thus appealing to their kind feeling, I for one will not submit to it. I do not know whether I belong to the class referred to by the gentleman over the way, as being submissionists; but that is a thing I will not submit to, and that Virginia will not submit to, and that I believe the Border Slave States now remaining in the Union will not submit to.

So far as I know the opinions or feelings of those who act with me upon this floor, it is no part of their purpose to advise or countenance any submission to the present condition of things. We will demand, and we must have the most thorough and complete guarantees for all our rights, without exception, or we must separate—one or the other. I hope the conference of the border States will be called, and I hope when it meets, it will agree upon some proposition of guaranty that will satisfy the South. I hope they will lay it down distinctly as their ultimatum, and that they will present to the people of the free States, in one hand this ultimatum of protection and guaranty, and in the other, the alternative of a peaceful dissolution of this government. That is the plan which I advocate, and upon which I propose to act.

But, sir, we are told, there is no use of making a bargain with these people; that there is such a hatred between the people of the two sections; that there has grown up, such an anti-slavery fanaticism among the people of the North as to render it unsafe to live with them any longer; that we have got to be two nations in feeling, and we shall have to be two in government. We have lived together a long time. It is true we have had our jarrings, our quarreling and our complaints; but, it seems, even in the opinion of the distinguished gentlemen upon this side, we have not in anything else, suffered very materially, except that we have been abused in regard to our institutions, and threatened with interference in respect to our slave property.

But they say there is an irrepressible conflict that has grown up between the people of the North and the South, and there is no living together; that either the North must succeed in overturning the institution of slavery, or the South must take the institution of slavery into its own keeping. I listened, as all of us listened, I have no doubt, with great satisfaction as well as admiration to the magnificent denunciation that was so justly hurled by the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , at the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. .Page184 Seward] , in regard to his course upon this subject. He evidently had the adversary down, and was likely to keep him down, so far as the argument and the denunciation were concerned. In the days of ancient chivalry the victor knight was entitled to the horse and the armor of his vanquished adversary as lawful spoil of the conflict. Were you not, Mr. Chairman, reminded of that ancient usage, when you saw the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle brandishing aloft the sword of Seward over the dead body of his antagonist, proclaiming the irrepressible conflict—in a Southern aspect? [Applause.] Is this irrepressible conflict a living thing, or is it as dead as the Senator from New York was laid out the other day? Its author—no, not the author, but its great promoter—in his alarm at the awful condition of public affairs, has expressed his willingness, aye, his determination to sacrifice and abandon it; and his party, in the last Congress of the United States, have expressed the same willingness and the same purpose in an unmistakable manner.

We have in the last Congress this remarkable fact, that will not be controverted, that by a vote of two thirds of both Houses, they have, with a Republican majority, in each passed and propounded for ratification by the States of the Union, a constitutional amendment which might well be considered as the epitaph to be inscribed upon the tombstone of the irrepressible conflict—a constitutional amendment by which it is provided that the Constitution never shall be amended so as to give the right to the General Government to interfere with slavery in the States, in any respect whatever.

But, sir, what about this irrepressible conflict, and this great increase of danger to the South from the increase of the abolition sentiment? I deny the fact at the onset. Sir, the gentlemen who have addressed this body, I believe all from that side of the house, have spoken of slavery as if it were on the retreat, as if it were cowering before the advancing assault, as if it were losing the argument, and were giving way gradually before the rising storm of Northern fanaticism. I deny it. On the contrary, I assert with pride, with pleasure, and with satisfaction, that the institution of slavery this day stands upon a footing higher, stronger, firmer, than ever it stood since the foundation of the world; that it stands this day higher above successful assault, higher in the estimation of the religious, and moral, and intellectual, and philosophical, and business world than ever it stood at any day in its history. Sir, I can recollect—and I am not a very old man—I can remember myself when slavery, and the evil and the sin of slavery rested upon the minds and conscience of the South like an incubus. I can.Page185 recollect, sir, when it was only spoken of by Northern men to denounce it, and by Southern men to offer up a feeble apology for its existence. That was the condition of the public opinion of the South upon this question when I first recollect it. What is it now? Sir, since the day when the Reformation in the Church was proclaimed by the Reformers, there never has occurred so wonderful, so thorough a revolution in public opinion in any country on any subject as has occurred in the opinion of the people of the South on the subject of slavery. Instead of its being looked upon now as a curse or a crime it is not only defended, but justified, aye, and approved by the South as a system of servitude between an inferior and a superior race, conferring benefits and blessings upon them both. Sir, the conscience of the South is easy. The South stands self-acquitted on this subject of our greatest institution and our greatest blessing.

What is the condition of the Northern mind? Sir, there are more—and I say it without fear of contradiction—there are more pro-slavery men in the North than there were in the whole earth when I can first recollect. We have not only revolutionized the mind of the South and presented her redeemed, regenerated and disenthralled from this oppressive weight that bore her down in times past, but we have invaded the mind of the North. We have gone with them into the school of philosophy and theology, and we have grappled with them there, with success in defence of this great institution of the South. Not only that, sir, but we have gone into the world at large—into the world of letters and of science and have carried the defence of our principles every where, to say the least, with equal fortune.

And, sir, under circumstances like these, at a time like this, are we to be told that the institution of slavery is threatened with overthrow and destruction? No, no! It never stood so firm as it stands this very day.

But we are told that while all this is true in regard to the condition of slavery some twenty or thirty years ago, while it is true that all were opposed to it then, and thought it a sin, yet that it was merely a passive feeling, that it did not amount to anything, that they believed it to be a sin, but that that belief injured nobody. Sir, it is the opinion of almost every man I ever heard speak upon the subject, that if Virginia had been let alone by the fanatics of the North thirty years ago, we would not have had a slave to day, in the broad limits of the Commonwealth. I believe this is admitted by every body. I know that opinion has been expressed by the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , in an address which has given infinite satisfaction to .Page186 his friends and the public, delivered in the city of Petersburg, several years ago. Sir, we were in danger of this feeling which the gentleman seems now to think was a mere passive, theoretical feeling, having nothing of active principle about it. We were in danger at that day. That danger, thank God, has gone.

Let us now look to the feeling in the North. It is true that there has been developed in the North an active principle of abolitionism. It began there; it first took possession of the harebrained men and the old maids of the North—the materials of fanaticism everywhere. [Laughter.] There it stopped, with an occasional lift from some weak member of the clergy, until after a while the clergy found favor among the fair sex; and abolition, putting on the garb of religion, came through the country in a white cravat, singing "psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs." [Laughter.] Its race was short, and was soon run; the institution of slavery, against which it was directed, existed at that time only in the States and the District of Columbia, and all the efforts of fanaticism to make an anti-slavery party had to come directly over the ramparts and bulwarks of the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln has said one good thing if he never said another, and that is that all our agitations and excitements and quarrels have occurred over points of doubtful constitutional construction. But, sir, the institution of slavery is so entrenched within the inner citadel of the Constitution that no man but a madman has ever yet undertaken to hazard the opinion that Congress had anything to do with it, and while it was confined to the States the party of abolitionists were such as I have described, fanatical, ridiculous, harmless.

But, sir, when we began to acquire territory, when we began to settle new territory, as to which the question had not been adjusted, when we got beyond the healing influence of that beneficent measure, the Missouri Compromise, and the great doubtful territorial question began to come up, then the dogs of politicians got to fighting for the scraps that were to be gathered even at the humble tables of abolition leaders, and then wielding abolition as a balance of power, operating here and there, they have succeeded in getting advantages which to a superficial observer might give a false impression as to the condition of the North upon that subject.

But, sir, it stands out that while the attempt was to be made to interfere with slavery where it existed, Abolitionism was a miserable, contemptible failure. And now Black Republicanism has only gotten a respectable number of supporters by backing down from all the fierce claims of the Abolition party. In old times the political Abolitionists.Page187 always claimed to repeal the fugitive slave law—to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the United States dock yards, &c—to interfere with the slave trade between the States, and ultimately to extinguish slavery in the States by amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Black Republicanism had to give up all of them and to take its stand upon the naked isolated question of restricting slavery from going into the Territories of the United States, and until it took that comparatively abstract position it never could succeed in getting the support of the Northern people. I refer to this to show that it is at least doubtful whether we have a right to attribute to the Northern people as a mass a purpose, or desire or disposition, in any way whatever to interfere with slavery where it exists. I know, sir, that by even stating facts as they exist before us, I render myself liable to the imputation of taking sides with Black Republicans, of defending Black Republicanism; but, sir, I tell you it is the part of wisdom to know where to find your adversary, and he is not a true friend who conceals from you the position of the enemy from whom you are expecting an assault. I feel bound to express my opinion on this subject, and I don't believe there is that feeling among the people of the North, that fanatical feeling, that is spoken of on this floor. Why, we have been told that this feeling is so violent that if it had existed between neighboring nations of different governments, it would have long since brought on a war. Well, it might be said, in passing, that it is one small recommendation of the united Government under which we have lived, that we have been saved from war which we would have had if we had been two nations. I think that may be fairly claimed as one of the small and incidental benefits of the Union.

But we are told that this fanatical feeling is so strong and that it is so blind that it will sacrifice all other interests to accomplish its designs. It is admitted that the interests of the Northern people are bound up in this Union, and that its destruction will be a heavy blow to all their industrial and material interests; they are said to be keen sighted and intelligent people in regard to matters affecting their interest, but we are told we have no means of access to them; that they don't read our newspapers, don't hear our speakers, and that there is no way to reach them.

But shift the scene. Dissolve the Union, take us into the Southern Confederacy, and when we come to discuss the question of the peace of the border, then, very unexpectedly, the people on the other side of the border suddenly become far-sighted, active observers, and we are assured, that, for the sake of the interest of commerce, they will consent.Page188 to do us justice. Forthwith they are expected to change their course, to abandon fanaticism, and to overwhelm us with concessions. If I thought that a dissolution of the Union—that the disruption of this Government, would restore all the people of the North and South to a just perception and consciousness of their true interests, I don't know but I would consent to it upon an experiment. But, sir, what right have we to suppose that the peace of the border will be maintained between fanatical people on one side, and the objects of their fanatical hate on the other, where there is no obligation of common Government, and no community, whatever, of rights, duties or responsibilities?

But it is said the reason they are assailing us is, that they feel somewhat responsible for the institution of slavery. Ah? Why, sir, it is a recognized fact that they don't feel responsible for it in the States. They might feel responsible for it, if they should get the power to amend the Constitution. But if we get them to agree, that, under no circumstances shall they have power over it, it would deprive them of the sense of responsibility as completely as if we were two countries, like England and France.

I do not wish to interrupt the course of the gentleman's argument, but I wish to say, in reference to a remark of mine which he seems to have misunderstood, that it was not intended to apply to the Northern people. In my description of the English peasant, I referred to him as being blank and stolid and indifferent, because he didn't have a vote, and I did not have reference to the Northern free laborer. I made the allusion in reference to no similar class of people in our own country; and, as I cannot have a chance, for some time, to have a reply to the gentleman—which I hope I will have—I wish to correct that misapprehension now.

I did not misapprehend the gentleman's remark. I had no reference to that. I understand his remarks about the English peasantry, about the English laboring people. I used, I believe inadvertently, a word which he applied to that subject as my interpretation of what he had said in regard to the difficulty of getting at the Northern mind. He certainly represented that it was impossible to get at the Northern people, because they do not read our newspapers, and do not hear our speeches. I was undertaking to make no assault upon the gentleman, because he expressed that opinion, but was merely remarking with what facility the Northern people in his estimation will change their character by our simply separating from them and going South. In the one case, they are inaccessible to argument, to the dictates of justice, reason or common sense, and in the other, at once .Page189 illuminated as with a flood of light, they come to a precipitation of our just relations. It was in that point of view that I was referring to the gentleman.

I must be allowed a moment's explanation, for the gentleman evidently misunderstood my argument, and it is but justice to him as well as myself, that I should correct him. My statement was, that the prejudices of the Northern people upon the subject of slavery, prejudices which I believe existed in the minds of the great masses of the Northern people, made them both advocates and witnesses in reference to the facts of slavery; that there were no journals and no orators whom they now heard or whom they would hear, that would correct their opinions and views upon the subject of slavery. But that in reference to their own interest, whether there should be war upon the border, or whether there should be peace between the North and South, they would certainly have information from their own journals; and my position was, that even their journals would take conservative ground towards the Southern people, although not pro-slavery ground.

Well, sir, in the present condition of things, what constitutes the difficulty about their perceiving what is justice to us ; and how is that difficulty to be removed by the fact of our going South? I am at a loss to understand how that will have any influence upon the question, yet the gentleman evidently thinks that in some mysterious way, if we go South we shall get justice from those who are now inaccessible to all appeals for justice.

We shall then have our own Government.

Yes, sir, we will have our own Government, but that will not govern fanatics, who, if I understand what fanaticism is, act upon the impulses of blind rage without regard to any considerations of prudence or government either. That is the history of Exeter Hall. It does not stop to inquire whether its conscience ought to be troubled about slavery or not. It does not stop to inquire about any thing, but rushes on with reckless violence, to its fanatical ends. Sir, Exeter Hall has been the fountain head from which have come all the streams of fanaticism in this country. So far as anti-slavery, so far as Black Republicanism is a fanatical element at all, it is a direct flow from Exeter Hall.

But, sir, in looking at the condition of the public mind in regard to the probability of our making any bargain, no observer can fail to take notice of the fact that the question of slavery has been made the tool of politicians North and South. No one can fail to take cognizance of the fact that it has been used by gambling politicians, of both sections,.Page190 as a counter in the miserable game of politics. No one can doubt it; it is a fact that stands out in the history of the country, and when the responsibility comes to be measured out in the last day of great accounting there will be a fearful reckoning for the politicians of both the North and the South, for the manner in which they have stirred up the worst passions of our people, North and South, for the purpose of gratifying their insane desires for office and for plunder.

It is true; we cannot deny it. Aye, sir, and another thing is true as has been avowed by some of the politicians of our sister States, which have seceded. It has been avowed in their Conventions that the slavery question had no interest for them, that their quarrel was of thirty years standing, and upon another ground; and that as far as they had engaged in the slavery agitation it was a mere pretext of assault, with a view of overturning, by our sympathy and our assistance, institutions which were distasteful to them upon wholly independent grounds. Sir, it suggests disagreeable reflections in looking back to the history of the positions the South has taken in regard to the slavery question when we are compelled to ask whether those who seemed to be co-operating with us to secure the peace and harmony of the country and the rights of the South, have not rather been engaged in exaggerating difficulties and inflaming passions than fairly endeavoring to settle and heal the strife? It is a most melancholy subject for reflection when we come to think of their co-operation with us in the past.

But, sir, although it may be the opinion of the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , and those who belong to the particular school of politics that claims him as among its brightest ornaments, that there can be no contract between us and the people of the North, such has not been the opinion of Virginia, such is not now her opinion, for her General Assembly last winter, by a large and overwhelming vote declared in favor of inaugurating a new contract of constitutional amendments between the people of Virginia and the people of the North. Aye, sir, and not only that, but they laid down a chart of Constitutional amendments, as would in their judgment, be satisfactory to the people of Virginia. And when the election was held for members of this body, if I am correctly informed, a very large majority of the members, now upon this floor, declared to their constituents when candidates for election, that they would be satisfied with the adoption of the plan suggested. Then, sir, it is not true now, that it is the voice of Virginia that no bargain ought to be made and that no bargain can be made with the North. Sir, I cannot and I will not believe that we cannot bargain with these people. On the contrary, I am strongly convinced .Page191 that in both the North and the South, the great masses of the people, leaving out the politicians and fanatics of both sections, have this day an earnest yearning for each other, and for peace and union with each other. I verily believe that to be the sentiment of the people of this country, both North and South; and, for one, I will never be satisfied to see this government, which has shielded and protected us so long, overthrown. I will never consent to any plan of dismemberment of it, which does not involve, as a necessary condition, that there shall be a direct appeal to the people, North and South, to know of each other, face to face, in the exercise of the highest franchise of a free people, at the polls, whether it has come to this, that a people united by so many historic associations, by so many ties of substantial interest, by so many bright and glorious hopes, must part? whether it has come to be understood by the people of the North and the South that the hour of necessary and angry separation has in fact come? Until it has been so declared by the people themselves at the polls, I will never, no never consent to give up this blessed government of ours.

But we are told that if we make any bargain with them, it must be a kind of contract new to this country; it must be a bargain in which, by some mysterious process, we are to correct a great mistake that has been made. In old times, we used to be in a majority, and as the majority, we had certain substantial benefits, certain very comfortable enjoyments. But, in the process of time, in the progress of affairs; in a course of business of which I do not complain, in the course of the tide of emigration which I do not object to, the people of the North, of the free States, have secured a majority. I do not envy them the means, I do not envy them the employments, or the prosperity by which they have come to be the majority. I prefer the position of the South, industrially and socially, both, to the position of the North. But it has so happened that the South has come to be in a minority; and now we are to undergo some curious transformation under what is called a contract or guaranty of power by which this minority is to be converted into a working majority of this Government. "Let us have a guaranty of power." I have heard of guaranties of power. There is no doubt that it is admissible as a principle in government that as a means of protection and defence there should be, within certain limits, guaranties of power in the hands of minorities, or of interests, likely to be injuriously affected. There is no doubt of that. We have an instance of it in the propositions of the Peace Conference, and we have an instance of it in the propositions reported to this Convention by the Committee on Federal Relations. I recognize it as a proper principle in that case.

But I protest that it never can be a true, that it never can be a wise policy to undertake to place the government of this country or of any State in this country, or of any community in any State, in the administrative hands of a minority. It cannot be right, sir; we are as yet a popular government. I have never been suspected, I believe, of any overweening admiration of what are called the popular features of our government. I have never been a Democrat in any party sense, but, I am a republican, thorough-going; and, I believe, that our system of government has but one foundation on which it can rest safely, and that is the virtue and intelligence of the people; that it has but one administrative body that it can trust with safety, and that is the body of the majority of the people. To what extent, or in what form the people shall participate in the administration of their affairs is a question of wise expediency, depending upon circumstances that admit of no general discussion. But, sir, the principle underlies all our institutions, that it is a government of the majority of the people, and, whenever it is understood that it is to rest upon any other foundation, it will topple and fall to pieces from its own weight. Sir, we build upon that foundation. Other foundation has not been laid in this country. It is founded upon confidence that our people have sense enough to make a bargain, and integrity enough to keep a bargain. The Constitution recognizes the propriety of a distribution of power among various departments of administration, for the purpose of securing the matured and deliberate judgment of the people. But, sir, it never has been, and never will be, admitted to be sound, that the governmental administration of this country should be confided to the hands of a minority of the people.

I do not know that I understand exactly the principle which is sought to be established by the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HoLcomBE] . I understood that the advocates of this principle of the guarantee of power relied upon it entirely as a defensive measure, and that it was never proposed by them that it should be any thing more than a veto for the protection of the minority section; but the gentleman from Albemarle, as I understood him, developed the idea in a new form; he declared that the South must have guaranteed and placed in her own hands the power of expansion—that the minority must, by some means as yet unexplained, have the power to acquire territory, and to expand the institutions of the South into it. I do not understand how that is to be accomplished. It seems to be a departure from what I always understood to be the principles of the guarantee of power.

The true principle, as it seems to me, is that while the working of the .Page193 Government shall be entrusted to the majority in all of its ordinary administration, there should be located at proper points in the system checks or vetoes by which the minority should be enabled to secure itself against organic changes in prejudice of its rights.

This principle is recognized in the plan of the Peace Conference and in the report of the Committee, in the section which provides for the acquisition of new territory. There is a guarantee of power which secures to the South that when we make a new bargain, when we bring in a new subject of Government, each party will have a veto upon the other, the minority section upon the majority section, and thus each be able to secure for itself fair and equal terms. To that extent I favor it. Beyond that I think it mischievous.

The opinion of Virginia has been declared upon this subject very recently and very distinctly. By her General Assembly and by the votes of her people in the recent election it has been declared beyond dispute that the Crittenden propositions, as amended by the General Assembly, would be satisfactory to the people of Virginia.

Here we have a declaration, not only that Virginia is willing to bargain with the people of the North, but that she does not regard as essential to the contract that there shall be any resort to the extraordinary expedients of guaranties of power, and as have been suggested by the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] .

It being the sentiment of Virginia then that we shall bargain for amendments of the Constitution upon the old principle of trusting to the plighted faith of the American people, let us inquire where we now stand in the effort made by Virginia for the settlement of these difficulties.

Sir, I referred, the other day, to the proud attitude occupied by Virginia at this time, in her effort to settle these distracting and disturbing questions; in her effort to rise above the passions and the excitement of the moment, and to address herself, in a spirit of calm, patriotic statesmanship, to the work of pacification, and the re-construction of this government. It is a position, sir, in which I am proud to think of her, proud to speak of her, proud to serve her. She undertook to settle this matter, and in her effort for that purpose, made through her Legislature, she declared that, believing that unless this controvers), could be settled in the spirit in which the Constitution was formed, the dissolution of this Union was inevitable, and wishing earnestly to bring about such a settlement, Virginia desired a conference of States by commissioners, to meet in the city of Washington. I do not know in what spirit they came there, but I know that they were invited to come in the spirit in .Page194 which the Constitution was formed. I take it that they supposed, in accepting the invitation, that they were coming in that spirit.

That Conference assembled. I don't know much about its composition, but I undertake to say, that, looking to the character of the delegation sent from Virginia, and what I have heard of the delegations from other States, I am satisfied that this was one of the most august assemblages ever convened in this country. It represented States North and States South, two Northern to one Southern; and, what is worthy of note about it, is that all the Northern Representatives were appointed in States under the dominion of the Republican party. They were representative men of the Republican party, brought together in that Conference; and I take it that they were as true a representative body as could be gotten from the politicians of the party. I believe, sir, that if we were to go down to the depths below the upper crust of the political leaders, and appeal to the people to send true representatives of their will and sentiments, we should get a better and a more favorable body. But, sir, these representatives came, such as they were; they were in session for a fortnight or three weeks; they gave us the result of their labors and suggested a plan of constitutional amendments, to which I propose to ask the attention of the Committee, not because it is likely to be presented here—yes, I am reminded that it has been presented by the gentleman from Harrison and is now under consideration—but, sir, I propose to ask the consideration of the Committee to that plan in another point of view.

It has been assailed in several ways. In the first place it is said that it contains nothing valuable. In the next place it is assailed by saying that what it contains of value has been fraudulently inserted under double meaning language for the purpose of deceiving us. It is also assailed on the ground that whatever may be its merits, it has failed; and I have heard of persons who have thought it necessary to change their politics because they thought the Peace Conference another failure.

Sir, has it failed? In what has it failed? It has been said to have failed because the Congress of the United States refused to refer it to the action of the States. Ah, is that the failure? Why, who expected them to do any thing else? With a Congress in which, by the defection that I have already mentioned on the part of the Southern States, the republican party is largely in the ascendant, and with but three days in which to consider the subject and act upon it, what could you expect? Sir, I never expected them to give a two-thirds vote in favor of any plan of pacification, especially in so short a time, and .Page195 if I had expected it, I would not have been much disappointed when I looked at the circumstances which surrounded them.

Sir, it has been frequently said, and said with great truth, that there is a kinship between extremes of opinion and of party. I have already referred to the rejoicing in Charleston over the election of Lincoln—answering back to the rejoicing in the North over the same result. We all remember the fact that in the South Carolina Convention the fugitive slave law was denounced as being unconstitutional, as it has been denounced in the North for years past. But when pacification becomes the order of the day, when the plan of pacification, inaugurated by Virginia, is, by her authority, communicated to the Congress of the United States, we see there the kinship of extremes; we see, when it was propounded in the Senate of the United States, that it was resisted by the combined efforts of William H. Seward and R. M. T. Hunter—both of them co-operating in their resistance and refusing to submit it to the States. And, sir, one other Senator, Mr. Mason, co-operated in this resistance; and then we had brought on the wings of the wind—faster than the wind—we had it brought on the precipitating telegraph, that the Senators from Virginia and the Black Republican Senators from Illinois and New York had refused to let us have a chance at the "Peace Conference" settlement. The denunciations in regard to the conduct of Mr. Seward and Mr. Trumbull would have been more impressive if they had been dealt out with a little more impartiality to Mr. Hunter and Mr. Mason, who concurred in the vote. I think we will hardly make the refusal to submit the plea to us, a cause of fresh complaint against the North until we have settled with our own Senators. I think, as a necessary preliminary, we should settle our little matters at home before we make the action of the Senate upon this proposition the foundation of assault upon Black Republican Senators.

But I was considering whether this "Peace Conference" proposition failed. I say it has not failed. It has never yet had a fair chance; and I verily believe, and I expressed that belief in a resolution which I have offered for the adoption of the Committee—that if this Convention of Virginia had accepted the recommendation of the "Peace Conference," and sent it to the country with our endorsement upon it as a satisfactory adjustment—before this time you would have had the Union men of the country, North and South, East and West, rallying with one voice in favor of it as the great measure of pacification, which was to restore harmony and concord throughout the land. I believe this, sir; but in that opinion I am overruled by men in whose judgment.Page196 I have high confidence. I desire to carry on the work of pacification, and, so far as any action of mine is concerned, I would promote any policy looking to a union of all Union men for that great work. I have concurred in the report of the majority of the Committee which I thought unnecessary, but which I think, as it is made, is a decided improvement upon the Peace Conference proposition in this, that it stops the mouths of objectors who have been cavilling about this "Peace Conference" proposition, and who have been exhibiting an ingenuity of criticism which seemed to me wholly unnecessary, and which, I think, does not tend towards the great end either of substantial right or of harmony.

Let us look at that proposition. I maintain that it is an offer of justice to the South, and that having been obtained from a representative body, such as I have described, we might fairly expect and confidently hope that before any fair representative body of the Republican party of the country, we might be able to obtain its equivalent. There is one circumstance which I ought to mention here in confirmation of what I have already said in regard to the dismemberment of the Government by the withdrawal of the Southern States. We will feel the effect of that withdrawal very deeply in such an event as I have alluded to, because, in a proposition to submit this matter to the ratification of the States, we would be materially helped by the voice of these sister States. In any constitutional amendment hereafter to be made, and in the count of three-fourths necessary to the ratification of any amendment we shall sorely miss the co-operative aid of these seven seceding States. Let us now look at this Peace Conference proposition.

I undertake to say in regard to it, that there is no grievance which has been suffered already by the South in the past, and none which she is to apprehend on the subject of slavery, and which is susceptible of being corrected by a constitutional provision that is not covered by this Peace Conference proposition.

Sir, I repeat the assertion, and I know it is a broad one, that there is no injury, no grievance, no assault which the South has incurred in the past on the subject of slavery, or which she apprehends in the future, that is not completely covered and provided against by this proposition of the Peace Conference.

Let us look at the provision of this proposition. In the first place, I maintain that it is not only true, that this proposition answers all our grievances and all our apprehensions, but that it answers them better, more thoroughly and conclusively than the Crittenden plan, which .Page197 was propounded by the Legislature of Virginia, and which has been approved by the people of the State. I undertake to say, therefore, that although we do not get the Crittenden proposition from the Peace Conference, we get that which is better and stronger, and more efficacious for the South, ten times over, and I think I shall be able to demonstrate that not only is it better than the Crittenden proposition, but that it is sufficient for all the purposes of our complete protection. Let us see. The first section of the Crittenden proposition and the first section of the Peace Conference plan refer altogether to the Territorial question. In regard to this Territorial question, I must be allowed to say that I have never been able to understand upon what principle of the relative value of things it has loomed up into the importance which seems to be attached to it in all parts of the country. I have not been able to see upon what principle it is that the people of this mighty nation, this mighty State of States, have been wrought up to the extreme of passion, sectional strife, bitterness and hate about this Territorial question. Why? Is it not a matter perfectly familiar to every member of this Convention, that in regard to the present Territories of the United States, we have not one foot of Territory that is fit for the employment of slave labor? Is it not a matter perfectly notorious and known to every beginner in Geography and politics, that we have not any Territory of the United States this day into which any sane man, as an investment of his money, as an employment of his labor, would carry slaves for private advantage? It is true that in the Territory of New Mexico the officers of the army stationed there have carried along with them as members of their families their body servants and their house servants; and owing to this fact there are, perhaps, fifteen to twenty, and perhaps twenty-five slaves in that Territory. Although that Territory has been opened for settlement without any prohibition for the last ten years under a Territorial Government, yet there have never been found more than twenty-five slaves there in all that time. I believe it is conceded by men of all shades of political opinion that that territory is wholly unfit for slave labor. I understand it is thought by some that there will be silver and quicksilver mining carried on in some portions of that territory in which slaves might possibly be employed to advantage; but, I suppose, in a country where Mexican peons are to be had almost for the asking, it will hardly pay to transport negroes worth a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars for the purpose of working their silver or quicksilver mines. That is not the sort of labor for which slaves are adapted ; and I believe it is the unanimous judgment of the country, so far as New .Page198 Mexico is concerned, slavery can never go there. They have had for two or three years past in that territory a code protecting slavery, and authorizing it to be brought there, yet no one has thought of carrying it there. That is partly owing to the fact, there is an unsuitableness in the Territory for that sort of labor; but it is also owing to the other important fact, that we have no surplus of slaves to spare to settle a new territory, even if we have the territory to settle. What is all this clamor in the South about the re-opening of the African slave trade? What means the fact that African slavers have landed cargoes of slaves in Southern ports and sold them in open market? Has the Government been able to bring to justice any offenders against the laws? What means it that mobs in cities have broken down every barrier of law and have wrested from the officers persons in custody charged with being concerned in the African slave trade? What means all this? It means neither more nor less than this—and the fact is admitted and apparent in the South—that there is a deficiency of slave labor in the South; that their great, pressing necessity at this day, is the want of slaves enough to cultivate their great staple crops. We feel this in the drain made upon us; and the great demand for slaves is constantly striking off the list of slaveholders, one after another, the small slave-holder, whose necessity or cupidity is stronger than his appreciation of the institution of slavery. You cannot feel in Eastern Virginia, in the heart of the slaveholding region, that drain as much as we do in the county from whence I came, which is a slave-holding, slave-buying community, and where they are anxious to purchase and obtain slaves, and to extend the institution in their midst. We feel sensibly this check upon our wishes, growing out of the fact that the staple crops of the South demand more labor. This drain from us is constantly going on; and it is owing to that fact, more than to any other, I presume, that the distinguished gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] anticipates that Missouri, Maryland and Kentucky will eventually become free States.

I take it that these two propositions are incontrovertible, that we have not the territory to take the slaves into; and, if we had, that we have not the negroes to take there. If that is true, what are we to think of shaking to the foundations this Government of ours, with all its great proprietary and industrial interests? What are we to think of the infatuation, madness and fanaticism that are seeking to overthrow such a Government as this, and to imperil and destroy the rights and interests of millions of freemen, North and South, upon an issue like this? I suppose if the question had never been raised, if the South had .Page199 never made the point, there is hardly a man in the South now who would not say, that it is a point not worth making. If we had never asserted the right; if we never had locked arms, as it were, upon the argument of the right, I suppose everybody would say it was more for peace, more for good sense, more for correct statesmanship, more for the interests of all concerned, that this miserable, poor territory should be settled by whoever choose to go and live in that remote region.

But the point has been made; and what is it? It is that the South has a right to go into all the territories with her property, and have protection for that property. What is the other side? It is that the North has a right to prohibit them from going there with their property; that she has the right, and henceforth having the power, she intends to exercise both the right and the power to exclude the South from the territories. The South claims them all for her civilization and her institutions; the North claims them all for her civilization and her institutions, and thus we have, what seems to me, to be a very absurd quarrel between fifteen slave States and eighteen free States, the extreme pretensions being set up on the part of each to exclude the other altogether from any participation in the common territories. It seems to me that that is about the state of the case. How was this question settled by our fathers years ago? It was done upon principles, I maintain, of common sense. Here is a man, for instance, in the county of Augusta, who owns, perhaps, half a dozen negroes and a tract of land worth $50 per acre. He thinks his land is too high priced, and that it would be better for him to sell out there and go to some of the territories in the West, where he could enter land and get a large domain, upon which he could raise his negroes and provide for his family. He accordingly removes to a new territory. A citizen of Pennsylvania, who has a large family of sons, but no slaves, and who is the owner of a valuable and expensive farm, worth $100 per acre, also desires to emigrate to some new territory of the West, where he can buy with the proceeds arising from the sale of his farm, a large tract of cheap land, upon which he can raise his family and accustom them to habits of industry. He has no fanatical feeling on the subject of slavery, but having, at one time, been among slaveholders, he entertains the idea, with no disposition, however, to interfere with any one else, that the interests of his sons would be promoted by going with them into a territory where there were no slaves. He thinks that the war waged against slavery is wrong, but he has the idea that the prevalence of slave labor in a community renders manual labor less respectable, and, therefore, if he should raise his sons in a slaveholding community .Page200 that he will do them an injury. He starts for the West then, about the same time with the man from Augusta, but having less property to carry along, he gets out there first and enters his land. By and by, the man from Augusta, with his whole brood of young negroes, comes along, and, perhaps, to settle side by side with this Pennsylvania farmer.

Well, now will any one deny, will any slaveholder deny, that it is as much a right of the Pennsylvania man to object as a matter of interest for his children to raise them in the company and in the immediate observation of that brood of young negroes from Virginia, as it is the right of this Virginian to move his negroes there and enjoy the benefits of a new country? And yet both cannot be done. The only practical and feasible way is for them to divide the territory and say to one kind of civilization, "Here, this is suitable for you and yours, settle here," and to another kind of civilization, "This is suitable for you and yours, settle here, and let there be no strife." Is not that the suggestion of common sense? Is not that the suggestion of common prudence? of common right?

Our fathers in 1820, when this question was adjusted, settled it upon principles; they undertook to divide the Territory by the line of 36 deg. 30 min., and I think they did right. But it is said it was unconstitutional, and that the Supreme Court have decided it to be so. I am not so sure about that, but I am disposed to acquiesce in whatever they did decide. I have no disposition to quarrel with them, especially upon a subject of that sort. But I should like to know if the signs of the times are not now a little propitious for returning to the ancient principles of our fathers upon that subject? The first plan of adjustment which has been suggested, has as its first principle, as its first term of reconciliation, the restoration of the ancient Missouri Compromise line of peace. The other plan of adjustment includes the same provision—and I take it as a happy omen, that all the plans which have been proposed on this subject, look to the restoration of this same great line of peace, 36 deg. 30 min. If we go back to it, we go back forty years. Does it not give us reason to be encouraged? does it not give us reason to hope that we may be able to get back to the spirit that animated its authors? that we may yet be able to retrace the forty years that we have been wandering—the forty years of strife and bickering, the forty years of sectional jarring and discord, and that we may go back to the days of Monroe, to the era of good feeling, and take up anew, not merely the language of compromise and adjustment, but take in the ancient Virginia school, the spirit of compromise, the .Page201 spirit of settlement, the spirit characterized by our General Assembly as that in which the Constitution was formed? [Here Mr. BALDWIN gave way to a motion that the Committee rise.] Without concluding, the committee rose, and

The Convention adjourned.

1.6.1. HOUR OF MEETING

With the permission of the gentleman from Marion, who is entitled to the floor, on the suggestion of several gentlemen I desire to offer a resolution which has for its object the acceleration somewhat of the movement of the business of this Convention. I ask for the adoption of the following resolution, changing the standing hour of meeting.

Resolved, That on and after Monday next, until further ordered, this Convention shall be called to order at 10 o'clock, A. M., that at half past ten it shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole upon the reports of the Committee on Federal Relations, and at 2 o'clock the said Committee of the Whole shall take a recess until four, when it shall resume its session.

That is a resolution which ought not to be debated. I call the previous question upon it.

The previous question was ordered, and the main question ordered to be put.

The resolution was then adopted.

1.6.2. THE QUESTION OF TAXATION

The Convention then resumed the consideration of the resolution offered by Mr. WILLEY of Monongalia.

On yesterday morning I attempted to offer some considerations to the Convention upon the question presented in the resolutions submitted by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] . I remarked that I had been pained to see what I could not fail to consider an attempt made to hold this question in suspense over us; that no action was to be taken upon this question, but that it was to be left open with a view, as suggested upon this floor and elsewhere, to be used as a lever to influence our action upon this floor in reference to other matters before this body. I wish, in response to the remarks of the gentleman from Lynchburg [Mr. SLAUGHTER] , made in a spirit to which I cordially respond, to notice one or two of the suggestions presented by him as a reason why we .Page203 should not now agitate this question before this body. He tells us it is important that we should stand shoulder to shoulder, that we should be united, that it shall not go to the world that there is dissension in this body or in the State of Virginia.

Sir, I recognize and realize the force of that suggestion, but I ask the gentleman now, how that is to be done? I ask him when one portion of the people of this Commonwealth are borne down by a system of taxation which they deem to be unjust and improper, if he can expect merely by stilling the voice of remonstrance in this body, he can thus succeed in stilling that voice throughout this land? No sir. You may control that voice here, but you cannot control it outside, unless you give the people outside some reason or some foundation for a reason to believe that they should remain silent.

The gentleman suggested that when once we had disposed of the more important questions before us, the questions growing out of our federal relations—if we are successful in settling these matters, we will be so jubilant that there will be no necessity for agitation, but we shall have cheerfully yielded to us all we want upon the subject of taxation. Sir, if gentlemen intend to give us that, why not do it now? They certainly will not give it to us unless they recognize that it is our right to have it. I venture to say that they will not be so jubilant as to accord to us privileges it is not our right to ask. But if they propose to give it to us at all, why not now?

Another gentleman suggests that if we dissolve our connexion with the Federal Government they will be ready to give us all we want upon the question of taxation. In either event the promise only applies to some future time. Now, sir, I ask and repeat the question, if it is true, that if a large portion of the people of this Commonwealth are laboring under an unjust and oppressive system of taxation, when there is not a man in this body whom I have seen that does not admit the justice and propriety of the change we propose, what reason is there why the change should not be made now? But, it is urged again that the consideration of this question should be postponed to an adjourned session of the Convention.

Well, sir, right upon that, the gentleman from Preston [Mr. BROWN] , proposed a resolution to appoint a Committee upon the various questions affecting our State, to report to an adjourned meeting; and the party who makes the suggestion that we could take up the question at that time, says that the resolution of the gentleman from Preston would raise the whole question, and, therefore, ought not to be considered.

I understand, however, that the gentleman who made that suggestion, .Page204 is not now in his seat. But I was merely referring to the matter as indicative of the feeling which prevails on that side of the House.

The resolution of the gentleman from Preston [Mr. BROWN] , is not before the House.

I am aware of that, sir, and I do not intend to discuss it.

Sir, I deem it very important that a Committee should be appointed now, upon the various questions relating to our State interests. This course does not contemplate any final action upon the subject which may be considered by that committee. We know that there is a strong desire in every part of the State, as remarked by my colleague [Mr. HAYMOND] , that this question of taxation should be settled, because it is one that is weighing heavily upon our people. There are other questions to which my colleague referred, in reference to which it is desirable that action should be taken. If that be so, why not appoint a Committee now, to whom these questions should be referred ; and if we are not ready to pass upon them now, the Committee can, during the recess, consider them, and 'come back with their minds made up as to the policy they may suggest. True the members of that Committee, if it should be raised, may not have an opportunity to consider the questions together; but they can do so each for himself, and when they come to act in union, they will have little difficulty in coming to a decision inasmuch as they have fully considered the subjects upon which they are to report.

There seems, sir, to be an indisposition to consider these questions at all. I do not think it will be denied that this indisposition proceeds solely from an objection to change the present system of taxation. Suppose this committee is appointed, what will be the effect of it? It will merely go to show that a disposition exists to consider these questions in the future. That is asking as little as a people could ask. What objection can there be to take this course? There can be none, sir, and we shall regard a refusal to appoint this committee as equivalent to discarding our claims to be heard upon a matter of vital interest to us. I agree, sir, that we ought to dispose of the other matter now under consideration first. I came here instructed to go in for a settlement of all federal questions before proceeding to act upon other subjects.1Mr. Hall corrected this statement in the Proceedings of March 25, page 249, and again in the Proceedings of March 26, pages 341-342. I told my people that I should first see that these subjects were settled before any merely State affairs should be taken up, and they desired me to express that purpose. They maintain their rights to equality within as well as without the State, with everybody in this Commonwealth. If this Convention will but indicate a disposition to consider the subjects referred to in the resolutions .Page205 of the gentleman from Monongalia, harmony will be promoted. Our people will be prepared to stand by the interests of all sections, and to maintain their rights. But if this question is left unconsidered, at least to the extent of appointing a committee, you will engender ill feeling towards the institution, which will be held as the source of all our difficulties, and of the unjust and unequal burthens now complained of. In this connection let me remark, that it seems to be supposed—in fact, it is said—that there are too many freesoilers in the Western part of this State. I deny it, sir. The people of that section are as loyal to the institution of slavery as any in the Commonwealth, and they are true, sir, without any motive save that of principle. I maintain, sir, that we are the best pro-slavery men in the State of Virginia. I believe that, and I want that this state of things shall not be changed. I trust, sir, that there will be some speedy and satisfactory settlement of our present difficulties, so that we may have the benefits of this institution of slavery. We desire an opportunity to own slaves, and that can be afforded us by giving it due protection amongst us. We have suffered much more than this part of the State for want of proper protection for slavery, and we are looking forward to the time when we shall be protected in the enjoyment of that institution. I want this Convention to do nothing that will alienate this people from that institution, and, I fear, if this question is wholly discarded, as seems to be the disposition here, that ill-feeling in regard to it will grow up. It is a source of considerable expense to the people of all sections, and it should certainly be made subject to an equal proportion of these expenses. When any institution is placed upon a people to oppress them, the result must be to excite hostility to it.

I don't desire, sir, to enter into any argument upon this question now. The gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , who submitted the resolutions now under consideration, was anxious to be afforded an opportunity to address the Convention upon them. Since that opportunity has not been afforded, it is not for me to undertake to speak at any length upon them. I have deemed it necessary to say thus much, and I will now conclude with the expression of a hope that it will be the pleasure of the Convention to appoint the committee, that they may consider this question fully, and report to the adjourned meeting of this body.2See note 1, above.

I ask leave, sir, in obedience to the request of the people of my county, to lay before the Convention the proceedings of a meeting held in my county.

It can only be done by general consent. The time for the Convention to go into Committee of the Whole has arrived.

Leave was given, whereupon Mr. BOISSEAU submitted the proceedings referred to as follows :

I will state, sir, that at the time of the election, there was a very large majority in the county of Dinwiddie against secession.3Mr. Boisseau corrected this statement in the Proceedings of March 25, pages 249-250. I may say now that that county is now almost unanimous in favor of secession. The people of my county have sons, brothers, relations and friends in the Confederated States South—persons who have left us in the pursuit of their fortunes, and who have been taken by the hand by the people of the South. They have amassed wealth, and achieved honor and distinction among the people with whom their lot has been cast; and the people of Dinwiddie will never consent to be placed in any attitude of hostility to them. Their sympathies are with those whom they regard as their friends, and they have no sympathies with those whom they regard as their enemies. I move that the proceedings be referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

1.6.3. PROCEEDINGS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN GREENE COUNTY

At the risk of being troublesome to some of the members of this Convention, I wish to submit the proceedings of a .Page208 meeting of the people of the county of Greene, at their last Court day, at which they adopted the following resolutions :

1. Resolved, That when the people complain their rulers should listen.

2. Resolved, That this crisis to us is no "artificial one." "We are all hurt."

3. Resolved, That the action of the late Peace Conference offers us no relief.

4. Resolved, That we, disdaining to accept the partial terms of the Franklin substitute as a satisfactory remedy to our wrongs, are still in favor of immediate secession as the best means to secure the honor and safety, not only of Virginia, but of the whole South.

5. Resolved, That the threats of coercion in the recent inaugural strike no terror into the hearts of freemen, and that we are unalterably opposed to the exaction of tribute from an unwilling people.

In a communication accompanying these resolutions, I am informed that in the noble county of Greene there are but four men who are at this time in favor of a union with the Northern States, or the Union as it now exists; that they are almost unanimously in favor of immediate secession.

1.6.4. TAXATION QUESTION

I desire to submit a few remarks upon the question which is now before the Convention, but as the hour has now arrived for going into Committee of the Whole, I now move that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole.

With the consent of the gentleman from Jackson, I will send up the following resolution which I desire to offer as a substitute for the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

The resolution was then read by the Secretary, as follows:

"Resolved, That the consideration of any reforms in the State Constitution, including the subject of taxation, should be postponed until the subject of our Federal Relations shall have been acted upon by the Convention, and then should be taken up and disposed of so far as reforms may then be deemed proper."

The resolution was laid on the table.

1.6.5. PROCEEDINGS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY

I beg leave to submit to the Convention, with the view of having them referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, the following resolutions and proceedings of a meeting of a portion of .Page209 the citizens of Spotsylvania, which I ask to have read and then referred.

The proceedings were then read by the Secretary, as follows, and then referred to the Committee on Federal Relations:

ADDRESSES OF COMMISSIONERS

With the consent of the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] , I desire to offer the following resolution. It is a mere resolution of inquiry, and will give rise to no debate:

Resolved, That the Clerk of the Convention inquire into and report why the speeches of the Commissioners from South Carolina, Georgia and Mississippi, have not been printed, as ordered by the Convention.

The resolution was agreed to.

1.6.6. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The Committee, in pursuance of its standing order, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the pending question being the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. CARLILE, upon which Mr. BALDWIN, of Augusta, was entitled to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I feel, I assure you, most profoundly impressed by the marked kindness which has been shown me thus far by the members of this Convention, and by those who have been attending upon its deliberations, in the attention which they have bestowed upon what I have had to say. I feel, sir, that I am a trespasser upon this kindness and this patience; but, having undertaken to represent upon this floor, the earnest convictions which I entertain, and in which I believe I represent the wishes and the will of my people, I feel bound to proceed, according to my best judgment, to the conclusion of this discussion. I cannot, sir, under these circumstances, undertake any elaborate recapitulation. I think once listening to my views is enough, in all conscience, to ask of any audience. I shall proceed, therefore, to consider the Territorial question in which I was engaged at the time of the adjournment yesterday.

We have already seen, sir, I think, in regard to the Territories of the United States, that the question of extending slavery into them is one purely abstract, that they are not adapted to slave labor, and that no sane man, having a regard to the prudent investment of his money and the discreet conduct of his business, would ever think of carrying slave property into these Territories. We have also seen, sir, I think, that the present condition of slave labor is such that we have no surplus to send anywhere; but, that, on the contrary, the great trying, present need of the South, is an increase of slave labor, in the production of its great staple crops; this want is so great as to press upon .Page211 the minds of many to whom, a short time ago, such an idea would have been repugnant, the necessity for entertaining a discussion concerning the re-opening of the African slave trade.

Sir, in this connection I wish to glance at the view taken upon this floor in regard to the probable Africanization of the South. It seems to weigh upon the minds of members here, and the minds of others discussing this subject elsewhere, that we are in danger of having the South converted into a St. Domingo; that we are in danger of being overrun by the increase in the number of slaves, driving the white man from the South, and converting it into one vast community of slaves, or, what is more, of free negroes. That seems to be the idea. Now, sir, it strikes me as somewhat singular that this apprehension should prevail; because the tendency now, as is admitted by every body, is not to slavery extension, indicating a need of more room; but the tendency is, as stated here, to contract the area of slave labor, thus indicating a want of sufficient labor in even the most thickly settled portions of the slave-holding country.

Sir, the gentleman from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , the other day went into a statistical estimate as to the probable future upon this subject. He told us he apprehended that in fifty years, according to the best received tables of increase of the population of the South, we might apprehend that there would be sixteen millions of slaves in the slave-holding country now owned by the United States; and he seemed to look forward to that fact as conclusive evidence of the utter Africanization of the South. He seemed to look upon a mass of sixteen millions of slaves, if I correctly interpreted him, as in itself a realization complete that in fifty years we would have this expulsion of the white man, and a necessary surrendering of the fair fields of the South to the African race. Sir, I have not been under any such impression in regard to the danger to be apprehended in that direction. I have been of opinion that there was no danger, within hundreds of years, of any such number of slaves as to render it at all impracticable to hold them all in slavery, and to apply their labor, as slaves, to the cultivation of the great staple crops of the South. And, sir, it so happens that I am sustained upon this point by perhaps the most distinguished man who has ever brought his mind to the consideration of this great slavery question, in all its bearings. I allude to Governor Hammond, of South Carolina. I suppose if there is a man who has contributed more than all others to the spread of sound opinions in regard to this vital interest of the South, it is Senator Hammond. If there is a man who has distinguished himself above all others for his far-reaching, sagacious, .Page212 philosophical and statesmanlike views of that subject, he is the man. What is his opinion upon this subject? Sir, I have his remarks as made on this very point, in the Senate of the United States, within the last year. In answer to this very anticipation, which was indulged in by a Republican Senator upon the floor of the United States Senate, who was pointing out, not exactly with triumph, but certainly with no dissatisfaction, the probability or the apprehension that the South would be Africanized for the want of an outlet for the surplus of her slave population, Mr. Hammond utterly repudiated the idea that the South had any such apprehension, or any cause for such apprehension, and declared that within the present slaveholding limits of the United States, there could be sustained, with safety and with advantage, a slave population of twenty millions. Let us see what he states upon this subject, in his own language.

I read from the Congressional Globe of April 12, 1860. I will first read the remarks of Senator Doolittle as introductory to what was said by Senator Hammond in explanation and correction :

Mr. Doolittle said:

"I would say that this whole question of slavery is discussed in the Congress of the United States simply on the ground of the territorial question. We have no right to discuss the question of slavery as a question of practical legislation as it exists in the States, and we refer to it only because we are discussing our policy in the territories. You propose to send the institution of slavery into the territories, we think it ought not to go there; and discussing the question whether it should or should not go into the territories necessarily involves, on our part, the consideration of the system of slavery in its bearing in the States where it exists. We mean not to discuss the question in any sense offensive to the States of the South, but when we insist that it ought not to go into the territories, what answer do you give?"

Here he imputes to the South the very position taken upon this floor.

"You tell us that if we do not allow it to go into the Territories the necessary consequence will be that, under the laws of population, the colored race will become so numerous in the slave States that it will force on emancipation. That is what you say. You say if a limit be once put to the extension of slavery the laws of population will force it out in the end."

That is the position assigned to the South by Mr. Doolittle, and that is the position I understand to be assumed here.

Mr. Hammond said in reply:

"The Senator will excuse me, I have said no such thing. He answers .Page213 me and says 'you say it.' I think the South is capable, within its present limits, of sustaining a slave population of two hundred millions."

"Mr. Doolittle—I am most happy to hear the honorable Senator from South Carolina avow that he does not apprehend any such fears as were expressed by his colleague yesterday and which were expressed the other day, in the House of Representatives, in a very able speech, by Mr. Curry of Alabama."

"Mr. Hammond—Allow me one word ; I do not wish to be misunderstood. While I believe we can support two hundred million of slaves within our present limits, and have never urged that as an argument for expansion, I do not wish to be understood as surrendering any of our rights to territory and expansion, at all."

Now, sir, if this be true, or if it approximates to the truth, what becomes of this apprehension of the Africanization of the South, within fifty years? Sir, if the South is capable of any such population, or any population at all approaching it, might we not say that, if we can manage, in the mean time, to sustain the great vital interest of the country, only having to apprehend danger upon this question of slavery in that far distant future, if we can do this without dishonor, without any sacrifice of vital right and interest, might we not well say that it would be wise for us to leave that question when it arises in the distant future, to the disposal of an Allwise Ruler, who doubtless has preparation to meet that as he has to meet all other great issues and questions of human life.

Sir, it is well to observe again, in passing, the kinship of extremes. It is apprehended that the Black Republicans intend to make a war of desolation upon us by building, as they call it, a wall of fire all around the institution of slavery, and letting it die out within that circle. That is the apprehension from the Black Republicans. Sir, look, I say, at the kinship of extremes. Already thus early in the history of the Cotton Confederacy they have engrafted into their constitution the power given to their government to build this wall of fire along our Southern and their Northern border. They have conferred this power upon their Congress, sir, and distinguished men among them have declared it to be their policy of self-defence that this wall shall be built along the border, and that the slaves of the border States shall be pent up within their present limits, and forever prevented from going into the Cotton States. For myself, I have no apprehension upon this subject. I agree with Senator Hammond in thinking the South will be able to take care of herself in regard to this question against any such threat of the Black Republicans. And I have as little apprehension of it as presented .Page214 by the cotton States; because, in the first place, I believe that it would be a great blessing to us, if there should, to a very large extent, be a stoppage of the Southern drain upon our slave population. We in Central and Western Virginia, who have no prejudice to permit our enjoying the benefits of slave labor, we are not prevented by any adverse system of laws from enjoying it, when we shall be free from this immense drain and competition from the South, which prevents us from availing ourselves fully of the benefits of a system which we approve and desire.

I think, then, it would be well to look into the probabilities of the spread of slavery into Western Virginia, which is capable of receiving and employing hundreds and thousands, and tens of thousands of slave laborers. We had better look at the probable emancipation which we are told is likely to take place in five years in the State of Missouri, and which we can only prevent by stopping the drain from that State to the South. We had better prevent the emancipation which threatens Kentucky, by stopping the drain from there. In that way we in the border States may become a people having the recommendation which seems to possess so great a charm in regard to the cotton States, we may become a homogeneous people upon this subject.

But, sir, when the time comes to test this question with our Southern brethren of the Cotton States, I think it will be found that their self-interest will be stronger upon this subject—aye sir, and I hope it will be stronger upon many other subjects than their present excitement. I believe that their self interest will soon show them that they are at last, as dependent upon us for their supply of labor as we are dependent upon them for any market for our surplus. I do not apprehend that they will have any advantage of us upon that subject, because thus far, unquestionably, we have had the advantage in the market. Virginians do not go South to sell their slaves, but the people of the South come to Virginia seeking their supplies of slave labor.

Mr. Chairman, I stated yesterday that, in the view I presented, no practical question existed in reference to the territory now in possession of the Federal Government; that it would, in my opinion, and, I believed, in the opinion of most Southern men, have been better for the country, better for the North and the South, better for all concerned if the question never had been raised in regard to the kind of labor with which the present territory belonging to the government should be settled. But, sir, the question has been raised, and, as I said, I believe now that the duty is devolved upon our brethren of the North to speak out now and forever upon this subject. I think that the duty is now .Page215 upon them to meet the question fairly, frankly and in a spirit of brotherhood. I say that I am prepared to go upon this as upon all other subjects affecting the question of slavery into a full, fair, complete and final settlement of it. I would avoid nothing. I would leave out nothing that may hereafter vex the people of this country with strife, or bickerings, or sectional jealousies of any sort. I think the time for a settlement has come, and I think that common prudence requires that it shall be a comprehensive settlement, covering all questions in any manner likely to disturb our peace hereafter. And I am in favor of settling this territorial question now correctly.

I indicated yesterday that there were extreme views, and erroneous views upon this subject entertained North and South. Why, sir, if the extreme Southern view upon this subject is to be pressed—that all the territories of the United States are to be slaveholding territories—the Dred Scott decision gives us so strong a construction of the Constitution in its favor, that we have no cause to make any great disturbance about it. But, sir, there is apprehension in the minds of Southern people that that decision cannot prevail permanently as the doctrine of this country, and I think that the true doctrine and the true result is expressed in one of the resolutions reported by the majority of our Committee. I ask the indulgence of the Convention while I read that resolution :

"4. The Territories of the United States constitute a trust to be administered by the General Government, for the common benefit of the people of the United States, and any policy in respect to such Territories, calculated to confer greater benefits on the people of one part of the United States than on the people of another part, is contrary to equality and prejudicial to the rights of some for whose equal benefit the trust was created. If the equal admission of slave labor and free labor into any Territory, excites unfriendly conflict between the systems, a fair partition of the Territories ought to be made between them, and each system ought to be protected within the limits assigned to it, by the laws necessary for its proper development."

That, I take to be the true doctrine. A fair division of the territories between the two systems, if they cannot work well together—a fair division according to the capacities and interests of each one of these two great systems of civilization; and then the protection of each system and of all the rights growing out of it within its proper share and division of the territories.

Sir, on this subject of slavery, as on all subjects affecting the rights of the States or of the people of the States, I hold to the doctrine of .Page216 perfect equality. I never have consented, I never will consent to any doctrine that gives to any section higher or better rights under the common government than are enjoyed by my own section. I never will consent that any State of this Union shall enjoy higher or better rights than the State to which I belong. I never have consented and I never will consent that any other institution or property in this country shall have higher or better or more efficient protection than the institution and property which constitutes the great paramount interest of Virginia.

Sir, I stand here to demand, under all circumstances, to demand against all opposers full equality—aye, full protection, for all the institutions of the South. As a Southern man, as a slaveholder in Virginia, I never can consent that this great interest, this great institution of the South shall be placed under the ban of government. I never will consent that it shall be treated in the operations of government as an inferior property to be subjected to any sort of restriction or limitation that does not become necessary in order to the enjoyment of the equal rights of other sections and other interests. As was remarked by a distinguished friend of mine the other day, I never will consent that they shall put a wolf's head upon the institution of slavery to attract to it the opposition—nay, the enmity of mankind. Never!

These will, I know, be regarded as strange opinions coming from an unexpected quarter. They are the opinions that I have always held, and which I am ready at all times to act upon and carry out. In the plan of constitutional amendment, which has been submitted here by the Committee of Twenty-one, these principles are declared. The first section of this report recognizes a division of the Territory by the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes. I believe, upon that subject, there hardly remains at this time any dispute. I believe there are very few now who are prepared to insist upon the extreme demand of a slave code for all the territories of the United States. On this subject, allow me, in passing, to remark as a singular indication of the tendency of things—not to the oppression of the South, not to the assertion of the extreme doctrines of the Republican party; but in the other direction—that in the last Congress of the United States, in both branches of which the Republican party was in the ascendant—three territorial governments were organized, and in regard to each one of them, the fact stands forth that there is no prohibition of slavery; and that, the territorial legislature is expressly directed to protect, equally, all property of the people of the territories.

They talk about the Chicago platform, and what it looks to. Sir, if there is any feature in the Chicago platform more distinct than another, .Page217 it is the obligation of the Republican party to assert the restrictive policy in regard to all the territories of the United States. Yet here they have organized three territorial governments within the last three months, without applying it to any one of them.

Then, sir, this first section recognizes the division line of 36 30, and prohibits involuntary servitude North of that line. It then proceeds to recognize and to establish and confirm in all the territories South of that line, involuntary servitude as it now exists, and declares that it shall remain and shall not be changed. I will read that section:

"ART. 13, Sec. 1. In all the present territory of the United States, North of the parallel of thirty six degrees and thirty minutes of North latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory South of that line, involuntary servitude as it now exists, shall remain, and shall not be changed; nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of persons held to service or labor from any of the States of this Union to said Territory; nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; nor shall said rights be in any manner affected by any pre-existing law of Mexico; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts, according to the remedies and the practice of the common law."

Now, sir, observe, that in the first place, it removes the difficulties which have been referred to, on this floor, by the distinguished gentleman from Charles City [Ex-President TYLER] , as suggested by Mr. Chase, or by some other person, in that "Peace Conference." He informed us that in that Conference a distinguished Black Republican had declared and given notice in some spirit of candor, that the status of persons held to service or labor in the territory, was the status of freedom, and that it would be contended that such should be the construction of the "Peace Conference" proposition. I call the attention of the distinguished gentleman to the fact that this report of the committee cuts off that objection, fair and square, by declaring "nor shall said rights be in any manner affected by any pre-existing law of Mexico," so that, here I take it, is a negative upon the declaration of Mr. Chase, and in that respect, the report of the Committee, is a decided improvement upon all others—even upon the Crittenden proposition, as we will see.

The Crittenden proposition says that slavery of the African race is recognized as an existing institution, and shall not be interfered with by Congress. The report of the Committee declares that involuntary servitude as it now exists, shall remain, and shall not be changed.

Now observe. The objection to the Crittenden proposition is, that whilst it says that involuntary servitude shall not be interfered with by Congress, it allows it to be under the jurisdiction of the territorial Legislature, with the single precaution of directing them to protect it. Sir, I am not satisfied that the rights of the South, if we are to go into a settlement, shall depend upon a mere directory clause in the Constitution, for protection at the hands of the territorial Legislature. Suppose the territorial Legislature—suppose the territorial Government, in all its departments, refuses to protect it, where is the remedy? Gentlemen in their objections to the plan of the Peace Congress, have departed from all rules of construction—even from their own construction—and wander into the field of conjecture as to what an evil disposed Black Republican Judge might do in regard to the rights of the South, in the face of a fair construction. I ask them to take warning from their own advice on that subject. Sir, anticipating what an adverse Black Republican Legislature, an adverse Black Republican Governor, and an adverse Black Republican Judiciary all combined would do with a Constitutional injunction to protect slavery; Sir, for one I am not willing to rest upon the probability of their discharging their duty. Sir, there is another point to be observed. We must take notice of the fact that in the Territory of New Mexico, including all the Territory south of the line, there is a slave code now in existence. The plan of the Committee lays hold of that slave code, and says it shall remain and shall not be changed. What does the Crittenden Proposition do with it? It recognizes slavery as existing there and prohibits Congress from interfering with it. But I ask of gentlemen whether under the Crittenden Proposition, the Territorial Legislature could not repeal that code, and thus by failing to pass another evade and avoid the Constitutional injunction of the Crittenden amendment? The report of the Committee not only prohibits Congress from changing it, but the Territorial Legislature also. It says it shall not be changed by any authority; and this, as will be admitted, makes a very marked difference in favor of the report of the Committee over the Crittenden plans.

But, sir, there is another advantage. If the territorial Legislature should even undertake to interfere—if it should turn out that this slave code was in violation of some law or of the constitution and that the territorial Legislature had no right to pass it, this amendment, presuming that it is to be embodied in the constitution, would lay hold of the slave code now in existence and would make it part of the Constitution itself.

What says the Committee's plan? "Involuntary servitude, as it now exists, shall remain and shall not be changed."

There is no doubt of the fact that it exists there; whether de jure or not it exists there de facto. I suppose there can be no principle of constitutional construction better established than that it must be read by the light of existing facts. Then, sir, it is recognized de facto as existing there. Burn up the slave code of New Mexico, and we have yet the constitution of the United States—if this amendment is incorporated in it, recognizing slavery as an existing institution de facto. But it does more than that, it says it shall not be changed. It goes further than that. It says, "nor shall any law be passed by Congress or the territorial Legislature to hinder or prevent the taking of persons held to service or labor, from any of the States of this Union, to said territory; nor to impair the rights arising from said relation."

One of the most striking provisions that ever I have seen in any law or in any Constitution, is that which follows, declaring that these rights—that is the rights arising upon the relation of master and slave —"shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts." What is judicial cognizance? What is "cognizance" but "recognition"? —shall be subject to judicial "recognition" in the Federal Courts "according to the remedies and the practice of the common law."

Well, what are the remedies and the practice of the common law? Why, all our remedies in Virginia are remedies of the common law. All the remedies for the recovery of property between man and man, all our system of practice, and pleading, and proceeding in Court is in the main according to the remedies and the practice of the common law, not depending upon any statute enacted by our Legislature, except in the way that this amendment proposes to establish it in New Mexico. In Virginia, by special statute, we adopt the common law of England as the basis and foundation of all our rights, remedies, and of the practice in the Courts. And here it is proposed to place in the Constitution of the United States, for the benefit of New Mexico, a recognition of the same rights, remedies, and practices in regard to the institution of slavery in that territory.

We have heard it said, in regard to the insufficiency of these remedies, that the common law knows no such institution as slavery. That is a new doctrine coming from Southern quarters. I had supposed that the modern doctrine of the South, so ably maintained by Senator Benjamin, in his celebrated speech in the Senate of the United States, was, that the old idea of the Somerset case has exploded, and that slavery did exist under the common law. I thought that was the modern .Page220 idea of, at least, the extreme Southern men. But, suppose that slavery does not exist under the common law, we do not propose to go to the common law to establish the right. The plan of the Committee, says : "Nor to impair the rights arising from said relation, nor shall said rights be in any manner affected by any pre-existing law of Mexico, but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal Courts according to the remedies and the practice of the common law."

Sir, I need not argue to any man familiar with the remedies and practice of the common law, that its fundamental principle, the maxim which guides its remedial hand—is that for every right there shall be an action, for every wrong a remedy. Ubi jus ibi remedium, is the maxim of the common law, which has excited the admiration of students of jurisprudence in all ages and all countries for its adaptability to all the changes and circumstances of cases, and for its power of moulding and adjusting itself in the most complete and admirable manner to the furtherance of right and the administration of justice between man and man. Sir, I need not promise to any lawyer any thing more to inspire his confidence than to say you shall have this right, and you shall have all the redress that the common law affords to enforce it. There is no lawyer who would hesitate to say that if you establish the right and give him the common law remedies to enforce it, he stands upon a rock.

This is the plan reported by the committee, and in that respect it carries out the true doctrines of the South. It does not leave to Congress, subject to the whims, caprices, passions, prejudices or dishonesty of party, or to their sense of duty and of moral propriety the application of the remedy to our rights. It does not leave our rights to the tender mercies of any party in Congress, or of any Territorial Legislature; but it plants them in the Constitution itself, and gives the enforcement of them to the courts.

We hear a great deal about the corruption of the Black Republican party. We hear a great deal said about the danger of trusting a corrupt Judiciary in the territories. Sir, as a lawyer, I am proud to declare that in my humble judgment, when the legal profession of the United States become unsafe depositories of private right or public liberty, the days of this republican government and of free government every where are numbered. As an humble member of that profession I claim for them that they are the true conservative class, that they constitute the true conservative element in this great republic of ours. Sir, let the storms of fanaticism and of popular fury howl where they will—let them beat and surge as they may over all other barriers—the safeguards.Page221 of private right and of public liberty, thank God, are in the halls of justice, and are entrusted to a band in whose hands they will be safe, until everything ceases to be worth preserving.

Thus I think I have shown in regard to this first section, so far as it applies to present territory, that the report of the Committee is far preferable, far stronger and far better for the South than the Crittenden proposition, either as a recognition of the true principle or as a plan for carrying out practical rights.

Sir, how is it in regard to future territory? What is the protection afforded in the Crittenden compromise as to future territory? None whatever. In the Crittenden plan with the Powell amendment it is provided that in all future territory South of the line slavery shall be protected by all the departments of the territorial government. In regard to present territory, I have shown the insecurity of entrusting our rights in the hands of the squatter legislatures in the new territories. Here is another difficulty to which I will allude. It happens that we have settled our last territory in the wilderness. Our hardy pioneers have gone out into the Western wilds and carved out homes for themselves and their children, and have made laws such as they desired, and in accordance with the spirit of their institutions. But, sir, now we have exhausted all the wilderness around us, and from this time forward, if the United States acquire territory, they must acquire countries already settled. Look at the exterior boundaries of the United States. Why, until recently the United States could be hardly said to have any exterior boundaries. Look at the countries that infringe upon our borders; at the North, the British possessions; at the South, Mexico—old settled countries with large populations; Cuba, just over the way, settled already with a crowded population. In all these countries they have systems of laws recognizing and establishing their domestic, social and proprietary relations, and in all of them, except Cuba, slavery is prohibited. Now take the Crittenden proposition, and suppose under it you acquire Mexico and cut out of it a slice large enough to make a State of sixty or seventy thousand square miles, and you would have in it already a population large enough for a member of Congress. The very moment you acquire it, under the Crittenden plan, it has the right to come in as a State. What good does your protection in a territorial condition do? You say that the territorial judiciary, territorial Legislature, and territorial Government, are all bound to give it protection during the territorial condition; but it would have no territorial condition. It would come in like Texas, full grown, and as such entitled to admission as a State. Not only this, but the distinguished.Page222 gentleman from Charles City [Ex-President TYLER] , said yesterday in regard to a striking case which occurred in his own Administration, that the Constitution of the United States does not apply to territory until you get it. Suppose it was contrary to the Constitution of the United States to impose any restriction upon territory after you get it, all that would be necessary would be to insert in the joint resolution of annexation a prohibition of slavery, and it would be as valid and binding as the restriction to which the distinguished gentleman affixed his signature in regard to Texas.

So you see that in the acquisition of new territory, constitutional amendments are of no value. The distinguished example we have had recounted here shows that they would all be of no avail, because, has not the distinguished gentleman from Charles City said that he would have died before he would have consented to the application of the Missouri line within the territory of the United States? And yet he did not refuse to apply it, in making a bargain to get more territory. Suppose we had the Crittenden proposition, and that all territory hereafter acquired is to have slavery recognized; what is to prevent any President, hereafter, from imitating the example and quoting the authority of the distinguished gentleman from Charles City, and saying, "I can make any bargain I please, in regard to territory which is outside of constitutional protection; your Crittenden amendments are but as dust in the balance, which I utterly disregard"? What becomes then of the protection in regard to future acquisitions of territory? It seems to me that the Crittenden proposition, so far as it affords protection in regard to them, is utterly worthless.

But, sir, what is the case in regard to the report of the Committee? in that, there has been adopted the principle of the guarantee of power. I suppose the gentlemen of what may be called the "rabid" school, and who contend for the application of that principle throughout, in the workings of the government, will hardly complain of us for having applied it in regard to future acquisitions of territory. If we could not go all the way, I presume they will at least congratulate us for having gone that far. The principle is, that hereafter, no new territory shall be acquired, either by joint resolution or by treaty, except by the concurrent vote of a majority of the Senators from the slave States and the non slaveholding States. There is a complete protection in regard to future acquisitions. No new territory, either slave or free, can be introduced without our consent, without the consent of the South, without the consent of a majority of Southern Senators. If it should ever happen in the progress of future ages, that we should .Page223 dwindle down to but one single State, it would require the consent of that State to acquire any territory whatever. The old maxim, cujus dare, ejus disponere, would apply here.

He who has the right to give without restriction, has a right to impose what limitations he will upon the gift. We who have the right to consent or to refuse, have the right to consent upon what conditions we please. Unless the South is less keen in perception of her interests, or less watchful in regard to her rights than she has ever been supposed to be, I, for one, am willing to trust the future acquisition of territory to the watchful guardianship of the Senators from the Southern States. I do not entertain any of the apprehensions which were expressed by my friend from Richmond, as to the possibility, in the future, of corruption among the slave States or the purchase of Senators from the South. I do not apprehend any such difficulties. If it ever comes true that the apprehension is well founded, and that Southern Senators in the United States Senate cannot be trusted upon a question of Southern rights, I would ask what are Southern Rights, worth? What plan will you adopt to protect them, if you cannot trust them in the hands of our own people, our own representatives? Something has been said about this section being a check and a clog upon the acquisition of territory hereafter. So far as I am concerned, I deem it due to honest debate to say that that constitutes no objection in my estimation. It is no objection with me that it will operate as a restriction upon the fierce spirit of territorial aggrandisement, upon the wild lust for the lands of our neighbors. If ever a case arises commanding a concurrent vote. it will be apt to be a case of public necessity. Unless some case arises of sufficient public necessity and public benefit to command a concurrent vote, I take it that the true interests of the nation require that we shall have no more Territory. What dci we hear upon this subject now, from that class of politicians who have been heretofore in favor of the expansion of Southern institutions, who have told us that our mild and gentle confederated Republican system might be safely extended over this entire continent, and that so far from diversified interests being causes of antagonism, they would be elements of mutual attraction and strength? They have all suddenly become convinced that the Territory of the United States is too large, and that the only thing for us to do is to divide it up; and we hear most splendid descriptions of the magnificence of a republic which is to have for its theatre of action the half of a continent.

But to proceed with this report of the Committee. The third section of the report covers the irrepressible conflict all over like a blanket.

What is the third section? We have been told that the Abolitionists and the Black Republicans intended to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia This report prohibits them from doing it except by the consent of Virginia, Maryland and the people of the District. Will you trust that? Will you trust Virginia, Maryland and the people of the District with the guardianship of slavery in the District?

We have been told too that this Black Republican party intends to interfere with the slave trade between the States and to abolish slavery at all the dock-yards, &c., belonging to the United States, within the slave States.

Now, this third section provides distinctly that they shall never have any such power. But we have been told that these Black Republicans will keep on adding free State after free State, and after a while when they get strong enough they are going to amend the constitution so as to authorize them to legislate upon the subject of slavery and abolish it in the States; and this is to be the outcome of the irrepressible conflict in its legal and constitutional aspects. This section provides that they never shall have a right to abolish, or even to legislate upon slavery in the States under any circumstances; and then there is another section which provides that they shall not only not have a right to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia, or with the interstate slave trade, or with slavery in the United States dock-yards, &c., or to touch slavery in the States; but that they shall not even have a chance to grow strong enough to do it: because they are prohibited in the last section from ever amending the constitution of the United States so as to do any one of these things, or to affect the Fugitive Slave Law, or to affect any provision touching the institution of slavery except by the unanimous consent of all the States.

What becomes of the Irrepressible Conflict? Where can slavery be touched? I said yesterday that slavery where it exists now, according to our present Constitution, is entrenched within the inner citadel of the Constitution, and that none but a madman had ever pretended that the General Government had a right to touch it except by amendment to the Constitution. Now, here is an article proposing to incorporate in the Constitution a perpetual prohibition to make such amendments, except by the unanimous consent of all the States. It seems to me that I may well declare that if that amendment to the Constitution becomes incorporated so as to form a part of the fundamental laws of the United States, it may be regarded as driving the last nail into the coffin of the Irrepressible Conflict.

There is another section which says, "Nor shall Congress have the power to lay any greater tax on slaves than on land."

Well, if that is not reducing slavery to a dollar and cent measure, I do not understand the meaning of the language. How will you compare slaves with lands? What is the common standard of measure? If they are to be taxed together, they must be compared together for the purpose of taxation. The only common measure is the dollar and cent standard, and that I take to be, a distinct recognition of the right of property in slaves. As to the right of taxation that may or may not hereafter be a valuable provision for us. Even if the law is so now, as was intimated here the other day by the distinguished gentleman from Princess Anne [Ex-Gov. WISE] , this provision will do no harm.

I hope I may be allowed to interrupt the gentleman for one moment. He has gotten the idea exactly contrary to the idea that I had expressed. My position was, and is, and I can demonstrate upon the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, that this report of the Peace Conference expressly contradicts, and is contrary to the present Constitution of the United States, and reverses the interpretation of the Supreme Court from the year '96 down to the present hour; that the idea of the Supreme Court is that, instead of slaves being regarded, in respect to taxes and representation, as property, as chattels, as "dollars and cents," that they are regarded by the present Constitution of the United States as persons—persons to be taxed per capita by direct taxation, which by the rule of apportionment, must be equal throughout the United States; that the Supreme Court have decided that the Constitution has established two rules of taxation, first in respect to the indirect taxes of duties, imposts and excises, the rule of uniformity—that all imposts and excises must be uniform; and second that the direct taxes of the United States must be apportioned and are obliged necessarily to be equal. That was the idea—the idea, sir, which accounts for the present Constitution of the United States, using the words "other persons," endowing these slaves with a personality instead of giving them a proprietary or property character; and that they were called persons instead of property because so far as the powers of the General Government were concerned, they were to be treated as persons with heads on their shoulders to bear capitation tax, and, if taxed at all, were to be taxed per capita, and a capitation tax is a direct tax, and a direct tax is obliged to be apportioned among the "persons" designated by the Constitution throughout the United States. Therefore, you have either an ignorant or intentional blunder on the part of the Peace Conference.

The Chair is satisfied that the disorder which has just been displayed, came from either the gallery or the lobby; and it again repeats and earnestly entreats that such a demonstration will not again be displayed, with the assurance that if it is, the galleries and lobby will be cleared.

It seems, sir, on this subject, to be a little difficult to tell exactly where to find gentlemen of a particular school of politics. The other day we had a most able and learned argument, to show that the use of the term "persons held to service or labor," in the first section of the Peace Conference plan, was an art and device of Black Republicanism, under which was concealed a denial of property in slaves. Now, sir, we have a change here that is either an ignorant or an intentional blunder, by which the great benefits secured, by the Constitution, of regarding slaves as persons, are to be taken away. Which horn of the dilemma do the gentlemen intend to take? If they desire that slaves shall be regarded as persons held to service or labor—shall be regarded as persons "with heads upon their shoulders," then why assail the Peace Conference for using that very term, with all its benefits to the South—all that we have a right to ask or ever have desired? If, on the other hand it is desired that they shall be regarded as property, as dollars and cents, or, in the language of Scripture, as "our money"—if that is intended to be the idea to be inculcated by Constitutional language and Constitutional provision, why complain of that protection, in regard to taxes, that is given to land? It seems to me there is a conflict upon this subject, between the positions assumed by gentlemen of that particular school of politics.

But, sir, the gentleman undertakes to say that the capitation tax must be imposed upon slaves, and that it must be apportioned. Why, sir, the rule of direct taxation is apportionment unquestionably; but apportionment how? Man to man? No; it is an apportionment among the States, according to the ratio of their representation in the House of Representatives. If the Government of the United States wants to lay a tax of a million, it divides that tax among the States, according to the ratio of representation in the House of Representatives of the United States, and then it proceeds, without Constitutional limitation, to impose that tax within each State, for the purpose of raising the amount of revenue apportioned to each; I know of no limit, whatever, upon the power of Congress, in laying a direct tax in any State—as to the subjects on which taxes are to be laid.

Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him again for a moment. There is a limitation, and there is a limitation .Page227 by the very fact of apportionment throughout the United States among the several States. By the decision of Judge Marshall in the case of Loughborough against Blake, a question arose upon the language of the Constitution of the United States, providing that capitation and other direct taxes, should be apportioned among the several States, according to the census. The question arose—because the several States, eo nomine, were the words used—whether a territory was embraced in those terms or not. Judge Marshall decided that in respect to the territories, Congress might lay a tax upon the territory or not, that in laying taxes on the States the territories might be omitted; but if the tax was laid upon the territories, it must be laid, according to the character of the tax, under the one rule or the other—the rule of uniformity or the rule of apportionment; that there were but two classes of Federal taxes, indirect and direct. The indirect taxes, embracing duties, imposts and excises, which were obliged to be uniform throughout the United States; and the direct, supposed to be capitation and land taxes alone, which were obliged to be apportioned among the several States according to the census thereof. Well now, what limitation is there in that? That the Federal power, whether it be primary and original, or derivative, or in other words, whether it be Congressional or territorial, cannot lay taxes without uniformity, or apportionment, throughout the United States—territories being part of the United States—the name United States, in the language of Judge Marshall, being but the name of the "great Republic." By these words "throughout the United States," he decided territories were embraced.

You cannot lay an indirect class of taxes without making it uniform, nor the "direct" without being apportioned and both equal to all the several States. If one is taxed, so all must be taxed either uniformly or apportioned. If the property touched by the tax laid by federal power is touched in the Territories, so it must be touched in the States; and if persons are touched by the direct tax in Territories so they must be proportionately touched throughout the United States; if touched in one State, so property and persons must be touched in all the States; and the result of the whole is that the federal power of taxation can be exerted by Congress alone. They must be laid by the primary and original power—by Congress. Why? Because the Territorial power, merely derivative, is a local power, and cannot apportion throughout the United States; because the Territorial power is a local power, and cannot control uniformity throughout the United States, Congress alone having the power to control uniformity and to apportion throughout the United States. Congress, and Congress only, .Page228 can lay a tax direct or indirect. The consequence is that when the Northern States would impose a capitation tax upon negroes in a Territory, they would be obliged to lay it upon only three-fifths of the slaves, and upon the heads of every one of the whites of all the several States. That is the protection under the present Constitution, sir; that is the limitation that they cannot tax the heads of negroes in the territories without taxing the white heads per capita throughout the United States. Now tell me whether there is no limitation in that? and better protection in that than in this Peace Conference proposal, which must have been made either in gross ignorance or with the design to pervert the Constitution, and deprive us of the perfect protection it now affords.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that I have come into collision, upon exceedingly unequal terms, on a subject like this, with a gentleman who has written a book upon it.

Yes, sir; and I should like to have a pupil to instruct him in his A B C.

I have no doubt he would, and such a pupil as that I should suppose would be about the one he would like to teach. [Great laughter.] Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to detain the committee by the discussion of this law question. I will simply state my view in regard to it. There are two kinds of taxes that can be laid by Congress—indirect taxation, such as a tariff was required to be uniform everywhere, as you can see very obviously it should be. Then there is internal or direct taxation, either a capitation tax, or a tax upon property. To that tax the Constitution does not attach the condition of uniformity, but only says that the amount shall be limited as to each State by the proportion of its representation in the Congress of the United States. That is the only limit. The law of uniformity applies in terms only to propositions for indirect taxation. The law of apportionment is only applicable to the States, and the question cannot produce any decision going further than that. The case of Loughborough, to which he refers, is a case where only one point is decided, and that is that Congress is not bound to lay direct taxes within a territory, but if they do so they must apportion them as if it were a State, and the correlative point that if Congress lays a tariff that tariff must be uniform in its application to States and Territories.

I see I shall have to give my pupil another lesson.

Very well. I hope I shall be able to go through it with becoming diligence and humility. [Laughter.] But here is another dilemma. Some gentlemen regard the use of the term "persons held to .Page229 service or labor," by the Peace Conference, as in bad faith, as delusive, as a Black Republican trick, designed to give that party the power in the future to assail us. Mr. Chairman, what is the history of the use of the term in the Constitution, "persons held to service or labor?" It was introduced into the Convention that framed the Federal Constitution by the South Carolina delegation, who applied the term incorporated into the Constitution to slaves. Instead of calling them slaves, Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, moved in that Convention to call them "persons held to service or labor." And, sir, it is only a modern doctrine that slaves are regarded in the Constitution as property. Now, it is charged as an evidence of great unsoundness to the South to call slaves in their constitutional sense anything but property. We hear men denounced as abolitionists who dare to speak of what are designated in the Constitution as "persons held to service or labor," as "men with heads on their shoulders." I was glad to hear the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , bear his testimony to the ancient construction of the Constitution, that slaves are persons—persons to be represented, persons to be taxed, persons in all respects, subject only to regulation as persons by the Government of the United States.

Why, sir, when it was proposed to stop the inter-state slave trade under the authority of Congress to regulate commerce what was the refuge of the South? The South said "that slaves are not property under the constitution of the United States. They are property among ourselves, but in a constitutional sense, in the sense in which they are treated in the constitution of the United States, they are persons; the commercial power does not extend to persons, and we, therefore, claim exemption from the exercise of such a power." Yet, here, upon this floor, the Black Republican party is assailed, and the action of the Peace Conference was assailed by one of its members, in giving a history of it to his people, simply because they used the constitutional language of "persons held to service or labor." Well, sir, I do not wish to detain the Convention by going into any protracted discussion of this matter. I have been led into it farther than I would have gone by the interruption of the thread of my discourse.

But, sir, there is another feature to which I must draw the attention of the Convention. The 7th section of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, proposing amendments to the constitution of the United States, declares that

"The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether federal .Page230 or territorial, shall not be exercised by persons who are of the African race."

Now, sir, in regard to that, I must confess I do not like it. What is the ground upon which we hold our slaves in subjection? What is the justification, in the eyes of God and man, for holding these Africans in a state of bondage? The justification is complete, is unanswerable, when we say that they are an inferior race, incapable of equality with the Caucasians; that their inferiority and subordination is stamped upon their nature, by God himself, in their creation. That is our complete, triumphant justification, when we are called upon to declare why we keep them in slavery. Now, sir, I do not want it to be put into the Constitution of the United States. I do not want anybody to imagine that we fear the elevation of that race to be our equals. I do not want put into the Constitution any provision that may look like it.

I believe, however, in the Committee which reported that provision, there were but few dissenting voices, and I suppose therefore that my view is somewhat peculiar; but I must acknowledge, as I have already said, that I have a strong repugnance to having that inserted as an article in the Constitution. I do not want any man to suppose that there is apprehension of the slave becoming equal to his master or a free negro becoming equal to the white man.

But it is said in this Convention and elsewhere, that there is a party in the United States, a pre-dominant party, in favor of the equality of the races. Sir, I do not believe it. I have no idea that there is any such party, except, perhaps, some poor, miserable, crazy fanatics, a handful here and there. That there is any large party of white people in the United States, or in any part of it, who believe in, who assert, or recognize the equality of the races, I do not believe. Why, sir, it is known to us all, that if you go North, among the free States, you find the distinction drawn with a sterner hand than it is here. Here there is generally a mutual sympathy, a mutual respect and affection between the master and the slave; and even the poor free negro, who, for want of a master, is treated by a great many people as if he had no friends, who hangs, in his defenceless and friendless condition, around our kitchens, to gather the crumbs that fall from the table of the slave —even the free negro in this country has the sympathy of somebody. But in the North he has the sympathy of no one. He is an oppressed, down trodden, over-ridden creature. With these facts staring us in the face, when gentlemen come here and tell us that the great majority of .Page231 the people of the North intend to assert the doctrine of the equality of the races, it amuses me. We know it cannot be so.

Mr. Chairman, these are the main provisions about which I shall comment, in this plan of amendment. It will be seen, as I said in respect to the Peace Conference proposition, that this plan of the Committee covers the entire scope of the subjects about which it is supposed that amendments to the Constitution are necessary. It embraces every feature of the Crittenden amendment, and substantially every feature of the propositions of the Peace Conference. We had, from the distinguished gentleman from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] , criticisms upon the Peace Conference propositions, upon their uncertainty and their vagueness of meaning. And we have had since, that from my distinguished friend from the city of Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] , a most elaborate criticism in regard to their construction.

Now, the Committee on Federal Relations, without admitting the correctness of the criticism upon the Peace Conference propositions, urged mainly on the ground of doubt as to its true construction, yet, in deference to the criticisms of enlightened gentlemen, such as have examined it upon this floor, have undertaken to correct the phraseology in the points to which objections have been made. I have no hope of securing the support of my friend from the city of Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] to this proposition, because he distinctly informed us that he thought it objectionable for want of Constitutional guarantees of power. I, therefore, give up the hope of his support. But may I not, with confidence, call upon the distinguished gentleman from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] , who made no objection to it upon that ground, but who, if I understood him, voted against the propositions of the Peace Conference because of the vagueness of expression in certain particulars, which have now been corrected. May I not ask him, now that every exception taken by him has been removed, now that every doubtful point has been made plain, to come and give us the benefit of his approval of amendments which are due in no small degree to his enlightened criticism upon the plan of the Peace Conference? It seems to me we are entitled to it. He makes his objections and we remove them; we remove them in a spirit of deference, in a spirit of harmony, in a spirit of conciliation, for the purpose of uniting all who criticise for the purpose of improving; and I think we have the right now to claim the support of that distinguished gentleman.

I will not detain the committee longer upon this subject. That is the plan which we propose of amendments to the Constitution. We propose to refer that plan to a conference of the border States, to be held at the .Page232 city of Frankfort. We do not propose to declare an ultimatum bill, because we do not conceive that it would be respectful to our sister States whom we invite into the conference, to declare here in advance what is our ultimatum. It would be going, as I remarked the other day, into a consultation with our written opinion in our pocket. And, therefore, I believe there is no plan for propounding these matters as an ultimatum.

But we are told that we are to go into this proposed conference and give up our opinion to the will of the majority. No body has proposed that. For one I say, that while Virginia ought not to act finally in this matter without regarding the wishes, the feelings and interests of her sister States, yet I will never consent to commit her honor to any conference whatever. I would retain it in the hands of this constituent assemblage of sovereigns, in the hands of our constituents themselves at the polls. I will never consent that any body else shall determine for Virginia what is to make for her best interests, her highest honor and her greatest safety. I would retain for ourselves the decision of that question. But if we get this plan, if it answers the purpose I have suggested, if it secures us against what we have apprehended in the past, against what we apprehend in the future, if it covers up completely the whole subject of this unfortunate controversy to the satisfaction of the slave States now remaining in the Union, will it not give satisfaction to those which have gone out? Will it not bring them back? Sir, I do not know the condition of affairs, or of public sentiment in those States, but I do know that up to the time of their secession there was in all of them, except South Carolina, a Union party so strong that it was doubtful down to the last moment, what course would be taken; and I think I have a hint, at least, from the careful manner in which the Conventions of those States refrain from the submission of their action to the popular approval, that there is an apprehension that their action may not meet the sanction of the constituent body at their homes and at their firesides. But, however that may be I shall be exceedingly slow to believe that when we 'have settled to our own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the border States, when we have declared that our honor is satisfied, that our rights are safe, that our interests are protected, when the seceded States come to look the future sternly in the face, when they come to consider their relative positions toward us and toward the outer world, when they thinke of the glorious past in connexion with this mighty Union, when they think of the flag, in which the gentleman who last preceded me [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , can see nothing but stripes, when they think of the Stars and Stripes, when .Page233 they think of the old associations of interest and affection connected with this Union, I will not believe that they will consent to remain outside of it.

But, suppose they will not return. What then? Are we to submit our judgment to their passion—our interests to their caprice—our conduct to their direction—our honor to their keeping? I think not. I think the duty devolves upon us to take care of our own rights, our own interests and our own honor. It seems to be thought here, that it is a clear proposition that our interests are all with the Cotton States—that our interests, commercial, manufacturing, industrial—of all sorts carry us South. Sir, I do not know what are the interests of the manufacturing portion of the community; I know very little about the peculiar industrial pursuits that are followed in the cities; but I do know something about the pursuits of my constituents, who are an agricultural people. Now let us consider their interests in connection with this matter of going with the Southern Confederacy, or of staying with the present Union. What do my constituents, and in fact a large majority of the people of Virginia, raise for sale? What is it that they send to market as a means of livelihood? Why, sir, breadstuffs, cattle, horses, mules, and all sorts of live stock are the products of my people and of a large majority of the people represented on this floor. Now, the Cotton States do not raise any of the products. They want to buy them all.

The gentleman from Richmond city presented that fact as an argument to show that it is our interest to go with the Cotton States, because we want to sell to them and they want to buy from us. That is not a legitimate argument. They want to buy these products for they are necessaries of life to them, so much so, as to have led them in laying down their tariff, to admit them all duty free; and they are bound to do so always. Do you suppose that the Cotton States that left this Union mainly upon the tariff question—mainly to get rid of what they regarded as oppressive taxation upon articles of prime necessity—do you suppose they are going to establish at the outset of their government a system of heavy duties and imposts upon importation of the very necessaries of life—that they are going to tax their own bread and meat? I hardly think it will be expected. On the contrary, if free trade is to exist any where it must be in the Confederate States on all these articles which are of prime necessity to them.

If that is the case and we have free access to their market to sell all that we raise, why should we go with them to get the benefit of the market? Suppose we go with them, and a line of custom houses is .Page234 established between us and the people of the North. They are, many of them, a grain-growing, cattle raising people, coming directly into competition with us, and able to raise supplies sufficient for themselves. They must, at once, adopt a protective policy, and cut us off from the Northern market for all these articles in order to protect large interests in their own community. So that by going with the Southern Confederacy, we interpose a tariff between us and our Northern customers. By staying as we are, we maintain free trade with our customers North and South. I don't know what is the state of trade between Eastern Virginia and the Cotton States; but I know that the great trade of our valley and of trans-Alleghany is with the North in regard to all these articles of prime supplies. I know that our graziers and feeders send their cattle to Maryland and Pennsylvania, from whence they are carried on to the New York market. I do not know the other places they may supply after they get there ; but I know that this is the route which most, if not all, of the products of the valley and of Western Virginia take.

Then, sir, we are asked to cut ourselves off from our best customers and interpose a protective tariff between us and them by going with the Cotton States. This, it seems to me, would occasion peculiar disadvantage in respect to almost every article raised in Virginia. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the tobacco trade to say how that great staple of Virginia would be affected by a matter of this sort.

It was said the other day, by the gentleman from Richmond city [Mr. RANDOLPH] , that the tariff of the Southern Confederacy admitted leaf tobacco free of duty, and imposed twenty per cent. duty upon manufactured tobacco. I don't know how that fact is—I doubt not he regards it as authentic—but this I will say, that the constitution of the Confederate States expressly prohibits the laying of a duty for protection and requires all duties to be laid for revenue. If this new Confederacy has started out thus early with laying a most striking tariff for the protection of the tobacco manufacturers they give thereby but a poor earnest of that exact adherence to strict constitutional construction which we are told is so high a recommendation in favor of our joining them.

In regard to manufactures, I have no statistics, no acquaintance with the subject sufficient to enable me to discuss it in its details. But there is one general view which I shall present to the Committee in this Convention.

Why, sir, the people of this country have been for years fencing high against the ruinous competition of European manufacturers.

Every time the tariff was brought down, ruin overtook our manufacturers and we saw utter destruction attending every step in the line of free trade. But now, sir, we are told that there is nothing to apprehend from foreign manufacturers—that the ruinous competition comes from the Yankees. I thought it was an admitted fact that if the United States were now to embark in free trade, the Yankee would soon be compelled, by the competition of European manufacturers, to give up their business. There is some dispute as to how high the duty ought to be. I thought it was universally conceded that a duty of 25 or 30 or 40 per cent. upon the leading articles of the manufactures of the United States, was essential to the protection of those engaged in manufacturing against the ruinous competition of the pauper labor of Europe. If that be true—if it be true that the Yankees cannot stand against the foreigner, and that we cannot stand against the Yankees. what chance will there be for us at the South, if we shut out the North and let in the foreigner. If Virginia has not been able to compete with the North under an equal, high, protective 30 per cent. tariff, how do you expect our manufacturers to thrive upon a duty of only 10 per cent, against Europe? It seems to me that it is an attempt to combine protection with free trade. They cannot be combined. You cannot protect against the North while you have free trade with Europe, because the very failure to protect against Europe, will render all your protection against the North utterly futile and worthless.

Sir, it will not do to attempt either. Suppose we join the South; then we come under the influence of this new competition. We get rid, it is true, of the Yankee competition—a mere drop in the bucket—and we receive the whole ocean of European competition flowing in upon us. But it is said that when we go into this new Confederacy, we will have the power to control matters; that Virginia will be the great directing spirit, and that we can introduce a protective system, under which we are to become the Yankees of the South. Sir, I do not concur at all, in this idea. I have no sympathy for the indiscriminate denunciation that is heaped upon our Yankee brethren ; none, whatever. I look upon them as a noble race of men, with all their faults and foibles. I am not one of those who want to cut them off from this Union. I am not one of those who want to get rid of the Yankee States. or of even the least one of them. I want to hold them all as valuable, extremely valuable members of this glorious Confederacy of ours, by their energy, and their intelligence, in all the departments of industry and art, of science and literature, doing honor to our name, whenever it is pronounced. I don't want to get rid of them; but I don't want to .Page236 introduce the Yankee system of industry into Virginia. I prefer ow system of industry. I prefer our agricultural pursuits—our cattle feeding and our stock raising. I don't want our people to be a manufacturing people. I don't want to be overrun here with these immense corporations, which my friend from Richmond city [Mr. RANDOLPH] , referred to as being a curse to the country and an injury to our trade. I don't want our people to be the Yankees of the South. But suppose we were disposed to be the Yankees of the South, do we expect South Carolina, who quit us before because of a protective tariff, to establish a protective tariff for us? Do we expect that South Carolina will change her views on the subject of tariffs with the same facility that it is supposed Virginia will change hers? I humbly apprehend that South Carolina, having found secession a remedy for high tariffs, will resort to it again the very moment that it is necessary for her economy. Would it not be the wildest and most unreasonable course for Virginia to follow after such a State as that? She would lead us, step by step, like an ignis fatuus while in search of some stable and secure form of government, into the quicksands and quagmires of secession, disunion and anarchy.

Sir, I used to be a believer in the doctrine that is agitated here by the gentleman from the city of Richmond. I understood that everything depended upon protection. I used to have an idea that government was a great protecting machine, that was to be put in operation and grease the wheels of all industry. That was my idea of government many years ago; but I had soon occasion to change them very materially. I have come to believe that while the true province of government is protection, it is protection of right, protection of the rights of the individual against encroachments from all quarters, and as far as is consistent with the protection of all to secure to the individual the right to seek his fortune in the way that his individual interest and his intelligence may suggest to him. That is the school of philosophy to which I profess to belong. I recognize the imposition of a protective tariff as a necessity, growing out of the fact that there are different nations; that it is necessary for the purpose of asserting the individuality of the nations ; of giving each a separate existence among the nations of the earth, and securing to each such elements of self-defence and self-protection as are necessary to her as a member of the family of nations. But I rejoice whenever I hear that one of these obstructions to free trade is broken down; I rejoice, whenever I hear that two people have come together and extended the area of free trade. Sir, it has been one of the great delights of my heart, to look.Page237 over this broad land of ours and to think that here was the finest theatre that ever was presented for developing the principles of free trade, individual enterprise and individual rights, as it is for everything that concerns the interest and the happiness of mankind. But now it seems that this great principle is to be thwarted; that a line is to be drawn across this magnificent theatre, and that we are to have tariff and custom house lines, to change the intercourse between man and man, and section and section. Sir, I protest against breaking up this great experiment of free trade in process of splendid developement. I don't want to see it broken up by petty rivalries and jealousies, by custom house restrictions and tariff regulations.

I would rejoice to see our country, in all respects, socially, industrially, politically united. Can this ever be accomplished? They say it cannot. I must confess that when I look along the path which my sense of duty calls me to walk in, and see the number of steps that are required for the accomplishment of the great object of my hopes, my spirit oftentimes quails within me and I tremble with apprehension, lest I may fall short of the great result. I can only move on in humble confidence—that if I do my duty, if I perform well at every step the patriotic service which under a sense of the most solemn responsibility I have undertaken ; if I act well my part, and take each step with a just regard to the rights of all and with a just sense of responsibility to God and man, I may safely leave the result in the hands of the Great Disposer of events. Sir, I intend to march in that path of duty. I intend to look neither to the right nor to the left for smiles of approbation or words of encouragement. I intend not to be driven back by frowns of opposition or threats of intimidation; but sustained by my own sense of right and my own conviction of patriotic duty, I shall march forward and leave the result to God.

Mr. Chairman, Who can shape his destiny or command his fate? If I had been told three months ago that I should have been in this presence, and addressing you, sir, upon these overwhelming subjects which are before you, I should have listened to the statement with incredulity and surprise. Buried for twenty-five years, a curious antiquary in the county where I reside disinterred me, and presenting me before my constituents, they thought they saw in the fossil before them something that might enter into the construction of a break-water which might arrest the wave of agitation that was sweeping so disastrously over every part of our land. My constituents, Mr. Chairman, are lovers of peace and quiet, and what they considered the blessings of this Union. I concurred with them ; .Page238 but, at the same time they gave me no instructions even for those inestimable jewels, to barter away their honor or their independence. I believe if my constituents could stand here as I do, that their faith in this Union would be much disturbed. I told them that I would exhaust all probable means of redress before I would carry them out of this Union. I proposed to them that I would wait for the Peace Conference; that I would wait for the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln and the policy which he might pursue. I have waited. Does any one in the sound of my voice see any hope for the future? I confess that my last hope is gone, and I can see nothing before me to kindle hope or drive away despair.

Mr. Chairman, I am a States Rights' man. I was a States Rights' man in 1833. Do you remember that period? South Carolina had nullified a law of Congress—a law which she believed was oppressive to her. Sir, I stood at that day, with forty other gentlemen, in the Virginia Assembly, and did what I could to protect her. I held up my shield before her, but it was a frail thing of gossamer, and merely served to show my good will. I did what I could. I see but two of that band of forty before me. There is my honored friend from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] . He stood, at that time, shoulder to shoulder with me in vindication of South Carolina; he was not in favor of trampling her in the dust. There is another friend, the gentleman from Henry [Mr. GRAVELY] , who stood up at that time as a gallant defender of States Rights—and I know where those two gentlemen will be found now. They will be on the side of State Rights. They will be on the side of the Constitution; under all circumstances they will be on the side of liberty. In 1833 General Jackson was in the Chair of State. He rolled, like another Juggernaut, his car throughout the Union, crushing out every thing like States Rights in Virginia, and the whole country; and following this car there was such a shout from the Passamaquoddy to the Gulf of Mexico as has never been heard since that which rose around the walls of Jerusalem when the Savior of mankind was expiating the sins of the world by his death on the cross. The cry went forth—"crucify her, crucify her;" and I am pleased to find many gentlemen in our midst who then joined in this cry, now at the top of their voices crying hallelujah. [Laughter.] There is my friend from Greene and Orange [Mr. MORTON] he has become a convert to the doctrine of States Rights. I am glad to see him abjuring his errors and professing the true faith, and under the frost which time has showered upon his head, if you will examine closely, you will find penitential ashes. [Laughter.] I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, in confidence, .Page239 that next to his skin he wears a shirt of the coarsest sack-cloth. [Laughter.] And, sir, there is my friend from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , whom I hold in such high esteem and whom I admire so much for his manliness and talents, that I would have been glad at that day to have shaken him by the hand and called him friend.

Will you allow me but one word, and that is, that I never did at that day, cry out "crucify South Carolina," and if ever an army had invaded South Carolina, she would have found me by her side.

I know it, but still he has been a persecutor of the saints. I know he has undergone a godly, thorough reformation, and that the scales have fallen from his eyes, and whereas he was once Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor, he now stands before us, Paul, the Apostle, and at his feet I lay my homage and my reverence, and on bended knees pray for his apostolic blessing.

And I would give it with ointment.

Then, Mr. Chairman, here is another friend of mine, the gentleman from Rockbridge [Mr. MOORE] —a gentleman whom I have always known where to find. But he is so encrusted with political sins, that I have seen an hundred arrows shot at him, and yet they seemed to glance from him like thistledown. If I can see one crack in his harness, one broken link in his coat of mail, I would send an arrow at him, hoping to reach some vulnerable point. I know the gentleman is rather belligerent, and will never be a member of a peaceful church, but ours may soon be a church militant, and then he will come in armed from head to foot, to the very teeth, ready to do or die in the cause of Virginia. He does not like South Carolina, and I believe South Carolina does not like him; but, sir, I intend to have them welded together like another Benedict and Beatrice, and I am sure they will live together in peace and happiness.

Mr. Chairman, is my friend from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] . here? He has always been a good soldier and fought well. He did so in the year 1833. I had not the honor of his company in the Legislature, but I knew him as a man, and though he may have fallen occasionally into bad company since, I think he has come out untouched. I give him the right hand of fellowship.

And, sir, there is another gentleman, the honored gentleman by my side, who has just closed his most eloquent address. I wish I could say I had some hope of him; but I am afraid I shall have to say to him, "Ephraim is joined to his idols; let him alone." But I trust that Ephraim will not vex Judah and that Judah will not vex Ephraim ;.Page240 and that he may go hand in hand in this great cause which Virginia is calling upon us to defend. I listened to the gentleman day before yesterday in the few remarks he made. Yesterday, desirous as I was to hear him, for knowing his power and his manliness, it would have afforded me the highest satisfaction, I was taken sick and could not be in the Convention. I was glad to hear, however, that the gentleman said he was in favor of slavery, and that with rapt vision he seemed to see it in the distance increasing until it should cover the earth as the waters cover the great deep. I would like to know whether he confined himself to Africa. [Laughter.] Well, sir, Africa would be drained and there would not be a black face left there, if his desire should be consummated. The gentleman's catholicity is as unquestionable as it is comprehensive. We should have no white men, and the whole world would be Africanized. Every vessel upon the face of the earth would wear a black flag and would be engaged in the slave trade. Is he in favor of opening the slave trade to all the ships of the world, for to realize his vision this must be necessary.

There was another position which the gentleman took. He does not cross the line of my argument, which lies in a different direction, but I beg leave merely to remark that the gentleman took the ground here that Virginia belonged to a majority, which always controlled in Congress, the subject of slavery. Is that your position? If this be true, and the gentleman is not disposed to join the States' Rights party, the position that he took, is a most dangerous one, for the cause which he advocates. I recollect that the infidels of the last century, urged that the Old Testament did not teach the reality of a future state, that Bishop Warburton admitted the whole of it, and upon that admission built one of the most luminous and powerful arguments in favor of the Divinity of the Scriptures. So on the position, so elaborately argued and so ably sustained by the gentleman, may be drawn the inevitable inference, that Virginia has no other security but in her own inalienable sovereignty.

The gentleman's argument was a very strong one for the position I assume, and I was about to take the same line of argument. I was going to prove that Virginia and all the States of the South had used every effort to succeed in their legislation for the purpose of protecting slavery; but they had not succeeded. The argument is irresistible. I want nothing stronger. Virginia had the power of legislation and Virginia has failed to arrest the progress of fanaticism. The abolition feeling has been gathering strength in the country and if Virginia and all the Southern States, with the power of legislation in their hands .Page241 could not restrain it, what will it be when the power has gone from them to the Republican party? The wrongs of Virginia are immedicable under any process of Legislation, even when this Legislation is in the hands of the South. In what nook of the Federal Constitution can Virginia secure herself from the aggression of a full grown abolitionism? I know of none—there is none.

Mr. Chairman, I have no disposition to follow the argument of the gentleman any further on this branch of the subject for fear of marring it. He has amplified and illustrated it with so much ability that I shelter myself under it with a sense of security which I could not feel under any argument of my own.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to this Committee that this subject of slavery is not a question of dollars and cents. After this Colony was settled on the banks of the river at Jamestown, a Dutch ship came in from the coast of Africa with a cargo of slaves. They were bought by the early colonists. They all labored together, they grew together and they increased together; they sat by their hearthstones, were the nurses of their infancy, the companions of their childhood and the consolation of their declining years, and they are now so inter-twined with our social habits and interests, and laws, that to sever the connection must be political death even if done with the tenderest hand.

But, sir, the North have not dealt with this subject with a tender hand. Far from it. They have dealt with it with a rude hand. We find that this institution is distinctly recognized in the Constitution of the United States, and the surrender of fugitive slaves as guaranteed was honestly, and fairly and justly carried out by the first Congress in 1789. They enacted a law sir, to the effect that upon the application of a master, he could get a warrant from a Judge or Justice of the Peace, and the fugitives were to be surrendered to their masters. And fugitives were surrendered to their masters, until, in an evil hour, a case came before the judiciary of the United States, in which a decision was given which says, it is not the duty of State officers to execute the law of Congress. From that time, sir, it was made a felony on the part of a State officer to arrest a fugitive slave; and we lost all chance of recovering the fugitive for years; and when a slave escaped, his master looked upon him as much beyond his reach as if he were dead. That, sir, was a distinct and solemn violation of the Constitution.

But this is not the point. It is that the hatred of our Southern institutions and our system of slavery, is deeply, irradicably ingrafted into the minds of the Northern people. It is an opinion, sir, which has been deeply fastened there, and an opinion which, I fear, can never .Page242 be eradicated. Sir, the children in their primers see a print of the slaveholder with scourge in hand, and the suffering negro in chains at his feet. Every kind of effort is made to indoctrinate into the Northern mind the sentiments of abolitionism. The press, the pulpit, the school house—all are made subservient to its purpose, until their whole country, in spite of this favorable legislation, which is alluded to by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , has become overspread with those abolition sentiments. And, Mr. Chairman, whenever there occurs a war of opinion, that war will never stop; it will go on from time to time ; it will increase in volume and either one or the other of the parties must submit or must be conquered. A war of opinion is sure, in the long run, to be a war of the sword.

And what is the remedy sir? "If thy brother trespass against thee, tell him of his faults between thee and him alone. If he hear thee thou hast gained thy brother. If he will not hear thee"—what next? "Take two witnesses before him, and if he will not hear them, tell it to the church; and if he will not hear the church"—what then? "Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." We have whispered our complaint into the ears of our Northern brethren; we have told them of their fault in the presence of the world for witnesses; we have brought them before the church and they have divided that church in twain and told us to begone. What is the remedy? God speaks it by the mouth of His Incarnate Son: "Let them be unto thee as heathen men and publicans." I know of no other conclusion to come to; yet, I for one, in order to give my brethren another opportunity, am willing to make one other effort, and it shall be in the nature of an ultimatum put forth by Virginia, in her sovereign capacity. This is the ground I would occupy. I would give them an opportunity of repenting of their trespasses, but further than that I will never go.

Mr. Chairman, I propose now to enter upon a very delicate task. I propose now, sir—I hope no gentleman will be startled—to enquire what really is the value of the Union.

Mr. Chairman, ever since the day when Constantine, at the commencement of the fourth century, made an alliance with the church there seemed to be an impression that there was almost a divinity not only at the head of Virginia but at the head of the Government whether Republican or Democratic. Sir, the Roman Empire in the person of Constantine shielded the church, protected it; and the church poured the sacred oil upon the head of the Roman Emperor, and declared to the subjects that he stood in the place of God, and that passive obedience was due him; and, sir, although we have no heathen ruler, .Page243 yet there is divinity among us in the shape of the Union, and it is considered almost irreverent for us to enter into a calculation of its advantages to our people. But, sir, I hope that this Convention, and every one in it, will bear with me while I enter into this investigation. And, sir, I know that the North has calculated the value of this Union. She knows how many eggs the Southern goose has laid into her lap. She has estimated it, she has weighed it, not in the balances of the sanctuary, but in the scales of her own interest, and more unerring scales were never established by the High Priest in the temple of Jerusalem.

Mr. Chairman, I ask what has this Confederacy done for us? I ask it, sir, with simplicity; I ask it in truth; and I want to know what good thing this Confederacy has ever done for us? I don't mean to say that good things have not been done, and that we are not deriving blessings from it, but I want to know what these good things are?

Sir, we are told that we have protection abroad, and that when an individual goes abroad, he has only to pronounce the magic word, "I am an American citizen," and his honor and his rights are protected. We know the influence of the magic word in ancient times, "I am a Roman citizen." It secured protection and honor in every satrapy of Persia, in the boundaries of Carthage, and in the most distant regions of Africa. But, sir, when the slaveholder says "I am an American citizen," I know that his goods are protected, I know that his person is saved from incarceration, I know that he is protected from robbery, but, sir, when he says "I am an American citizen," the European turns upon him and says, "but you are a slaveholder," and the sneer, the shrug of the shoulders, the uplifting of the brow, and the pushing out of the lip, are all marks of contempt; and, so help me God, I would rather be scourged and imprisoned than have such marks of contempt showered upon me. The one touches the body, the other touches the soul.

And, sir, why? It is the teaching of the Northern people, the teaching of the Northern press, the teaching of the Northern traveller. They all profess to be ashamed of us when they go abroad ; and they look upon slavery as a scab, as a running sore, and they throw contempt upon us in every way. Is this the protection that a great people require under the flag of a great Union? No, sir; no!

And how shall we get rid of this contempt? There is but one way, and it does appear to me that it must be in the assumption of our own nationality. Why, sir, when we have our own nationality, when we have our own flag, when we show that by our own wise government, our firm .Page244 bearing, our virtue, our religion, and the bravery with which we uphold our liberty, then, sir, and then alone, will we have that security to our persons and our honor, and our feelings which we are so eminently entitled to; and any Government that fails to protect any part of its people from this encroachment, fails in the great purpose for which a Government was designed. I want to have our honor protected, which is far more precious than that of person or property. And what is the effect? Why, sir, the contempt showered upon us abroad re-acts upon us at home. We have become degraded in our own estimation, and I do believe, unless this thing can be arrested, we will become the patient subjects of arbitrary rule.

But, sir, we are told again that we are protected in our property, that our commerce is protected by the United States flag. Alas! alas! Mr. Chairman, we have no commerce. The commerce of the country is in the hands of the North; the shipping of the country is in the hands of the North; and we have no commerce to protect.

O, but we are told, our agriculture is protected. How? where? when? Does our cotton need protection? Does our wheat need protection? Not a bit of it. Does our rice need protection? We have a monopoly of the rice trade. Our tobacco needs no protection. But we are told that Southern sugar needs protection. Mr. Chairman, I do honestly believe that if there never had been any protection to Southern sugar the South would have been better off than she is to-day. The cane is a forced plant in Louisiana; and she would, in the absence of protection, have engaged in the more profitable culture of cotton. The Tariff gives to the South three-quarters of one per cent per pound on Muscovado sugar, and the Muscovado or brown sugar is the only sugar made in Louisiana. Let us follow this raw material until it comes to the Northern manufactories; and then, sir, we see that white sugar, which is almost entirely in the hands of the North, receives a protection of two cents, and when they, by a little more manipulation, convert it into candy, it receives four cents; and thus we find upon this article of sugar the North gets four times the protection of the South.

Well, sir, I do not propose to go into the discussion of this question of a tariff, it would lead me into an endless debate; but I do propose to mention one other article—that of wool. It is for the interest of the Northern manufacturer to secure the importation of the raw material used in his manufacture, free of duty, unless it comes into competition with the producer of the North. Let me call your attention, then, to the duties laid upon this article of wool. The duty laid upon wool worth eighteen cents per pound is ninety-one hundredths of a cent per .Page245 pound. There is no such wool grown in the North. It comes from Australia, from Smyrna, and from various other countries. It does not interfere, to any extent, with the Northern wool-grower. But when wool is worth from 18 to 24 cents per pound, there is a duty of three cents. This limit just grazes the products of the North. But when the article ranges from 24 to 30 cents, which embraces the great body of Northern wool, there is a tax of nine cents per pound. The Northern wool-growers use Saxony sheep and Merino sheep, producing the finest quality of wool; and they protect themselves to the extent of nine cents, while for wool grown to a considerable extent in the South, but not at all in the North, they levy a duty of ninety-one hundredths of a cent per pound. Thus, every interest at the North is protected, while not one solitary one at the South is protected, unless it so happens that they are obliged to protect us incidentally, in order to protect themselves.

But we are told that this Union will protect us against encroachments upon our borders; that if the Union is dissolved there will be constant marauding across our borders. Sir, we are a civilized people and such marauding expeditions would not be tolerated for a moment. I have no doubt there would be perfect quiet upon our borders as there is now upon the Canada borders. Civilized people could not tolerate such raids and would not tolerate them. But my friend from Albemarle [Mr. HOLCOMBE] , has treated this subject so fully, so clearly, so beautifully, that I am not disposed to mar his argument by any effort to encroach upon it by an argument of my own. I confess that this idea of being protected from the North grates harshly upon my feelings! The liberties of the South to seek protection under the flag of the Union for fear that they may be invaded by our Northern brethren. Liberty! that child of storm, rocked on earthquakes, the inhabitant of mountain top, where

"From crag to crag leaps the live thunder,"

that this liberty should crouch and creep under the folds of a Northern robe for protection. Such liberty as this I scorn; I trample it under foot; I spit upon it. This is not the liberty of our fathers. No, sir; "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!" If it sleeps, it sleeps a sleep that knows no waking. I hope that no gentleman will overrate the advantages the border States will derive from protection from the North.

Before Mr. BRUCE had concluded his remarks, he gave way to Mr. MORTON who moved that the Committee rise.

It is very unpleasant for me to speak upon a second .Page246 day. My constituents, I am afraid, would never forgive me if I were to speak two days.

I must insist upon my motion. The gentleman has evidently not the strength to go on longer.

The motion was agreed to. The Committee accordingly rose and the PRESIDENT, having resumed the Chair, the Chairman [Mr. SOUTHALL] , reported, the Committee of the Whole, according to order, had the report of the Committee on Federal Relations under consideration, and had come to no resolution thereon.

1.6.7. PUBLIC MEETING IN CULPEPER

I am requested by the resolutions of a public meeting in my county, to present these resolutions. I have lost the official copy of them, and I offer them as I find them in the newspapers. I ask that they may be read, laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.

The resolutions were read as follows:

"H. Shackleford, Esq., rose, and after a brief but stirring and eloquent speech, offered the following resolutions, which were adopted—the first with one dissenting voice, and the second with three or four:

"1st. Resolved, That we do not approve the propositions of the Peace Conference.

"2d. Resolved, That the Convention of Virginia ought to adopt an ordinance of secession.

"3d. Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to our delegate, to be presented to the Convention, and that they be published in the Culpeper and Richmond newspapers."

The first of these resolutions, declaring that my constituents were not satisfied with the resolutions of the Peace Conference, was adopted with but one dissenting voice, in the largest gathering of the people, I presume, ever held in the county.

The second resolution, instructing me to vote for an ordinance of secession, was adopted with but three or four dissenting voices. Recognizing, sir, as I do fully, in my present capacity, the right of my constituents to direct my vote here, I shall, with pleasure, conform to the instructions given to me.

1.6.8. PRESENTATION OF A WREATH

I desire to make the motion that the Convention adjourn, but before submitting that motion I desire to announce to the Convention that some of the ladies of the city of Richmond desire to .Page247 pay a compliment to a member of the Convention, and that as the ceremonies connected with that compliment will take place immediately, it is requested that gentlemen will remain in their seats. I move that the Convention adjourn.

1.6.9. TAX UPON NORTHERN GOODS

I ask the gentleman to withdraw the motion for a moment, to enable me to submit a resolution.

I will withdraw it.

I beg leave to offer the following resolutions, and ask that they may be adopted.

Resolved, That this Convention recommends to the General Assembly, the passage of a law imposing a license tax upon the sale, by retail, within Virginia, of the products or manufactures of such of the Northern States as continue to retain offensive acts of the character known as Personal Liberty Bills, amongst their statutes, guarding, however, in such law, against any infringement of the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

Resolved, That the President of this Convention cause copies of the foregoing resolution to be communicated forthwith to the two houses of the General Assembly.

I have no voice nor disposition, Mr. President, to detain the Convention with any remarks upon those resolutions. I have merely to say that I hope it will be the pleasure of the Convention to pass them without debate and without delay. My object in offering these resolutions is this: I believe that in the course of the discussion which preceded the election of members of this Convention there was no difference of opinion at all amongst the constituency of the delegates upon this floor in regard to the propriety of action concerning the Personal Liberty Bills in the Northern States. No person has learned with greater pleasure than myself of the action in some of the Northern States, just prior to our assembling and since we have been in session, in removing the obnoxious laws from their statute books. But it seems to me, in view of the fact, that other States still retain them, and of the fact of the general expression as I have said of our constituencies upon the subject, it is eminently proper that there should be an expression of opinion upon the part of this Assembly in regard to the States which have failed to comply with the requisitions of justice and the comity of the States in this regard. I do not think it would be proper for this Convention, called as it was, to consider questions of great State policy and of organic law, to assume to itself the exercise .Page248 of purely legislative powers, and I have, therefore, proposed merely that the Convention recommend the Legislature to take action upon the subject. I have waited thus long before making the proposition, in the hope that some gentleman of more influence than myself would initiate the measure, but it seems to me that the time has arrived when, if anything is to be done, it should be done at once, and I, therefore, submit the proposition to the Convention.

It will be seen that I have guarded the resolution against the only objection which can be urged to it, that of an infringement upon the Federal Constitution. It is required that the Legislature in framing the law shall carefully guard against any infringement of the provisions of the Constitution.

Now, sir without detaining the Convention longer, as I suppose there can be no reasonable objection to the resolutions, I move their adoption.

I understand, Mr. President, that the subject of those resolutions is already fully within the jurisdiction of the Legislature, and that it is a subject which has been frequently adverted to in that body. I am sure my constituents never thought of the Convention interfering with the jurisdiction of the Legislature in relation to that subject. If my friend will give it to the direction of the Committee on Federal Relations, and let it be examined by them and come up through them, I will not object to it. Otherwise, I must move to lay it on the table.

I will say to the gentleman from Preston, that the reason why I do not offer it in that form is that it does not come within the meaning of the term "Federal Relations." It is a matter pertaining entirely to inter-State Relations.

I prefer that, for the present, the resolutions shall lie on the table. I desire an opportunity to look into the subject and see whether or not it is one on which we ought to act. I move to lay the resolutions on the table.

The motion was agreed to.

Then, on motion of Mr. PRICE, the Convention adjourned until Monday next at 10 o'clock, A.M.

1.7.1. CORRECTION

I rise to a privileged question. By the report in the "Enquirer" of the remarks I made in this body on Friday, I have been misrepresented in a manner which I desire to have corrected. I am represented there as saying that I did not know by whom a proposition was made to the Western members upon this floor in reference to withholding action upon questions arising out of our State Constitution until action should have been had upon the question of our Federal Relations. I certainly did not say, or, at least, did not intend to say, that I was ignorant of the source from whence that proposition came.

I desire, also, to say that in my remarks of Saturday, I am represented as saying that I came here directed by my people to see first that the question of our Federal Relations should be settled before entering upon the consideration of the taxation question, and other matters of interest connected with the amendment of the organic law of the State. The reverse is what I said and what I was instructed. My people insisted, as I believe and as I feel myself, that we should first settle these questions of difference amongst ourselves, so that when we should enter upon the other matters, that may be presented to us, we should be regarded as equals upon this floor. That was the position I attempted to express to the Convention.

I am also represented as proposing that the Committee to be appointed upon the question of taxation should report at an adjourned meeting of this body. I did not make that proposition. I was and am in favor of settling that question now, before coming to a decision upon any other matter, and to that extent I was opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Preston [Mr. BROWN] .

There are other inaccuracies in the report of my remarks, but I will not, at this time, trouble the Convention or the reporters with them.

I am made to say in the report in the "Enquirer" "that at the time of the election, there was a very large majority in the county of Dinwiddie against secession." That is not the language which I used. What I said was: "that at the time of the election, there was .Page250 a very small majority in the county in favor of secession, but that now the county is nearly unanimous in favor of secession."

1.7.2. THE TAXATION QUESTION

The Convention then resumed as the regular order of business, the consideration of the resolutions of Mr. WILLEY, of Monongalia.

Having had the honor to submit to this Convention, the first resolutions looking to the investigation of this question of taxation, I deem it due to myself partly from that fact, as well as from the fact that certain remarks have dropped from gentlemen in the course of this discussion, which require some response from me, to call the attention of the members of this Convention to the propositions which I had the honor to submit, and to the difference between that proposition and those presented by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] .

In doing so I shall endeavor to trespass upon the time of the Convention as briefly as possible, and I must ask the indulgence of gentlemen for any inaccuracies of detail into which I may be led in consequence of the brief time to which I shall necessarily be confined. In order that I may be understood in the course of the argument which I may pursue, I will call the attention of the Convention for a moment to the resolutions which I offered, and to those offered by the gentleman from the county of Monongalia. The resolutions which I had the honor to submit, are as follows:

"1. Resolved, That it is expedient and proper that the 23d section of the 4th article of the Constitution of this State shall be so modified, that slaves, like other property, shall be taxed without exemption, and according to value, and that no exemption of any property from taxation shall be had without the vote of a majority of all the members elected to each House of the General Assembly.

"2. Resolved, That a Committee, to consist of thirteen members, to be selected from the different sections of the State, be appointed, who shall report to this Convention such amendments to the Constitution of the State as will effect the object indicated in the foregoing resolution."

Now, sir, I desire to call your attention to the extent to which this resolution goes, and, in connexion therewith, to state some of the objects which induced me to offer the proposition. The resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia, embrace three separate and distinct propositions. The resolutions I have offered embrace but one question for the consideration of the Convention—the question of taxation alone.

Gentlemen, upon the floor of the Convention, have deemed it proper and necessary to state, that in their understanding, there was a tacit agreement in the last Convention between the Eastern and Western members of that body, that the question of taxation should not be re-opened before 1865. In reference to that understanding, I believe there is some mistake; members of that Convention say there was no such understanding. But, whether such was the fact or not, the very terms of the act calling this Convention, by implication, propose to make alterations in the organic law of the State.

But it may be said by gentlemen from the Eastern portion of the State, that there was an agreement or understanding, that the question of the basis of representation should be postponed until 1865. I do not propose to consider this question in connection with that which this Convention is more immediately deliberating upon. I propose that this Convention shall treat each subject separately, and in its order, and that this question of taxation shall be dis-embarrassed of all questions save that which more immediately affects the interest of the whole State; and I trust that my friend from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , will withdraw his resolutions, and allow the resolution which I offered to be acted upon. The object with which I offered that resolution, I will refer to very briefly.

Sir, it has been the pleasure of gentlemen upon this floor, and especially the gentleman from Lynchburg [Mr. SLAUGHTER] , and the gentleman from Mecklenburg [Mr. GooDE] , to allege that these resolutions were offered for the purpose of throwing a firebrand into the Convention and disturbing its equanimity.

I desire for myself, sir, and I trust I may do the same for the gentleman who offered the competing proposition, to disclaim any such intention. I came here, sir, with a determination to demand for the State of Virginia all the rights to which she is entitled, and to be content with nothing less; while at the same time I came determined with equal persistency to demand for my section all the rights to which it is entitled. These two subjects are essentially distinct in character. I believe we can discharge our duties to both the State and peculiar section we represent, without producing discord or disturbing the harmony of this Convention.

Sir, the question of equalizing tax upon all the property of this State is a just measure, and any discussion of such a question cannot lead to distraction nor operate as a firebrand in this Convention. Inasmuch, sir, as gentlemen seem to have misunderstood my position on the question which this Convention is now mainly considering, I desire.Page252 to read some propositions the adoption of which I think is necessary to an adjustment of our difficulties. They embody the attitude which, in my opinion, Virginia should assume with regard to the other States of this Union. They are such propositions as I believe Virginia should adopt without regard to the action of other States. She should demand for herself the rights which belong to her, taking nothing less, and demanding nothing more. I have been waiting here for weeks and weeks anticipating that this question of Federal Relations would be settled. I was told to wait until the conclusion of the deliberations of the "Peace Conference." We waited ; but the Committee on Federal Relations took no action even after the report of the Commissioners to the Conference was received. We were then told to wait until the inaugural of Mr. Lincoln would appear, in order to ascertain what position he would take. We did wait, and yet this Convention has taken no action. How far is this apathy to extend to? How long are we to remain here awaiting action on the part of this body? If they do not act with reference to these questions which affect the interest of Virginia so vitally, I desire that they shall act upon those questions which are of vital importance to the people of my section.

In order, sir, that my position may be fully understood on the subject of Federal matters, so far as Virginia is concerned, I will read some propositions which I intend to offer for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole as a substitute for the report of the Committee on Federal Relations so soon as it shall be in order so to do.

These are my views upon the subject of Federal Relations as they affect Virginia, and I am responsible to my constituents for them. I believe that they will sustain me in presenting an ultimatum which will decide finally and forever the questions now agitating the country. These propositions, I believe, embrace the true States Rights doctrine in which I have been educated. And it was in order to harmonize the State of Virginia; it was in order that there should be no sectional divisions, and the people should act in perfect harmony upon these questions, that I desired this subject of taxation should be settled. Sir, it is impossible that a people such as I represent, as well as those of the whole section from which I come, who have been true to the interest of the South, true to the interests of the institution of slavery, in which they have had comparatively no interest ; I say it is impossible that a people of that kind who have battled for ten years to my knowledge faithfully for that interest should act now in bad faith in reference to that question. But, sir, I would state that, if they are made to feel this inequality which is implied in the unjust discrimination made .Page253 against them upon the subject of taxation, it would be impossible that they could maintain this attitude long. I believe, morever, that if this Convention shall refuse to raise a committee to consider this subject, it will have the effect of relaxing this zeal which they have always manifested upon the subject of slavery.

Sir, we have told them, so soon as an opportunity was offered on the part of the Eastern portion of this State, to relieve them from the inequality under which they were laboring, that our Eastern brethren would take advantage of that opportunity to extend with the right hand of brotherhood, the rights to which they were entitled; and we have been able to induce a people who are not pecuniarily interested in this question, to come up and stand shoulder to shoulder with, and even to take higher ground than their Eastern brethren upon the question of protection of the rights of property in the territories of the United States. It is utterly impossible that we can ever again resist the torrent which would overwhelm any man who should attempt to defend the action of this Convention, if it adjourned without taking this question into consideration. I for one, desire to say here now, that whilst I am perfectly willing to go as far as I believe we ought to go or can go, or that the people of this State will bear us out in going; yet sir, I will never vote for this Convention's adjourning, unless before it adjourns, a Committee shall be raised for the purpose of investigating this question of taxation, except to vote to adjourn forever. I have no compromises to make of any of the rights to which the State is entitled in the Union, or to which the citizens whom I represent are entitled. It is only for the East to come up, and meet us in a true fraternal spirit; and whilst this subject of the relations of this State to the Union, is under consideration to settle at the same time, questions which are involving the interests and rights of citizens of every portion of the State. As the hour has now arrived for going into the Committee of the Whole, I beg to postpone the farther consideration of the subject until to-morrow morning.

1.7.3. ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSIONERS

The Chair has received a communication from the Secretary, in response to the resolution offered by the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , on Saturday last.

The communication was then read as follows:

The communication was laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

1.7.4. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The Convention, in pursuance of its standing order, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the pending question being the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. CARLILE, upon which Mr. BRUCE, of Halifax, was entitled to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that an apology is due to the Committee for troubling them again this morning. Some days ago I met with an eminent legal friend. He saw that I was laboring under disease. He told me that he knew of a remedy, and advised me to come up to this Hall and make a speech. He said that when he was troubled with any kind of ailment, dyspepsia or a disorder of the liver, he always made it a point to make a two or three hours' speech, and he found in it a complete remedy. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this remedy is known to the legal profession generally, and I think that they never hesitate to use it for every class and degree of disease; for a common ailment, a speech of one hour; when the case becomes worse, a speech of a day ; when the symptoms become uncontrollable, a speech of two days; but, sir, when they venture upon a speech of three days, they are found to be very nearly in articulo mortis. [Laughter] .

I do think, Mr. Chairman, that a great deal of abuse has been unnecessarily expended upon this Convention, not only by the people of the State, but by the press of the State. The cause of our delay has been, I think, owing solely to the epidemic which has been prevalent in Richmond for the last sixty days.

But, sir, I will offer no more apology, and will proceed at once to resume the thread of my argument which I addressed to you on Saturday.

My object this morning will be to prove that the present oppressed condition of the State of Virginia is owing to the operation and the working of our Federal system. Well, sir, one has but to open his eyes to see—it requires no argument to show—that Virginia has not kept pace with her sisters of the North in all the elements of progress and material wealth. I know, we console ourselves with the idea that we have great moral qualities, that ours is peculiarly a soil which grows gentlemen, men of high moral, intellectual and social qualities. But, Mr. Chairman, in this world, as at present constituted, the poverty of a nation does not peculiarly recommend it; and the estimate which is placed upon States and Nations, is owing in a great measure to the progress which they are making in wealth, in improvement, and in accumulation of capital; and in this respect I must acknowledge, and all must acknowledge, that Virginia is a laggard in the race.

Now this must be owing to one of three causes. First, the natural inferiority of the people of Virginia and the inferiority of her soil; second, to the peculiarity of their institutions; or, at last, it is owing to the peculiar working of our Federal System.

I need hardly stop to say that Virginia is not peopled by a naturally .Page256 inferior people; nor need I stop to defend the people of Virginia against such a charge of inferiority as this. Virginia has descended from the same ancestry as our Northern brethren, Anglo-Saxon blood courses in our veins; and it cannot, therefore, be owing to this cause. Nor is it owing to the inferiority of the soil and the natural advantages of Virginia. Her position, her climate, her noble rivers, her splendid waterfalls—all invite enterprise, all invite to energy and industry. But Virginia is a laggard in the race.

Now, sir, I wish to show that this institution of slavery has not been the depressing cause which has kept back the progress of the State. See here, sir. I beg to read a few figures now and I will not trouble the Convention again with one of them. In the year 1774, one hundred and sixty years after slavery had been introduced into the colony of Virginia, we find, sir, that our population was greater than the population of any State in this Confederacy; and, remember that at that time the area, the habitable area and the cultivatable area of Virginia, was but little more than that of Massachusetts. At that time the population of Virginia was 560,000; the population of Massachusetts was 360,000; of New York 180,000; and of Pennsylvania, 300,000. Nine years afterwards—in order to show to you that this ascendancy of Virginia has not been the ascendancy of population alone, but of wealth—we find when the General Government made a levy on the States for a million and a half of dollars, Virginia had to pay $256,000, Massachusetts $224,000, New York $128,000, and Pennsylvania $205,000. Thus you see that Virginia has taken the lead in population and in computed wealth. Now it seems to me that after one hundred and seventeen years of slavery in Virginia, I am not entitled to say that slavery has had any depressing effect on the material progress of the State.

Now, sir, what was the condition of the Northern States? They had but few slaves—not enough to make them an element in the calculation of wealth or of population. From the poverty of their soil and the rigor of their climate, they necessarily embarked in commerce and in manufactures. But you may remember that under the navigation laws of England, passed by Cromwell in 1651, there were great restrictions placed upon Colonial trade, and especially upon Colonial manufactures. The exigency of the position of the Northern States compelled them to adopt this double system of manufactures and commerce. They were near the sea, and had every inducement to invite them to that course. And I may add, Mr. Chairman, that the slave trade was also a source of great profit to New England—not as great as it was in the mother .Page257 country; but the traffic of slaves with that great depot of slaves—Kingston, Jamaica—was extensive and very profitable.

Now, sir, came the declaration of war—a war which resulted in the emancipation of the Colonies. This necessarily restricted the commercial intercourse between England and the Colonies, and operated to give a stimulus to the manufactures of the North. Their commerce, of course, was cut up and unfavorably affected, but the manufactures were stimulated by the war of the Revolution. Well, sir, when peace was declared, it was found impossible that Northern manufactures and Northern commerce could stand in competition with the manufactures and the commerce of England. And, sir, the very first Congress that assembled after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States inaugurated a system of imposts and tonnage duties which were professedly intended to protect the commerce and the manufactures of the North.

Suppose they had not had that protection, what would have been their condition. England would have monopolized the coasting trade, she would have monopolized the foreign trade, she would have carried all the surplus produce of America to Europe. This is perfectly certain. They were skilled manufacturers, and had been for hundreds of years. Thus, sir, if all the colonies had been permitted to bear the same relations to England that they before had borne, it is perfectly obvious that Virginia would have gone abroad with her agriculture; and it is perfectly obvious, too, that the North never would have obtained a footing at all. But, sir, her poverty drove her to more profitable branches of industry, and our climate and soil invited us to continue the pursuits of agriculture.

Now, sir, in 1789, as I have informed you the Tariff policy was inaugurated, and Mr. Madison, in that Congress, deliberately said, that although he was a friend of free trade, yet he would relax his iron rule in favor of the infant manufactories of the North. Well, sir, thus it continued, and thus the Northern States continued to prosper under the protection of the General Government. And I think I have shown that without this protection they would never have made a start even in commerce and manufactures.

Then followed the war of 1812. This war itself was a protection to the manufacturers of the North. It cut up their commerce I confess, but their manufactories greatly flourished, and became an important interest in the Northern States. But when peace came the manufactures of the North were prostrate in the dust. Goods were bought, under this moderate tariff, from England and inundated the whole .Page258 country. And what was the effect? There was a clamor from New England and from the Middle States. They said they were ruined without the interposition of Congress. Congress did interpose, and the tariff of 1816 was passed—a tariff, not very high, but sufficiently high, as was then thought, to revive the fallen fortunes of the manufacturers of the North.

So far, all the progress that had been made by the North was under the protecting care of the General Government. That is perfectly certain; and they never would have progressed, they never would have made a commencement without it. It was generally believed throughout the country, that we of the South must go far beyond the North in wealth and in population.

Here let me pause. A nation that engages in commerce and manufactures, must necessarily, if it can get a footing, be more wealthy, must make greater progress, than a nation confined to agriculture. That is perfectly clear; but what I contend for is, that without the fostering care of this government, they never would have made any progress, they never would have even obtained a footing or have made a beginning. Then, so far, the industry of the North has been protected by the legislation of Congress. And here let me observe, as a remarkable coincidence, that the recedence of the South and the rise of the North begins exactly with the inauguration of the Constitution of the United States. The year 1789, which established our Federal Government and our Federal Constitution, is a year that seems fatal to the South, because from it grew all these protections, all this prosperity, which has so perfectly characterized the North. Their commerce and their fisheries are protected; aye, more, the fisheries of the North are protected, not only by a duty which excludes the fishermen of all other nations from our markets, but they have absolutely bounties given them in order to encourage these fisheries under the plea that they are necessary to raise seamen. And what are these seamen necessary for? They are necessary for the protection of commerce? What commerce? Northern commerce, and Northern trade. And the whole operation looks not only to the protection of Northern interests, but to the exclusion of Southern interests.

But, sir, in a very short time the North said that the tariff of 1816 was not sufficient. And then the tariff of 1824 was enacted. That tariff almost excluded English manufactures from America. It was as much as to say: "No goods shall be shipped to the South, but such goods as shall be carried there by the North." Is not this so? What was the effect of the tariff of 1824? Had the wand of Prospero been waved .Page259 over New England it would not have brought to view such a scene of peace, happiness and industry. Wealth flourished and flourished in a manner that was truly magical. Towns and villages rose almost instantly at every waterfall in New England. The accounts which were received from Massachusetts of the rise and progress of the town of Lowell, situated at the falls of the Merrimack in that State, were romantic and almost incredible. An English traveller, who visited America at this time, gave a graphic account of what he saw of this town of Lowell. Sir, the town of Lowell, became the El Dorado of men and the paradise of women. Men embarked in manufactures under this tariff of 1824, and grew rich on a sudden. The merchant princes of Tyre found their counterpart in the manufacturers of Lowell.

And, sir, young women came down to this town from New Hampshire and from Vermont, to seek money and to seek education. We are told that in a very short time they became accomplished in the profess'on in which they embarked. Their business was almost a sinecure: their labor was almost nothing. It was at last a labor of the eyes. Are you too old, Mr. Chairman—I hope not—to know the powers of woman's eyes when directed by woman's skill? [Laughter.] Yes, sir, it was the labor, it was the labor of the eye. They sat down by their delicate machines and watched over them, and the roughest employment that they were subject to, was with finger and thumb, to tie the broken thread or unravel the tangled skein; and, sir, they soon became, not only learned in their peculiar arts, but accomplished. In their intervals of leisure, their intervals were devoted to books, and the hardest usages that their delicate hands were exposed to, were in touching the keys of the piano, and turning over the gilded leaves of some Abolition author, and in a short time they became indoctrinated in abolitionism. They went to their native homes and, sir, they became the belles of their native mountains—the cynosures of admiring eves: but alas for the fate of woman, in a short time they married—olive plants grew up thick around them; and the whole business of their future lives is made up of efforts to inculcate in these tender plants hatred to the South and its inhabitants. Sir, this is not to be considered a fancy sketch; for I have been to this town of Lowell, and it seemed to me that the labors there engaged in were rather luxuries than toil. Well, sir, what was true of Lowell was true of other towns in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The whole country absolutely blossomed like a rose. What was it, sir, that kindled up this manufacturing enterprize? What sun was it that warmed it into such active life? Sir, .Page260 the sun which ripened fruits for these Northern manufactures was no other than a Southern sun. The labor which ministered to their prosperity was Southern labor; and so nicely was the system of protection adjusted that there was no escape from it. It is perfectly apparent that the North is indebted for all its success and its progress to the action of this general government; and it so happened that whatever tariff was passed has been increased and increased from year to year until there has been no satisfying them. And there seems to be also a determination on the part of the North to make us their Colonies.

Now, sir, the only possible way in which one nation can injure any portion of its inhabitants, is through the revenue laws. Talk to me about the surrender of fugitive slaves—talk to me about the attacks which have been made upon our institutions by the North ; but the great attack which has been made, and continually made, and which has never been remitted or relaxed, is the attack upon all our institutions through the instrumentality of the tariff of the North. I don't blame the North; I would as soon blame the shepherd for shearing his flock, or the herdsman for milking his cows, as I would blame the North for its policy to the South. We have borne it patiently, and we entered into this contract with our eyes open, and it was but just that we should suffer.

But, the question is, shall we now pause? shall we tolerate it any further? And even while we are attempting to adjust our difficulties with the North, instead of giving us an olive branch they give us the Morrill tariff—the worst tariff that ever was inflicted upon any people who call themselves free. There is one point here that I would have you to observe. A tariff in a Confederacy of States like ours is a very different thing from a tariff in a consolidated, small Government; for a tariff in that case, while it may injure the people does also increase the consumption of agricultural products, and if these manufacturers which have made an El Dorado and a Paradise of these Northern towns, had been located here, we could, probably, have stood it. But the tariff has been levied for the benefit of the North; the free trade between the North and the South has given to them all the benefits of this tariff not only by benefiting the manufacturers, but also the agriculturalists. The man who lives near a factory has a market. He can sell every vegetable to advantage. I saw a Northern man who was at my house, and while there, I walked with him through a large field of turnips. He observed, if I had these turnips in the North they would be a fortune to me, for I could find a market for them at my door at the factories. How am I to sell my turnips? I might send them to .Page261 Massachusetts, but they would not bear the cost of transportation. But the agriculturists of the North can sell to the manufacturers in their neighborhood at remunerative prices, from which but little is deducted, if any, for transportation. But far different with us. We are ground for the benefit of the North, not for the benefit of the manufacturers alone, but also of the Northern agriculturalist. And, sir, this enables them to monopolize the trade of the whole country. I am informed that when Mr. Byrd ran the line between Virginia and North Carolina, before the adoption of our present Constitution, he saw in the harbor of Norfolk, twenty-nine large vessels. Does the gentleman who represents the City of Norfolk, recollect seeing at one time in his port, twenty nine large vessels? No sir, that time has passed ; the commerce of Virginia has gone, and all that is left to us, is, that we shall employ the ships of the North, and use its manufactures.

Now, sir, is it not a perfectly clear case that if there was a law passed that Virginia shall not be permitted to buy any goods from any nation except from the North, we should not be in a greater state of vassalage. The North tells us, by an enactment of Congress, that we Southerners shall not buy from any other people but them. Turn it over as you please, and it amounts to this and no more, that the South is compelled, by statute, to buy from the North, and the North alone.

Mr. Chairman, I will for a moment call the attention of the Committee to a single practical view of the effects of this vassalage of the South to the North by a few facts within my own cognizance. I risk the charge of egotism that I may establish my point the better.

I was once, sir, a Southern planter. In the year 1844 I went to New Orleans. My imagination was kindled by the quantity of sugar, and molasses, and cotton that planters raised in that sunny region. I came home, and was invited to address an agricultural society in a neighboring county. I advised my friends who were large planters to carry a portion of their negroes South, where their profits were great, and not keep them here where our profits were small. To show my sincerity in this belief, I went to Louisiana, and became a cotton and sugar planter. The first year I made nothing, as might be expected, because I had heavy expenses; but the next year afterwards, there was a genial climate, there was a fine season, there were fine showers, and I thought that our crop was very great. Well, sir, it was sent to a commission merchant in New Orleans, and I went there in the spring, and told him that I wanted my money. Ah, said he, I am sorry to tell you that your expenses have been very great, and I have no money of yours in my hands. What, sir! Where are all the hundreds .Page262 of hogsheads of sugar, and bales of cotton? Is there no money coming in from them? He opened his portfolio, and drew out a paper, which he presented to me—I think he called it an account current. The thousands of dollars for the proceeds of my crop was on one side, and then on the other side I found the account more than balanced. How is it?

I took the account, carried it to the plantation and examined it carefully. I found it all right. I had no money. I found my pockets empty—not a dime in them—my purse turned wrong-side outwards did not reveal a picayune—I began to reflect upon the matter. I found that though I had no money, I had been a munificent patron of all the arts, which gave me some comforts. I had bought scientific instruments in Philadelphia, chronometers, barometers, saccharometers and spy-glasses. I bought from Lynn all my shoes—I bought from the northwest all my stock—I had bought my pork from Indiana—I bought my corn from the Wabash—hoes, ploughs, cane-knives, wagons and carts from Cincinnati—cotton goods from Lowell, and hats, blankets, and other woolens from New England. I found that all went into the pockets, not of slaveholders, but of the non-slaveholder. I say now, sir, that if I had given these plantations to the North and let them manage them—I held them seven years ago, but I do not now—I believe I would have been the gainer. No doubt about it. If we had had free-trade instead of a protective tariff, the profits derived from the plantations would have been handsome. All the profits went North, and all I got was the support of my negroes, and money enough to pay the overseer.

Why is this? Why do you encourage the manufacturers of the North? They had derived all the profit, and I had received nothing. Well, sir, I don't mean to say—I would not be understood as saying —that all the planters in the South were as bad planters as I am; but this I know, that they raise nothing but their main staples, and buy everything else in the North. Well, we are asked, why, under this high tariff, has not the South the benefit as well as the North? I have just shown you, I hope, that the reasons were obvious—that the situation of the North was such as to enable them to get the benefits of the tariff, and that the South did not apply herself to the pursuits which might have given her those benefits. We are to blame, and not the North. With the advantages which they possess over us, it would be impossible for us to compete with them. It would be just as difficult for us to compete with the North in manufactures, as it is for the North to compete with Louisiana in the production of sugar.

And there is a point I hope the Committee will dwell upon and never forget, that the North can never compete with England and France in commerce and manufactures, but by the protecting care of the Government. I believe another thing, that if we had had free trade instead of this protective tariff, from the commencement of our system of government in 1788 until this time, we should have been a rich people, and I think it can be demonstrated that what we have paid for our manufactures during those years would be the difference between wealth and poverty.

Mr. Chairman, here is the important question—what is Virginia to do? This tariff is upon us. The North has got the start of us, and we cannot possibly overtake her under this system of free trade. She must monopolise our manufactures. She is doing it more and more every year, and the question is what shall the South do? What can it do? Why, what I feel it ought to do, it ought to exact all those compromises and all those concessions which rightfully belong to us, and if the South were true to itself, it would require the North to give up its tariff policy and give us free trade; but instead of that they give us the Morrill tariff. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, I ask any one, if there is any hope of Virginia rising under this state of things? Is there any good ground of promise that Virginia can be recovered from the lethargy in which she is fallen? What shall we do? Why, sir, the inclination of my mind is, that separate nationality is necessary; but I do not wish to thrust my views upon other portions of our State. I love the West as I do the East. I love Monongalia and I love Pittsylvania. I love Augusta as I do Charlotte, and I, for one, will never, willingly, spare from Virginia an acre of Virginia Territory; not a rood, not a foot, not an inch, myself, in the cause of peace. I say to my friends from the West, I will humble myself in the dust rather than that Virginia should be divided. There is nothing short of absolute degradation that I would not submit to in order to get the whole of Virginia united; but what is our remedy? I do not know what is the temper of the people of Western Virginia; but from their representatives—their honorable and faithful representatives I take it that Western Virginia is not up to the standard that I would lay down. This question is to be settled by compromise. I know that the word compromise is hateful to the extremes in this hall on both sides. But compromise is a very dear word to me. You cannot do any thing without compromise. The existence of the Constitution, of laws, of everything, depends upon compromise. Compromise—it is the soul of the world ; the harmony of nature, the music of the spheres. Even our salvation .Page264 was probably won by a celestial compromise in the councils of Heaven. And shall gentlemen reject compromise? Will they make none? I am sure that this Committee is not of this mind. But what compromise would I make? I would propose this compromise : There are ultra secessionists, who take the ground that Virginia should go right out of the Union. There is another part of this Convention who say that they will not, under any circumstances, go out; but I know they will. But it will be rather hard to make a case that they think would be justification to Virginia for going out. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that there may be a middle ground, and that middle ground in my estimation is this. Let Virginia put forth an ultimatum and send it to the North, and say to the North, unless this ultimatum is granted that I will refuse any longer to remain in the Union. That is the language of the 1 1 th resolution, in the report of the Committee—a good resolution—and I will stand to it; but, for one, I am not willing to stand by the last resolution in this report, as understood by this Committee, or rather the Committee of Twenty-one. I think, though, that that report will bear fairly the interpretation that Virginia pledges herself to go out, if this compromise or amendments to the Constitution, intended as a compromise, are not adopted. I am afraid that some of my friends in the Committee of Twenty-one and in this Convention, do not take this broad and catholic view. I would have it more intelligible. I am instructed by my constituents, and it has been the voice of the State repeated time after time, and reflected in the Legislature of Virginia—that this question must be settled quickly, for we are in an agony of suspense which is now fatal to our trade, fatal to our social relations with the North and our social relations with the South. I think we might adopt it as a fair compromise, that we will send before the people to-morrow, if we can get at our ultimatum, authorising the people to send back to us the power, if this ultimatum is not accepted, to go out of the Union. I think that those who are in favor of immediate secession would agree to it, and that the conservative party may also come into this compromise. We can harmonize here, I believe, but no where else. I would say to the conservatives, that if they will take the ground, they will at last have such checks as the people may be disposed to put upon it. It is no final action, and the people have to pass upon it; and I am glad that the people have to pass upon it. I would have voted, if I had voted at all, for a reference of this whole matter back to the people. If I were an immediate secessionist, I would never deny the sovereignty of the people by refusing the right to them of voting upon any act. I therefore hope that all sides may be united, and that .Page265 we may send forth our resolutions with an unanimous voice and with an unanimous purpose to stand up and to sustain the rights of Virginia.

But gentlemen say we must have a conference of the Border States. You had a conference the other day. What was the result? They were in session for weeks, but they could not unite. Even the Border States could not unite. Suppose you had a conference of the Border States for consultation, for argument, debate and disputation—this very circumstance will kindle animosities and hatreds among the Border States that will render union impossible. What did Virginia send us here for? To consult the Border States? Not at all. We were sent here for Virginia. Virginia is to act for Virginia's self. Do you propose to send an ultimatum to the Border States? I thank the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] for proving in his very candid, luminous and able argument on Saturday—the absurdity of sending an ultimatum to this Border Convention. To send an ultimatum to the Border States would be an insult to them. What else can you do? We may go without an ultimatum, or in other words, without our resolutions. Is this Committee of Twenty-one, which has been laboring and sweating in a room which is almost like the Black Hole of Calcutta, to send forth a resolution which is not an ultimatum? This thing is absurd upon the very face of it. I will not put the liberties, the rights and honor of Virginia into other hands than Virginia hands. I will never consent to it—never never.

But this is good ground, that which I advocate, and I am sure that no one who occupies, as I do, the middle position, can refuse to take this ground—to go before the people at once, and say to them whether they are willing to stand upon it and authorize this Convention, if they do not, to go out of the Union. And the people will vote for it quickly, and it will be final. That is what I go for. I confess I have strong sympathies for my friends who are the ultra secessionists. If I had my own way exactly, I do not know but I would go with them. Candor requires me to say this, but prudence requires me to take a different course. I want Virginia to be united. This is the dearest thing to my heart, and I will seek this union in every way I can. The middle party holds the power between the extremes and will settle this question; and I ask them, one and all, to unite at once upon this compromise ; send it before the people, get the decision of the people, and then we can act and act as a unit. Where are we to go? Suppose the North will not grant us this ultimatum. I do not believe it will. I am afraid it will not. Suppose they do not act. What are we to do? Some say, give us .Page266 a border State Confederacy, and try and get in some of the Northern States. That does not meet my views. The slave interest is too weak for this. A house divided against itself—we have it upon high authority —cannot stand. And, sir, with Europe against you, with the North against you, without a solitary friend except one South American State, the empire of Brazil, not another State could give you any countenance, any right hand of fellowship; and yet we are talking about dividing the slave States of this Union. No, never! Our interests, are embarked in the same bottom, and I am for holding our slaveholding States together and acting together.

Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared yet to say that I will take the ultimatum as presented by the Committee. It is good as far as it goes. I think, with the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , that it does not go quite far enough. I am not disposed to be unreasonable, I am disposed to act an honest, open and an upright part. I mean not to take any advantage of gentlemen who do not agree with me upon this subject for the purpose of opposing them. I will go for such a compromise as will last as long as time, and if such compromise is adopted, I for one, will submit to it. I say submit—hoping, devoutly hoping, that the Cotton States will find it for their interest to come back to us. I will not be satisfied with a compromise that I think the Cotton States ought not to be satisfied with. I will give them and require a compromise that I think ought to satisfy, and if it does not satisfy them, I at least have done my duty and can do no more.

Mr Chairman, I felt it my duty on Saturday, to open a question that I know grated harshly upon the ears of the Committee. But, sir, thinking that the North would not accept our ultimatum, it is necessary and proper that we should look forward to the course we will pursue in the future. The gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , on Saturday, properly argued this question to show that Virginia would lose by a dissolution of the Union. Sir, permit me to tell him that he took his position like a man and sustained it with great ability. I feel it, and I take pleasure in saying that to him. But, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to one position which was well taken, and strongly taken by him, and which, I am sure, made a great impression upon this Committee. In answer to the question whether a dissolution of the Union would encourage the manufactures of Virginia, he said that Virginia could not compete with the North, and the North could not compete with England. With heavy duties what would. Virginia do in case we were out of the United States and had to compete with England? Sir, the view was very striking. It made its impression on me, .Page267 and made its impression on this Committee; and I am sure I am fair, when I state the argument in its whole length and breadth. Sir, it would be perfectly true that Virginia could not compete with England in carrying its manufactures abroad; but one immediate effect of this competition between the North and England would be to reduce the prices of manufactures and the duties upon them. The profit of this competition to the agriculturalist would be enormous, would unquestionably be great, and greater than any profit that could be derived from a tariff. But, then, the gentleman's position was not that. He stated that he was confining himself to the question of manufactures.

Sir, it would not be the interest of Virginia to become a great manufacturing State at once. Manufactures here, as elsewhere must have their infancy, their growth and their manhood. But here is the point : That if there was a dissolution of the Union it is perfectly evident that with the duty which we now have or would have—a duty of 15 or 20 per cent—that all the manufactures which Virginia now has, and which hang by a feeble thread, would be encouraged.

Look at the article of carriages and wagons. Does any one believe that England could compete with us with a duty of twenty per cent. in our favor? Of course not. Look at furniture! Why, sir, I remember seeing it stated, that Dr. Franklin mentioned that, when he went to England, he carried his writing desk with him, and when he was there, it became so tight from the dampness of the atmosphere that he could not use it, and when he brought it back to America, such was the dryness of the climate, that it almost fell to pieces. So, England could not compete with our own manufacturers of furniture. They must be made at home. And besides, there is a strong tendency in individuals to buy things near at home, rather than at a distance. There is, also, a nationality of feeling to encourage home industry, and national industry. And I have no doubt, sir, that every manufactory which is now barely able to sustain itself, when it has a protection of ten, fifteen, or twenty per cent., would flourish, and Virginia would take a forward step in manufactures.

You cannot tell, no man can tell what effect it would have, for us to invite the manufacturers of Europe, and the manufacturers of the North, to the South; for a protection even of five per cent., would be a mighty protection to a large business. And there is the point, and the weak point of the argument of the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] . I am perfectly certain that, upon the manufactures from abroad, you could save ten per cent, and ten per cent is an immense profit on a large business. In the wholesale dry goods business, five .Page268 per cent. is a large profit; and there is no question that the only chance of the Northern manufacturer to compete with the English, would be to come South and enjoy this small protection. There would be no question about that I think.

But we are told by the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] that Western Virginia, with her cattle and her provisions, would not be benefited by it. At least, Mr. Chairman, it must be admitted by the gentleman from Augusta she would not be, and could not be, injured by it. And I will tell him another thing: that the Western part of Virginia would be benefited, because there is a natural disposition in man to purchase from his own people rather than from foreign people; and, ultimately, under the present tariff, the provisions from the county of Augusta would go to the South. It will be protected, if the principle upon which that Southern government is founded is the principle of horizontal duty, which will protect every class.

But let me tell the gentleman another thing—and I hope will have the attention of this body while I urge it before this Convention. Look at the tobacco interest. We have for seventy years been striving to get the duties taken off our tobacco, and we have failed. That will not be always the case. But in a country like the United States is now constituted, with high duties, it is impossible that they can get the duties on tobacco reduced. England has a protective duty, or rather a tax—a revenue tax—upon tobacco. I don't know whether it is a direct or an indirect tax, probably it is both—that amounts to three shillings sterling, which makes a duty of seventy-five cents a pound; and this duty or this tax, instead of being diminished, is continually going up, in spite of the protection of the General Government. If you have a low tariff in the hands of the Southern Confederacy, I tell you, sir, that they would force them to relax the duty upon tobacco. What would they do? They would say, "If you don't reduce the duty upon tobacco, we will put a duty upon your manufactures ;" and this Confederacy would not be in existence twelve mcnths before the tariff upon tobacco would be lowered in every part of Europe, and we would have them in our own hands—we would have them under our control.

I need not say to this Committee that Virginia is vitally interested in this matter of tobacco; and it is a tremendous oppression that we have not the ability to let tobacco in free or with reasonable duties, to all the nations of Europe. When in Virginia we grow beyond seventy thousand hogsheads, it goes down, on account of the obstruction of the foreign tariff; and the profits of Virginia would be proportionately increased by the removal of this obstruction. I would like to know how any .Page269 gentleman can expect, and I appeal to commercial men, and ask them how it is possible that this Government, as now constituted, with this extravagant tariff, can bring any European nation to reason upon the subject.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that no country, unless it be an extremely tropical one, ever grew rich by agriculture alone. Look at Poland, which absolutely led Holland for a century—the first during all this time the poorest nation in Europe, the latter the richest. Ireland has no manufactures; it has no commerce, and its population is starving in the midst of heavy exports of grain, potatoes, beef and pork. Sir, look at all the nations of the world, and you will find that commercial and manufacturing industry are absolutely necessary for their prosperity. And who can expect that Virginia will ever be anything but an agricultural State so long as she has any connection with this General Government? The tariff forbids it; it cannot be done; and her case is a hopeless one, unless you can have the industry of Virginia protected. I see no brilliant future for Virginia. She has no future. All she has is in the past. She is rich in memories, but has no present, no future.

Mr. Chairman, when we are divided, and become a great commercial and manufacturing people, then we shall fulfill the destinies of Virginia. Why, sir, look at Western Virginia. Her minerals are buried in the ground, with no hand to bring them up, doing no good to herself or to others, and will yet sleep there for ages under the wing of the protecting care of our General Government. 0! that we could be that Virginia that we ought to be. 0! that we could enjoy the blessings that Providence has so bountifully showered upon us. God has done everything for us; man has done everything against us. We have the finest country upon the face of the earth; the finest climate in the world ; every advantage that heart could wish for or mind conceive of, but the disadvantages which we are laboring under are thrown in the way by the General Government. I wonder at it, and admire the hopes of those who can look forward to any greatness in the future under the protecting wing of this Constitution. What source of hope have gentlemen now which they have not always had? What is the prospect of the future? Show it to me and I will embrace it. But I have never seen any one yet who could give me any rational hope that Virginia can be lifted from the dust.

Mr. Chairman, to the West I would say, that they have a town there now largely engaged in manufactures—the town of Wheeling. I say to them that when Virginia resumes her sovereignty, and when she goes as she will go in that event, with the Southern Confederacy, Wheeling is to become the Manchester of Virginia. She already supplies the.Page270 South with some of her manufactures. I know that she has now a large trade with Louisiana, and with others of the Southern States; and if there be a disruption of this Union, I have no hesitation in saying that she would command the whole trade, or nearly the whole trade, of the lower Mississippi. And, sir, I know of no other part of Virginia that might not be compensated for the disruption of this government.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am exhausted, and I will draw my remarks to a close. I may say to you that I look with no pleasure to the disintegration of this Government. It is a serious subject, a serious thing to break, or even to untie the bonds which connect a kindred people together. I know there is a risk. I appreciate it. And my affections have always been with the Union. I have always loved it. But, sir, these are not times when men's affections should rule them in their action entirely. They ought to have their rights, and we owe something to the future, something to our posterity. It does sadden my heart, Mr. Chairman, does it not yours, when you reflect that the great name of Washington, clustered around with blessings, and intended to carry those blessings down to the remotest posterity, may become but the miserable representative of an impracticable idea? It does concern me to reflect that monuments which have been erected to his memory, which pierce the skies, and bear on their fronts the story of his great name and his greater deeds up to the chancery of Heaven—that they should become warning beacons to tell adventurers upon the sea of liberty not to approach too near our dangerous coasts. This saddens my memory; but this will I bear and more I will bear. I would see Virginia, as dear as she is to me, sunk fathoms deep in earth and

"To dumb forgetfulness a prey,"

rather than to see her live forever a degraded thing, to be pointed at in all time by the slow unmoving finger of scorn; nay, rather than that, welcome destruction, the treason and the grave.1The words "the treason" are in the Enquirer. The sense seems unclear, but the speaker may have been quoting something unidentified.

But, sir, I think that I can discern, beyond Alpine heights which frown with ice, glacier and snow, the fair plains of smiling Italy. I think I see unfolded a flag upon Southern ground which will protect Virginia's interests, which will protect Virginians in their persons and their property, and, more than that, which will do what our present flag does not do, protect the honor of Virginia in every land and in every clime.

I do not rise, Mr. Chairman, to trouble Committee with a speech. My health would not permit it, if I desired. I rise simply to put myself right in reference to a matter alluded to by my friend from Halifax [Mr. BRUCE] , who has just taken his seat.

The gentleman, in his opening remarks, tells the Convention of the stand taken by himself and some forty others in 1832, in reference to the course of South Carolina then. But I think he takes more credit to himself and to the other forty than they are entitled to for any benefit which was conferred upon South Carolina by them; for that forty could have done nothing. But I would remind him that there were others whose efforts on that occasion were better calculated to promote the interests of South Carolina than even the course taken by himself. According to my recollection, although I condemned the course of South Carolina, I was for the preservation of peace, as I am for preserving it now; and I drew and offered in the House of Delegates a resolution that was afterwards amended, and the result of which was the sending of Mr. Leigh to South Carolina for the purpose of preventing a collision between the forces of South Carolina and those of the Federal Government. I think, then, I may claim credit for having done for the benefit of South Carolina as much as my friend from Halifax, or any other man.

But the worthy gentleman has thought proper to hold me up as a belligerent character, as excessively bellicose. Now, sir, I really cannot understand the ground upon which that can be done. I have assailed no individual here, and it is injustice to impute to me such a character.

I hope my friend will really not take in earnest the jest I took occasion to indulge in.

Well, sir, I hope the gentleman's explanation will go outside of this body and that the public will understand it as a joke. That is all. [Laughter.] Now, sir, I have manifested no disposition to assail any man here, nor have I manifested a disposition to make war upon South Carolina. On the contrary, as the worthy gentleman knows, in the Committee on Federal Relations and elsewhere, I voted for resolutions strongly condemnatory of any attempt upon the part of the Federal Government to coerce any of the seceding States. All that I have done here has been to defend myself when I have been assailed, about opinions expressed 30 years ago, and in reference to opinions which I am supposed to entertain now, but which I do not entertain.

But, sir, my worthy friend has announced to the Committee that I am a great sinner. I do not suppose that he can have discovered that I am such in a political sense because of two things. In the first place, the gentleman and myself I believe have uniformly acted together upon all political questions when we have been together. And, in addition to that fact, when I had the good fortune to meet him here

at the beginning of the session of this body, he was exceedingly glad to meet me, and had always looked upon me as his file leader. [Laughter.] Well, sir, I do not know how it is that he has since found out that I am guilty of any great political sins, unless it be from other file leaders whom he has since adopted. He cannot, therefore, allude to me as a political sinner, but must make the allegation in another sense. Well, sir, I confess that I am a sinner; I cannot stand up here and quote Scripture by the whole page, and take the attitude which would seem to say "I thank God that I am not as other men are." [Laughter.] No, Mr. Chairman, I must stand back, like the poor publican, and ask God to forgive me as a poor sinner.

Well, sir, the gentleman denies that I shall ever be admitted into the church. One thing is certain, if ever I do get there, you may count me there for good. [Laughter.] When I do get there, I will feel it a duty I owe to my God to act strongly, and to act in such a way that I may always be known where to be found. My friend here did me the favor to say that he knew where to count me. Mr. Chairman, I have thought for some time that I knew where to count him, but since the remarks he has been pleased to submit to this Committee, there is no longer any doubt about his position. Yes, sir, I think I may be counted on with some certainty, and I think the gentleman may be counted on with very great certainty, after the speech he has favored us with.

But, sir, I am sorry my friend has found the Government of the United States so exceedingly bad, that it has never done anything for us. I do not like to refer to anything occurring out of this house, but my friend has the credit of having made a speech here, three or four years ago, in which he expressed the opinion that it was better that the whole meeting with which he was surrounded, numbering twelve or fifteen hundred persons, should perish in an instant, than that the Union should be dissolved; because, if these should perish, their place would be filled by others, but if the Union should once be destroyed nothing could ever restore it, or supply its place. I am sorry that my friend has made these discoveries.

But the gentleman talks of taking me to South Carolina. Well, sir, I do not know whether I will ever get there or not. It may be that if I should become master of some of those cotton and sugar plantations, it might have a little effect upon my vote if ever I did get there. One thing I very much regret in the case of my friend: I am sorry that he did not have some of the principles which he has announced here with his cotton and sugar plantations when he gave them up.

The Chairman stated the question to be upon the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. CARLILE.

I only rise to inquire about the effect of that amendment. Are you going to put the question on the motion to strike out?

On the motion to strike out and insert unless a division of the question be called.

I was not enquiring whether the question was divisible or not. The question I desire an answer to from the Chair is, whether, if the motion to strike out and insert be decided in the negative, will it be in order subsequently to move to strike out and insert another substitute.

The Chair understands the inquiry of the gentleman from Princess Anne to be, whether, if the substitute of the gentleman from Harrison, which is pending, be decided in the negative, it will then be in order again to move to strike out the entire report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and substitute something in lieu of it. Does the CHAIR understand the gentleman correctly?

Yes, sir. The motion pending is to strike out and insert. The negative of that proposition is to refuse to strike out and to refuse to insert. What I inquire of the Chair is whether, if the motion put in this form be decided in the negative, it will preclude a motion from being made in future to strike out and insert?

Certainly not, if this motion is decided in the negative.

I desire to offer, for the consideration of the Committee, some remarks upon the subjects now under consideration; but I had not anticipated an opportunity would have been presented to me to do so during this session of the Committee. I have at my room some preparations to which I desire to refer, and if no other gentleman desires to address the Committee at this time, I will move that the Committee rise.

That motion is not in order, the Convention having directed that the Committee should remain in session until 2 o'clock, when a recess is to be taken until 4 o'clock.

I had desired to avail myself of some opportunity to address some remarks to the Committee before this question should be finally disposed of, but I am not inclined to do so on the present occasion. I understand the question now before us is upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Harrison, that substitute recognizing the propositions known as those which emanated from the Peace Conference. I hardly suppose it is necessary at this time to offer .Page274 any reasons why that substitute should not be adopted. The Committee knows that the propositions which came to us from the Peace Conference were referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, where they received the deliberate consideration of that Committee; and the result of those deliberations was the report of certain amendments which that committee proposed as proper to be adopted to the present Constitution. It is a proposition to consider a competing scheme, without saying in how many particulars, in how many important particulars, the amendments proposed by the Committee differ from the propositions of the Peace Conference. Whilst, as it seemed to me, the propositions of the Peace Conference, rightly understood, properly interpreted, secure to the South these territorial rights which the gentleman from Kanawha represented to us it was the purpose of these propositions to secure, yet the language employed admitted of such criticism that, in the opinion of the Committee on Federal Relations, it was deemed proper to amend that language in certain particulars, and to add to the propositions other language beyond what these propositions contained when they were reported to us as the work of the Peace Conference.

Now, sir, I don't propose to detain the Committee by entering upon any detailed comparison of the two schemes, but I rise merely for the purpose of saying that it seems to me there is at present no ground of comparison between the two. In the proposition submitted by the Committee, every ground of just criticism has been removed; every ambiguity has been stricken from it, and in addition to these recommendations other propositions designed for distinct purposes have been added to it that make it preferable in my opinion to the proposition of the Peace Conference.

I understand, sir, that by a resolution which the Convention some days ago adopted, it is allowable in the committee of the whole to take a question by ayes or noes. I rise now, sir, for the purpose of demanding that the vote upon the substitute of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , shall be submitted to that test.

The call for the ayes and noes was sustained.

I wanted to say, sir, to the committee here, that the President of this Convention having done me the honor even when absent I believe, to place me upon the Committee on Federal Relations, I have faithfully, as far as ill-health would permit me, endeavored to discharge my duty in that Committee. I have, against great disadvantage of labor, made a report placing this Convention—hoping to place this State upon a fair, conservative, middle-ground of action— .Page275 safe, honorable, just and hopeful; hopeful to save not to destroy; standing upon the grounds of the old Union and trying to reconcile the two hostile Unions that have sprung up out of the old; fighting in the old Union and for the old Union, and aiming, if possible, to restore it.

Now, sir, standing in that position, standing until to-day, I say today, because of the remarks made by the gentleman from Halifax [Mr. BRUCE] , who has just concluded his speech; standing until to-day alone almost, in that position in this House, hoping from the example which he has given me that I don't stand alone now; not despairing of my aims, ends and objects, I do desire before the debate closes to be heard fully. I care not how long it takes me, sir—in times of revolution like these, and when all that I have and all that my children after me will have to enjoy is at stake, I mean to be heard, and heard before a decision is made. I claim it as a right, as a member of this Convention, and as a member of that Committee standing in a peculiar position. I am not able to perform my duty now. My lungs are lacerated. Ever since you have been in session I have been troubled by an influenza that I fear is worse than common cold. If I die in the effort, they shall be risked, life itself shall be risked upon this question. I am not ready now—my physician cannot tell me when I will be ready. With inflammation from my head to my heels I have not a voice for my constituents this day or this week. I only ask that an opportunity shall be given me that their voice shall be heard on this floor. I stand to them in a peculiar position. I don't agree with them in mere party politics, and they have trusted me although differing from them, and if I betray them "may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth and may my right hand forget its cunning." This debate has not been opened yet. The points that press upon me and upon my constituents have not been touched in my hearing to my satisfaction ; and before I am done with this crisis I mean to be satisfied; and those who are satisfied without satisfying me shan't have peace either here or elsewhere for ever as long as I live. [Laughter.] I am obliged, after giving this notice, to ask for this courtesy—to ask this Convention to wait a little while, if necessary, before the debate is concluded, for a sick man—a sick committee man, who stands solitary and alone upon the other side of that assumed by the Committee.

I cannot help now, sir, saying one thing in reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] . If I heard the gentleman aright, just now, in what he said—if what he said meant anything pointed and particular—he said and meant to say that there is no .Page276 difference between the report of the majority of the Committee and the report of the "Peace Conference," except that the report of the majority of the Committee explains and makes unambiguous the meaning of the report of the "Peace Conference."

I said that there were important features added which were not to be found in the propositions that came from the "Peace Conference," and expressed the opinion that in respect to that section of the "Peace Conference" proposition which related to the rights of the slaveholder in the territories; that according to a just construction and proper understanding of its meaning, these rights have been properly secured; but the language employed was of doubtful import, and this language had been amended by the Committee.

Sir, give me the time and an opportunity, and I will show to those who have approved of that Peace Conference proposition, that this Committee of Twenty-one have not approved of the Peace Conference proposition in any one particular; that they have disapproved of it, and in fact torn it into tatters, and there it lies in miserable tatters; that there is no agreement between the two. I will propose to show you—I will show you a material, an essential difference to the poor minority that is now asking for protection; I will show you that the Peace Conference did not "bell the cat;" I will show you that the Peace Conference saw the cat in the meal; and I will show you that the Committee of Twenty-one have "belled the cat" and turned him loose. No man, after comparing the report of the Committee of twenty-one with the result of the "Peace Conference," will ever touch the "Peace Conference" with a forty-foot pole hereafter—never. The committee of twenty-one "belled the cat." They have shown you by their own report that there was a "cat in the meal." It was showing itself so strongly in everything in this "Peace Conference" proposition that it was necessary to change the language of the report of that Conference. I do mean to take up these reports and to compare them. You are shown where the one infringes upon the other, not only in language, but in idea, in thought, in application, in construction—in all the wide differences between tyranny and protection. I will show you that the Committee of Twenty-one have gone further than the Peace Conference have; that they were not content with the ultimatum that was proposed by the "Peace Conference;" that they had to go beyond what was demanded and admit the necessity of demanding far more than was demanded by the "Peace Conference." I honor them for it, and shall aid them, as a minority man, in demanding more. They have not only added to but they have excised that "Peace Conference" .Page277 proposition. It will not bear the examination of any man that understands the rights of the South or of the slaveholder, and, understanding, means to maintain them. Give me time, sir, and I will prove that I am right in all that I say in reference to these reports. I would say that I would take the majority report in preference to the Peace Conference Proposition; but God save me from those who cry peace, peace, coming to me in the form of Bellona!

I have only a word or two to say before the vote is taken.

I too was a member of the Committee of twenty-one, and I continued on that Committee, discharging the duty that was imposed upon me, until I was called away from here, and then I paired off with one of the members on the other side.

I differed from the majority of that Committee, and from the minority of that Committee that did not agree with me radically. I differ from them now, radically. Unlike the members of that Committee, whether the majority or the minority, I, in common with the constituency that I represent, have utterly despaired of continuing this Union and protecting their rights and the rights of the South within its limits I have made up my mind, as my constituents have made up theirs, to make no further propositions for adjustment—to ask no further surrender from the North of the powers that they claim—I am unwilling to put myself and my constituents in the attitude of proposing an ultimatum to the North which might be adopted by the North and which might be rejected by the South. I will not make a proposition to the North, believing as I do that the South has claimed no more than it is entitled to, and this it ought to have. I do not want now to present an ultimatum to the North, the acceptance of which would estrange me from the people of the South, and attach me to the North. I want to know the position that Virginia will place herself in if she presents a proposition to the North which the North will accept, but which the South will reject. I don't believe that we can remain or that we ought to remain in this Confederacy, no matter what parchment guarantees are granted to us by the Northern States, in the absence of the support that we are entitled to, and will have if we are connected with the Southern States.

So far as I am concerned, and so far as my constituents are concerned, without one solitary dissenting voice, so far as I know, we have determined so far as we are able, to make a common destiny with the cotton States and to break up this Union, unless those States come back. We will take nothing unless with the condition that these States.Page278 of the South are brought back. Now, sir, I came here to make demands for Virginia. I was sent here to make demands from Virginia upon the North. I never will consent to occupy the position of placing Virginia in a mediatorial position, as was proclaimed by that committee, to settle this question between two competing parties, the party at the South, South of us, and the party at the North, North of us. I am here contending for what these cotton States have broken up this Union for. I do not acknowledge that there is any Union now existing. I believe that we are as much a part of the United States at the South as of the Union of States here at the North. I think that the only question for us to decide here is to which Confederacy will the people of Virginia go, that to the North of us, or that to the South of us? I will not recognize the fact that has been acted upon in the committee throughout, from the day we went into committee, if I may be allowed to speak of it, up to the moment they made their report, that we are to make another tender to the North, in order to get our rights from them. I will never make another demand upon the North, so far as I am concerned, except with the sword in my hand. When I go to the North again, it must be in the form of defiance and demand. I will never place Virginia in the attitude of supplication hereafter, as long as I continue to represent a portion of her sovereignty.

I have made these remarks to make it clear why it is that I cannot support either or any of the reports emanating from any member of this Committee, except the one signed by myself and colleagues; but, at the same time, while I make that declaration, I will vote as between any two competing propositions for that which demands the most, for that which exacts the most for the South against the encroachment of the North; and upon that principle, if the vote be taken, as I suppose it is now to be taken, I shall vote against the award of the Peace Conference and in favor of the award of the Committee of Twenty-one.

I do not know that I shall trouble this Committee with any extended remarks in regard to the various propositions that will be submitted. I want to ask the Chairman, before I take my seat, whether I understood him last week when he gave his opinion as to the rules of order, as saying that no vote should be taken in this Committee upon the result of the proceedings of this Committee as a whole. I wish to know whether he confined his remarks to the action of this Committee, or whether, if reported to the Convention, that then the Convention should vote upon the report of the Committee as a whole.

The gentleman from Amelia has asked for information, and the Chair will take great pleasure in giving the gentleman .Page279 the information he desires. The Chair announced the other day that he would relax, to some extent, the strict parliamentary rule, and would receive, as he has just received, a motion to strike out the entire committee's report, and insert therein, as a whole, any substitute that might be offered by way of amendment. During the pendency of such amendment, any gentleman who desired to offer a substitute that could not then be entertained as an amendment for the pending substitute, might indicate to the committee the contents and character of his amendment, and those who agreed with him, and opposed the pending amendment, might unite in voting it down, and so on from time to time, through the various stages, until the report of the Committee on Federal Relations overcame all opposition to that extent. After the committee's report should overcome all the substitutes that were offered, then the Convention would take up the committee's report, and proceed to consider its distinct, independent propositions seriatim; and after that, then any distinct proposition which might be adopted by this Convention, would not be open to amendment or reversal.

Do I understand the Chair as construing that in the Convention we should have to go over the work of the Committee again?

The Convention may do precisely whatever they please with this Committee's report, amend, modify or any thing else they think proper.

Of course I shall not make any appeal from the decision of the Chair, but I do protest—

If the gentleman is going to argue against the opinion of the Chair he must make an appeal.

I do not want to make an appeal at this time. I want to call the attention of the Chair, if the Chair will permit me to make a suggestion.

The Chair cannot permit the gentleman from Amelia to argue against any decision of the Chair, unless an appeal is taken.

Can I appeal from the decision of the Chair?

Certainly.

I want to appeal from the decision of the Chair that makes final and conclusive the action of the Committee upon the whole proposition presented, because there has been a vote upon each of the branches of the proposition.

The gentleman will have the full opportunity when that time comes, to take his appeal upon the distinct proposition.

I do not propose to make a speech of any length upon the propositions now pending. My object is merely to indicate to the Committee a sensible course of action that we might take and also to indicate my vote upon the amendments offered by the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] . My impression is that the report of the majority of the Committee is wrong. The amendment is wrong, and all the proceedings so far as we have acted in Committee or in the Convention have been wrong; provided, we want to attain a certain object, that of the restoration of the Union. If this Committee is really desirous of re-constructing or re-organizing this broken Union again, in my candid opinion, they have but one course of policy to pursue. We all admit the necessity of amendments to the Federal Constitution and that a re-construction of it is necessary. We have such a re-construction done to our hands by the people of the Confederated States South.

Let us at once, if their recommendations are reasonable—if their suggestions are proper—if their constitution is such a constitution as commends itself to the judgment of mankind—accept the Constitution as it has come from the hands of the confederated States South. I defy the distinguished gentlemen of the committee of twenty-one to sit down and prepare a better constitution than that which is now presented to the world by the confederated States of the South. Let us discard all this stuff, all this balderdash we have been hearing about this and the other thing, and come to some practical result. Let us go to work and reconstruct the Union. I feel encouraged by the interest taken in reference to this matter by the whole conservative press of the North, which, with hardly an exception, appeals to Virginia to adopt the constitution of the confederated States of the South.

I hope it will be the pleasure of the Committee to vote down the amendment of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , because of all the subterfuges, cheats or attempted frauds, that takes the lead.

I understand that a division of the question may be called for. Has that division been called for?

No, sir.

Then I call for a division of the question.

If I can get the attention of the gentleman for a moment, I would appeal to him to withdraw it. It merely involves a waste of time. The proposition now is to strike out and insert a certain substitute. We have four or five other substitutes upon the table which will be offered in succession. The proposition here, to strike out, is a proposition to strike out in order to insert a particular one of these .Page281 substitutes. It will be in order, although the Committee may refuse now to strike out, to offer any other substitute; and it will be equally in order, if the Committee determine to strike out to offer any other substitute; so that a division of the question would be merely an unnecessary consumption of time. But, in addition to that, it will involve some confusion in the minds of members in voting upon these various propositions. I would ask, therefore, the gentleman from Preston [Mr. BROWN] , to withdraw the motion he has made.

In compliance with the suggestion of the gentleman, I will withdraw the motion I made.

The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , who has proposed this substitute is not in his place. It seems to me to be rather a legislative anomaly for a Committee to consider a proposition offered by a gentleman in his absence. I have thought, perhaps, it would be well, under these circumstances, that this pending substitute should, by general consent, be withdrawn. It would be competent at this stage of the proceedings, I presume, to adopt that course.

That can be done, if the proposition is made and the Committee, by general consent, agree to it ; but the proposition is now the property of the Committee.

I had no opportunity of ascertaining the wishes of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , or of desiring him on some occasion hereafter to present his proposition as a whole. I take the responsibility of suggesting to the Committee its withdrawal by general consent. It will expedite the consideration of other pending propositions between which and the report of the Committee of 21 there are more marked differences. In a parliamentary point of view the report of the Committee of 21 ought to be as perfect as possible before a substitute, such as the one now pending, is adopted in its place.

Does the Chair hear any objection made?

I object.

Mr. Chairman, I rise—as you went into committee whilst I was absent—to enquire what is the original proposition to which a substitute is now proposed. Will the Clerk read it?

The entire report of the committee of twenty-one.

The entire of which report?

Of the committee of twenty-one, sir, the only two reports the Chair is aware of.

Which two?

The partial report and the proposed amendments appended to that report.

Well, does the Chair consider both these reports as being before the committee?

They are but one report, and that is now under consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I ask again, as there were two reports made by the Committee of twenty-one, which report is now before this committee?

The two reports constitute a whole; the chair does not consider that they are two distinct reports.

The Chair thinks then that two is one. Am I right in that?

Sir?

Does the Chair think that two is one?

Under these circumstances, it does, sir.

"Under these circumstances it does." [Renewed laughter.] Well, what part—if the report is a whole—what part of the two reports is now under consideration?

The entire report, both of which being partial reports, constitute one report, and that whole report is now pending before the Committee, to which there is an amendment offered by the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] .

That requires the most curious grammar I ever heard of—"the entire report, both of which."

The Chair does not wish to discuss with the gentleman from Princess Anne the question of grammar.

The Chair has made this decision itself. I submit that it is a question for the Committee. I submit that the Chair is not sole arbiter of this question. This statement of the Chair places us in a very false position.

The gentleman mistakes the Chair if he supposes for one solitary moment that it thinks it has arbitrary power to decide any question.

I might be willing to substitute a motion made by the gentleman from—

Will the gentleman from Princess Anne allow me one moment?

Does the gentleman yield the floor.

Certainly.

The Chair has stated the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , fairly. I know it, because I heard the proposition offered, and conversed with the gentleman afterwards .Page283 as to the scope of his proposed amendment. It was to strike out the whole report of the committee of twenty-one, embracing the resolutions reported as a partial report, and the proposed constitutional amendments afterwards added to that report, to strike out the whole and insert simply the propositions of the Peace Conference amended, as a substitute for the whole.

If this is so, the journal will decide the question. Mr. Clerk, read the motion. I call for the reading of the motion. That will determine it.

The CLERK read the motion from the journal as follows :

"Mr. CARLILE moved to amend the report of the Committee on Federal Relations by striking out the whole, and inserting in lieu thereof a proposition which is included among documents hereto appended."

That motion on the record says no such thing. It is an indefinite motion. The Committee of twenty-one have made two reports—one that they call the partial report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and the other the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, with the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Now, I say that they are independent of each other in matter; that they have no unity or community of purpose or design, and that they were made at different times. There is no unity in them; and I want to know which report they would substitute this Peace Conference for. Non constat, sir, that I might vote for the substitute and against the other.

Does the gentleman appeal from the decision of the Chair? If he does not, there is no question before the Committee.

I want to reason with the Chair.

The Chair would have great pleasure in hearing the gentleman, but perhaps the Committee might desire to proceed to the business before it.

Well, it certainly ought to be the pleasure of the Chair to answer an enquiry.

Certainly.

Because, when the Chair makes a decision, and I don't understand the decision, I cannot say whether I am going to appeal or not. [Laughter.] Now, will the Chair tell me which of these two reports is meant? It is "the report." There is the definite article. "Two reports" would be in the plural. And there are two reports. The gentleman—the Chairman of the Committee of twenty-one—told us .Page284 what the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] is not here to tell us, whether he meant his proposition as a substitute for the whole, or for one. I say, arithmetically, in this case, and in all cases, that two are not one. And you cannot talk about two as one without making bad grammar. It is suggested to me that there was one in many, once. Yes, sir, there was one in many, once. "E Pluribus" Unum in this country, and now the Union is turned into two. Out of the "E Pluribus Unum" have come two Confederacies, and now out of two reports come one. I don't understand this e converso. Now, I wish it understood, that the Committee of twenty-one have one report that is called a partial report, from the Committee on Federal Relations, presented March 9th, 1861. Then they have a report not called a partial report, but called "a report" of the Committee on Federal Relations, proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Clerk, will you tell me when this was made—this last report of the Committee of twenty-one?

I hope my friend from Princess Anne will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, in order to relieve him, for I am really afraid, sir, that he is likely to injure himself; the condition of his voice is dangerous, and I fear that he is exerting himself entirely unnecessarily. If the gentleman will look at those two, which he calls two reports, he will find that in point of truth, upon the face of this report, it appears they are but one. The partial report of the Committee in the eleventh resolution speaks of certain proposed amendments to the Constitution, which are "hereunto appended ;" and when that partial report was made by the Chairman, under the direction of the Committee, he stated that the Committee had not entirely prepared those proposed amendments, but would afterwards bring them in, and ask to have them appended to this report. Accordingly, when the second part of this report was made embracing these constitutional amendments, the gentleman will find that that again professes to be only a part of the report originally made; for he [the Chairman] , asked these amendments to be appended to their former report, so that the Committee considered them as partial reports, both to constitute one report. I apprehend, however, sir, that this is not a point of any real practical moment. I know that the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , was a substitute for the whole, embracing both the portions of this report—a simple series of proposed constitutional amendments, emanating from this Peace Conference. And such it appears upon the journal; for there is but one report referred to. It does not say the first, or the last .Page285 report of the Committee; but it speaks of both reports truly and correctly as one report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

This report of the Committee on Federal Relations, sir, is a very curious article. It reminds me of some of the vermiculi which, when broken, the parts become distinct animals in themselves; they unite with each other, and they are indestructible in their vitality. I suppose this Committee on Federal Relations is like a snake dragging its slow length along. That Committee has not done reporting yet. This is the first of it, but it is not the last of it. I suppose we are to have a new vertebra every day.

Now, sir, I want to know what I am to prefer. The whole report, I am told. I must prefer or reject the whole of this Peace Conference proposition. Is that what I must do? I only want to know, in order that I may understand the question.

My friend [Mr. CONRAD] alarms me when he tells me he is alarmed about my health. If he is inclined to treat me as a quack, I would assure you that I have been taking medicine of quacks so often that I feel much the worse for it already.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , who moved the amendment, I understand, is not now present. He is absent I presume because of no expectation on his part that we should be called on to vote to-day. I do not know what his purposes or preferences might be if he were present, whether he would desire that this question should be pushed to a vote now, or whether he would withdraw it.

He can't withdraw it.

I know nothing of his wishes upon that subject. I should prefer, if there be any legitimate mode to reach that end, that an opportunity be afforded to the gentleman who offered this substitute to indicate his own wishes in regard to it. At the same time I don't feel at liberty to have the Committee now rise. I am anxious that we should proceed with the business that remains to be transacted. I rise at this time mainly to say that if we are now to be brought to a vote upon the proposition to strike out the report and insert the substitute, I shall feel myself compelled to vote against that proposition. The Convention will bear me witness that when I had the honor to submit some remarks in regard to the proposition of the Peace Conference, some days since, and when I spoke of the first section—which was mainly the subject under discussion—that while I regarded it as plainly, and distinctly and fully covering the rights claimed by the Southern people growing out of the Territorial difficulty, I remarked .Page286 that in deference to the criticisms of others—the cavils, if you please, of others—I saw no objection to verbal changes in order to remove all objections to it. I also indicated a preference on my part that a certain portion of that adjustment should be entirely excised. These were matters which were under consideration by the Committee on Federal Relations. A reference of this matter was ordered by the Convention. Our Committee of Twenty-one have considered the matter referred to them and have reported the measure back to us somewhat modified and amended. I find myself entirely at liberty to accept and adopt the proposition which has been submitted to us by the Committee. While I maintain the opinion that alterations, in some particular, have been made, not necessary at all; yet, willing to meet the opinions of others, willing to meet even the prejudices of others, I accept, with entire satisfaction, the report in all these particulars as it has been furnished to us by the Committee on Federal Relations. Now, sir, I am called upon to vote upon a proposition to strike out the Committee's report and insert in its stead the proposition offered by the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] . The proposition offered by that gentleman is not only a substitution for the Committee's amended—and I think in those particulars improved report—it is not only to strike out the report, and insert in lieu of it a proposition in regard to which I would say that there was a portion of it that I would have desired myself to have seen curtailed—it is not only that, but to insert a proposition for a submission of it to a vote of the people, ignoring all that part which looks to a Conference of the Border States. I understand that if the motion of the gentleman from Harrison to strike out and insert shall prevail, we adopt virtually a proposition for a submission to the people of the proposition of the Peace Conference for ratification or rejection, for approval or disapproval by them, and the rejection also of the proposition to confer with the other States remaining in the Union. So understanding the question, I am not prepared to vote for that proposition. On the other hand—and I regret somewhat that the motion to divide the vote has been withdrawn—if the vote is taken in the first place on the motion to strike out, I was willing to give the gentleman from Harrison an opportunity to test the question again, as I understood from the Chair that a simple motion to strike out if overruled would have reserved the right.

Not the same proposition.

Well, it is not of much consequence. I was only in courtesy indicating that I was willing to give him an opportunity .Page287 to test it again; but as the proposition is now before us, I must vote against it. And for a further reason that I am willing to indicate now my purpose, so far as I have any, to take the report of the Committee on Federal Relations as against other propositions, so far as any others have been submitted, while I shall hold myself in readiness to hear argument on any other propositions that shall be offered in substitution of it; yet as I am at present advised, I am willing to stand by the Committee's report against all others. Then I understand from the Chair, that the Committee's report will be open to amendment and modification. I have no modification or supposed improvement to submit at present—perhaps would have none at all—but, as I said before, I was only indicating that, for myself, I was disposed to look to the Committee's report as acceptable to me.

This is very briefly what I have to say. I thought it necessary to say this much, to show why I shall feel constrained to vote against the proposition to strike out and insert. I prefer, however, that the gentleman from Harrison, who moved this substitute, should have the opportunity of being present when this proposition is to be acted on by the committee.

I beg to say that I differ from my friend from Kanawha, about this being a question of courtesy. If the gentleman from Harrison were here, and desired to withdraw his proposition to amend, and the withholding of my assent could prevent its withdrawal, I would withhold that assent. I am exceedingly anxious that a direct vote shall be taken upon this proposition, and of determining whether or not our Representatives in the Congress of the United States, in refusing to accept the propositions of the Peace Conference as acceptable to the people of Virginia, truly represented this old Commonwealth. I am exceedingly anxious to see whether a majority of this Convention prefer the propositions of the Peace Conference to the report of our own committee, and if so, that they shall have an opportunity of recording their votes in favor of it. And inasmuch as if the gentleman who made this proposition were present, as he was early in the session this morning, I could, by withholding my assent, prevent its withdrawal, I hope the vote will be taken upon it, and that the Convention will proceed to vote now, unless some gentleman desires to speak upon the question now before this committee. And if, on the contrary, gentlemen agree that the Peace Conference propositions shall be voted down, I want to see them vote them down.

I only want to say to the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , in connexion with the remarks I submitted .Page288 a few minutes ago, that the vote upon this substitute certainly will not be regarded as a test vote so far as I am concerned, and I imagine it will not be in regard to a very large portion of this body; because, as I remarked before, it is not merely the presentation of the propositions of the Peace Conference, inasmuch as it has connected with it, propositions for its submission to a vote of the people and not for its submission to a Border State Convention.

I said expressly that in my opinion, the report presented by the Committee on Federal Relations was in some respects rendered more acceptable by change of phraseology and by the omission of a portion of the report upon which I spoke at large the other day. But, sir, I will not detain the Committee. I only desired to say that the vote upon the adoption of this substitute cannot in any regard be considered as a test vote upon the propositions of the Peace Conference.

I call for a division of the question upon striking out and inserting.

If there be no objection, the question will be divided, and the question will be first upon striking out the entire report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

I desire a vote directly upon these Peace Conference propositions, and I therefore object to a division of the question.

The question was put, and the Committee refused to order a division of the question.

I merely rise to give a reason for the vote I shall cast upon the motion to strike out and insert, for I do not want that vote to be construed as a condemnation on my part of the propositions of the Peace Conference. I am perfectly willing to accept these propositions as they came from the Peace Conference. But, sir, the substitute of the gentleman from Harrison, embodies certain resolutions which, in their present form, I cannot vote for. I understand from the Chair, that if the motion to strike out and insert shall be decided in the negative, the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison, may be amended in Committee. For that reason I shall vote against the motion; and I, in so voting, do not want to be considered as passing condemnation upon the Peace Conference propositions.

I think it is proper to say, in explanation of the vote I shall give, that I do not consider it properly made or as capable of being made a test question upon the propositions of the Peace Conference standing by itself. I have already intimated, by the substitute I have offered for the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, my distinct willingness to accept the propositions of the Peace Conference .Page289 as a fair settlement for the question. But, sir, I would not now vote for the adoption of my own proposition as a competing proposition with the report of the Committee. I urged upon them, and I urged upon my friends in this body as a matter of policy and of propriety that they should accept the propositions of the Peace Conference as they were presented to us. That view, however, did not prevail in the Committee, and we went to work to remove by amendment the objections and the criticisms that had been made by members of the Convention and others. The result is that while I believe the report of the Committee, in the main, substantially nothing more than what would result from a fair construction of the Peace Conference propositions, yet certainly the language has been improved; it has been made more clear and definite, and, therefore, while I was willing to take the propositions of the Peace Conference as a whole, I will not now vote for it in any way or shape against the report of the majority of the Committee as a competing proposition; but gentlemen cannot get any test vote upon the Peace Conference propositions by any such action.

After the remarks of the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , I consider it due to myself and to my constituents to claim the privilege now accorded to me to render some of the reasons which will govern me in the vote I am about to give.

I protest in the outset against the discrimination the gentleman from Northampton has endeavored to make. So far as I am concerned I certainly shall indulge in the privilege of remonstrance against any vote I may see proper to give upon the amendment now before us being construed as an intention, upon my part, to condemn the action of any portion of the Commissioners selected by Virginia, and acting in the Peace Conference, or upon any proposition submitted by the Peace Conference. And I protest against the division upon the part of the Committee of the propositions now pending before us in the absence of the gentleman from Harrison. I thought it was due to him, as a member of this body, that he should be present here and proclaim the reasons which induced him to offer this proposition as a substitute for the report of the Committee of twenty-one. The Committee, in the exercise of its judgment and discretion, refused that privilege.

In the first place, so far as the gentleman from Harrison is concerned, by acting in his absence, we not only deprive him of the privilege of controlling his own proposition, but we are acting under circumstances which every gentleman knows were perfectly unexpected by all of us, for I presume no gentleman in this Convention entertained.Page290 the idea for a single moment that this discussion would close by half past one or two o'clock. We know perfectly well that it was expected a gentleman would be ready to take the floor when the gentleman from Halifax [Mr. Bruce] had concluded his remarks. It was supposed that there would be full and ample discussion before any vote should be taken. The gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] has explained why he cannot now proceed to assign the reasons which have induced him to present the propositions which he proposes to offer as a substitute for the report of the Committee. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing to extend a reasonable time to the gentleman from Princess Anne to give his views and to give them in full in this Committee, and I am unable to give perhaps an intelligent vote upon his propositions without the light of his reasons before me—reasons which he says he holds in reserve and which I presume will be presented with his usual power and acumen.

I propose, sir, to vote against the proposition to strike out the report of the Committee of twenty-one, and to insert the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison. I shall cast that vote for reasons which are satisfactory to myself, but in so doing I protest against any construction of that vote such as is suggested by the gentleman from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] .

I would say that if the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] desires to speak upon his resolutions I would vote for a motion that the Committee rise with a great deal of pleasure; and if the gentleman from Wheeling [Mr. CLEMENS] will say he believes the gentleman from Harrison desires to speak I will vote for that motion now.

I would suggest as a matter of accommodation, and in order to expedite business, as it now wants but twenty or twenty-five minutes of the usual hour of adjournment, that the Committee now rise.

The Committee must take a recess until 4 o'clock, when the hour of two arrives.

One word in reply to my friend from Augusta who protests against this being regarded as a test vote for gentlemen. Now, sir, I do not know what the gentleman from Augusta may regard as a test vote, or upon what principle he intends to vote upon the proposition, but I intend to vote at this time against that proposition, as I shall at all times. I shall vote upon it now or whenever I get an opportunity, as a competing proposition to the report of the Committee on Federal Relations. I know how that vote will result now .Page291 just as well as if I had heard the roll called. It will result in voting down the propositions of the Peace Conference, as they will be voted down when coming in competition with any proposition giving any sort of protection to the South, and that is the reason why I want a vote upon the Peace Conference propositions, and will not consent that they shall be withdrawn. I repeat, sir, that I want a vote upon the award of the Peace Conference, and I repeat, that, whenever the vote is taken upon it, in whatever shape it comes up, it will be voted down. That is the reason why I want a vote now.

Mr. Chairman, while I am up, I desire to make another declaration. It is said that I and those who act with me are in a minority upon this floor. Just let those gentlemen who so think bring forward any distinct proposition, and let the friends of that proposition vote for it, conflict with the friends of secession on this floor, and I hazard nothing in saying that the friends of secession will be stronger than the friends of any other proposition. I do not know how, after having gone through the sieve, after having riddled scheme after scheme, after having stricken down one proposition and put up another, going on at that rate of amalgam, I do not know whether any proposition may be brought forward, by combining all together, that will beat secession, but let them take any one distinct proposition now and I tell them that secession will certainly beat it.

But we have to take these things in detail, one by one, and when we have disposed of them all, I will give you a chance to vote upon secession; and I tell this Convention that, if they will sit here long enough to hear from the people, they will pass an ordinance of secession, or if they will let such an ordinance go to the people, they will find the people ready for it; and if they reflect the will of their constituents, they will afford them the opportunity of a vote upon it. Gentlemen may refuse to meet the question, they may delay it by one mode and another, but I tell them that, if they will allow us to take a vote upon it in this Convention, it will receive more votes than any single competing proposition they can bring. And I tell gentlemen another thing: When they called this Convention together, they appealed to the people. They told us that they must have the popular sanction for what we did. I tell them to go before the people upon what they do. I defy them to go before the people upon what we do. I ask them to give us an opportunity of showing where the people stand. Let them meet the question fairly, and the people will meet it.

But they propose, as I believe, and I have reason to believe from the propositions that they have submitted here, that they have got the .Page292 machinery at work to keep the people from deciding this question—to keep it from them for six, eight, or twelve months, or longer if possible. They mean to decide the question for themselves, for I understand that they don't mean to adjourn but to take a recess. They were not elected to take a recess, but to come here and decide what they are to do. If a recess is taken I want to have someting for the people to put their condemnation upon, for such I believe will be their verdict upon the action which this body is likely to take. And when that is done, I take it that the people will spare these gentlemen here who, I am satisfied, do not represent their sentiments, the necessity of returning here, but will elect others in their stead, who will carry out their will and reflect their sentiments. I do not like this rump parliament proceeding; I don't like it for the reason that it resembles the late Congress in the very feature which led gentlemen here to excuse the failure of the presentation of the Peace Conference proposition to the States through Congress, namely that it did not reflect the existing sentiments and wishes of the people. This Convention is precisely in that attitude, and it is well that they should do now what they intend to do, so that the people may take action upon whatever decision they make. This they must submit to. I care not how long they may defer this action. The people will ultimately proclaim their will in reference to whatever action this body may take, and that proclamation will assuredly be one of condemnation upon that action. I want, when this Convention shall go out of this Hall, that it will go never to return, and the sooner they act and give the people an opportunity of expressing their sentiments the better.

I don't understand the position of the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] . I think he said this morning that he did not recognize that the old Commonwealth of Virginia belonged to any Union, but regarded her without the limits of the Union. I don't know what the gentleman is contending about if that is the fact. I would have thought that when the gentleman regards Virginia as no longer in the Union that he has got what he wants.

I did not get up to answer the gentleman's remarks, but merely the reasons why I intend to vote against striking out the report of the Committee and inserting the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] I think, sir, I was the first man who endorsed the "Peace Conference" proposition upon this floor.

I do not want to be understood now, sir, when I vote against striking out the report of the Committee of twenty-one and putting in its place the "Peace Conference" propositions, as therefore condemning .Page293 the "Peace Conference" proposition. I do not want this vote to be regarded as a test vote—in other words, that I condemn the action of the Peace Conference. I said some days ago that I was willing to accept that proposition. I would be willing now to accept it, but as a report is made by the Committee, removing some of the objections which have been urged against it, I acquiesce in that report. I want it distinctly understood, however, that I never have changed my opinions upon this "Peace Conference" proposition. I believe it of itself sufficient, and I would be willing to accept it yet. But, as I have said, since the Committee has made a report removing some of the objections urged to this measure, I accept it.

I am getting information every moment. I rise now for further enquiry. I thought the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , had offered the Peace Conference proposition. I learn since that he has not. The gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , says that they are not the same—that there is something added to it. Will you please report to me what has been offered as a substitute?

All I did say was that the Peace Conference propositions were embodied in this substitute of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] and that other matter had been added to them.

I want to hear what is added. Will the Secretary read the propositions added by the gentleman from Harrison?

The Secretary then read the following:

"Therefore, be it resolved, by the representatives of the people of Virginia, in Convention assembled.

"1. That it be, and is hereby recommended to the people of the several States comprising the United States, to hold in their respective States, Conventions to consider the said measures of adjustment, and express their approval of the same, and request their Senators and Representatives in Congress assembled, either in extra or regular session, at its first meeting, to adopt the same by the constitutional majority of two-thirds of each House, so that the same may be laid before the several States of this Union, in the mode pointed out by the said fifth article of the Constitution aforesaid, for ratification or rejection.

"2. That this Convention, for and in the name of the good people of this Commonwealth, do declare their approval of the said propositions, and will, if adopted as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, accept the same as an adjustment of all our national difficulties, and that we do hereby request our Senators and Representatives in Congress, at its next session, whether convened in .Page294 extra or regular session, to use their best efforts to have the same adopted in their respective houses by the constitutional vote required, to the end that the same may be laid before the people of the several States of the Union, to be, by them, ratified or rejected in the manner provided in the Constitution, through the action of State Conventions, or the Legislatures of the several States.

"3. That it shall be the duty of the officers conducting the election for members of the next General Assembly of this State, to see that a poll is opened at the several places of voting in this Commonwealth, to take the sense of the voters of this State upon the said measures of adjustment recommended by the Peace Conference. And the better to secure a correct poll-book, the Governor of this Commonwealth is requested to have prepared and transmitted to every county in this Commonwealth a sufficient number of poll-books to supply each county with as many books as there are places of voting in the same, said books to be headed "Poll-books for taking the sense of the voters upon the adoption of the measures of adjustment recommended by the Peace Conference," and to have two columns, the one headed "For the adjustment," the other headed "Against the adjustment." And it shall be the duty of the said conducting officers, each and all of them, to see that the names of all persons qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly, and who present themselves to vote at the respective places of voting, are allowed to vote for or against the said measures of adjustment, and that the names of all those who vote for adjustment are recorded in the coluinn headed "for the adjustment," and all those who vote "against adjustment" are recorded in the column head "against the adjustment," said poll books to be returned and their correctness certified to under oath by the officers conducting the election within two days after the said election, to the clerk of the respective county or corporation court, as the case may be, in which the said conducting officers reside; and it shall be the duty of the respective county and corporation clerks of this Commonwealth to certify to the Governor of this Commonwealth, attested by their seal of office, the result of the vote upon the question aforesaid, in their respective counties and corporations aforesaid, within two days after the said poll books shall be returned by the conducting officers aforesaid; and the Governor of this Commonwealth, upon receipt thereof, is hereby requested to ascertain the result of the said vote in the State, and to make the same known by proclamation; and if a majority of the votes cast shall be in favor of the said Peace Conference adjustment; he is hereby requested to communicate to the Governor of .Page295 each of the States of this Union the foregoing resolutions, with the result of the vote aforesaid, with a request to each to take such steps as the Constitution and laws of his State may require to be taken, in order that a Convention of delegates may be elected by the voters in each State, and convened, to whom shall be referred the foregoing resolutions."

If I have heard the proposition of the gentleman aright, it adds nothing to, and takes nothing from the proposition of the Peace Conference—not a particle of alteration in the crossing of a t, or in the dotting of an i. The gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , said that there was a different proposition added to it. Show me if you can [addressing himself to Mr. SUMMERS] , what this addition is.

I regret that I have not been able to make myself understood to the gentleman from Princess Anne.

I did not maintain, at all, that the proposition submitted by the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , propounded any other or a different scheme of guarantees than that submitted by the Peace Conference. What I meant to say was this: that the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison, to strike out the Committee's report and insert this in lieu thereof, made a different scheme of adjustment and constituted a different proposition in this—that it submitted this matter to a vote of the people of Virginia, and if I understand the latter clause of the proposition correctly, submits it to the vote of the people of the other States for their action.

These are the particulars, in which I remarked it would be making a different scheme of adjustment, and would constitute in this Conference compromise a different proposition. I did not mean that the gentleman from Harrison had added anything to the "Peace Conference" proposition.

Sir, this vampire of influenza is making me deaf. [Laughter.] But, sir, I have pricked my ears, and I think now I have heard correctly everything that was necessary for me to know. The gentleman from Harrison has made no alteration. I speak to him, and ask him whether he intended to make any change in the "Peace Conference" proposition.

He shakes his head, meaning that he did not. We have so much palaver and so much circumlocution about this matter as to render some scrutiny necessary in order to understand its true meaning.

I ask the gentleman if the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison contemplates the proposition at all embraced .Page296 in the partial report of the Committee of Twenty-one, that the border slave States should meet at Frankfort?

It does not—it goes directly to consolidate the people of the other States, and wants to consolidate the voice and the judgment of the sovereign people of our State. He takes up the proposition of the Peace Conference, introducing it in totidem verbis, word for word, letter for letter, with the "whereas" of preamble—"whereas" it is the act of the Peace Conference—that it comes here with the sanction of a high commission; that it comes here with all the sanction of nationality that can be given to it; that it comes here brought back by the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] himself, who has made a two days' speech—a five hours' speech—to show that it was the best thing that could be got, and was, with the exception of two clauses, altogether acceptable; whereas all this, they proposed that you shall adopt it—nothing more, nothing less. The only thing he adds is, that you shall get the other States now in the Confederacy to adopt it and make it their own, and he asks you to make it your own; and thus the question comes up directly. The gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] told us, not only that it was not a direct test, for some reason or other that he did not give, and speaking not only for himself, but for the whole body authoritatively, he tells us that we cannot get a direct vote.

I have not undertaken at all to speak for anybody but myself. I understand the desire is to have a test upon the merits of the proposition of the Peace Conference, as if that was the only proposition acceptable to us. I said that I was not willing to vote upon any such test, and that no such test could be got. How can you get a test question when members refuse to accept your test? I don't intend to speak for anybody but myself, and I trust the gentleman will so regard my remarks in this connection.

I understood him expressly to say that no test vote on the Peace Conference proposition could be got in this body. I beg his pardon if I misunderstood him. I apprehended at the time that the gentleman meant to speak for himself and others. I have got his assurance, however, to the contrary, and I accept it, for I know he would assure of nothing that was wrong.

But, sir, it is curious that the very gentleman who have been advocating this proposition of the "Peace Conference," now get up and wring and twist under the screw, and finally say, I am going to vote against it; but, mark you, that is not a test question. Oh! that the spear of Ithuriel could bring us to the test—to the trial of this crisis, even if the.Page297 trial was blood and fire. What, sir! the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BAYLOR] , some weeks ago, rose and advocated nothing but the Peace Conference, and he rises to-day and tells us that this is no test question.

I did not say so. I told this Convention that I was willing to accept it; but I did not say, if the Committee reported anything else that I regarded better, I would not accept it.

But some weeks ago there was nothing seen better in all the vista of thought. Well, sir, who is going to vote against it? He tells us none. I accept that—that he finds something better. I think that is good.

But the other gentleman from Augusta differed from the report of the Committee; differed in limine; differed toto ccelo; and making a different report brought it directly into competition with the other, and he now tells us that he would not vote for his own report, even against the report of the Committee.

My report was made long before the amendments of the Committee were entered upon. At the time that the partial report was made from the Committee of 21, withholding the constitutional amendments which they intended to propose, I submitted the report in which I propounded for the adoption of the Committee the Peace Conference propositions without amendment. At a subsequent day the Committee of 21 took up for consideration the Peace Conference Propositions, and proceeded to amend them, and, as I think, they have improved them, in some respects, so much so, as to have silenced a great deal of the clamor about doubtful construction that we heard before in regard to the Peace Conference.

If there was anything on which I thought I could compliment my friend from Augusta, it was for my differing from him in character. I have had the character of being an impulsive man. I regarded him as one of the most deliberate, cautious gentlemen of my acquaintance in this body. But now the excuse is that he went off halfcocked. Oh, these deliberate gentlemen will find these questions to confuse all of them. They bother the slow gentlemen very much. It is a pity that this deliberate friend of mine should have gone off half-cocked before the Committee had digested better matter; otherwise now, when they come in direct competition, he would not have had to vote against his own report. Above all, you could not have a stronger, better, more Atlas-like shoulder to put your cause upon, than of that Kanawha Commissioner of ours, who was sent to Washington to see that the work was done there, not in a single Conference, of a single State, but in a congregation of States; that this Conference was done, well done, and so .Page298 well done that nothing could be done better. Although it seems he voted against the several propositions, yet here, with the exception of two little lines, he advocated for five mortal hours—his speech filling 24 columns of the "Enquirer"—that report of the Conference Committee. I had intended to take the floor to answer that speech, but there is no necessity, I am told, for it now. He is going to vote against the work which he advocated. Oh Lord, is it not time that we should give up conference after that?

Will the gentleman yield me the floor for a moment?

Certainly.

I know that the gentleman from Princess Anne is an able lawyer and debater.

I am not a lawyer—do not call me so—nor a politician.

I have often heard the gentleman spoken of in that capacity. The gentleman represents me as standing in the position of repudiating—

Oh, no.

Of repudiating the peace adjustment, and what I have said about it. Do I misunderstand him?

Yes, sir. That is a very strong word—that "don't pay" word.

I will not stand with the gentleman upon words. What I meant to call his attention to, was this : I felt myself called upon at one stage of the discussion, as having been a member of that Peace Conference, to explain my views. In the remarks which I addressed to the Convention, I gave, as I thought, candidly, my impressions as to the nature and true construction of each of those sections. I endeavored to maintain that they covered all the grounds of difficulty, and if incorporated into the Constitution, would, upon every fair construction everywhere, close all our difficulties. I say so now. I have moved from no position I then took, and I believe now that these measures, proposed as amendments by that Conference, would be an entire safeguard for the South.

The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the committee, in pursuance of the order of the Convention, took a recess until 4 o'clock P.M.

1.7.5. EVENING SESSION

The Committee of the Whole re-assembled at four o'clock, Mr. PRICE occupying the Chair at the request of Mr. SOUTHALL, who was indisposed.

I move a call of the Committee. There is evidently not a quorum present.

It is not competent to make a call in Committee of the Whole. That is the motion made by the gentleman from Mecklenburg [Mr. GOODE] , and it is pronounced by the Chair to be a motion out of order.

If I understand the opinion of the Chair, it is in direct opposition to what I consider to be the duty of the Chair. I hold that it is the duty of the Chair, when the attention of the Chair is called to the fact there is no quorum present to count the House, and after having counted the House and finding that there is no quorum present, then to report the fact to the House.

The CHAIR decides that it is not in order in Committee of the Whole to move a call of the House.

That is not the question before the Chair. The question before the Chair is, will the Chair count the House and report the fact whether there is a quorum present or not?

With a view to relieve the gentleman, the Chair will proceed to count and see whether there is a quorum present or not.

A count having been made by him, The CHAIRMAN then announced that a quorum was present, eighty members being in their seats.

I find, Mr. Chairman, upon examination, that there are two words left out of the amendment which I ask the unanimous consent of the Committee may be inserted. The last line of the report of the Peace Conference, as printed, reads:

"And Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of the several States."

I desire to insert before "several States" the words "citizens of," so that it will read:

"And Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States."

I had a few words more to say before the Convention took a recess. I am sorry I do not see the gentleman from Staunton [Mr. BALDwIN] in his seat. I was alluding to the curious and singular exhibition which was made by the gentlemen who have come here, with great force and effect, advocating peace propositions, now not recanting, yet recanting, and the only excuse which I hear from the gentleman from Kanawha is, first that it is a different proposition, inasmuch as it is a proposition to submit the Peace Conference proposition to .Page300 the people; second, because it comes into competition with something that has improved and made it better. Why was not that Sanhedrim surpassing this domestic body of ours? Did they not do their best upon the proposition, and is it possible that men like you and I, Mr. Chairman, humble individuals here in this Mechanics' Institute, could show them at every line, and every phrase, in every section, in every part and parcel, in particular and in the whole, where it was entirely wrong. Where does it come from? Not from the gentleman from Harrison. It is not from the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] . He does not put it as his proposition; he presents it with the whereas, that it is the veritable work of the Peace Conference.

It is the proposition coming with the sanction of the highest authority, the Convention for peace, inaugurated by Virginia herself. He presents it to you as the proposition which you [addressing himself to Mr. SUMMERS] brought here, which you were commissioned to go for, which you advocated, and yet it could not hold water before the Committee of twenty-one. Now it seems it will not hold water with the Commissioner himself. He gives it up; but the motion for it was made by the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] . Never since I was born did I see a gentleman start upon a two days speech, make one day's speech, and give the floor to another gentleman to change the whole proposition before the House, and then make another day's speech without touching the new proposition at all. I would enquire of the gentleman from Harrison and the gentleman from Augusta, if there was any understanding about this matter?

I am disposed to fight my own battles, and whilst I don't wish to see my colleague used badly, I hope the gentleman will indicate to what gentleman from Augusta he refers.

I mean the gentleman who was on the Committee of twenty-one.

Mr. Chairman—there was certainly no understanding between the gentleman from Augusta and myself. So far as I know, sir, he had no idea of the proposition I intended to submit, and the floor was yielded by the gentleman from the city of Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] , who moved, out of courtesy to the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , that the Committee rise.

But without the consent of the gentleman from Augusta, the floor could not be yielded, and a new proposition be debated, pending the proposition before the house. At one moment the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , was speaking upon the report of the Committee of Twenty-one, and the next day he was speaking upon .Page301 the proposition of the Peace Conference which was entirely different, and in many respects contradictory to the report of the committee. It was curious to see it. I could not but observe it. And so anxious was I that the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , should not be put in a false position that I went to him at the time and warned him. "Do you see," I said to him, "what the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , is doing? He is going to change the proposition before the Committee." But he did not heed the warning. No objection was made; and the gentleman from Harrison is made the step-father of this proposition. The gentleman from Staunton [Mr. BALDWIN] , who had recommended the report of the Peace Conference, stopped advocating it, to let the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] father it. What I want to say to the gentleman from Harrison is, that I feel it is a hard question to decide whether he will make the best father, or the gentleman from Augusta. [Laughter.] Both of these gentlemen profess to be most unconditional pro-slavery men. Does not the gentleman from Harrison?

Mr. CARLILE nodded assent.

The gentleman claims, I believe, to have been prognostic in the opinion that slavery is a blessing, ahead of everybody else. You have anticipated all the large slaveholders themselves [addressing Mr. CARLILE] , in discovering in advance that slavery was the best and divinest institution among us. [Laughter.] The gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] professes so too. I have no doubt that these professions are even fanatically sincere. And I will pay the gentleman from Harrison the compliment to say that there is no mistake whatever about his position. Whatever his opinions and abstract faith may be, there is no mistake as to what will be the effect of this final action. Whatever of pro-slavery there may be in his opinions, I think there is no pro-slavery in his action. [Laughter.] He is very bold; he is very decided. My constituents, sir, would never mistake him in the world. I, as a slaveholder of twenty-seven years' experience on this question of slavery, in Congress and out of it, abroad and at home, I have no idea that I can mistake as to where that gentleman will go. The mover suits the Peace Conference proposition, and the proposition suits the mover. The motion is to do nothing. The advocacy of the motion tells us that the South is all wrong, that the North has not been the aggressor. And the record is appealed to by both gentlemen; but some way or other, one of the gentlemen has slipped out of the fathership of the proposition, and the other gentleman has slipped in. I don't know how that is, sir. One reported it from the Committee as his, and another takes it .Page302 up as setting forth his opinion. Now, sir, a great deal of friendly fellowship in auld lang syne with the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] would lead me to speak kindly of him. I could not justify myself if I offered any unkindness to him, because I have every reason to believe that he is personally kind to me; but let me tell him in all candor, and with all respect, that if it shall come to civil war, he and I will certainly differ, and he and I will be on opposite sides, and will have to fight each other; and I would expect to find him fighting, if not for the Black Republicans, at all events, to stay in a Northern Confederacy, even if the Peace Conference proposition should be rejected. [Laughter.] This Peace Conference proposition is zero. It is as low as he could propose. It is nothing. And the only reason, perhaps, that the gentleman from Augusta prefers the report of the Committee, after all, is, that he has discovered that the report of the committee, although it is a grand improvement upon the Peace Conference, may be made even more effectual to do nothing, and to leave us where the trap of the dead-fall of this crisis has caught us, in a Northern Confederacy.

But I am enlarging too much. I don't hesitate to say that the bold, decided, and unequivocal action of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] entitles him to father this measure of the Peace Conference. And some of these gentlemen may well say like John Randolph once said about the administration of Thomas Jefferson. He said: "Mr. Speaker, I found William B. Giles riding in the Royal George; and I saw John Quincy Adams and Barnabas Bidwell step into the same coach; and when they got in, sir, I thought it was time for me to get out;" and I say the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , and the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , left this Peace Conference proposition just about the time that the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] came into it. [Laughter.] Again: gentlemen, now warm advocates of the report of the committee, told us at the opening of the session of this Convention that the people were our masters, and that the people were to be bowed down to, and that the people were to pass judgment upon everything that we should do in this Convention. The gentleman from Harrison has done justice to himself, has done justice to the proposition, has done nothing less than homage to the people by proposing in his amendment that the naked question of the Peace Conference proposition shall be submitted to the people. Is that the grievance? Does that alter it so as to make other gentlemen vote against it? If it does, let me hear no more about extreme deference to the people.

Sir, I never was afraid of the people. If I have any strength before the people and with the people, I don't owe it to any ability, perhaps to no great merit moral or intellectual of any sort—no great merit but one, namely, that I never in my life was afraid to differ with my constituents, and I never was afraid to tell them so. I don't want their advice at this time. I am ready to act. And if anybody else wants their advice, or if there is a doubt as to what is their counsel, I am for referring everything you do to the people.

Now what is the effect and intent of the propositions of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] ? They do precisely what the act which organized you a Convention—not a sovereign but an advisatory Convention—says you shall do: refer any result you arrive at to the people for their ratification or rejection. What is the sort of action that must be referred? Secession? Union? or disunion? Nothing of the sort in that act, sir—nothing of the sort. It says you shall refer to the people any propositions which you make to change the organic relations between this State and the Federal Government.

The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , is right. He is obeying a law of his representative being—the law that organized him a member of this Convention and organized the Convention for him to be a member. Why? Because there is not a section in the majority report or in the report of the Peace Conference but proposes to change the organic law of the relations existing between this State and the General Government.

Both propose nothing less than a change, a material change—I am afraid a destructive change, of the old Constitution.

Again, you may tell me by and by, when my propositions come before the House, that they are too strong. Mine are too strong? Well these I tell you, Mr. Chairman, are too weak. They are not only too weak to satisfy me, to satisfy my constituents, or to satisfy the complaints of the Southern people, which are innumerable, intangible to legislation, undefinable—above all they are too weak to preserve peace.

Come down to zero, gentlemen. Come down to the last peg of demand. Be so humble that you yourselves would be surprised if your propositions should be rejected. Come down lower, lower still, and after you have got to the profoundest depth of low, lower, lowest—suppose then that proposition is rejected—suppose that proposition is rejected—where is peace? Sir, like freedom, peace will shriek and die, as when Kosciusko fell. What have you then? War. You must immediately secede, and immediately fight.

Answer aggression with terms of submission cloaked under proposals .Page304 for compromise—and you may be sure that the aggressor will spurn even your terms of submission—and will push you to the wall. Make your demands high enough. Plant your foot firmly, not only on your rights, but when once assailed step over the half-way mark. You will find many friends to check you and go to pull you back, and say you are extravagant, and then you may step back a little and bring your adversary to some point of honorable agreement.

Where, gentlemen, are you going? I see pretty clearly. You are going into a Border State Conference, and from that into a National Convention. And where is the matter then to terminate? We are to be bound up in a Northern Confederacy. We are to be dwarfed by the sloughing off of eight Southern States, and will be compelled to treat on terms dictated by the Northern States themselves. Time! time! time! step by step, by dilatory action, by postponement, by propositions which will end in nothing. Time! time! is the great arbiter that is to decide where Virginia is to go. What nonsense to ask the question, where we are to go. Why, where are you? Is Virginia a boat, that you can put on the water, and row up the coast and down the coast. Is Virginia a waggon that you can put upon wheels, and cart North and cart South? No, sir, she is, blessed be God, terra firma—as immovable as earth, rock, mountain, river and lake can be made. She is here in the latitude, of 37 deg., South of Mason & Dixon's line, with 500,000 slaves. Yet slaveholding State as she is, and Southern State as she is, she has been caught by the dead fall of this crisis in the trap of a Northern Confederacy, and you will keep her there if you can. And now all I have got to say is that you have got to do one of two things; you have got to accomplish one of two purposes before you can satisfy me. Restore the blessed old Union if you can. Sir, you cannot out-union me. There is not a man among you who is readier to die to restore the old Union than I am. Restore it, restore it if you can. You cannot restore it without restoring those wronged and offended sisters that have gone out. You cannot restore it without restoring hearts, without reclaiming the hearts and dispositions of the offending sisters of the North who have driven those of the South out of the family.

I will agree to no compromise, so help me God, so long as I live, that comes short of that end. I will fight to the end, aye, to the bitter end, against any and all propositions that will not restore the old Union as it was, that will not be acceptable to the South as well as the North. Is there a hope of that? I have none. None upon the face of the earth. But you have, and if you have, hope on; and hope ever. So long as there is hope, I will give you fair time and opportunity. Not an .Page305 unlimited time, not a resort to all resources, because they are infinite—infinite. To say that you will exhaust all means is to say you will never leave the Northern Confederacy.

And when gentlemen talk about the Union! the Union! the Union! I beg them to remember that there are now three Unions, two existing, and one destroyed. You are now in a Union of a Northern Confederacy; that is not the old Union; that has been sloughed off, and we are left a hopeless minority in a Northern Confederacy. While in the old Union, with a united South, we could to some extent, restrain the majority, and beat back our aggressors; but you are now in a Union where you are dwarfed, not only upon the slave question, but upon other questions, in my humble judgment, of ten times more potency with some gentlemen here than slavery; and we are in a Confederacy where they delight to be, in my opinion. As for me, if you will not, or if you cannot restore the old Union, I will not—I never will consent that my State shall remain a permanent part and parcel of this new Northern Confederacy. But I do not propose to pursue the subject further at this time. I do not intend now to make a speech. I only intended to do the gentleman from Harrison the justice to say that he belongs to this Peace Conference proposition, and that this proposition belongs to him, and any gentleman who wants to take action against slavery and the South, may follow him. I shall not.

Mr. Chairman, the Legislature of Virginia, acting for the people of Virginia, determined to make another effort to settle this great controversy with the North. It was understood every where to be a final effort. The interest and the honor of Virginia, it was thought, required that another effort should be made; and that interest and that honor demanded equally that that effort should be a final one. Sir, it was so understood in Virginia. The representatives from this State met those from other States in a Peace Conference. Fourteen non-slaveholding States, and seven slaveholding States; and, sir, the propositions, submitted to us by the representatives from this State, constitute the result of the deliberations of that body. And as it was to be expected, they are just such propositions as were likely to emanate from a body in which there was so overwhelming a majority of representatives opposed to the rights and interests of Virginia, as fourteen non-slaveholding States to seven slaveholding States—such a result as could be expected from a body in which there was an overwhelming anti-slavery sentiment, and that anti-slavery sentiment not only opposed to your property, but opposed to the sentiments upon which that property rests for its justification—persons who are not willing to acknowledge .Page306 your rights of property in the common territory, but who denounce the sentiments of your heart by which your title to your property is justified. You have, sir, three notable propositions as the result of this Conference on the part of the people of Virginia. They had recommended to them propositions which came from a body, the majority of which was opposed to the rights of the South, and opposed to the rights of Virginia. And, sir, these propositions were brought back to us as the best basis that could be obtained, and not only as the best that could be obtained, but as the very propositions which the rights and interest of Virginia demanded should have been brought back.

Now gentlemen are telling us that we cannot make any test for them upon these Peace Conference propositions; that no vote given upon the pending propositions can be considered as in any way indicating what are their opinions upon the Peace Conference propositions. Well, sir, we are making no test for them, they have made the test for themselves. The propositions of the Peace Conference are before this Committee, and I take it that no gentleman will be so forgetful of the duty which he owes to himself as to vote against these propositions if he thinks them the best that can be obtained from the Northern States, and the best for the interests of Virginia; the best the honor and interest of Virginia entitle her to demand.

Gentlemen, during the progress of these discussions, have denounced the Representatives of Virginia in the Senate of the United States, because they did not concur in the proposal to submit those propositions to the people for their ratification; and there now lies upon the table of this Convention a resolution denouncing the Senators from Virginia in Congress, because they did not vote to submit those propositions to the people for their approbation. I understand that that resolution only slumbers there in order that gentlemen may have a full opportunity to come up and vote for it. Suppose your Senators had voted for that proposition—is it not very evident from the sentiments you have proclaimed here to-day that they would have misrepresented Virginia upon a matter involving her interests and her rights? Sir, would you have had your Senators, representing the sovereignty of Virginia cast their votes for a proposition that gentlemen here are unwilling to give their votes in favor of. Suppose your Senators had voted for these propositions, why, gentlemen you would have found, as you have found in this Committee to-day, that a majority are not willing to sanction these Peace Conference propositions. Yet gentlemen came here recommending them. Before the discussion took place they were .Page307 satisfied that they were the best propositions that could be offered. And no wonder; they had just come from a conference with Black Republican politicians. No wonder; when they had just come from Washington from attending a Peace Conference, where there was so large a majority opposed to slavery—opposed to the interests of Virginia and opposed to the Southern demands upon this great question. But since this discussion has taken place, since criticism has been brought to bear upon them, since they began to be understood, gentlemen say they must be modified. Those gentlemen who have stood up here to say to Virginia that she ought to take those propositions, now come to this convention and say that she ought not to take them, while the resolution is still lying upon your table to censure your Senators in Congress for not voting that Virginia should take them; in other words, that they have not been faithful to your rights and your honor, because they have not voted away your honor, because they have not been willing to be guided by the chart laid down by CHASE and other Black Republicans of that school of politices. Gentlemen have, at an early stage of this discussion told us that these propositions demanded all that the rights and interests of Virginia required, but now they tell you that there are other propositions which are better, and that those propositions will command their votes when placed in competition with the Peace Conference propositions. Then by that vote you say that your representatives in Congress were right in refusing to vote for these propositions. Sir, I trust the gentleman who introduced that resolution of censure, will either have it taken up and voted upon or have the magnanimity to withdraw it from the files upon the clerk's table, and instead, pass a resolution complimenting them for being faithful to the interests and honor of Virginia; because they were so far-sighted and so watchful; because they were more careful of your rights and your honor than you at first supposed them to be.

But, Mr. Chairman, I should suppose the friends of these Peace Conference propositions would not hesitate for a moment in voting for them if they did not believe that there were other propositions which were better in themselves. But I hear gentlemen say that the changes made in the Peace Conference propositions, by the report of the Committee of Twenty-one, are only changes in phraseology. Gentlemen these propositions are better. The changes are material and naturally for the better. Now what is the condition in which these propositions stand? I beg gentlemen to bear it in mind; because when taken in connexion with a part of this report of the Committee of Twenty-one, .Page308 it is a very important inquiry. Because, if it turns out that this report of the Committee is only changed as to some phraseology, and much the same thing as the "Peace Conference" proposition, we ought to know it; Virginia ought to know it. Why, sir, that Report of the Committee of twenty-one proposes that the amendments which have been proposed by the Committee in lieu of the propositions of the "Peace Conference," shall be submitted to the other States for their approval; and what then does it say? If the responses from the nonslaveholding States are not satisfactory, then some other step is in contemplation upon the part of Virginia. Are gentlemen who have taken the position which they have taken to-day in reference to the propositions emanating from your Committee, in a condition to say, that if the non-slaveholding States shall report back the "Peace Conference" propositions, that these propositions are satisfactory to Virginia? I don't mean to use any expressions that can be construed into any disrespect; but if there be any dodging about these "Peace Conference" propositions, ought we not to know exactly what it is that gentlemen contemplate, and whether a majority of this Convention shall say that the propositions emanating from your Committee are substantially different from these propositions of the "Peace Conference"? But if they are hereafter to be embodied in the "Peace Conference" propositions, and should the non-slaveholding States in response to the demands of Virginia, send back here the Peace Conference propositions, is it to be said that these propositions are satisfactory responses to Virginia? Sir, I trust that the action of this Convention is to be a finality—that it is to lead to some final result. It was supposed that the Peace Conference proposition was to be a finality. But is it now so regarded? and is it not time that it should? Are we to be left in the position hereafter, if the non-slaveholding States shall refuse to endorse the Peace Conference propositions and send them back to us, to receive them as satisfactory responses to Virginia's demands? I trust not, sir. I trust that this Committee will not be willing to take these propositions as any response to such demands as Virginia has a right to make.

Sir, the very fact that propositions have been submitted to us by gentlemen chosen to represent the honor and the rights of Virginia in this Convention, called at Washington to settle those great questions, which are so vague and indefinite, and which do not come up to that point of directness as to our rights, as to meet with the approbation even of a majority upon this floor; I say, the very fact that these propositions are now repudiated by the very gentlemen who advocated .Page309 them in the beginning leaves no probability that any propositions, any measures of adjustment will ever be given by the North that can be acceptable to Virginia. These "Peace Conference" propositions were the result of long and laborious deliberations on the part of delegates from twenty one States, in which our Southern delegates used their best efforts to procure just measures of protection and future guarantee; and yet we find here to-day that they are unacceptable to the very men who advocated them in the beginning. What hope is there then of obtaining any satisfactory adjustment of our difficulties when this "Peace Conference" failed? None whatever. Sir, none of the Northern States, so far as I understand their proceedings, have condescended to initiate any proceedings towards an adjustment of our difficulties. Here, Virginia, time and again has been making efforts for an honorable adjustment of these difficulties—she has put forth what was considered a final effort to accomplish that purpose, but the propositions which resulted from that effort have been repudiated by this Northern majority in the Congress of the United States, while you find efforts being made everywhere in the North for the purpose of adjusting these difficulties. And still we find Virginia occupying the position of a suppliant to the North to grant her some guarantee of her rights. As long as she keeps that position, the propositions which shall be made to her, if any are offered, will be of a character which she cannot accept.

Sir, gentlemen have said, in the progress of this discussion, that the action of the Federal Government in the past, upon this question of slavery, has been such as Virginia ultimately acquiesced in, if she did not approve of in the outset. Sir, she acquiesced in these settlements because they were considered finalities on that question—because they laid down lines which it was supposed Northern aggression would not dare violate or infringe. Inasmuch as Virginia has acquiesced in the past from motives of peace, gentlemen argue that she should now acquiesce. Indeed, we have the plea of precedent put forth to justify this acquiesence on the part of Virginia—a plea which has been set up before to justify encroachments upon popular rights. I was astonished to hear the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] refer to the vote which was given upon the Oregon question, and the approval of Mr. Polk of the passage of that bill. The gentleman referred to the discussion in connection with that matter, in an air of triumph. It seems to me that there were but two aspects in which the question could be viewed—either as a party triumph, because Polk had signed the bill which contained the Wilmot proviso, while the Democratic party .Page310 denounced it and disclaimed any agreement in that course. And then, sir, what was the other aspect? The majority of the Northern men in that Congress, when the Black Republicans of the North affixed the Wilmot proviso to the Oregon bill, remonstrated against it, because Oregon was north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, and the Missouri Compromise principle applied to it, and hence there was no necessity that the Wilmot Proviso should be annexed. But the Black Republican majority annexed the proviso notwithstanding to show that they had the power over this question. And now the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , refers to the greatest outrage that the South has ever had to submit to, to show that she should submit further.

It is probable that at the meeting of the next Congress for the purpose of settling these difficulties between the North and the South, the very language of this Peace Conference proposition will be used by the Northern men—aye, sir, and by some Southern men—to show that Virginia having acquiesced ought still to acquiesce in any other outrage of her rights that may be perpetrated upon her.

But, sir, gentlemen may say that they don't mean in any vote they give here, to cast any reflection upon the proceedings of the Peace Conference. Sir, the fact still stares them in the face that they are unwilling to vote for the proposition of the Peace Conference, and that these propositions have been exposed to the scathing criticism to which they have been subjected in this body, and it is consoling to remember, sir, to use the language of the gentleman from Augusta, that by the time we have taken a vote upon this question, all that is left of the Peace Conference proposition can be carried North in a "dug-out" even if the gentleman from Augusta [Mr. BALDWIN] , acts as the pilot in carrying it through the capes of Virginia. It was understood, sir, that the propositions which emanated from this "Peace Conference" were to come back here to this Convention, and that if they were such as Virginia ought to adopt, that this Convention would adopt them and say to the North here is our ultimatum. What do we find now? That this committee of twenty-one is engaged in making another ultimatum entirely different and distinct from that which has emanated from this "Peace Conference." The proposition of this committee is to emanate from this body and is to go before a conference of the different slave States, and at the very time that these amendments shall go before the States, you propose to have a border slave State conference. What is the meaning of that, sir? Is it not satisfied that this "Peace Conference" proposition cannot meet either .Page311 with the approbation of Virginia or that such responses will not come from the North as would be satisfactory to us? Why are they proposing that there shall be a third conference for the purpose of considering what Virginia and the other border slave States ought to do in this emergency, when it is apparent to every gentleman here, that there is nothing that can be proposed to the North that they will sanction. Sir, Virginia and the South have occupied for the last twelve months at least, an improper position in this Confederacy. We are the assailed party, and still we are the party suing for peace. The South is the outraged party, and the South is the party that is proposing terms of peace which are not consistent with her rights or her honor; and, sir, so long as Virginia and the South occupies that position in a Confederacy of this sort, so long will the North turn a deaf ear to your demands.

Sir, the attitude of Virginia has been and is now one of humiliation. She ought to be placed in a position in which the North should come and ask to be allowed to remain in the Union. Virginia ought not longer be making propositions to a party that turns a deaf ear even to her entreaties. The other party, if it desires a continuation of this Union, ought to make offers of re-conciliation and re-construction. So long as the South occupies the position of attempting to bring about re-construction, the North, having the majority, will never re-construct upon terms satisfactory to the South. Let Virginia go with the South; let her take the direction where her interests lie, and join that section with which she is identified in feeling and interest, and cease any longer being a suppliant for terms from the North.

While gentlemen representing the rights and honor of Virginia, have been denounced for not supporting these Peace propositions, let it go forth that its advocates upon this floor are afraid to vote for them themselves.

Years ago, in the hall of the nation's representatives, I had the temerity to say that those who passed and those who advocated the Kansas Nebraska bill would live to regret it. And, sir, I may be allowed to say before this Committee, that those representatives in this hall who record their votes against the substitute which I have offered will live to regret it, if they represent Union constituencies. For the remark I made years ago, I endured years of abuse, denunciation and vilification. I relied upon time for my vindication, and so far as my neighbors and friends are concerned, the people of my county have vindicated me. For making the declaration which I have made here with regard to the conduct of representatives who shall vote against.Page312 the Peace Conference proposition being submitted to the test of the ballot-box, I may undergo again years of traduction and abuse. I trust in God I have the nerve to stand it, and I shall trust to time for my vindication. I do in all kindness appeal to my friend from Princess Anne. I know he will allow me to call him my friend, for I have been and am still his friend, though I differ from him; an honest difference of opinion I trust—that hereafter he will not by such remarks as he made at the conclusion of his speech cast, I know they were not meant to be intentional, imputations upon the motives of members.

I did not.

The language he employed was this, "Any gentleman who wants to take action against slavery will go with him."

That refers to action not motive.

The motive for the action is referred to, "Who wants to take action?" Must there not be a motive to want to take the action? I shall make no further profession of loyalty to my State or to her institutions. I would scorn myself if I could do so. Those who know my past, and with whom I have spent my life from early manhood to my present age, will vindicate me from any aspersions that gentlemen may be disposed to cast upon me. I was unfortunately prevented by sickness from hearing the speech of the gentleman from the city of Richmond [Mr. RANDOLPH] , which, I understood, was an argument against the Peace Conference proposition; and from a like cause I was prevented from hearing the speech of the distinguished gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , which, I understood, was an argument in favor of the Peace Conference proposition. Therefore I can say, so far as I have been able to hear the discussions in this hall, I have yet to learn the objections that gentlemen have to this proposition. I did not hear the gentleman from Goochland [Mr. LEAKE] , who has just taken his seat. Will gentlemen favor us with a specification of their objections to the Peace Conference propositions, if they please, or will they content themselves with general denunciations, such as they have indulged in against the Government which we are called upon to destroy.

I refer the gentleman to the report of the committee of twenty-one, containing twenty-one specifications.

While I did not read that report as containing objections to the Peace Conference proposition, I certainly did see many things in that report that I, with all due deference to the committee of twenty-one, would have left out.

The reason why we should provide against apprehended danger, .Page313 we are told by those gentlemen who have excited our fears, is because of the elevation to power of a Black Republican party. I will not admit that they are in power or ever will be. But for the sake of argument I state it as gentlemen upon the other side state it. We were told that it was worse than folly for a prudent people to expect that that party, based upon one idea, and that idea hostility to the institution of slavery would stop where their present platform stops.

May I ask the gentleman a question? Did I understand him to say, that he did not consider the Black Republicans were in power or ever would be? Is that so?

I will explain. No, sir; they are not in power, thank God, and I think it is very evident that they never will be. We were told that they would not stop with the plank in the platform declaring their opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories of the United States, but that they would advance still further and prohibit the slave trade between the States, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and finally interfere with slavery in the States. I ask gentlemen, if all these apprehended dangers were not provided against by the Committee at the late Peace Conference at Washington—each and every one? Now tell me, if you please, what more do you ask? Do you want remedies for the recovery of your fugitive slaves? What better remedies could you have than the remedies which the experience of centuries has perfected? What territory have we now, to which any act going to amend the Constitution of the United States, in any particular could apply? Did the Black Republican party, which had the majority in Congress at the last session, after the withdrawal of the Representatives and Senators of the seceding States, apply the Wilmot proviso to the territories, or exclude you from those territories? They did no such thing. They have by their action negatived the charge which you made against them, that they would exercise the power, if it were ever in their possession, for the purpose of excluding you, by Congressional enactment, from the common territories of the land. They have organized the territories and have left to the people within them to settle and determine this question of slavery for themselves, when they should come to form their State Constitution—a power I have yet to hear a Southern man deny to the people.

What do you want as Union men? I mean as men who are not prepared to drag this State, or rather to allow it to be dragged, at the heel of the cotton States by their precipitate action, and who are determined, so far as their representative conduct can go, not to consent that the people against their will shall be telegraphed out of.Page314 a Union which is dear to them. I ask these gentlemen what do they expect from a border slave State conference to be assembled within 60 days, to lay down, it may be an ultimatum, and to require that that ultimatum shall be accepted within a period of time within which it would be impossible to submit it to the people of the several States of the Union? Sir, have we not had a border slave State conference within the last thirty days? Was not each and all the border slave States represented in this Conference at Washington? You are to have, by the report of this committee, a border slave State conference which is to meet the last Monday in May, and who will appoint commissioners to that conference. I confess I am afraid of the men in power.

The people.

No sir, they would be appointed either by the present Governors or the present Legislatures of the several States. I confess I am afraid of the men in power. I would ask where are the sympathies of the Governor of North Carolina, and where are the sympathies of the present Legislature of North Carolina? I know where the people are, because they have spoken. I know where the people of Tennessee are, but I know not where the sympathies of the Governor or the present Legislature of Tennessee are. I know where the heart of Kentucky is. No man doubts that; but I know not where the sympathies of her Governor or her Legislature may be. But, sir, I know that while I adhere to the Peace Conference propositions, I am anchored, and the moment I let go of them, I am again at sea.

Will the gentleman tell us about the other border States, where their sympathies are—Maryland and Virginia?

Judging from the fact that my friend from Princess Anne and myself are here without the people having the privilege of saying whether this body should assemble or not, I think I can tell where the sympathies of her present Legislature are. Judging from the appointment which they made of the distinguished gentlemen who represented us in the Peace Conference, I am very much inclined to think that it would not require a prophet to tell who they would appoint again. I repeat again, that standing upon the Peace Congress propositions I am anchored. I do not wish to put again to sea.

The gentleman did not answer me fully.

Does the gentleman want me to tell him about Maryland and Delaware?

The gentleman has referred only to one branch—the Legislature. Will he tell us where the executive officers of these States stand?

I trust that the Executive of Virginia and the Executive of little Maryland, are where I think all good Union men ought to be.

They suit you, then?

Now, sir, I grant you that in one department of the General Government the Black Republican party is in power. But it is known to all gentlemen here, as well as to myself, that there are three departments in the Government. In neither the Legislative or Judicial is the Black Republican party in power, and the department of which they have possession is a pure Executive department, and the Executive officer is powerless for harm. He can do no harm, unless we suspect ourselves. Do we? If we do, I fear that seceding from the Union would not increase your confidence. Are we, the representatives of the people of Virginia, to distrust our constituents? Are we to refuse to those who sent us here the right to judge for themselves, and to protect their own rights? Shall not their vote be heard? Are we to follow the example set us by these States of the Cotton Confederacy?

Sir, we are told that you can never restore the Union again. I do not admit that it is broken. But, for the sake of the argument, I will assume that it is in a condition to be reconstructed. I say to gentlemen who believe that it is in a condition to be reconstructed, that the sooner they disabuse their minds of the idea that we can reconstruct it, the better it will be for them. We cannot do it.

But there is no necessity why we should attempt it. The sovereign people, upon whose virtue and intelligence rests all free government, in each and every one of these States, will re-construct it for themselves. And that the men in power know it, is evidenced by the fact that they refuse to allow the people the opportunity to pass upon this new Government, which they have determined to impose upon them. Whenever you point me to an act on the part of that new Government, that assumed Government, showing a confidence that the people they claim to represent are truly represented by them, then I grant you that there will be some evidence that it may have permanency attached to it.

But, sir, even in Louisiana, they refused to submit an ordinance to the people, and refused to declare the vote of the people. At Montgomery a Congress is constituted, composed of men claiming to be representatives of the people. Are these men the representatives of the people? No, sir. No such thing. That Congress is composed of gentlemen selected by the several Conventions that met in the several .Page316 States; and they, in the name of the people, presume to construct for them a Government, and have resolved to force it upon the people, and to refuse to the people the right and the privilege of saying whether they desire the Government or not. Sir, there is no necessity—nor if there was a necessity, have we the ability—so to shape our action here as to re-construct—to use the language of the gentleman—the old Union.

But, sir, there is another fact to which I would respectfully call the attention of gentlemen who are so enamored of this report from the Committee on Federal Relations, and with its various propositions. After occupying nearly eight pages with what I conceive to be pretty much generalities and abstractions, it begins to talk a little practically. I mean nothing at all disrespectful when I speak of this report. It is a very able report, and one, sir, that I regret exceedingly I cannot approve by my action here. The report says :

"Virginia, therefore, requests the people of the several States, either by popular vote, or in Conventions similar to her own, to respond, at their earliest convenience, to the positions assumed in the foregoing resolutions, and the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States hereunto appended. And in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests, from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights."

By what authority, gentlemen, do we, the advisatory representatives of Virginia, make this declaration?

The report goes on to say:

"The people of Virginia will await any reasonable time to obtain answers from the other States, to these propositions, aware of the embarrassments that may produce delay, but they will expect, as an indispensable condition, that a pacific policy shall be adopted towards the seceded States, and that no attempt be made to subject them to the Federal authority, nor to reinforce the forts now in possession of the military forces of the United States, nor recapture the forts, arsenals or other property of the United States within their limits, nor to exact the payment of imposts upon their commerce; nor any measure resorted to, justly calculated to provoke hostile collision.

"In the opinion of this Convention, the people of Virginia would regard any action of the Federal Government, tending to produce a collision of forces, pending negotiations for the adjustment of existing difficulties, as aggressive and injurious to the interests and offensive to .Page317 the honor of this Commonwealth; and they would regard any such action on the part of the seceded or confederated States as hurtful and unfriendly, and as leaving them free to determine their future policy."

Mr. Chairman, will gentlemen be good enough to inform us how long they propose to wait? Or rather, how long will they have to wait for this report of the Conference which they desire to inaugurate, and then for the action of the people of the several States, in the event that Conference should agree upon the propositions that it would submit? It certainly will take months, if not years, to get a final settlement of the matter.

But let us say it takes but a twelve month—I want gentlemen to tell me how they are going to prevent this collision in the mean time? How are you going to prevent this collision? And if it takes place, you commit me and mine, the destinies of my children and of the people I represent, to the destinies of these seceded States—aye, rather, to the destiny that may be provided for them by the seceded States. You link my fortunes with theirs, and you bring upon me and Virginia, so far unoffending, all the evil consequences that may possibly come upon those who have offended.

Sir, we have no representatives in Congress now. Many of the States have not elected representatives. The last Congress expired upon the 4th of March. The President of the United States has sworn to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The United States have a tariff, and the Southern Confederacy, down South, pretends to have a tariff. Tell me, gentlemen, how long are you going to wait and how long do you expect it will be before those two tariffs come into collision? And when they do come into collision, how long do you expect that it will be before something very near akin to civil war will come? And then Virginia is to take part and parcel in that civil war—not part and parcel, sir, but here upon the border, she is to be the victim.

There are a few other considerations that weigh upon my mind why we should have action, and prompt action, if we would save the Union, if we would save our people from all the horrors of civil war, if we would save the institutions of our State, of our section of the Union; and if we would afford an opportunity to the people in the seceded States, to declare their wishes as to the maintenance of what gentlemen term the old Union—why we should take that proposition which will the soonest bring quiet and peace to the country. How long, sir, will it be?

We know by this time, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the intention, nor is it the desire of the Executive at Washington to do anything by which .Page318 a collision will be provoked. We know, sir, what has been given out as to the policy of that Administration. However much we may have differed about the Inaugural Address, we know that the policy of the Executive is peace.

Will the gentleman allow me a moment? He keeps me alternating between a fever and an ague. One moment he tells us that there is imminent danger of a violent collision between the Federal Government and the seceded States. In the next breath almost, he announces that the policy of the Federal Executive is peace. Finally he assures us that we need entertain no apprehension. Now, leaving out of view the apparent incongruity of these positions, I would ask him, how he knows that the policy of the administration is peace?

I will tell you how I know.

There is no apprehension about a collision if the President does mean peace.

I will explain, I will tell you. Mr. Chairman, I can say perhaps what even my friend from Princess Anne cannot say—during a term in Congress I did not speak to them, and while I have seen gentlemen who now hold high positions in this new Government, walking side by side in Pennsylvania Avenue, with Joshua R. Giddings, I never spoke to him; and I have never spoken to Mr. Lincoln, or any one belonging to his Administration.

I hope the gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him. I wish to tell him that I was eleven years in Congress, and I learned there not to call a spade a spade—we learn curious things you know in Congress? [Laughter.] There were sometimes terms of four years when I did not speak to anybody in the Administration. Very often, however, I knew what they were going to do. What is this administration going to do? The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , knows some how or other, what they are going to do. Are they going to slough off the Southern States? Are they going to be disunionists? Are they going intentionally to slough off those Southern States, and form a new Union? Is that their acknowledged position—the position of disunion? I put that question.

Mr. Chairman, when I spoke of what we knew as to the policy of the Administration, I spoke from facts before the public, from information that is before not only the representatives of the people in this hall, but before the whole people of the United States. I felt authorised so to speak from the fact that has been announced that Fort Sumter was to be evacuated; from the fact that we have .Page319 it repeated day after day that it is to be the effort on the part of the Executive to preserve peace if he can do so, as long as he can ; and I believe that he may be able to do so for a short period of time, but I do not believe that he can very long discharge the duties imposed upon him under and by virtue of the solemn oath that he has taken, without a collision being brought about between these two tariffs. And hence, sir, I advocate that proposition which can be acted upon within the shortest period of time. If we adopt the substitute and the people of Virginia shall, at the polls in May next, ratify our action; these Peace Conference propositions will go before the several States of this Union and will be acted upon by the first day of August next, and if accepted by the States as a fair adjustment of our difficulties, peace will be restored to the country; and upon the meeting of Congress the adjustment will be placed before the States in a constitutional mode, to be acted upon and adopted by them as an amendment to the Constitution.

Will you allow me to interrupt you again? I want information. Whilst they are evacuating Fort Sumter—perhaps at this time; I hope they are—does the gentleman know that an order came this day to Junius Archer, of the Bellona Arsenal, from the Ordnance Department at Washington to have all the new guns at that arsenal sent to Fortress Monroe? Does the gentleman know that?

No, sir.

And whilst they are sloughing off the Cotton States of the South, they are making every preparation now to force Virginia to remain with the Northern Confederacy.

I ask the gentleman if he apprehends danger?

Apprehend it, sir? It is fearful. So much, that I would be this moment demanding that that armament at Fortress Monroe should be reduced.

Well, sir, if the Federal Government were to order all its arms and all its men to Fortress Monroe to-day or to-morrow, I would feel as secure in all my rights as I feel at this hour. Sir, how is it possible that gentlemen can suppose for one moment that there can be, by any man or any set of men, the slightest design to make war upon or otherwise injure or invade the right of a single citizen in this State? These sensation articles, these alarming telegraphic orders, never have disturbed my peace for a single moment, for I know, that up to this hour, Virginia has done nothing to bring down upon her the power of the Federal Government to be used against her; and I would be more willing to believe that these arms are ordered there to protect and.Page320 defend Virginia. But, sir, I will say, although I disclaim any extra bravery, that the people of Virginia never could, standing alone, be subjected or subdued, by any power on this continent.

But, I trust in God there is self reliance enough to be found throughout every portion of this good Old Commonwealth not to be alarmed and frightened from this inheritance of ours which we should—to use the language which I have seen quoted from the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] —"never run away or flee from."

This Union is mine and it shall, so far as my conduct is concerned, go to my children to be handed down to them and enjoyed by them as it has been enjoyed by me, to protect them as it has protected me, to be their shield against every danger and their protection for every interest. No right of mine, no right of the people of this Commonwealth has ever been invaded by it. All—all have been protected and secured as the rights of a free people were never protected before, and never, I am afraid, will be again if we let go this hope.

Sir, there is another reason, one at which I hinted the other day, why we should hold fast to this anchor—the Peace Conference propositions. They can be acted on, as I said before, within a very short period of time. The public mind is prepared to accept them. They come with an endorsement given them by twenty-one of the States of this Union and fourteen of them non-slaveholding States. The country in all its business relations has suffered as it never has suffered before. War with any other power—aye, sir, war with all the powers of the earth would have brought less disaster and less ruin upon the country than this agitation, this unwise—not to give it a harsher expression—attempt upon the part of designing men to destroy this Union, which, I venture to say, the people of no State in this Union desire to destroy. Sir, the country cannot stand it much longer. It cannot wait for your Border State Conference, it cannot wait for a year or two, as it will have to do if you inaugurate a new Conference, before any action can be put into such a shape as to come before the people of the United States in a constitutional mode. A few months more and you will find your business men will not be able to stand longer before the storm, they will bend and wilt before it as they are doing daily now. Within a short time, without any Providential calamity visiting us, the bonds of Virginia have come to be hawked in the market at 25 per cent discount, at a time when under ordinary circumstances they would be sought by monied men for investment at par. And your Legislature, in order to raise the means for war, war upon an extended scale, resorts to the issue of shin-plasters of $10 and upwards, in the shape of Treasury .Page321 notes; which they refuse the privilege of issuing to the banks because I suppose they want to issue them themelves.

Sir, I am a Virginian. I am proud of my State. I love every inch of her soil, and yet I do confess that I am mortified at the position in which she has been placed—not by any act of her people, however, I am free to admit; and because I believe it has not been by the action of her people I am anxious to get before them these propositions. I am of the opinion of Judge Brockenbrough, who I believe sympathizes with the gentleman from Princess Anne, not only that the propositions of the Peace Conference would be adopted by an immense majority of the people of Virginia in the west and northwest, but my word for it they would be adopted by an immense majority in Eastern Virginia. [Cries of "no! no!"] If the gentlemen have no fears of it, let the people have the opportunity to speak.

Give them, gentlemen, this opportunity, and go home and exert your influence among those whose fears have been unnecessarily aroused, and bring peace and comfort to their pillows. But, gentlemen, protract unnecessarily the session of this body, and you protract the ruin that is upon the country. Who is not aware of the impression that has been made upon the minds of the people of this State, that the Union men of this body are responsible for its non-action, and for the time that has been consumed here? Who upon this floor does not know that it is an unjust charge affixed to us?

Sir, let us have a vote, and if the Peace Conference propositions are what I understand the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , in the morning in reply to the gentleman from Princess Anne to say they were, if they are safe, and will secure to Virginia all her rights, why, oh why deny to the people the right to pronounce upon them? I warn gentlemen, in their desire to harmonize here, in their desires to gain the support of men whose support they will never gain, not to stir up new agitation everywhere else. I would like to see, how many men in this Convention would rather sacrifice that which I believe in my heart would be adopted by unparalleled majorities, in order to harmonize here and gain the support of men who were elected to the Convention as Union men with "ifs" and "buts." I say let them go. Let us get these propositions before the people, and let their voice be given for peace and harmony. Let that voice once be heard, and my word for it, it will be such a voice as was never before heard in this glorious old Commonwealth; a voice resounding from sea-shore to mountain; a voice that will make gentlemen willing to respect those .Page322 whom they were once willing to call their masters, but whom they now dignify with the title of "my people."

I move that the Committee rise. [Cries of "No, no!"] The question was put and the Committee refused to rise.

I am willing that the Committee should rise if they are disposed to do so, but supposing from the indications I have just witnessed, that such is not their will, I propose to detain them for a few moments.

I need not tell you how much I love Virginia. I have heard that so often by the gentlemen who have addressed us that I hardly think it necessary to repeat it. If I understand the question before the Committee, it is the conflicting propositions of the Peace Conference and that of the Committee of twenty-one.

I must renew the motion that the Committee rise. I think there was a misapprehension when the vote was taken upon a similar motion just now. I understand that various gentlemen voted in opposition to the motion not understanding the circumstances under which it was put. I am sure when they understand that a gentleman desires to speak, and that he does not desire to go on to-night, they will not refuse him the courtesy of continuing his remarks in the morning hour. I submit the motion that the Committee rise.

The question was put and the motion disagreed to.

I only gave way for the motion that the Committee rise, and will resume the floor. I was proceeding to say that I believe the question to be voted upon was between the propositions of the Peace Conference, and that of the Committee of Twenty-one. Now, sir, it has been stated, distinctly, by at least two members of the Committee, that the report of the Committee of Twenty-one, so far as it proposes amendments to the Constitution, is identically in substance the Peace Conference propositions. If that be true—and I believe it is true, for I have listened, during the whole of this debate, to hear some gentleman point out the difference—I say if that be true, I see no reason why we should take the Peace Conference propositions, in preference to those of the Committee on Federal Relations, when they are in substance the same.

I hear gentlemen talking about war, but, sir, I am much afraid of gentlemen who talk so loudly upon that subject. They are generally the very last men to come to the post of war. I have listened in vain to hear why it was that the labors of the Committee of Twenty-one should be superseded by the Peace Conference propositions. But I have heard nothing on the subject. You recollect, as well as I, that it .Page323 was said here that the Peace Conference propositions were not entirely plain and explicit, and that, for the purpose of avoiding the criticism which they received, they were amended by the Committee. If that be the fact, why not take the propositions as they come from our Committee so amended as to remove all ambiguity and difficulty? Besides that, these propositions have attached to them what some gentlemen choose to call a platform. Why not move the propositions of the Peace Conference, as a substitute for the amendments only? Why do gentlemen want to strike out the platform, as it is called?

I will answer my friend in the language of a letter which I received the other day from a gentleman from Northwestern Virginia, in which he said:

"I have just read Mr. Conrad's report. I presume it is the majority report. If adopted, it is unnecessary to make any further efforts at compromise. If the secessionists had written it—and I do not know but what they did—they could not have written a report that would have answered their purposes better."

I should a great deal rather have heard the argument of my friend, than to have heard a letter written by some gentleman whom I know nothing about. Yet the gentleman has not yet made any very good argument in favor of adopting his report over the report of the committee of twenty-one.

Now, sir, so far as I am concerned, I am ready to vote upon all these propositions. I desire to vote, and not to debate. But I have a word to say to my friend from Goochland [Mr. LEAKE] , who, if I recollect aright, said the Legislature of Virginia had recommended the Crittenden propositions, as they were termed, "as a basis." I am using their own language, "as a basis of compromise." Now, when the Franklin proposition, as it was called, or the Peace Conference propositions, were reported in the Senate of the United States, Mr. Crittenden himself, you will recollect, moved them as a substitute for his own propositions; and you will remember that this body, by an overwhelming majority, returned our thanks to Mr. Crittenden for his zealous efforts in endeavoring to bring about a settlement of our national difficulties.

With the permission of the gentleman, I will renew the motion that the Committee rise.

The motion was disagreed to, ayes 44, noes 53.

I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that you cannot hear me and that I can't hear you.

I was proceeding to say, sir, in regard to the resolution that I offered the other day to the effect that our Senators in Congress did not reflect .Page324 the sentiments and wishes of the people of Virginia, in relation to that "Peace Conference" proposition, that I had in my possession a number of petitions asking me to call up that resolution, and my friend from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , told me he had also some petitions on the same subject from another portion of the North-west. But I don't know that I would call it up after going over the heads of the Senators and passing a resolution of thanks to Mr. Crittenden who offered the "Peace Conference" proposition in preference to his own.

If the gentleman from Preston [Mr. BROWN] votes for other propositions as being better than the Peace Conference propositions, would he then censure our representatives who would not vote for a proposition that they considered not as good as the Crittenden proposition for instance?

I think it very evident, sir, that we will not have that, degree of order here during the evening that will enable my colleague from Preston or any other gentleman who might desire to address this committee, to be heard with satisfaction to himself or the committee. I therefore move that the committee rise.

The vote was taken by a count, and resulted ayes 43. The noes were not counted, it being apparent that there was a large majority in the negative.

, I would ask that the door-keepers be called upon to aid in keeping order. Order cannot be restored unless they do their duty.

I endeavored to raise my voice so that I could be heard. I am satisfied that I could not be heard even when I hallooed at the top of my voice, and I now don't care whether I am heard or not. [Laughter.] I desire, sir, when I get a little water, to speak, if I can, so that you can hear me. I don't know whether I can do that.

My friend from Goochland [Mr. LEAKE] made the enquiry of me, if I should vote for a proposition better than that of the "Peace Conference;" whether I still would insist upon my resolution that is now upon the table? I don't expect to vote for a proposition any better, and that is an answer to my friend. I intend to vote for the proposition, and will endeavor to reconcile the criticisms of my friend from Goochland. He told us that he was a good Union man.

No, sir.

Then I am mistaken. I thought the gentleman was a Union man. I am in error, however; he is against the Union, and I .Page325 have nothing to say to him on the subject. He and I are against each other on that point. I don't feel like calling up the resolution that I intended to call up, because of the vote of thanks to Mr. Crittenden. My notions of chivalry would forbid that I would call it up and pass it, if I could. Now, sir, I will assign a few reasons why I shall vote for the report of the Committee of twenty-one, and shall refuse to substitute the "Peace Conference" resolutions in lieu thereof.

You will bear me witness, sir, that in all the argument made during the early part of the Convention, the arguments as to these "Peace Conference" propositions were directed chiefly against their ambiguity.

There is too much confusion in the Hall; gentlemen will refrain from conversation.

It is always said that night sessions are noisy. Sometimes they assign one reason and sometimes another. I don't know what reason there is for the confusion this evening.

All sober.

Let us behave ourselves, then. The whole argument was directed in the beginning against the ambiguity of the Peace Conference proposition. I shall vote for the reports of the committee of twenty-one, because they have cleared up the ambiguity. I understand them precisely as amounting to the same—as being the same in substance with the propositions of the Peace Conference. I shall vote for them because they remove that ambiguity, and because—

It is said that there ought to be a sober Indian always in the crowd. I am aware, sir, that I raise my voice and endeavor to speak so that I could be heard; but I am afraid I articulate badly. If the object of my friends here is not to hear me; if that be the object of the noise, I can only say that I extended to them a very different courtesy. I do not intend to argue to-night. I cannot argue. I would not argue before an unwilling assemblage—before my peers who manifest a disposition not to hear or listen. Sir, I am as ready to vote as they are; and I will vote for the propositions of the committee of twenty-one; and sir, I will adhere to them. I believe the Franklin substitute, as adopted by the "Peace Conference" at Washington, is good, and so believing, I was ready to vote for it. My people are ready to sustain that substitute and to accept it as an adjustment of our difficulties. And so of the resolutions of the Committee of twenty-one. I shall adhere to them, unless, during the progress of the argument, I shall be convinced that there could be an amendment made either in.Page326 phraseology or in substance, that would commend itself to me. I will not pledge myself to vote for all the preamble. I have not examined it with sufficient care.

Sir, I have said all I will say at this time. I should have been very glad, if it was the pleasure of the Committee to rise, to enable me to make a few remarks to-morrow morning. After the manifestations on this floor, I cannot ask the Committee for any further indulgence now or to-morrow.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, from the indications of the number present, given in a late count, that it would be well to postpone a vote upon the substitute. According to the last count there are only 97 members present, and I think it would be proper to wait until there was a full attendance before taking a vote. I move that the committee rise.

I don't propose to make a speech, but I am willing to say to this Convention that I am willing to stay here all night and vote. I desire to explain my vote. I shall vote against the proposition offered by my friend from Harrison [Mr CARLILE] , as a substitute for the report of the committee of 21. I want it distinctly understood that I do this not because I take exception to the Peace Conference resolutions. I have friendly feelings towards these resolutions, and am now willing to vote for them. But I understand in voting for the substitute offered by the gentleman from Harrison, that I am precluded thereby from voting for certain other propositions raised by the committee of 21. Sir, I am in favor of a Border Slave State Conference, and I understand that my vote for the Peace Conference resolutions would preclude me from voting for that proposition also, inasmuch as this substitute if adopted would supersede all the other propositions reported by the committee.

I am opposed to coercion, sir. I desire to enter my protest against any act of coercion by the General Government. The report of the Committee of Twenty-one contains many things that I approve, and I am, therefore, to cast a vote which would preclude me from voting upon them. There are, however, many things in that report that I cannot endorse, but as the vote will be taken upon the propositions seriatim, there will be an opportunity of voting upon all and rejecting such as are not acceptable and moving substitutes for them if necessary.

For these reasons I shall vote against the substitute.

But at present I shall vote against them, not as a test matter as to the Peace Congress at all. I do not want to state it in that way.

I did not anticipate so late a session or that the vote would be taken this evening. I desire only to occupy a few minutes time, in which to state distinctly the grounds upon which my vote now to be cast will be given. The proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States agreed upon in the Conference at Washington had become the subject of some criticism and cavil connected mainly with the terms and phraseology in which portions of that instrument had been couched. I did not myself think that the adjustment was liable justly and fairly to those objections. I attempted some days since to make a vindication of these propositions. I wish it distinctly understood that then and now I candidly and conscientiously think, so far as I am enabled to form a judgment at all, that they are without objection in the particulars to which objection has been directed, and that if incorporated into the Constitution of the United States they would completely meet the difficulties which have heretofore surrounded us. I believe, furthermore, that these propositions not only are acceptable to a very large majority of the Convention, but I believe acceptable to a large majority of the people of Virginia. I am called upon now to act not as a member of the Peace Conference, not as a Commissioner from Virginia to meet Commissioners from non-slaveholding and slaveholding States. That duty has passed. I am now called upon as a member of this Virginia Convention to aid in constructing a Virginia proposition. In doing so, and in performing that labor and that duty, I have been willing to meet gentlemen on common ground, who have thought that the phraseology of these Peace Conference propositions was liable to the charge of ambiguity. It will be remembered that one of my colleagues [JUDGE BROCKENBROUGH] in his letter states in regard to the territorial question that there might be some ambiguity; that it was a matter of construction. I have been willing to meet this objection. These propositions have been submitted to your Committee on Federal Relations. They have examined them; they have reported them back modified and amended in several particulars. In regard to that first proposition, covering the territorial question, I am free to say that while the phraseology has been changed, I do not regard it as a change in substance at all; that is, holding the opinions I entertain, the language of the proposition as originally employed is precisely the same I care not whether you say the status of the person held to service or whether you say involuntary servitude. They are to me the same. I say I care not whether you say according to the practice of the common law or a remedy at common law. They are precisely the same.

But I am not here to make objections to grounds of resistance made by other gentlemen, but to remove criticism and cavil. I interpose no such difficulty. Now, while I believe the Peace Conference propositions would be quite acceptable to a large majority of the people of this Commonwealth, I speak my own opinions; I may be mistaken; yet I verily believe that upon a vote they would be acceptable to a large majority of the people—yet, at the same time, I am satisfied, upon conference with other gentlemen, and interchange of opinion with them, that the modifications and changes which the propositions have now undergone, as presented by the committee of twenty-one, would challenge the approbation of a still larger majority of the people of Virginia. I said, in the remarks I made the other day, that I had been opposed in the Conference to the addition made to the 7th section. That alone would justify me in voting for the committee's proposition rather than the original proposition, because we get rid of that which is and always has been to me an objection. In constructing a proposition, as we are, in behalf of Virginia, having it in our power, if we think best, and not cramped about with the difficulties of a General Conference, I see no objection to putting it into proper language which will suit us. There is another preference which I have. The Peace Conference propositions in one section rendered irrepealable certain other sections of the propositions and certain sections of the Constitution; not all of the sections, however, of the adjustment made by that Conference. But this committee has so modified the section as to make it apply to render irrepealable all those sections. Then, when you bring up these propositions here as a matter of comparison, although the Peace Conference propositions were acceptable to me, is not my judgment here to act and determine for itself whether upon this comparison, the one or the other is likely to be most acceptable to the people of Virginia, and most likely to harmonize the feeling of this Convention and of the people? Then it seems to me there is no ground for any imputation of inconsistency. I do not repudiate in any form or to any extent the proceedings of the Peace Conference at Washington. You bring me back from the committee those same propositions having passed through the crucible of examination here among ourselves. We are forming a proposition now to submit on behalf of Virginia to other States. We are free to submit it in our own terms. I then am at liberty to compare and adopt now, as an independent question, whatever proposition I prefer. And it is for this reason I reject the Peace Conference proposition; not because I think less of it than I did originally; not because I concur in opinion with gentlemen around .Page329 me who say that it is an abortion and a sham. Not at all. I have already spoken upon it and have given my views of it. In the present attitude of our action, a motion being made here to strike out the committee's report and insert the proposition of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , I shall vote against striking out. The proposition of the gentleman from Harrison passes by altogether, and makes no provision for a border State Conference, and it makes no provision for the ratification of his own proposition by the people. It provides that it should be submitted to the people of Virginia, and that the county and corporation clerks shall certify the result, and that the Governor shall make proclamation of the fact; but it makes no provision that it shall finally be passed by Congress and submitted by that body to the people. Then, when you ask me how I shall vote upon this question of striking out, I am constrained to vote against striking out, for the reason that the Committee having reported this proposition in an improved and amended form, so far as the objections of others are concerned, I am willing to hold on to it, looking to see if other improvements are needed. It is a mere matter of comparison between the two propositions, and I have only to say, if there be inconsistency in my position, I am entirely incapable of perceiving it.

The gentleman from Kanawha has collected himself and comes back with an additional excuse to that which he gave this morning.

I took then precisely the same ground that I do now.

I did not hear any thing about the Virginia proposition this morning.

It is an illustration and enlargement of the view I took then.

Let us examine: I tell the gentleman his last explanation is more unsatisfactory than the first. By whom was the gentleman sent to Washington? By Virginia. What was he sent there for? If to get any thing, it was to get a Virginia proposition. This is not a Virginia proposition, is it, that he brought back ?

The gentleman certainly understands what I say of the Virginia proposition. I mean a proposition framed in a Virginia assembly as contra-distinguished from a proposition obtained from a General Convention.

I repeat, he was on a Virginia commission to obtain a Virginia end. He was not only a Commissioner to attend at Washington, .Page330 but he had the double character of being a member of this body, at the time he was a member of that Commission.

I was elected while there.

He was elected while he was there, but he was acting upon the commission while he was a member of this body. He was a Virginian there, and a Virginian here, identified with Virginia, acting for her as her agent with the double commission in his charge. And now we are told that this proposition is to be regarded as something coming from foreigners and outsiders, and it is not to be treated with the same respect as one emanating from a mere advisory Committee of this body. That is all that the Committee of twenty-one is. But if it be true, as he states, that the one proposition is a domestic, and the other a foreign one—one a Virginia Convention proposition, and the other a Washington City proposition—the question arises, is it true that they are the same? I take up the gauntlet from the gentleman when he asserts that they are the same, in respect to the very words he uses, in the very illustration he has given in regard to the first proposition. What does the Peace Conference proposition say in reference to Mexican laws? You may call it ambiguity only that you have relieved your proposition from. No such thing. You have put in that very clause substantial, essential alterations; but it was done after a hard struggle. I believe I may claim that it was done on my motion in the Committee, if I may be allowed to speak of what occurred in Committee. The very question was then—is it the same? But, sir, argument will convince any man that will listen to the reading of the propositions, that they are not the same. The gentleman hinges upon the words "status of persons held to labor." Throw them away. I have got nothing to do with them. The words that I fix my eye upon in this report are the words "as now existing." The status of persons held to service or labor as now existing in that territory, shall be determined by the cognizance of the common law. I do not use the precise words in the latter phrase, but in the first phrase I do use the words. Sir, eleven years of service in the Congress of the United States and perfect familiarity with the debates in Congress upon it, in which I was a participant over the tables, under the tables and around the tables, with the best teacher that man ever had—that old man eloquent, John Quincy Adams told me too well the meaning of those words. It is not a new phrase it is an old one. What is the doctrine of these words?

If you adopt the unamended proposition of the Peace Conference, that the status of persons as it now exists in territories South of 36 deg., 30 min., shall not be changed, the Northern men who agree with you .Page331 to accept such a term of adjustment, will tell you that the legal status as it now exists, in territories acquired from Mexico, is fixed by and derived from the Mexican law—a free soil law. And thus, under the very terms of the Peace Conference proposition, they would establish irrevocably the domain of free-soilism South, as well as North of 36 deg 30 min.

Take on the other hand, the express provision now embodied in the report of the Committee of twenty-one, that the status shall not be regarded as fixed by the Mexican law, and you are relieved of that free-soil argument which applies so directly to the proposition of the Peace Conference.

Take the two propositions and ask Joshua R. Giddings, Horace Greeley, Wm. H. Seward and the anti-slavery, Black Republican advocates of the doctrine of free-soil and non-extension of slavery, which of the two propositions they would take? Ask Salmon P. Chase, who was in the Peace Convention, which of the two propositions he would take? I tell you that if you adopt the Peace Conference proposition, they will hold you to the construction, that you fix the status according to the Mexican law which was free-soil law, and that free-soil law is not to be changed. But if you will say, as the Committee have said, that it shall exclude the operation of all pre-existing Mexican law and that the status as now existing, independent of that law, shall not be changed, why, it exactly reverses the proposition. I would like time to enter into a discussion of this question.

Will the gentleman give way for one moment?

Certainly.

I propose to test the sense of the Convention upon the programme adopted last Saturday—that this Convention hold sessions in the morning and in the afternoon. It is now past seven o'clock, and if it is the purpose of the Convention to hold night sessions also, I will quite cheerfully agree to it. If that be not the purpose, and it now being past 7 o'clock, I would move that—

I did not give way for any such purpose as that. I will conclude in a few minutes.

The gentleman having given way, the gentleman from Campbell [Mr. SPEED] , is entitled to the floor.

But I would not have yielded if I had known what his purpose was. I do not wish to place the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] in any inconsistent position. It may be that he differs .Page332 from me in this construction; I don't know. I suppose he does. But, I say he came to the conclusion that there is no difference in the propositions, which are essentially contradictory to each other. I differ from him toto ccelo. I have had too much indoctrination—too much experience of what the Northern men contend for, to doubt at all; and I am informed that Mr. Chase made himself perfectly understood in that Peace Conference. When the word legal was proposed to be affixed to the word status, it was a matter of indifference to him. That gentleman, now a member of the Cabinet, as I am informed distinctly stated that he would take that proposition because of the interpretation that was put upon it by him and his party.

But it is not only in that instance, sir, but in almost every section of the report of the Peace Conference, that the Committee have condemned it. I, for one, have fixed my gaze upon it with intensity, and I tell you that if you think there is no difference between the two, you are grossly mistaken. There is a vital, essential, practical, constructive difference between the two. The provision as to the privileges of the citizens of the several States has been thrown out. And there is one other vital change—that in respect to the right of transit with slaves—the power to pass through the non-slaveholding States. In that particular the one proposition is wholly different from the other: and there can be no difference of opinion as to the right of the question itself. But, besides that, the other parts of the report of the Committee of twenty-one, the preamble of the report of the Committee of twenty-one, the resolutions and principles that they have adopted, the addendum to the Peace Conference which they have adopted—all change it substantially and utterly, and add to the complication of the thing.

I restricted myself to the guarantees—to the proposed amendments to the Constitution.

I know that, sir; but the question now subjected to your decision is not so restricted. The motion is to strike out the whole of the report, and adopt in lieu of it the amendment, You are called upon either to adopt the whole or reject the whole of the report of the Committee of Twenty-one, or substitute in its place, or to reject, the propositions of the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] .

Let us look at this question narrowly, with a Virginia eye—for there is a difference between the eye of Washington City and the eye of Virginia. I am very glad that the gentleman has thrown away the spectacles that he looked through at Washington, and has, at last, taken the Old Virginia spectacles. I tell you, sir, there is an immense.Page333 difference between the two; when you get in the atmosphere of Washington there is a haze; you see things double there; there is a mirage, there is a great deal of malaria, too, at Washington, that does not exist here; the best eye and the purest heart that goes there is obliged to see through a medium different from Virginia atmosphere. I am glad, too glad to know that whilst the gentleman endorses the Peace Conference proposition, he seems to have a double vision; one vision is telescopic and the other microscopic; and when he looks at the two with the Washington eye he can make a five hours' speech to persuade this Convention that the Peace Conference proposition is the best one that Virginia ought to adopt. He moves to have it referred to the Committee of twenty-one, recommending it by every endorsement, by every argument, as if Virginia should adopt it. Then he was acting I suppose in the capacity of his representative membership in this body. Well, Old Virginia got hold of it, and we saw it in this atmosphere through the Virginia glasses and it would not do. [Laughter.] It was originally wrong and ambiguous.

And it was not ambiguous merely. The whole thing was originally defective. It was handing us over body and soul—and give me the time and I will demonstrate it—taking from us all that was left after we had compromised and compromised in vain.

Oh my God, sir, I could weep! I cannot look at you without seeing near you those two sculptured figures in contrast. I wish I could speak of Henry Clay as I want to speak of him without being misunderstood. I knew him and knew him well. He has gone, and I would say nothing of him but what is good. And there is one good thing I can say of him, and when I look at that marble I am reminded of it. He was game, he was indomitable, he was uplifted, and his steppings were stately step-pings. He, that mighty man, tried compromise, and compromise and compromise until he won exalted fame, and the name of The Great Pacificator. Henry Clay, I invoke your shade! If you had life now and were standing in this hall, on your native soil,—Henry Clay I invoke your shade to know what would be your exclamation, your apostrophe of compromise! Alas! Alas! the word has crumbled into ruins like the Ship of State for which he labored in vain.

And, in contrast with that of Henry Clay, another image rises before my mind, distinct and indelible as marble—the image of John C. Calhoun, of that man who was ambitious above other men—who sought the Presidency as Newton sought an observatory—he did not want it without his telescope; that man of whom a Georgian has said that he was like Michael Angelo's dome in the Heavens without the scaffolding .Page334 of thought. The other day, when a South Carolinian, who was pleading at this bar, referred to that marble image, I looked at the stern, severe, unbending, unyielding countenance, and my manhood gave way, and I wept to think of him. He was a prophet, and more than a prophet. He foretold the events in the midst of which we are now to live. He knew the use of words; he knew that words were not shadows, but things. The giant contest, the more than gladiatorial struggles which took place between these two men, between whose marble images you and I, sir, sit here to-day, furnish in one sense a type of the national crisis in which you and I are this day involved. And now the pen of the present is to record an answer to the question—an indelible answer. Whose efforts have told on the side of error, and whose have told on the side of truth? From one came a hopeful effort to save by compromise; the other sternly told you to stand by your rights as the only staunch, stern immovable position that would save you.

And, sir, I have had twenty-seven years experience in this matter .out of fifty-four of my life, and I aver the fact, and I defy any man to contradict it, I will prove it to be true in every instance by the record—that slavery, the South, the country, never have lost one jot or tittle of right or interest by any extreme Abolitionist. The rabid Abolitionists have always been so extravagant that no bargains were made with them, no compromise could be concerted with them; they have been out of the contract always—always opposing a contract; but all the loss, all the cost to slavery, to the South—now to the whole country, has come out of compromise—iterated and reiterated compromise with what you call conservative men of the North. Yes, sir, you had first anti-slavery beginning with the brethren of the Quaker order—peace party men, who will pay tribute rather than fight. They first commenced this war upon slavery. It was a religious element at that time. Shortly afterwards a hypocritical, canting, ranting pseudo philanthropy of politics seized upon the religious element, and you had a double demon to contend with. At this day you have a still more vindictive, more destructive element combined with the religious element and the political element. You have that which I hate worse than all, that which I would trample upon to utter annihilation, that which is worse than Lucifer's own infernal Gods—you have agrarianism, falsehood and chicanery.

Let me tell you, sir, that, in my opinion, that last, worst, most-to-bedreaded enemy is found in Virginia as well as in the North. Agrarianism at this day calls itself Republicanism par excellence. But it lays no claim to that proud Republicanism which raises mankind upon the .Page335 highest platform, and would make us equal to kings and princes. It would drag all down together to the lowest level of the very filth and mire of the earth. This is the struggle now going on.

To return more immediately to the matter under consideration. The gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] blames the Peace Conference only as ambiguous. If this proposition that comes from the Peace Conference is ambiguous, why did the gentleman bring it here? Why did he try so hard to enforce it? It was unambiguous to me. I tell the gentleman from Kanawha, if he is not with the gentleman from Harrison, that this proposition suits the gentleman from Harrison but it does not suit him. He has made a mistake; the proposition of the Committee is substantially different from that of the Peace Conference, and let us have it so understood. I do not want the gentleman to condemn himself, but I will give him one piece of advice, as the best means of avoiding all perplexity. Let him say that he sees a better proposition than the one he brought here from Washington, and he therefore takes it. That is what he does substantially say.

The question was then taken upon the adoption of the substitute proposed by Mr. CARLILE, and it was decided in the negative—yeas 4, nays 119, as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Burley, Carlile, Hubbard, Porter-4.

NAYS—Messrs. Ambler, Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Blakey, Blow, Boggess, Boisseau, Borst, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Brown, Bruce, Burdett, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Caperton, Carter, Chambliss, Chapman, Clemens, Coffman, Conn, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, J. H. Cox, R. H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dulany, Early, Echols, Fisher, Forbes, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Graham, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, J. Goode, T. F. Goode, A. Hall, C. Hall, E. B. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Haymond, Hoge, Holcombe, Holladay, Hull, Isbell, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marye, Maslin, Masters, Miller, Moffett, Morris, Morton, MOORE, Neblett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Preston, Price, Pugh, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, A. H. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Strange, Summers, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Thornton, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Waller, White, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Williams, Wilson, Wise, Woods-119.

So the amendment was rejected. During the call of the roll

Mr. BALDWIN stated that he had paired off with the gentleman from Richmond city [Mr. RANDOLPH] ; but he had been informed that, were Mr. RANDOLPH present, he would vote in the negative, as he [Mr. BALDWIN] should vote.

Mr. HARVIE said he would take the responsibility of saying that Mr. RANDOLPH, if present, would vote in the negative.

Mr. OSBURN stated that his colleague, Mr. BARBOUR, of Jefferson, was necessarily absent.

Mr. BROWN stated that he had paired off with the gentleman from Cumberland, Mr. SCOTT; but understanding they would both vote the same way, if here he should vote in the negative.

Mr. CAMPBELL stated that his colleague, Mr. GRANT, had been called home suddenly by severe family affliction.

Mr. HUGHES said he had paired off with the gentleman from Pulaski [Mr. WYSOR] .

A member stated that Mr. TREDWAY was absent from the city. If he were present he would vote "no."

Before voting, I want to say a word. When the propositions emanating from the Peace Conference were presented to the people of the United States, I gave them a careful examination—the best examination I was able to give them. That examination led my mind to the conclusion that they were a delusion and a snare, and I determined to vote against them. After I had the pleasure of listening to the able, eloquent and vigorous argument of the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , in their defence, I reconsidered my judgment, and my mind came to the conclusion still that they were a snare. To-day, I have had occasion again to review the grounds over which my friend traveled, and I have been relieved from all doubt upon the subject by finding the enlightened gentleman from Kanawha turning his back upon these propositions he so ably advocated before, and announcing his vote "no" upon their adoption. I am convinced now, beyond a doubt, that my first conclusion was correct, and that they are a delusion and a snare. I take pleasure, therefore, in voting "no."

I desire to give a reason for my vote. I shall vote "no" in this case, not as opposing the Peace Conference propositions in themselves. I, myself, and so far as I know, my people were content with the Crittenden propositions. I know, or believe, that that people, notwithstanding the hard things that have been applied to the Peace Conference propositions, regard those propositions as infinitely superior to the Crittenden propositions. And the very fact that they have received such hard names from certain quarters, eminently commends itself to me and to my people, who are a conservative people. With this explanation, I cast my vote in the negative.

I merely rise to give the reason for the vote I shall cast upon the .Page337 motion to strike out and insert the substitute under consideration, and I do not wish that vote to be construed as a condemnation on my part of the propositions of the Peace Conference. But the substitute of the gentleman from Harrison embraces certain resolutions for which, in their present form, I cannot vote; as I understand the Chair to decide that if the motion to strike out and insert the substitute of the gentleman from Harrison prevails, that substitute cannot be amended in the Committee. For that reason I shall vote against the pending motion; and, in so doing, I do not want to be considered as condemning the propositions of the Peace Conference.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

Mr. NELSON moved that the committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee accordingly rose and Mr. SHEFFEY having taken the chair as President pro tern pore, the chairman [Mr. PAICE] reported that the Committee of the Whole had according to order, had under consideration the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and had come to no resolution thereon.

I move the Convention adjourn sine die.

Mr. GOODE of Mecklenburg demanded the yeas and nays.

I rise to make a motion which I understand will take precedence of the motion of the gentleman from Harrison. I move simply that the Convention adjourn.

The motion was agreed to, and thereupon the Convention adjourned until to-morrow at ten o'clock A. M.

1.8.1. PROCEEDINGS OF A PUBLIC MEETING IN BOTETOURT COUNTY

Mr. MILLER presented the following proceedings of a public meeting in Botetourt county:

The PRESIDENT announced the pending question to be the resolution offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , upon which the gentleman from Jackson [ Mr. TURNER] , was entitled to the floor.

1.8.2. CHANGE OF HOUR OF MEETING

As the call of the House and other matters have taken up seven minutes of time, I shall not now have time to present the views I desire to submit during the few minutes left before we go into Committee of the Whole. In order that gentlemen may have time in the morning to discuss this and other questions before going into Committee of the Whole, I submit the following resolution for the adoption of the Convention. It is perfectly apparent that this early hour of assembling does no good. I am perfectly willing to meet in this Convention at any hour gentlemen may please, or the Convention may select, and to attend to the business that may come before us. It is impossible to get a full attendance at 10 o'clock.

The resolution was then read as follows by the Clerk:

"Resolved, That after to-day and until otherwise ordered, the Convention will assemble at 11 o'clock A.M.; at 12 M., to go into Committee of the Whole; to continue in session until 3 o'clock P.M., at which time a recess shall be taken until 8 P.M., when the Convention will again meet in Committee of the Whole."

There is no loss of time involved by the proposition which I submit. If gentlemen do not desire night sessions, as suggested, the question may be divided. I am seeking to get as much time as possible for the Convention that can be actually used profitably; and that is the object of the motion. If it be deemed advisable to take a recess until four o'clock, I have no objection to such amendment. My object is to get one hour in the morning in which business can be done.

I would suggest to the gentleman that in consequence of the paucity of numbers, it would be an improper time to act upon the resolution now.

I will make the motion to lay it on the table for the present, giving notice that I will call it up to-morrow morning.

The resolution was laid on the table.

The gentleman from Marion [Mr. E. B. HALL] , desires to make an explanation, and I will give way for that purpose, as the morning hour has almost expired, with the understanding that I still retain the floor.

1.8.3. PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. President—It was my privilege to occupy the attention of the Convention a few moments on Friday morning last and again on Saturday morning, with some remarks on the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia, in the report of which in the "Enquirer" are some palpable errors which I desire to correct. I am represented as saying that the questions growing out of our Federal relations should be settled by the Convention before entering upon the question of taxation or other questions pertaining to the organic laws of the State, and that I and those whom I in part represent so desired, and that they had so instructed me; and I am also represented as proposing that a committee should now be raised to report to an adjourned meeting of this Convention upon all these matters—taxation included. Now, Mr. President, in both of these points I have been sadly misapprehended. I told our people when I was before them for a seat in this Convention, and they told me, that before we took action upon any Federal question, action should be had, and justice, common justice, done us in reference to taxation and representation, and this was the position I took here in my remarks, and take now and ever. Remove this odious distinction, this inequality; this unjust burthen which we have long borne, that we may stand on this floor as your equals, with equal rights, .Page342 equal protection and bearing equally with you the common burthens of the State; then we will talk with you of Federal questions.

On the second point I will speak of a report to a proposed adjourned session of the Convention (if we are to have one, but which I much desire, if we can, to avoid) . I spoke of it, first, to show that those who tell us to wait till an adjourned session on these questions, refuse to entertain the proposed resolution of the honorable gentleman from Preston, which asked only the appointment of committees now to report to an adjourned session—showing how little was asked by that resolution, and yet that little was refused or declined. I also suggested then as to the questions of State reform, other than taxation, that Committees might be now appointed to report then; but the question of taxation is a simple proposition—requires no Committee. And I, in the name and on behalf of our people, demand action on that question now. Our people await your action and answer; the burthens are upon us, and we want relief now—not when we secede, or when we do not secede—not when our property shall have paid the millions of our State debt—but now. Treat us as equals, and then you may expect us to co-operate with you in other matters, willing and ready to bear our part, and to do what we think should be done. Our people will be ready for your answer, be that what it may—but they will regard postponement, as equivalent to a denial of our rights. I hope I am understood—I know my distance from the reporters, and the confusion incident upon the assemblings of the house, rendered it difficult for them to hear and understand what I said—but I hope I am heard this morning.

The hour has arrived for the execution of the order of the Convention to go into Committee of the Whole.

I have received a note from Mr. SOUTHALL, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, stating that he is prevented by indisposition from attending to-day. Yesterday he requested the gentleman from Greenbrier [Mr. PRICE] to act in his place. Will the gentleman please to take the chair.

Yesterday when the Committee rose, it had under consideration the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the amendments proposed, and the substitute by the gentleman from Harrison. The report is now before the Committee. If the present occupant of the Chair understands the question, there is no substitute now pending, and there will not be any, unless some shall be offered; the report will be taken up and read, section by section, and passed upon.

Mr. President, Mr. HARVIE of Amelia has given notice of his intention to offer an amendment. He is not present, and there is no person here authorized to act for him. I merely wish to call attention to the fact that he intended to offer an amendment.

The Chair will remark to the gentleman from Louisa and to the Convention, that if the sections are adopted, they become the action of the Committee and are not subject to any amendment by adopting a substitute for them.

Do I understand the Chair that, if a section of the report is adopted, it precludes the presentation of a substitute for the whole report?

It will be the action of the Committee upon that much of the report.

I desire the Chair to give me a distinct answer. I understand the Chair to announce that the adoption of any portion of the report is an exclusion of a substitute for the whole report?

The exclusion of a substitute for that part.

The exclusion of a substitute for the whole report, if I understand the Chair correctly.

The question does not now arise.

No, sir. It was only because the Chair gave notice on its own account, to the Committee, that my attention was called to the point; and the Chair having made that announcement, it was important, as we were to be governed by the action of the Chair, to know what its intention was.

Mr. Southall desired the Chair to announce that that was his intention; and I adhere to it—that so much of the report as might be sanctioned by the Committee, could not be substituted afterwards for the whole report.

I do not think the Chair has yet met the question propounded, which is this—

The gentleman from Clarke [Mr. NELSON] , is entitled to the floor.

The gentleman from Clarke is not entitled to the floor. I am entitled to the floor on a question of order.

The gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] will take his seat. The Chair will state the position of the question. On yesterday evening the gentleman from Clarke [Mr. NELSON] expressed a wish to address the Committee. At that time the motion before the Committee was not agreed to. He moved that the Committee rise. The question was afterwards taken upon the substitute of the gentleman .Page344 from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] . He finally moved that the Committee rise, with a view, as I understood it, of addressing the Committee this morning. The present occupant of the Chair is of opinion that the gentleman from Clarke is entitled to the floor, and it is accorded to him. The gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] takes an appeal from that opinion, and the question is, shall the opinion of the Chair stand?

I would ask, permission to state the question as I view it. The Chair volunteered to give its construction to a rule upon a question not now before the Convention. Being one of those who are to be governed by the construction which the Chair has volunteered to give, I ask for a full understanding of the opinion of the Chair upon that question. Before the Chair gives an answer to the question propounded, the Chair rules me out of order. Now I appeal from that decision of the Chair, and I maintain my right to have a full, explicit answer from the Chair, of the course which the Chair proposes to pursue upon a question which may arise, and which has been brought before the Committee by the action of the Chair, and not by my action.

I would like to understand this question before I vote. I don't understand that because a gentleman moves an adjournment, that gives him a title to the floor as a right. In parliamentary bodies it is a matter of courtesy, and a matter of courtesy alone, that the gentleman who moves an adjournment has the privilege of being heard when the body assembles again. If I am called upon by my vote to decide that this is a question of right, and not of courtesy, I cannot say that the gentleman from Clarke would be entitled to the floor as a matter of right, however much he might be entitled to it as a matter of courtesy.

The question is, shall the opinion of the Chair stand?

The question was taken, when the decision of the chair was sustained.

Mr. NELSON of Clarke, then took the floor, but gave way to Mr. WM. B. PRESTON, who addressed the Convention for over an hour. His speech will appear hereafter.

Mr. NELSON, of Clarke, then obtained the floor, and spoke until the hour arrived for the Convention to take a recess.2Mr. Nelson's speech was printed as a continuous whole, with no indication of the point at which it was interrupted by the recess. The entire speech has been put in the Proceedings of the morning session.

Mr. Chairman, under any circumstances, it would require all the moral courage which I possess to rise and address this body; for my pursuits and avocations for the last twenty years, have led me far from .Page345 the cultivation of the arts of oratory; during that period my only cares have been to cultivate and adorn that small portion of this good Old Commonwealth which has fallen to my lot. But, sir, at this time, after listening to the lofty and impassioned eloquence of my friend from Montgomery, I am more than ever embarrassed. "For what can the man do who comes after the king?"—and nothing but a sense of the duty which I owe to the people whom I have the honor to represent, could nerve me to make the attempt.

Sir, I have the honor to represent a county which pays a larger tax in proportion to her aggregate population, than any county in the State, with the exception of the county of Jefferson and those counties which have large towns or cities—and which is also the largest slave-holding county in proportion to her white population, west of the Blue Ridge. I have the honor to represent that county, sir, which was the birth-place of the "Hero of the Cowpens." I represent a people, sir, who, whilst they are loyal to the State of Virginia and to this Union, "know their rights, and knowing, dare maintain them." Sir, there are swords there "ready to leap from their scabbards"—there are still unerring rifles there ready to be directed with deadly aim, against any and all enemies; but, sir, we remember the order of the old hero, and we mean "to wait till we see the whites of the enemy's eyes." And, sir, in their behalf I claim the right to present and to advocate before this body the sentiments which I, and I believe a majority of those whom I represent, hold on the great questions which now agitate the country. Sir, I may be behind this fast age; but I do not belong to that school of modern political philosophers who believe "that the Constitution is effete and gone to seed." I do not believe that any ten men in any parlor, or in all the parlors of Virginia and the United States together can make a better. I do not hesitate to say, that I am one of those who still cherish a fond attachment to this Union, and who still believe that the Constitution of the United States, if administered according to the spirit and intention of its framers, is the best government, for our people, that the world has ever seen. Sir, even those who are most dissatisfied with it—the Southern Confederacy—have adopted it in its essential features as their form of government, at least for the present. Nor, sir, have I heard any complaint against the administration of the government.

In all the great crises which, up to the present time, have occurred at regular alternate periods, of ten and twenty years, since the foundation of the government, some of which have shaken it to its foundation —either the passing by Congress of laws considered by some as unconstitutional, .Page346 or the want of law to carry out some constitutional provision, has been the cause of complaint. In 1798-9, ten years after the formation of our government, what were called the Alien and Sedition Laws were complained of, and were the cause of the passage by the Legislature of Virginia of the famous resolutions of '98 and '99.

In 1819-'20, the refusal to admit Missouri as a slave State, gave rise to a serious disturbance, which was finally settled by the admission of Missouri, and the passing by Congress of what is called the Missouri Compromise—from 1830 to 1833, what was called the Black Tariff of 1828, was near proving a cause of a disruption of this Union, similar to the present. You all know, Mr. Chairman, how that difficulty was settled. In 1850 the want of a law to carry out the fugitive slave provision of the Constitution gave rise to a struggle which had well nigh proved fatal to our government. This was settled, as you all know, by the Compromise of 1850.

In the present crisis then, as I have said, there is really no complaint against the Constitution itself, which cannot be remedied by amendments declaratory of its intent and meaning, which I believe we can obtain with regard to the administration of the Government. The Executive Department is charged with no usurpation. The Legislative Department—the Congress—has passed no unconstitutional laws interfering with any man's rights or liberties, nor has the Judiciary Department of the Government, by any decision, interfered with our rights in the territory or elsewhere; on the contrary they have decided that the territories are a trust fund for the benefit of all the States. And if I understand that decision, the slaveholder is entitled to protection in every part of the common territory during its territorial condition.

What then are the true causes of the present crisis in our affairs, and for which we are asked to break up this Government purchased at the price of so much treasure and blood of our patriotic ancestors, and bequeathed to us with the solemn injunction that we should cherish it as the "palladium of our political safety and prosperity; the main pillar in the edifice of our real independence; the support of our tranquility at home, our peace abroad; of our safety, our prosperity, and of that very liberty which we so highly prize"? They are, as I consider,

1st. The passage of certain laws by some of the non-slaveholding States, called the Personal Liberty Bills.

2d. The alleged intention of the majority in power, to exclude our peculiar institution from the common territory; and

3d. The fanatical spirit which prevails in the non-slaveholding States, which threatens ultimately to destroy that institution where it now .Page347 exists—and this spirit as exhibited, in the election of a President, on a sectional platform, with the avowed purpose of its ultimate extinction.

Is there no remedy, Mr. Chairman, for these evils? "is there no balm in Gilead?" is there no physician there? That is the question which we have to consider and to decide in this Convention. If there is no means of adjusting these difficulties, short of breaking up this Union, I, for one, will have no conscientious scruples in disrupting all the bonds which unite us. But, sir, I am for adopting that means, which, whilst it will secure our rights, will best comport with the interest and the honor of Virginia.

The only remedy proposed by what we call the ultra party is immediate secession. Sir, what will be the effect of secession on the first of these evils, the escape of our slaves? Sir, we who live on the border of the slaveholding States are accustomed to take a practical view of this question, and are much less excited on this subject than those who live at a distance from the border, and who reason abstractly upon it. We know that, notwithstanding the Personal Liberty Bills, we lose comparatively few of our slaves since the passage of the fugitive slave law. Before that law was passed, they were leaving my county by tens and twenties at a time. Since 1850, notwithstanding the Personal Liberty Bills, we lose, as I stated, comparatively few. Sir, when I consider that secession will not move Virginia one foot further from Pennsylvania and Ohio, but will, in effect, repeal the fugitive slave law and place a foreign country close upon us, I cannot but conclude that secession, so far from remedying this evil, will increase it. I am aware, sir, that that the honorable Commissioner from Georgia proposed to surround us by a "cordon militaire" to prevent our slaves from escaping across the border. But, sir, I think there are many serious objections to that system. I think that, like the Indian's gun, "it will cost more than it will come to." Sir, it is as much as I can do to pay one overseer to attend to my farm; but if I have to pay soldiers to watch around it to keep the negroes from running off, I should soon have to sell both farm and negroes to pay the costs. And, in the second place, I think it will be ineffective. Now we can pursue our slaves across the border and recover them. When the border States become a foreign territory, neither you nor your soldiers can go one foot across the line in pursuit of your fugitives. And, if the interest of those States in the preservation of this Union will not induce them to give proper guarantees, think you that you can induce them to restore your slaves, who escape, by treaty stipulations? Sir, I think not.

Will secession secure us our rights in the territories? According to the .Page348 theory of secession as I understand it, so far from securing our rights there, we abandon, for a time at least, the very territory we are contending for, and leave it all in the possession of those States which remain in the Union. I do not contend, sir, that we would abandon our equitable claim, yet the only remedy left to us would be to obtain it, either by war or by treaty, and I, for one, am free to confess that I think we can treat better in than out of the Union. For the present at least.

Now, sir, as to the third cause of complaint. Whilst I do not consider that the election of any man to the Presidency of the United States, according to the forms of the Constitution, is a sufficient cause, of itself, for breaking up this Union, yet if Mr. Lincoln unyieldingly persists in carrying out that spirit of fanaticism and that policy which will not only deny us our rights in the common territory, but must result in the ultimate extinction of slavery in all the States, much as I love this Union, I, for one, am prepared to say "away with it." I, sir, am prepared, at any cost, to sever every bond which binds us together. And in view of this, I say, sir, that the time has now come for us to settle definitely and forever this vital question. Yet, sir, when I remember the large number of our fellow-citizens of the non-slaveholding States who have nobly stood up for us and gallantly fought on our side; when I remember that of the 3,400,000 votes nearly 1,600,000 were cast against the Republican candidate, and even of the 1,800,000 who voted for Mr. Lincoln many voted on other issues than those of Black Republicanism, I am not disposed to embrace them all, both friends and foes, in one common anathema. I will not call those enemies whom I know to be our warm friends; I will even dare in this presence to call them friends. Nay, sir, I cannot but hope that we shall not appeal in vain to the great conservative element of the North, to award us our just rights without an appeal to the ultima ratio regum. I would have this Convention to present to the non-slaveholding States clearly and distinctly our ultimatum of adherence to the Union. I have already indicated those conditions in the resolutions which I offered to this body on the 20th of February.

These resolutions I think the report of the majority of the Committee on Federal Relations, substantially contains.

This ultimatum I would present in the calm and dignified language of settled purpose. If it be heeded, the tide of fanaticism rolled back, peace and harmony restored, this great republic, returning to its ancient usages, acting within the scope of its constitutional limitations, will go on to illustrate the grand theory of popular sovereignty, and to.Page349 perpetuate the great blessings of liberty, prosperity and happiness to us and to our posterity. If, unfortunately, it should be unheeded, then, conscious of having done all that forbearance can do, wisdom suggest, or patriotism demand, to save from destruction this glorious Union, we will—nay, of necessity we then must—withdraw from a Confederacy no longer compatible with our interest or our honor.

But, Mr. President, the question is asked on the other side, in case the Gulf States will not come back into this Confederacy will you go with the South or with the North? Do gentlemen forget or mean to ignore the border Slave States? Sir, I will not ignore them. They are a mighty empire, embracing within themselves all the elements of greatness and power—they contain at this time a population double that of the Gulf States, and I, for one, Mr. Chairman, am prepared to say that if I can get such constitutional guarantees as will be satisfactory to Virginia and the border Slave States, and which ought to be satisfactory to the Gulf States, much as I will deplore a separation from them, though they will have my strongest sympathies and my best wishes for their prosperity, I will not consent, as far as my humble influence can effect it, to take Virginia out of this Union, and in this my action I shall be guided solely by what I think will be for the interest of Virginia. For, sir, of all the stars upon our national flag, the star of Virginia "is the bright particular star" which fills my vision. To her I owe my first allegiance; to her I am bound by the strongest ties. Sir, if any man can have a birth-right in Virginia, I have one. All my ancestors, for near two hundred years, have lived and died in Virginia. Sir, I cannot say, with the eloquent gentleman from Kanawha, that I never left Virginia. Stern necessity, sir, once compelled me to leave her border—I felt like an exile from my native land —I thought of her by day, I dreamed of her by night. When laid upon the bed of sickness, in the delirium of fever, I was singing "carry me back to Old Virginia." I never breathed freely till I got back within her bounds. Yes sir, the memories of the dead enter into my love of Virginia; the potent associations of my childhood bind me to her—all the joys and all the griefs of my manhood have daguerreotyped her on my heart—and I can say, as Mary of England said of Calais, when I am dead, take out my heart and you will find Virginia engraved upon it. May she be my home through life, and when I am dead, may my ashes repose within her soil.

Mr. President, whilst I would not say one word to wound the feelings of our Southern friends, I must say that I think that neither .Page350 one nor all the grievances which I have enumerated, are the real causes of their seceding at this time.

For years past the Southern States have been laboring under a chronic excitement, produced by what I consider a mistaken view of a question of political economy, and that is, that the South is burdened with the larger portion of the duties paid to support the General Government. Sir, it has been a long time since I have read Adam Smith's essay,3Mr. Nelson corrected this allusion in the Proceedings of April 1, page 751.and other works on political economy, but if I remember well, the theory used to be that the consumer paid the duties on imports. Now, sir, I would like to know who consumes the larger portion of the articles imported into the United States? The 19,000,000, who inhabit the non-slaveholding States, or the 9,000,000 who live in the slaveholding States? Sir, I had almost said there are more of them consumed in the city of New York, than in all the Gulf States together.

Sir, the fact is, that although the South is the great producer of cotton, yet, by the time they pay for the bacon, corn and mules of the West, the clothing for their negroes, which is mostly manufactured at the North, and the other Yankee notions which they purchase, they have comparatively little left. Like Triptolemus Yellowlegs, in one of Scott's novels, "The carts and the cart horses make it all, but the carts and the cart horses eat it all."4Mr. Nelson corrected this reference in the Proceedings of April 1, page 751, and again in the Proceedings of April 3, page 56. And the statement which my friend, the honorable gentleman from Halifax, made yesterday, of the result of his farming or rather planting in the South, confirms this view which I have presented. Sir, it always will happen that those who sell the raw material, and purchase the manufactured article, will never make as much profit as those who, by their labor and skill, convert the raw material into the manufactured article. Sir, in proof of this, I beg leave to refer to a speech made in the House of Representatives, March 30th, 1858, by the Hon. J. M. Sandidge, of Louisiana. In that speech Mr. Sandidge undertakes to show how much richer the South is than the North; and he commences his speech by saying figures cannot lie. I have combined his figures in a different manner, and bring out, as you will see, a very different result. In that speech he shows, from the census tables of 1850, that the North had a deficiency in 1850 of six millions of agricultural products (I give the round numbers) , whereas the South had a surplus of $125,000,000. The South had to purchase from the North that year $103,000,000 worth of manufactures, to make up her deficiencies, which left the South only $22,000,000, whereas, the North that year, after paying the South $6,000,000, had $97,000,000 in her favor, which added to eighteen million dollars worth exported, .Page351 gave the North that year a surplus of $115,000,000 on her manufactures alone. And, sir, when you add to that what she made by her commerce, you can very readily see how the North is really richer than the South, or at least has more money to expend in the luxuries of life, and therefore pays a large proportion of her duties in imports. Sir, it seems to have been ordained by Providence that ever since man was driven from the Garden of Eden, and the decree went forth, "by the sweat of thy brow, shalt thou eat bread," that purely agricultural people of all countries, though I believe them to be the happiest portion of the human family, are as compared to the commercial and manufacturing people, poor—nay, sir, are the "hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the rest of the world." Sir, the history of the world from the time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, would bear me out in this assertion. What made Tyre the "crowning city," whose "merchants were princes," whose "traffickers were the honorable of earth;" "the merchants of Sidon replenished her treasures," "the harvest of the river was her revenue, and she was the mart of nations."

What made Babylon "abundant in treasures"? She is represented as "dwelling on many waters." In later times, what made Athens and Corinth so rich, that in the times of Pericles, the former was built of marble—and the latter so expensive that none but the rich could visit her—whilst the other portions of Greece, much more productive, were comparatively poor? Even Rome, herself, with all her conquests, was comparatively poor, till she engaged in commerce and manufacturing.

Coming down to later times I might point you to the Italian cities in the middle ages, magnificent and wealthy, whilst the rest of the world was steeped in poverty. What made the cities of Belgium and Holland to attain a height of almost fabulous wealth in the time of Charles the Fifth, whilst Spain, the seat of monarchy, was comparatively poor; and England had scarcely emerged from barbarism? And, sir, at this day what makes England so great and powerful? I answer, sir, her commerce and her manufactures, combined with her agriculture.

Sir, Agriculture is said to be the nursing-mother of the arts and sciences, but, like some other nursing-mothers, she is often poor while the children are the reverse. And, hence, sir, I assert, without fear of contradiction, that it is an universal law of nature, that any country which depends upon agriculture alone, however rich and productive its soil, will, as compared to countries which combine manufactures and commerce with agriculture, be poor—and that wealth, monied wealth .Page352 I mean, will accumulate at the great commercial centres in spite of all efforts to prevent it. From these facts, sir, I argue that the Northern or manufacturing States, are really more interested in the institution of slavery than we of the South, because they receive a greater portion of the profits than we do, and that in fact, we really manage our estates for their benefit; and when they awake up as I think they are fast doing, to see this (for no people have a keener sense of their interest, than the people of the North), I think their interest, if not their sense of justice, will force them to award us all our just rights.

Mr. Chairman, my friend from Halifax undertook, yesterday, the stupendous task of estimating the value of the Union. Sir, if any gentleman can do that, I am sure that gentleman can, and I listened to him with great interest. But, sir, to my great disappointment, the gentleman only presented the dark side of the picture. Sir, I could not help thinking, that if he had spoken for one hour longer in presenting the bright side, as he could have done so well, it would, according to his own prescription, have been a sovereign antidote to those dyspeptic symptoms with which he seems to be afflicted.

Sir, would you break up this Union because there are acknowledged evils in our system of government? Is there any human institution which is unattended with evils? Is it, sir, an easy matter to make everything in the actual world conform to the ideal pattern which we have conceived in our minds, of absolute right? Sir, I would ask the gentleman if he is really of the opinion that this government has been a source of evil, and only of evil, to Virginia? Sir, the gentleman tells us that in the Southern Confederacy Virginia will gradually become a manufacturing State, with a duty of 5 to 10 per cent in her favor. Sir, if the Northern States, with all their capital, with their manufactories built and in operation, and with their dense population, can scarcely keep them going, with a duty of 20 per cent in their favor and only England to contend against, do you think that Virginia, with her sparse population, and without capital, can build up and sustain manufactures with a duty of only 5 per cent in her favor, with both England and the Northern States her competitors? Sir, any man who knows anything of manufactures, knows she could not.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great pleasure to the beautiful and eloquent philippic of the gentleman from Albemarle on Mr. Seward. I agree with him in the sentiment that posterity will hold Mr. Seward to a strict accountability for the hatred he has so persistently excited at the North against us and our institutions; but, sir, is there not danger that the gentleman himself and those who are acting with him, will .Page353 contribute largely, by the course they are pursuing, to produce a reciprocal feeling of hatred on the part of the South towards the North, by their indiscriminate anathemas against the whole people of the North, the innocent as well as the guilty?

The gentleman quotes largely from the famous Frenchman De Tocqueville. Sir, I can tell the gentleman that no Frenchman can by any possibility appreciate our system of Governments, and that every French writer on Governments, from Montesquieu to De Tocqueville, confounds Democracy with Agrarianism; for with the French, Democracy and Agrarianism are synonymous terms.

Napoleon the First, who understood the French character perfectly, said long years ago "Les Francais aiment mais ils ne se soucient pas de la liberty." "The French love equality but they don't care for liberty."

Mr. Chairman, I hope we have not yet passed our golden age; but, judging by the warlike sentiments I have heard on this floor, I think we certainly have arrived at the heroic period of our history. There is the gentleman from Bedford, whose voice, like that of Sempronius, is still for war. There are the gentlemen from Prince Edward and Mecklenburg like Horatius and Spurius Lartius at the bridge, ready to risk their lives in their country's defence. There is the gentleman from Princess Anne, ready to leap, like another Curtius, horse and all, into the yawning gulf ; and last, though not least, even my venerable friend, my Christian brother from Orange and Greene, was willing, like the Horatii and the Curatii to engage in a patriotic duello with Mr. Seward to decide the question. Sir, if that mode of deciding contests is ever justifiable, it surely would be in such a case. Sir, gentlemen on this floor have intimated that even the ladies of Virginia are far ahead of the Union party of this body in their zeal for war; and I have heard it stated, that in one county the ladies had held a meeting and resolved, that they would come here and teach "our hands to war and our fingers to fight." Sir, when I heard this I could not help exclaiming in the words of the Poet, "Tantæne iræ animis cælistib."5Mr. Nelson corrected this quotation in the Proceedings of April 1, page 751, and again in the Proceedings of April 3, page 56.

Sir, I have read in history of females who have distinguished themselves on the battlefield, but they were individual cases. The only community of female warriors of which we have any account, is far back in the world's history, and I believe that is a myth. They are represented though as "strong minded women," called Amazons, and they were brave and independent of men. But, sir, from the very nature of things there was only one generation of them.

Mothers, wives, sisters of Virginia! I doubt not that when your sons, your husbands, and your brothers are called to the battle, like the Spartan mother you will tell them "to return with their shields or to return on them." But when they are brought back to you in the cold embrace of death, will it assuage your grief to reflect that you have urged them on to an unnecessary contest in a deadly civil war? Will you call me coward when I tell you, that like Lucius, "my thoughts are turned on peace"—because, when the war does come, those who are dearer to me than my own life, my wife and children, will be much nearer to the seat of war, much more exposed to its dangers than you will be.

I come from the banks of the sparkling Shenandoah, "Daughter of the stars," as its name imports. I live within a day's march of the Thermopylae of Virginia. That valley, now beautiful and peaceful "as the Vale of Tempe, may be a very Bochim—a place of weeping." Those green fields, where now "lowing herds wind slowly o'er the lea," may become fields of blood. Can you blame me, then, if I wish to try all peaceful means, consistent with Virginia honor, of obtaining our rights, before I try the last resort? I promise you, when the contest does come, if come it must, the people whom I have the honor to represent on this floor, will meet it like men. I hope in that event, I shall not be wanting in my duty. If I know myself, I will try and not disgrace that commission which I hold, which was presented to me by the gentleman from Princess Anne, when Governor of the State. When Virginia spreads her broad banner to the breeze and gives me my orders, no Mahomedan ever followed the sacred Banner of the Prophet with greater zeal than I will follow her standard. I hope, if need be, "I'll follow it to the death."

Mr. Chairman, I have said, that my sympathies are with the South—and I, for one, will never consent for the Government of the United States to attempt to coerce them, either directly or indirectly. Sir, if we can get such Constitutional guarantees as will be satisfactory to Virginia, and ought to be so to them—as I think we can—I would entreat them to return to this Union. Sir, I hope, nay, I have an abiding faith, that they will return. I pray to God that the time may not be far distant when all our difficulties will be adjusted, and we shall again be a united, prosperous and happy people. I think, Mr. Chairman, that Virginia, by the noble sacrifices and successful efforts she has from time to time made, for the formation and preservation of this Union, has well earned for herself, the proud position of a great .Page355 pacificator. I trust her voice will again be potent to still the troubled waves, and that the North and the South will listen to that voice.

Mr. Chairman, philosophers say that every star which spangles the Heavens is a sun around which systems of worlds revolve—that there is a point in the universe which is a common centre of gravity to all these systems, and that point is one of the stars in that beautiful constellation, called the Pleiades or the seven stars. Sir, I wish to stand under my country's flag with all its stars and all its stripes. I want the Pole star there—I want the Southern Cross to shine out brightly there. But should the Pole star retreat far into Northern regions, and veil its face in icy clouds—should the Southern Cross shoot madly from its sphere—I want Virginia to be that great central point in our political system, by her unfettered influences, to draw them all back, to revolve once more in harmony in their accustomed orbits.

1.8.4.

EVENING SESSION

The Committee assembled at four o'clock.

Mr. NELSON concluded his remarks, when

Mr. WILSON of Harrison, obtained the floor and addressed the Committee.

Nothing, Mr. Chairman, would induce me to occupy the time of the Committee but the sense of duty which I owe to my constituents. In these times of peril and danger, it becomes us before we act to look well to the circumstances by which we are surrounded. It may be well to consider the consequences which may result from our action. We are, in the language of the distinguished gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , in a new era. We are now passing through another and fiery ordeal. Another blow has been struck at American institutions in their onward march to greatness and power. Our country is jeopardized, imperiled—it is reeling and staggering like a drunken man; and growing out of its endangered condition this Convention, clothed with extraordinary powers, has been called. Our duty is to administer to the relief of the Government, to heal, if possible, the breach and prevent the country from being precipitated into the deep abyss which lies before us, to save it, if possible, from downfall.

In order, Mr. Chairman, that we may correctly understand the .Page356 power with which this Convention is clothed, it may not be improper to consider, for a moment the formation and character of the Government, and then look to its present condition. Man is a social being. and in a state of nature is possessed of no higher or superior rights than the brute creation. In that condition might is his right and the strength of his arm the measure of his redress. But, being endowed by his Creator with reason and a capacity for social enjoyment and self-government, from necessity and in accordance with his nature, he !ntered into a compact for the formation of society; by that compact each individual citizen surrendered to the aggregate of society, some of his natural rights and privileges, and in return therefor received the guarantee, that he should be protected in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Looking back to the early history of this continent, we find the original thirteen Colonies were chartered by England as separate Colonies, in which condition they remained until the establishment of American independence. The resolution of the Virginia Convention of the 6th of May, 1776, instructed their delegates in the General Congress to declare those Colonies free and independent States.

On the memorable fourth of July, in that year Congress did so declare them. I read the following extract from that sacred instrument, the Declaration of Independence, to give the very language of the patriot fathers of the country in their declaration of freedom and independence :

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States; and they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connexion between them and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

Out of that declaration the revolutionary war grew, the history of which war, with its horrors and consequences, is familiar to us all. Upon the termination of that war and the declaration of peace, each .Page357 State was recognized by England as free and independent, and not as consolidation of States.

Liberty being thus achieved, and the independence of the States recognized, those States for the purposes of mutual defence and better security, ultimately adopted the present Constitution.

The powers delegated to the General Government were limited, and all powers not so delegated were expressly reserved by the States. By the fourth section of the fourth article of that Constitution, a Republican form of Government is guaranteed to each State.

The part of that section to which I refer, is as follows:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."

After the Constitution had been framed and revised, it was submitted for ratification or rejection to the Convention of each State, and not to the people in their aggregate number.

I have pursued this line of argument to meet the argument of gentlemen that each State divested itself of all the attributes of independence and sovereignty by the adoption of the Federal Constitution. How far the States have retained, and now possess, sovereign powers, upon the great question which is agitating the nation, I shall presently discuss.

It will be recollected, Mr. Chairman, that the declaration of independence not only recognized the freedom and independence of the States, but recognized the right of the people to alter or abolish their form of Government whenever it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established.

As the Government has a Constitutional existence, it was contemplated that its abolishment or alteration should be accomplished, not at the point of the sword or bayonet, but in some legal and Constitutional manner. It can not be done by a Legislative body, for its powers are limited—I take it then it can only be done by the same power that created or adopted it—which was by Conventions of the people possessing sovereign power, subject only to the will of the people. In this connection I refer to the following extract from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that.Page358 whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

It will also be recollected that the Convention of Virginia, which ratified the Federal Constitution, declared "that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them at their will."

The government being thus established, our national history commenced. Our free institutions, a generous climate and fertile soil at once gave impulse to our developement. Energy and industry, and enterprise have accomplished it; and to-day we rank among the first nations of the earth.

The rich fields of cotton, and sugar, and hemp, and rice of the sunny South; the vast grain producing region of the great West; the manufactures of the North, and the stock raising and producing section of the centre, together with the production of tobacco and supplies of choicest timber, added to the rich mines, and minerals, and oils that underlay our mountains, have truly made our country an asylum for the oppressed of every land, and rendered it the Eden and pride of the world.

Then why, Mr. Chairman, is our country jeopardized? What cause threatens its overthrow? What makes it reel and stagger, like a drunken man? In the consideration of this subject, it will be necessary to raise the curtain, and take a view of our domestic affairs.

In the fifteen Southern States, the institution of African slavery exists; in the remaining nineteen States it does not exist. That institution has become an element of political power, which operates beneficially to the section where it exists. The non-slaveholding States becoming jealous of that power, and, with a view to overthrow it, have sought to destroy the institution from which it derives its existence.

When I say the non-slaveholding States have sought to destroy the institution of slavery, I do not wish to be understood as referring to or embracing in my argument all of the citizens of the non-slaveholding States; for I am sure there are within those States, many—very many —who are as loyal to the institutions of the country as are to be found in the slaveholding States. I refer to the abolition party—that party .Page359 who teach and preach agitation and propagandism, and instil fanaticism.

The party which has ever hindered and obstructed the execution of the fugitive slave law, and in many instances caused its execution to be attended with riots, mobs and bloodshed, as it was done at Boston some years ago, where it became necessary to execute it at the point of the bayonet ; the party which contrived and put into operation the Emigrant Aid Societies of the New England States, who were armed and equipped, and sent to Kansas to prosecute a civil war upon the unoffending people of Missouri—a war which caused the blush of shame to mantle the cheek of this nation—a war which put to death the helpless and the innocent—a war which, for a time, bid defiance to the authorities of the government, and found its sympathisers only in the ranks of the abolition fanatics of the North. A party that has for forty years, in church and State, in public councils and private walks inculcated in the Northern mind a deadly hostility to the institution of slavery; and, as was correctly remarked on yesterday by the gentleman from Halifax [Mr. BRUCE] , their infants are taught to detest the institution; pictures are held up before them representing the suffering slave in chains at the feet of a cruel master with scourge in hand. They are taught to believe the institution is a moral, social and political evil—an offence against religion and a crime against God. Growing out of this sentiment, we see that in some of the non-slaveholding States their legislative enactments tend to the obstruction of the Fugitive Slave Law. But a few months ago, in the stillness of the night, when a State and nation were wrapped in slumber, enjoying the supposed security guaranteed to them by the social compact to which I have referred, a band of murderers and marauders, headed by John Brown, seized the Government armory at Harper's Ferry, stopped the mail upon one of the highways of the country, took some of our citizens prisoners and shot others down like dogs. After this infamous man had been tried and convicted and suffered the penalties of the law, his remains were carried to the North, where they were worshiped by whole communities. I mention this fact, sir, to show the sentiment that prevails in portions of the North—a sentiment of utter and bitter hostility to the institutions of the South.

Nor is this all, Mr. Chairman. We have the published letters and speeches of such men as Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Nathaniel P. Banks, Edward Everett, and others, showing that the North occupies an unfriendly if not a hostile position to the South. Nor does this hostility seem to have diminished, for we see that recently the very.Page360 party that has created and kept up this agitation and excitement has elected the President and now has the power of the Government in their own hands. That President when a candidate for high honor and office has told the American people, that he hated slavery as much as any abolitionist; that between free labor and slave labor there is an irrepressible conflict, and that that conflict will continue to exist until all the States become free, or all become slave. The Chicago platform upon which he was elected, breathes the same degree of hostility to the South, and I regret to find that the inaugural of that President gives but little or no hope to the Southern man for peace and harmony.

In this connection, the question may well be propounded—should the institution of slavery be protected in Virginia?

There are now in this State 490,887 slaves, which, valued at the average market price, would make them worth $300,422,844. As now taxed, they yield to the State an annual revenue of $337,804.00. And if taxed as other property is, they would yield a revenue of $1,201,691.37. Most of the agriculture in the Eastern portion of the State, and much in the Valley and South-West, is the result of their labor. If they are liberated, over three hundred millions of dollars worth of property will be lost to the State. Her agriculture must diminish, Eastern lands will depreciate, and in addition, the large amount of tax now paid, and the much larger amount that will be paid upon them when properly taxed, will be lost to the State.

This is not all. In order to keep down the interest on our State debt and ultimately extinguish that debt, our land taxes must be increased, perhaps ten fold greater than they now are. The eastern lands, after the abolition of slavery, declining, and the western lands increasing in value, would make that tax much more oppressive on the western man than the eastern. Already are we groaning under excessive taxation, and I am sure it is the wish of my people to avert an increase of their burthens. If slaves should be liberated, society would be infested with a half-caste race who have not the capacity for self-government, and instead of yielding to the State a large annual revenue as they now do, they would fill our poor-houses, jails and penitentiary. The time of our courts would be occupied in trying them for crime, and our treasury heavily taxed to defray their criminal expenses. Whilst we have but few free negroes in the State, as compared with the number of slaves, is it not strange that as many of the former class have been convicted for crime in the last twelve months as have been of the latter class? The statistics of the country show, that in slave States and non-slaveholding .Page361 States there is a much larger per cent of free negroes convicted for crime than any other class.

If liberated, they must remain with us. I see it stated that all the ships of the world could not remove the slaves with their probable increase from the Southern States to Africa in one hundred years. The only proper answer that can be made to the enquiry as to what shall be done with them, is to keep them where they are and as they are. This done, and their labor will yield largely to the commerce and pay much of the taxes of the country.

Mr. Chairman, it is urged upon this floor that, in consequence of the insecurity of this valuable property, the South ought to sever her connection with the Federal Government. And the question is asked, what shall Virginia do? She has done no wrong to the General Government or to any State. She has ever been first and foremost in her loyalty to the Union. Her sons inaugurated the government, and her best blood and talent were sacrificed to acquire it. When our independence was achieved and the country left poor in purse but rich in liberty, Virginia gave an empire for its relief. She contemplates with sad and melancholy reflection the condition of the country—she mourns over it; and when she calls to mind the long years of war that were waged and the blood and treasure that were spent to acquire it; when she recollects that it is the last rich legacy of our patriot fathers; when she recollects they entailed it upon us as tenants in common, with the injunction to perpetuate it, she seeks to keep the "articles of the covenant," and enjoy this, the fairest and proudest and happiest government of earth, in peace and love forever.

But, if she failed in this, and her brothers of any section "pervert it to her injury or oppression," she will earnestly and affectionately ask them to part in peace. But to part implies a division of territory. How will it be divided? Contemplate, for a moment, our almost boundless coasts of oceans, gulfs and lakes; our navigable rivers, reaching out their mighty arms from ocean to mountain, as if to water and fertilize and gladden the earth everywhere. Run your eye over the map of the country—behold our mountain ranges, with their hidden treasures, from North to South—their water power and inexhaustible supplies of timber. Look at the network of improvements that give life and vitality to the country as the arteries of the human body give life and vitality to that body. All these force the conviction on the mind that God designed this should be one country, and we should be one people.

But, Mr. Chairman, suppose all efforts at an adjustment fail; suppose .Page362 reconciliation and compromise cannot be had; suppose the fanaticism of the North shall render the Government intolerable and oppressive to us—what shall Virginia do?

I do not understand that she has the right to secede at will and pleasure without cause, and that her action shall be final; for if this were so, it would be competent for any State, at any time, to avoid its responsibility to the Government in the payment of debt, sustaining war, or the performance of any duty that might legitimately devolve upon it.

But I do insist that, when the Government shall be "perverted to the injury or oppression" of the people, they have the right to resume the powers delegated to the Government. The difficulty presented is as to the manner in which this right may be exercised. It is unquestionably true that the people have the revolutionary right; but it is not fair to infer that the framers of our State papers intended to confer upon the people another and additional right. One of the grand objects of the Government was to vest the people with rights they did not possess in a natural state; hence it would have been idle to have stopped with the guarantee of natural rights alone. The revolutionary right is natural, unalienable, inherent. As well might they have guaranteed to us any other natural, unalienable and inherent right; such as the right to breathe the air of Heaven or drink the waters of the earth.

To my mind it is clear that the right to resume rests in each State to be exercised by its Convention possessing sovereign powers, subject only to the action of the people. That right being thus exercised, and the State thereby placed in an abnormal condition, the remaining States have the right to demand an adjustment or settlement of any obligation that may rest upon the withdrawn State growing out of national obligation, public property. And for this, among other purposes, the right of treaty is interposed. If this mode prove insufficient the ultimo ratio regum will have been attained, and war is the last resort.

If this were not so, and the right to resume depended upon the will of a majority of all the people, as argued upon this floor, it would place it in the power of a majority to "pervert the Government to the injury and oppression" of a minority, and give to that minority no other right but that of revolution, which, from the balance of power against it, would reduce it to a state of vassalage to the majority. The right of a State to judge of its grievances and act for itself is manifest from the fact that at the formation of the Government each State .Page363 was independent and sovereign, and only delegated to that Government limited powers that did not divest it of its sovereignty.

No arbiter was chosen to act between a State and the government. If the State complained of oppression and a perversion of her rights there is no form of tribunal to which she can appeal to institute the enquiry and adjudicate the difficulty. Each State entered into the government upon terms of exact equality. Hence the gallant little State of Delaware, with her eighty thousand people, is entitled to her two Senators in the Congress of the United States, the same as the mighty State of New York with her three millions. It is conceded on all hands, that Virginia has the right to demand some guarantees for her future safety and the enjoyment of equality in this sisterhood of States. The General Assembly declared it, by the call of this Convention, and the appointment of Commissioners to the Peace Conference at Washington. The Commissioners to that Conference from the North and South, by their action, conceded it. Almost every northern conservative journal and orator conceded it. The State of Massachusetts by the modification of her personal liberty bill conceded it. Each member of this Convention by his action on this floor has conceded it. Then what guarantees should she demand? They should be guarantees of principle and guarantees of power. Such guarantees as are in accordance with the spirit of our institutions and will enable the South to protect her institutions and have a controlling influence in the acquisition of future Territory. She should demand such guarantees as will secure her rights and such as the North can give without abridging their Constitutional rights, and such as will justify the seceded States to resume their former positions in the Union.

I am opposed to Virginia's being forced by the action of South Carolina to join the Southern Confederacy, if she can be indemnified where she is. The action of South Carolina was too hasty; she did not exhibit a proper spirit when she refused to have a consultation with Virginia. I deprecate her persistent determination, expressed by her Commissioners on this floor, never to return to the Union of these States, even if we can remove the causes for which she seceded.

And I deprecate the speech of one of her distinguished sons, who expressed the hope that she would throw her arms around the pillars of the Constitution, and tear it down from turret to foundation. Mr. Chairman, occupying the proud and potential position that Virginia does, and at a time when the eyes of a nation are turned to her, and when the friends of equality and constitutional liberty are imploring her to save this great government, she should take a high, bold and .Page364 conservative position—not defiantly but firmly, not in an anger, but with forbearance. Mr. Chairman, some days ago I had the honor to offer the following resolution :

"Resolved, That the Committee on Federal Relations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing for the Border State Conference, as recommended by the report of the majority of that Committee, and a Conference with the authorities of the Confederated States as recommended by one of the minority reports; and a commission to each of the non-slaveholding States, to invite the authorities thereof, to initiate such proceedings as will be acceptable to the slaveholding States now in the Union, and of the Confederated States."

If an adjustment of our national difficulties is had, it must be by consultation with all the States. It is now generally understood among the members of this body that, after we shall have agreed upon a proposition to be submitted as the basis of that adjustment, we will adjourn for several months. I therefore propose, during that time, to send a commissioner to each of the non-slaveholding States with our plan of adjustment. I think it is due to them. I am also in favor of the border slave State Conference, as proposed by the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations. I also favor the proposition of one of the minority reports, to send a commission to the Confederated States. We should ascertain from them, authoritatively, whether, upon any conditions, they will return to the Union, and, if so, upon what conditions.

I regard it eminently proper that Virginia should act in concert with the slave States now in the Union. For if they shall be forced to resume their powers, I am opposed to her relinquishing her right to the eleven hundred million acres of public land and her rights to other public property, and the archives of the country. If we cannot remain in the Union in peace, let us depart in peace. And in the event we do part, let us take all the Government property South of the line of 36 deg. 30 min., and yield to the North all the property North of that line—and the difference be paid by one to the other, according to its relative value. But avoid, if possible, a disruption of the Government. Test the question fairly and fully, and I may be permitted to say, with deference to every gentleman on this floor, that I have seen no proposition, that, in my opinion, would so fully accomplish it as the one submitted by myself.

It is the duty of each delegate to look to his own locality and the interest of his constituency in estimating what is best for the general .Page365 good. Acting upon this principle, my heart has turned to my people, and my prayer has been that I may aid in accomplishing that result which will best accord with their views and most effectually protect their interest.

The markets for my section of country are principally in the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

If the Government shall be divided, and a tariff of duties shall be imposed upon all articles of trade that cross the border, it will readily be seen that our trade, as it now exists, will be materially obstructed. Take, for instance, the farming and grazing interest. My county is peculiarly a grazing county. Many of our cattle are bought in the Statt. of Ohio, and find a market in Pennsylvania. If a tariff is imposed it must be paid by the producer. or consumer.

If it is imposed on the consumer, he will, of course, seek the Western beef, that goes to him duty free. If it is imposed on the producer, it renders his business unprofitable, and shuts him out from the market of the free States.

It will not be contended that we can compete with the rich districts of the West in grain raising, hence we must limit ourselves to the markets of Maryland, or change our pursuit, unless the South will open up to us a trade, and I have not yet heard how this is proposed to be done. It is true, as has been urged upon this floor, that the North-West, in climate, soil, water-power, timber minerals and oil, is not surpassed, if equaled, by any other section of the State; and I would suggest to the gentleman from Kanawha [Mr. SUMMERS] , and the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , that when they speak of their fertile counties, to bear in mind that the rich valleys, the gurgling, streams and sloping hills of Harrison make it fully their equal.

Mr. Chairman, if the day of our country's discontent and disruption shall be forced upon us, and an honorable adjustment cannot be had, you will find the gallant men of the mountains in the front rank, to vindicate her honor and to assert our rights; and if war follows, their stout hearts and strong arms will wage and prosecute it as did their fathers wage and prosecute the wars of our early history.

Sir, there is no part of Virginia that can boast of its record as can the Northwest; from the time when the ring of the woodman's axe broke upon the stillness of the forest, its devotion to the Union and loyalty to Virginia have been unquestionable. In the days of the revolution my county was embraced in West Augusta; and when, during that war, the dark and lowering clouds of despair hung over the country, .Page366 when the Continental Congress failed to furnish men and money to prosecute that war, when hope had fled and despondency had seized the nation, it was the bravery and chivalry and courage of the men of those mountains that called forth from the father of his country the daring declaration of : "Strip me of the dejected and suffering remnant of my army; take from me all that I have left; leave me but a banner; give me but the means to plant it upon the mountains of West Augusta; and I will yet draw around me the men who will lift their bleeding country from the dust and set her free." And in the war of 1812 it was my county that sent her soldiers to fight the battles of Richmond and Norfolk.

Not only this, sir, but ever since that country has been populated, whenever and however, and by whomsoever, the country has been assailed, the men of that section have been ready and willing to respond to her call and rush to her rescue.

Mr. Chairman, I thought it not improper to step aside from the line of my argument, to say this much of my section of the State, as other gentlemen had manifested some distrust of it.

Whilst the hope of an adjustment of our national troubles is entertained by many, and the plans for its accomplishment seem feasible, it is actually and indispensably necessary that the peace of the country should be preserved. And yet we are told that the administration will enforce the collection of the revenue in the seceded States, and establish a system of coercion.

The word coercion is very comprehensive and repulsive to every American patriot. It implies war. Aye, sir, it will inaugurate war, and if resorted to there will be a different issue propounded to Virginia. The question will then be propounded directly to her whether she will tamely submit or whether she will rise up in the power of strength, and throw off the oppression, come from whence it may. That coercion was contemplated and intended by the Administration I have no doubt. It was indicated by the inaugural, and demanded by the most prominent of the Republican journals and leaders, and indeed by one or more of the Cabinet. Certain it is we have had no disclaimer from the President of his intentions to coerce. In these times of excitement on the subject, when the whole nation is aroused and looking to him for repose, if he did not intend to coerce it is natural to suppose he would say so, and thereby put the country to rest. Let the policy of the Administration be what it may, it is certain the people of Virginia never will be coerced. Upon the subject of resistance to oppression and coercion, Mr. Chairman, our forefathers left us a glorious record.

In the year 1635, Sir John Harvey, the King's Governor of the colony of Virginia was driven from place and power, was thrust out of the colony and sent to England for trial, by the people, for betraying their interest and pursuing a policy of oppression towards them. After Charles the First had been executed and the commonwealth of England established, it sought to impose upon the people of the colony, restrictions to which they were not willing to submit. Other colonies had submitted, and Massachusetts went so far by her own enactment, as to prohibit all intercourse with Virginia until the supremacy of the commonwealth of England should be established. Notwithstanding the demand by England, and the course pursued by Massachusetts, Virginia, jealous of the rights of her people, repudiated the one and disregarded the other, until she agreed with that Commonwealth upon terms acceptable to herself. I read the following extracts from the articles of adjustment to which I refer, and I am sure they will be read with pleasure by every Virginian:

"First, It is agreed and cons'ted that the plantation of Virginia, and all the inhabitants thereof, shall be and remain in due obedience and subjection to the commonwealth of England, according to the laws there established. And that this submission and subscription be acknowledged a voluntary act not forced or constrained by a conquest upon the country. And that they shall have and enjoy such freedoms and privileges as belong to the free born people of England, and that the former government by the commissions and instructions be void and null."

"8thly. That Virginia shall be free from all taxes, customs and impositions whatsoever, and none to be imposed on them without consent of the Grand Assembly, and so that neither forts nor castles be erected or garrisons maintained without their consent."

Thus it will be seen that at that early day a spirit of independence and chivalry characterized the people of Virginia. That patriot band had the courage to repudiate force and constraint from haughty and powerful England. Not only this, sir, but their submission to the laws of England was made dependent upon their right to enjoy such "freedoms" and privileges as belonged to the free born people of England, and dependent upon the further condition, that neither forts nor castles should be erected, nor garrisons maintained within her limits without her consent.

Will the sons of Virginia at this day ask less or submit to more than did their fathers? Have they so far degenerated as to be branded with .Page368 inferiority, and become the subjects of inequality? I trust not. I can never believe it.

There is another incident in the history of the colony, that speaks volumes for the chivalry of that day. In 1658, after the House of Burgesses had elected their Governor, he sought to usurp powers he did not possess, and to control the action of the Grand Assembly. Let history speak :

"The Governor and Council had ordered the dissolution of the Assembly; the Burgesses now decreed the former election of Governor and Council to be void. Having thus exercised, not merely the right of election, but the more extraordinary right of removal, they reelected Matthews, 'who by us,' they added, 'shall be invested with all the just rights and privileges belonging to the Governor and Captain-General of Virginia.' The Governor submitted, and acknowledged the validity of his election by taking the new oath, which had just been prescribed. The Council was organized anew; and the spirit of popular liberty established all its claims."

When the necessity arises, if it should ever arise, I hope, we all hope, we know, that the brave sons of Virginia will dare to do as their fathers did—denounce treachery and resist oppression.

If coercion shall be commenced, let the sons of Virginia, as one man, resist, resist to the death. They will

"Strike till the last armed foe expires! Strike for their altars and their fires! Strike for the green graves of their sires—God, and their native land."

Rather than be coerced, let them fight, fight on, fight ever; fight till Virginia shall be a continuous grave yard from ocean to river. And when Virginia shall be conquered, the sun of liberty will set in gloom and blood forever.

But, Mr. Chairman, let us rise above this awful necessity, let us shut our eyes to the horrors of this extreme necessity. Let us, if possible, avert the dangers that now threaten us. Let Virginia erect a platform broad enough for all the States to stand upon; let her crush out the schemes of wire-pullers and political tricksters, and appeal to the patriotism of the American people. Let her, with the olive branch in one hand and the Constitution in the other, mount that platform, and bid her sisters come; let us have a feast of reason and flow of soul, and re-unite in bonds of confidence and love forever the distracted spirits of our land.

It will be glad tidings of great joy throughout the land, and loud will .Page369 be the hosannas that will ascend to the bar of God, to gladden the heart of the Father of his Country.

At the close of Mr. WILSON'S speech, calls were made for "question, question," when

The CHAIRMAN ordered the Secretary to read the first section of the majority report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

The Secretary read that section as follows:

I hardly expect that the Committee is prepared to take a vote on these propositions. It is probable that some other gentlemen are going to address the Committee before a vote is taken upon this proposition. I move that the committee now rise.

The motion was lost.

I have a substitute to offer. I supposed I had it in my pocket, but I find on searching that I have not. I will state, however, that it is the Constitution of the Confederate States, and I propose to offer it as a substitute for the Committee's report, to come in after the preamble.

The SECRETARY intimated to Mr. HALL that he had a copy of the Constitution to which he referred.

The Secretary has accommodated me with a copy of the Constitution of the Confederate States, and not having an opportunity to get from my room the Constitution as I intended to offer it, I will offer this.

I ask that it may be read. If we are to adopt the Constitution of any other people, we should know what it is. This, I understand, is the Constitution of the Confederate States. Which Confederate States—this, or that? [pointing alternately North and South] . I claim the right to have it read, sir, that I may understand what this Constitution is, and what I am going to vote on.

I understand that this is the Constitution of the United States with the amendments adopted by the Confederated States. The reading of the paper, so far as it is identical with the Constitution of the United States might be dispensed with, and those portions only might be read which differ from that instrument. I do not think it necessary to consume the time of this Convention in reading a paper which will occupy half an hour, and which every body is familiar with and under which we are here in session—for we are in .Page370 session under the Constitution of the United States. I move then to dispense with the reading of the paper so far as it is identical with the Constitution of the United States.

I claim the right not to be called upon to vote upon any thing which I do not hear read at that table.

I acknowledge the right of the gentleman to call for the reading of the paper, but I wish it to go abroad that it is done for the purpose of delay.

I say that the gentleman has no authority for making the statement; it is utterly unfounded. [Cries of "order."] I am not out of order, when I say it is unfounded. I have no such purpose as delay.

I presume that there is no more incontestable right than that of requiring that a proposition shall be read.

As a matter of course the document will be read.

An imputation has been cast upon my motives. I characterize that imputation as utterly unfounded. I wish it distinctly understood that I use the lightest word in reply to that imputation.

The paper was then read as follows:

I have great veneration for the Constitution which has been adopted by the Confederate States, South. I regard it as a considerable improvement upon the present Federal Constitution; but placed as this Committee now is, there would be an incongruity by voting for that as a whole, which I think it is possible for us to avoid. I would be very glad to have an opportunity to vote for these interpolations in the present Federal constitution, by the Confederate States, if they were proposed to the Northern States as amendments. But I am .Page385 so circumstanced now by the action of my friend from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] , that I am called upon to vote for the preamble presented by the Committee on Federal Relations, which—they will pardon me for saying so—I think contains heresies that can never command my vote, and that is coupled with a Constitution that is entirely confined to seven States, so declared on its face. It could not, therefore, be presented by the Convention of Virginia, as an amendment or amendments, to be adopted by the Northern States. I could not, I beg to say, endorse the first resolution of the Committee on Federal Relations, which is in these words, and which my friend has tacked on to this Constitution of the Confederated States. The first resolution is

"But the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constituion was formed, were independent sovereignties; and in adopting that instrument, the people of each State agreed to associate with the people of the other States, upon a footing of exact equality."

The Chair would state to the gentleman that the motion is to strike out all except the preamble, and substitute this Constitution in its place. The Committee will still have to pass upon the preamble.

I am very much obliged to the Chair, for I shall war against the sentiments expressed in that as a heresy, if my friends on the Committee on Federal Relations will take no offence at the expression. I would be very glad if the Committee will allow the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] , until to-morrow morning to select out from the document those provisions which are not to be found in the present Federal Constitution, so that he may offer them in the morning as a substitute for the report of the committee of twenty-one. I think this is just to that gentleman, and certainly just to those who appreciate as I do the amendments which have been made by the Confederate States to the present Constitution of the United States. I take it that this may be allowed, because I believe, and believe sincerely, that if Virginia is to do anything which is to bring about a re-construction of the dis rupted Union, it can only be by asking such amendments to the present Federal Constitution as experience has taught the gentlemen of the South are absolutely essential for their own government. And, sir, whilst I am regarded as extreme and perhaps ultra, if I am to vote for any proposition in this body, it is with the sincere desire on my part—and this is the great object of the commission that I bear—that it will bring about a reconstruction of the old Federal Union. I should regard myself as false to my constituents, false to those purposes which ought .Page386 to animate and control our conduct on the present occasion, if I were not to wish for those amendments to the Constitution which shall bring back those Confederated States into union with ourselves, at least—if I cannot get them into union with the Northern States. Our purpose and object being to restore the Union as it was—that is the purpose I have no doubt of a majority of gentlemen who are entitled to the honor of seats upon this floor—it becomes my duty to vote for a demand of those guaranties which shall accomplish the object, not in part, but in the whole; not that we can get guaranties which may satisfy Virginia alone, but such as will satisfy Kentucky, or Missouri, or Maryland, or North Carolina, or Tennessee, that State upon which so high an eulogy has been pronounced upon this floor.

I, sir, want, if we are to demand guaranties, that they shall bring back in connection with Virginia the Cotton States of the South; and, sir, for one, I will never be satisfied with any guaranties that will not bring us in union together.

We cannot afford, Mr. Chairman, to have a Southern Confederacy in the South, and a Northern Confederacy in the North. We cannot afford to be separated from the Confederated States of the South. We cannot, if we would, consent to connect ourselves permanently, or to adhere permanently to nineteen freesoil States when there will be seventeen slaveholding States. The cost would be too great for Virginia to bear; it is more than her people could bear. I hope, animated by the principles and sentiments enunciated to-day by the distinguished gentleman from Montgomery [Mr PRESTON] , we shall command such guaranties as ought to be sufficient to bring into the Union again the Confederated States of the South. Do not let us be guilty of the mockery of asking what will not restore the Union. The object of that gentleman, and most of the gentlemen who have spoken upon this floor, has been to restore the Union—to restore the Southern States. It may be that there are some on this floor like Horace Greeley, Wendell Phillips, who rejoice that the cotton States are sloughed off from the other slaveholding States of the South; but I know no such gentleman upon this floor, and believing and hoping that there are none such here, I ask that every gentleman in this body will vote for making such demands as will restore these States to us, as brothers and sisters, homogeneous in feeling, in interest, and whose honor, like our own, is to be protected and defended against the encroachments of Northern power.

I owe no allegiance to the Federal Government. I hear my friends talk about allegiance to the Federal Government. Who ever heard .Page387 before that a sovereign owes allegiance to a subject? I owe no allegiance to the Federal Government. I owe obedience to the Federal authority, which is consonant with the Constitution of the United States, because my own mother, Virginia, has taught me to yield obedience to the constitutional authority in the land. I never have yielded to the idea, and I hope gentlemen don't mean what they say when they talk about our owing allegiance to any government. We owe no allegiance to any government, especially the Federal Government, which is but the common agent of the States, and is not the master of the sovereign States of this Confederacy. My idea is that, in the language of this report which I intend to present, the States, under the articles of confederation, were sovereign and independent and I maintain the doctrine that, whilst they delegate'd the exercise of certain powers to the Federal Government as the common agent of all the States, they never surrendered one iota of sovereignty in doing so; that to-day, as on the first day of September, 1777, each State is sovereign and independent, but that every one of its citizens owes obedience to the Constitution of the United States, to the laws, and to the treaties made in pursuance of it, because his own sovereignty requires him to render and yield that obedience.

But my object is to ask—and as I am not at all familiar with parliamentary law or parliamentary proceedings, I hope that either the Chair or some parliamentarian on the floor will instruct me how I may accomplish the object which I have in view—my object is to allow my friend from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] , to have until to-morrow morning to select such portions of the document that has been read to the house as will be new in its character, as will embody such amendments to the present Constitution as will accomplish the end which we have in view, if there is to be a re-construction of the Union—the bringing back of our cotton sister States of the South. Can the privilege be granted by having the committee rise?

Yes, sir.

Then I ask that the committee rise.

A division was called for on the question and the committee, by a vote of 63 to 43, refused to rise.

I desire to obtain information from the Chair. In case the substitute presented by the gentleman from Wetzel is adopted, will it then be in order to move a substitute for it?

It will not, sir, in the committee.

Mr. TURNER, of Jackson, then addressed the Committee.

I have prepared—with the exception of one or two .Page388 sections, which are not now in the exact phraseology which I desire to put them in—a substitute which I desire to propose for the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and which, I trust, will satisfy one gentleman—the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. PRESTON] , who addressed the Committee to-day, because they, if adopted, in my opinion, will furnish some guarantees of some practical benefit and importance. I have compared this substitute with the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and, with the exception of the phraseology I desire to have it in, I think it is a more valuable proposition. I cannot now vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] . I look to the action of this Convention, and I desire to see it adopt such amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as I trust will not only protect the rights of Virginia, if she remains in this Union in case every other Southern slave State will withdraw, but that will secure you the return of your sister States of the South. I do not understand, sir, that the means proposed by the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] , will bring about that result. Nor do I understand that it proposes any means which will suit me, for its submission to the States for ratification in case those amendments to the Constitution shall be adopted as a substitute for the report of the Committee on Federal Relations. Nor does the Committee's report propose the means for those steps that I think are necessary to that end.

I am opposed to a Border State Conference; but I desire that amendments of the Constitution, which I trust will demand in language that cannot be susceptible of any two constructions, all the rights that Virginia and the other Southern States are entitled to in this Union, will be adopted by this Convention. I believe it would come with very bad grace for Virginia, after thrusting from her doors ambassadors from other States, asking counsel and concert with Virginia, to apply to other States herself for counsel. I demand that the honor of Virginia shall remain within her own keeping, and not be confided to the keeping of any other State. I desire that she shall speak in language which cannot be misunderstood, demanding the rights to which she is entitled, and knowing the means and the measure of her redress if she is refused. I propose that Virginia shall lay down her ultimatum and send it by a commissioner, to be appointed by this Convention, to each of the States now within the Union, who shall ask that on or before a given day, these amendments shall be approved or rejected by all the States within the Union; and in case of failure, on some certain day succeeding their rejection, Virginia shall stand out of this Union, to take that course which it is her right and her duty to take, making .Page389 no alliance beforehand, but ready then to make such alliances in the future as shall promote her interest and preserve her honor. I have indicated before what will be her position if the alternative was presented, where will Virginia go—with a Northern or a Southern Confederacy—that her destiny is with the South. I have no change of sentiment upon that subject. But as I represent on this floor a people who are not practically or pecuniarily interested in this question, and as I desire that all the people of the State of Virginia shall be a unit upon it, I desire to have an opportunity of submitting to this Committee a proposition which I think will bring about that result. In order that I may not be misunderstood, I propose to detain this Committee for a few moments, while I call attention to the propositions which I wish to submit, providing for amendments to the Constitution.

Sir, I do not desire, that in enunciating guarantees which Virginia is entitled to, or the causes which necessitate her to demand those guarantees, that any long preamble shall be offered to the people. I believe, as the gentleman from Princess Anne said yesterday, that words are things—

They are everything.

Yes, they are everything; and I desire that the fewest words that can express the meaning I wish to convey, should be used to express it; that it shall be so plain that a wayfaring man, though he runs, may read it. The preamble I desire, shall be as follows :

"Seven States having withdrawn from the Federal Union and formed a new and distinct Government, it has become necessary for Virginia, if she remains in the present Federal Union, to obtain guarantees by way of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, upon the following points."

The fact of the withdrawal, I desire to be stated as the cause of the necessity for the guarantees. That is all I wish to be stated in the preamble; that the position of Virginia, in the Northern Confederacy or the Union as it now exists, compels her to demand guarantees for her future safety. In arriving at those guarantees, I wish that they shall be such that she can remain in this Union alone; that if every other sister slave State shall withdraw, she may retain self-protecting power. I propose to show the manner in which that self-protecting power may be secured. The first point I propose is:

"1st. A recognition, that by virtue of the Constitution, African slavery does exist in all the territory of the United States, and must be protected by the Federal Government."

That by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, African .Page390 slavery, sir, not "involuntary servitude," not "persons held to labor," or anything else, but that "African slavery does exist in all the territory of the United States, and must be protected by the Federal Government."

The second proposition is:

2d. Upon all questions relating to the acquisition of territory a concurrent majority of the Senators in Congress from the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States shall be required.

Sir, I am opposed to compromising away our rights. We may corn-- promise the question of the division of the territory—the mere division of the land—but a right within the Territory is an entirely different thing. I am opposed to compromising our rights as citizens of a confederacy or citizens of a State. But, sir, I am in favor of a com promise in regard to the settlement of the Territory itself, as far as the possession of the Territory is concerned.

The third section I propose is as follows:

3d. With a view to settle the vexed question of the territories it is agreed that in all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired, situate North of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, slavery is prohibited, and in all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter acquired South of said line, African slavery is recognized as existing, and shall receive its necessary protection as property from the various departments of the Government.

But, sir, there is one other proposition which I deem of more importance to Virginia if she remains in this Union—a proposition which I believe, if any guarantee can bring back the seceded States, will produce that result. It was not the mere question of slavery that has carried off the seceded States of the South. It was a question of taxation, a question of tariff. They knew well what they were doing. They knew, the very best means to prosecute this irrepressible conflict against slavery was by means of taxation, to make that species of property valueless; and they knew that the Black Republican party would inaugurate a system of taxation which would deprive them of the benefit of that property. And they were not mistaken, for, as soon as that party has come into power, we find them inaugurating a tariff imposing the most oppressive taxation that was ever inflicted on any people. In order to prevent that oppression, I offer this as the fourth proposition:

4th. On all questions relating to laying taxes, duties, imposts and excises, or any other means necessary to raise revenue for the support of the General Government, a concurrent vote of a majority of the .Page391 Senators in Congress, from the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, shall be required.

I think the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. PRESTON] , will find a tangible guarantee in this: that upon all questions relating to laying duties, imposts and excises, or any other means necessary to raise revenue, for the support of the General Government, a concurrent vote of a majority of the Senators in Congress from the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, shall be required, and if that is done Virginia may remain satisfied that she cannot be imposed upon.

The other points are as follows:

5th. The right of transit by the citizens of the several States with their property, slaves included, through the States and Territories.

6th. The rendition of fugitive slaves, and in case of their loss by violence or intimidation, remuneration by the General Government to the owner; and Congress shall provide for its reimbursement by laying and collecting a tax upon the State, city, or county in which said loss occurred.

7th. That Congress shall not abolish or interfere with slavery, as it now exists, in the District of Columbia; nor shall it abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States, by whose laws it is or may be allowed or permitted.

8th. The withholding from persons who are in whole or in part of the African race, the elective franchise and the right to hold office whether Federal, State, Territorial or Municipal.

9th. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.

10th. That the importation of slaves from foreign countries into the United States shall be forever prohibited.

11th. That Congress shall have no power to interfere with the slave trade between the States.

12th. That the foregoing amendments shall not be subject to repeal or modification except with the consent of all the States of the Union.

And in order that this proposition may be fairly submitted to the people of this country in a manner becoming the dignity of the people of Virginia, I propose the following course of proceeding:

"And in order that amendments to the Constitution of the United States, carrying into effect the foregoing suggestions shall be submitted to the people of the several States now in the Federal Union for their approval or rejection, therefore,

"Resolved, That this Convention will appoint one Commissioner to .Page392 each of the States of the Union, who shall be instructed to submit to the Legislature of said States, if in session, and if not, to the Governors of said States, the foregoing amendments, with the request that the same may be acted on either by the Legislatures of said States, or by Conventions called by the Legislatures of said States, on or before the first Monday in October next.

"Resolved, That in case said amendments shall not be approved by the Legislatures or Conventions of said States on or before the first Monday in October next, that then an ordinance to the effect indicated in the following resolutions, shall go into operation on the third Monday in October next.

"Resolved, That this Convention will adopt an ordinance resuming to the State of Virginia the powers heretofore delegated by her to the Federal Government, to take effect on the 3d Monday in October next, in case the amendments indicated in the foregoing suggestions are not approved by 'the several States of the Union on or before the first Monday in October next.

"Resolved, That the said amendments and ordinance be submitted to the people of this State at the next general election for their approval or rejection."

Sir, I desire that whatever is determined upon by this Convention, shall be submitted for the adoption or rejection of the people of Virginia, and I believe they will ratify by their action whatever this Convention shall, upon due deliberation, determine upon, if our action shall be such as the honor and safety of Virginia demands. I believe this is a time when Virginia ought to take high grounds. I believe the condition of the Northern mind is such that if Virginia does not get all her rights and her interests demand, it will be because she does not demand it. I believe the people of the North are ready, because they cannot help themselves, to grant to Virginia every thing she is entitled to ask at their hands. I believe that Virginia will accept from us no propositions that do not contain in themselves what, if adopted, will settle, and settle forever, all the questions that divide us.

But, sir, we are told that the country is going to destruction—that every species of business is depressed; that all the avenues to commerce are being closed. Sir, I can tell you the only way in which these avenues to commerce can be re-opened. It is by restoring some degree of confidence to the minds of the people. What will restore that confidence more speedily than for us to announce to the world exactly the position we intend to assume? The people will then be prepared for .Page393 the result of that action, whatever it may be; they will be prepared to meet the issue, whatever it may be.

It is true, as I said before, that I come here from a portion of the State which has, comparatively speaking, no interest in this question of slavery; but, sir, I come from a portion of the State which I deem to be as loyal to the honor and interests of the South as any people within her broad limits. Aspersions have been cast by gentlemen—unintentionally, I know—upon the integrity and loyalty of the people of North-western Virginia, to this institution of slavery. I stand here to repel the insinuation. I appeal to history for the vindication of the fact, that they are as loyal to this State, and to her institutions, as any people within her limits. I appeal to history to show, that from time immemorial there has been one scene of sacrifice upon the part of Western Virginia to the interests of Eastern Virginia. She has been always true to slavery, and she has been so under circumstances, when probably no other portion of the State, so situated, would have been. This battle has been fought in Western Virginia, to my certain knowledge, during the last ten years, upon the question of protection to property within the territories of the United States, and of all the property of all the citizens of all the States. In the last canvass, gentlemen as distinguished for their ability and eloquence as any who have the honor of seats upon this floor, canvassed the entire region, urging and insisting that those who supported Breckinridge and Lane for the Presidency, were aiding and assisting a party having for its object the dissolution of the Union, and that the success of that party in this State would bring about a disruption of this government. I have heard them again and again urge that argument, with an eloquence almost irresistible; and yet you know, gentlemen, how Western Virginia came up to the support of these candidates. If their brethren of the East had done as well, the electoral vote of the State would have been cast for these gallant men. I do not make these allusions for the purpose of stirring up party feeling, for I desire that upon all questions touching the honor and interest of this Commonwealth, every party issue should be laid aside. I merely allude to the matter as a part of the history of our people, and in refutation of the insinuations which have been made against their loyalty.

Sir, I claim as much fealty to this proud old State as any of her sons, although she is only my mother by adoption; but while that is true she holds my mother State cradled in her arms, and she stands linked with my native State together, and their destinies are one. And, sir, if Virginia is not the land of my birth she has as dear a claim upon.Page394 my affection. She is the mother of my children, and I am determined, for them, at least, to demand, that all the glories that cluster around the bright past, shall be a part of their heritage. With that determination I desire that this Convention shall insist on one thing, and in a manner that cannot be misunderstood. I desire guaranties to protect the liberty of her people.

Mr. Chairman, it has been urged upon this floor that Virginia was standing in such a position on account of her border that she could not leave this Union; with a territory so exposed that she would have to bear the brunt of any conflict with the North that may come. I believe none will come, but if it must come we will try to meet it as men should meet it. It is not the first time in the history of this country or the history of revolutions that men have been appealed to, to forego their rights on account of the dangers and difficulties that stood in the way of their demanding and maintaining them. Sir, if our fathers had yielded to such an appeal the great battles of liberty which resulted in the formation of this republic, at the cost of all the blood of the revolution would not have been fought, and we could not have been here this day demanding from our Northern aggressors the rights we are entitled to. Sir, these are appeals which will have no influence with me. They are appeals addressed not to the manliness and courage of a people, but to their cowardice and fears. Then I trust there will be found within the limits of Virginia some at least catching the inspiration from the apostle of liberty whose name is now immortal, who, when told that we would be overwhelmed by our mother England, stood up in the halls of Virginia and said that instead of being weak, we are strong; that- a free people armed in a holy cause, with a just God fighting their battles, were not weak but strong. So I say to-day, that this people should not for a moment take into consideration the consequences that would ensue from the assertion of their rights. Let us ascertain whether we are right; let us know what our rights are, and then demand them as our rights ought to be demanded; not as braggarts demand them, but calmly as brave men always demand their rights, and with all the dignity of a free people.

Sir, the song of the Union is about sung out—the old Union no longer exists, and all that remains is the Northern Confederacy, a fraction, a part of the old Union. As the gentleman from Princess Anne said the other day, there are three Unions, two existing and one destroyed. The only question for us to decide is, what shall Virginia do.. I think I have proposed a plan by which she will be safe in her honor and her interests even if she has to stand alone. God knows she has .Page395 sons enough to protect her under all circumstances. But if she cannot remain with the North on proper terms her destiny, in my opinion, is with the Southern States.

Now, sir, I trust at this late hour it will be the pleasure of the Committee to rise, and I make that motion.

The motion was disagreed to.

Mr. HALL, of Wetzel, obtained the floor.

I was about to ask my friend from Wetzel to withdraw his proposition. There are incongruities in the adoption of such an amendment which will prevent me from voting for it.

I will state to the gentleman that I had no purpose of offering the amendment to-day; certainly not in this form. I had an amendment prepared, which I supposed I had with me, but find I have not, which it was my intention to offer to-morrow morning. Under the circumstances which existed, however, I was compelled to offer that whole paper because the Committee was not disposed to extend to me the courtesy which they have extended to all gentlemen. I now see proper to avail myself of my rights upon this floor, and I can talk here all night if necessary. [Cries of "go on" and laughter.] I understand that the Committee have entire control of this matter, and if there be no objection, I am willing to withdraw my proposition.

Several members objected.

The CHAIRMAN then put the question, and permission to withdraw was refused—ayes 40, noes 65.

Mr. FISHER moved that the Committee rise, and asked for the yeas and nays upon the motion.

The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 37, nays 76—as follows:7Both Proceedings and Journal state that there were 76 negative votes. However, the Proceedings list only 73, while the Journal lists 74, adding Hammond to negative votes listed in the Proceedings.

YEAS—Messrs. Ambler, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Boyd, Chambliss, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Fisher, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., L. S. Hall, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kilby, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, Marye, Sr., Montague, Morris, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Sea-well, Strange, Thornton, Franklin P. Turner, Tyler, Whitfield, Wise, Woods-37.

NAYS—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Berlin, Blow, Jr., Boggess, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Caperton, Carter, Chapman, Clemens, R. Y. Conrad, C. B. Conrad, J. H. Cox, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Early, Echols, Forbes, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Haymond, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Robt. E. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Staples, Chapman J. Stuart, Sutherlin, Tayloe, Waller, White, Willey-76.

I offered that substitute, sir, for the very best of purposes and the purest of motives, and I make this remark, sir, for the purpose of relieving myself from the imputation that was attempted to be cast upon this movement by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEMENS] , that this substitute was offered for the purpose of delay. I disclaim any such purpose in offering it. I offered that substitute as a Union man, for I claim to be a better Union man than any gentleman who has taken a different position on this floor—better than any Union-shrieker in this Hall. And, sir, I want this Union reconstructed. I want it placed back in the same position in which it was. I want the old United States reconstructed in all their parts. And, sir, for the life of me, I cannot see how you are going to do that upon any hypothesis such as you seem to be proceeding upon—that these Southern States were absolutely dependent upon you. Why, sir, they care as little about you as you do about them; and the truth is, I believe that they would rather, for the present, at least, that we would not attach ourselves to them. They are independent of us and the world. There are no people, there is no nation, that can make war upon them successfully, without injuring themselves in such a manner as to admonish them against such a policy. Is it not a fact, sir, that this whole body politic is sick, and does it not want some remedy? Does it not demand a remedy at the hands of some person or persons, or from some source? Now, sir, I cannot better express my idea upon this subject than by referring to those immortal words penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life there is used in a governmental sense, in contra-distinction from private or individual life. Governmental life is that life the Declaration of Independence says cannot be alienated. No government, no people in a governmental sense can alienate that right, or transfer it, or forfeit it in any way. An individual can forfeit his life, but a community—a government—never can forfeit this right to life. Then, sir, talk to me about the sovereignties—talk to me about the State sovereignties alienating their rights away, when the Declaration of Independence expressly says that they are inalienable—that you cannot destroy them—that no compact, no bargain that is possible to be made can alienate the rights of a government.

How do you perpetuate this governmental life? It requires as much care, as much attention, as much food and as many prescriptions, sir, as the individual life does, if not more. The whole body politic has become corrupt; every vein, every artery, every duct that leads to the .Page397 great heart of this body politic, is corrupt to-day; and if the source from whence all the supplies are derived, is impure 'and corrupt, a remedy should certainly be applied and the fountain head purified.

Well, sir, if the function of Government is to preserve to all life, liberty, and happiness—and all the people which constitute the source of Government, shall have their rights—then I ask if the State of Virginia, or rather her people, enjoys that sovereignty to-day which can enable her to guarantee these rights?

Has the State of Virginia that liberty which would enable her to maintain these rights for her people? Has she liberty under the stars and stripes? She has delegated certain powers for specific purposes severally and specifically set forth in the contract. She is still complying with the terms of that contract, though in the opinion of every gentleman on this floor, that contract has been broken by the Northern section of this Confederacy; and according to the authority of Mr. Webster himself, it is not binding upon Virginia now.

Will the gentleman give way for a moment.

Certainly, sir.

I move that the committee now rise.

The motion was lost.

I was just stating that Virginia was not free in this government, that she has not liberty and equality in this government. That government, sir, ever since it has been formed, has been an injury rather than a blessing to Virginia. There has been a persistent effort on the part of the Northern Confederacy, from the foundation of the government to this day, to plunder and to rob Virginia and the South. The whole patronage and expenditure of the government, or nearly all, has been confined to the Northern section of this Confederacy. They have by a system of legislation in the General Government, appropriated all the benefits of the government to themselves. They have all this system of legislation so arranged that they secure all the benefits and we get nothing. Does any man deny that proposition? I make this declaration here, that as long as the Yankees could make money out of the slave trade, they were in love with the South; but as soon as they were prevented from doing this, they turned upon the Southern people and warred upon them and their institutions relentlessly. This is well known. No man will deny that the chief part, if not all of that trade was carried on by the North. And yet we find the people of that section as soon as that infamous traffic is arrested, denouncing the institution of slavery, patriarchal and benign as it is.

I beg leave to say that the course of the Committee .Page398 has been heretofore altogether indulgent to every gentleman who has in any way claimed its kindness. It is apparent that the gentleman who is now addressing the Committee is laboring and must be sensible of exhaustion. I would suggest, if the Committee would now rise, that probably in the morning it would be the disposition of the Committee to allow the gentleman to withdraw his proposition. If that course is adopted, in all probability, the question may be viewed in a different aspect, and the difficulty now existing be removed. I, therefore, ask that in consideration of the lateness of the hour, in consideration of the respect that is due to the gentleman from Wetzel, as a member on this floor, it will be the pleasure of the Committee now to rise. I accordingly submit a motion to that effect.

The question was put by yeas and nays, upon that motion, and decided in the negative yeas 40, nays 59.

I think that the Committee will get tired quite as soon of me as I will of them. [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, I was remarking when I gave way to the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] , to submit a motion that the Committee rise, that the slavery question was not the main or principal question that produced the difficulty and troubles in the country at this time. I stated that I differed from gentlemen upon this Committee as to the cause of our troubles. For what purpose does the Yankee want power and to what expedients does he resort to obtain power, and to what extent will he go to obtain power for its own sake? Go to Massachusetts or any of the New England States, and you will find that the largest operators, those who employ a thousand or fifteen hundred operatives, derive their support and the material upon which they all operate from the cotton producing States of the South; and that they are intimately connected with and dependent upon them in this regard. A person at first thought would think that they would be so intimately connected and so dependent upon this system of labor at the South that they would foster and protect it; but you find this anomaly, that these manufacturers and operatives are the most violent and bitter enemies of the institutions of the South, and denounce them unsparingly at all times and on all occasions. The press, the pulpit, the school-house and the Sabbath school, all exert their influence in hostility to the institutions of the South, and the whole country is taught to abuse us, and for what purpose? For the purpose of power—the people being the source of power. What do they do with power? The very first thing they do is to pass a Morrill tariff bill for the purpose of robbing and plundering .Page399 the South. You take the constitution of the Confederated States of the South, and you at once cut off any inducements of that sort to obtain power in this way. You strike the axe at the root of the evil at once. The Constitution of the Confederated States of the South, I might say, has an express prohibition that these privileged laws shall not be passed. If you had such a provision in the Federal Constitution as is contained in the Constitution of the Confederated States, my word for it, they would have no motive to obtain power. After the American system was broken down; after it was repudiated by the people of the country, William H. Seward having advocated that system as long as he could, went to work to obtain the power which he had lost, through the religious element and prejudices of the people of the North, and he succeeded in it. And the very moment he obtained it, you see the result. It was what the Yankee operator has been working for all the time. He has had no other object in view. The people of the North, and especially of New England, look upon the people of the South as dependent provinces; and you permit this system of plunder to go on; you permit it to be perpetuated in this Northern Confederacy, and my word for it, if you allow this state of things to continue, you will be to the North what Ireland is to England, what Hungary is to Austria, what Poland is to Russia. Sir, I do not blame the Yankees. I am not traducing them for the spirit they manifest, because I imagine that we should be like them if we got the power and could make money by it. I do not believe that New England to-day would abolish slavery, if she could. I do not believe that they would interfere with it in the States in which it exists, if they could. It is very true that there are some fanatics, Wendell Phillips, Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Gerrit Smith, and a few others of that stripe, who would interfere with domestic slavery in the States where it exists; but they are better men this day, before high Heaven and before all just and true men, than Wm. H. Seward and that class of politicians at the North. They act out honestly, fairly and boldly their sentiments, and they tell you what their purposes are and what they will do. They tell you honestly their motive, that it is for philanthropy and to conserve and carry out the great principle of the Declaration of Independence and the principle of equality amongst the races.

Will my friend give way for a moment, to allow me to make an appeal to the House? What is the object of holding on here to-night, upon this proposition? Nobody seriously expects a vote upon it. Do gentlemen expect to get through those propositions, if they retain them upon the table? It is impossible, if any one man in this.Page400 house chooses to make a contest, to get through with them in a month. It is really wasting our time, wearing out our physique, to obtain nothing. I assure you, gentlemen, I regret that these propositions have been offered. The house has refused to let the gentleman from Wetzel withdraw them. The gentleman from Wetzel has a fine physique, and I am sure that, even speaking, he can wear the most of you out, while in your seats. Suppose, when he is done, he calls for a division of the question, which is almost a book in itself. He can debate every proposition; he can cut it up in detail, so that you would have to stay here, not a night, but a month. All this is absurd. Will the conscript fathers of the State, sitting at night, waste away their strength over propositions of this sort, while really the whole country is in sackcloth and ashes over the volcano of revolution? I beg the house either to let the gentleman withdraw his propositions, or his object being merely to get until to-morrow morning in which to amend them, for God's sake let him have until to-morrow morning. I ask the house, then, if it be in order, for leave to let the gentleman from Wetzel withdraw his propositions, and for the committee to rise.

That motion has already been made, and voted down.

I ask if there is no objection.

I object.

I move that the committee rise.

Upon this I ask the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and the motion was not agreed to—yeas 32, nays 63, as follows:8Both Proceedings and Journal state that there were 63 negative votes. However, the Proceedings list only 61, while the Journal lists 62, adding Carter to negative votes listed in the Proceedings.

AYES—Messrs. Ambler, Boyd, Chapman, Coffman, Richard H. Cox, Fisher, Garland, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Thomas F. Goode, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Kilby, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, Jas. B. Mallory, Marye, Sr., Morris, MOORE, Randolph, Richardson, Robt. E. Scott, Sheffey, Speed, Strange, Thornton, F. P. Turner, Whitfield, Wise, Woods-32.

NOES—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, James H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, Sharp, Slaughter, C. J. Stuart, Sutherlin, White, Willey-63.

So the Committee refused to rise. Pending the call of the roll, .Page401.

I rise to make a personal request of the Chair. A friend has been kind enough to pair off with me. I shall retire from the body to night, and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of favor, if a call of the House is made, to report my excuse as sick, sick in every sense.

There is no man in this Convention who regrets this state of affairs more than I do. I had no idea or expectation that the proposition I offered would elicit any debate whatever. I merely offered a paper without asking that it be read. I was not disposed to detain the Committee a moment. I supposed I had the substantial amendments I desired to offer with me.

Mr. Chairman, I stated to the committee when I presented the paper that I had no intention of producing delay, but my intention was seriously to press upon the committee the consideration of the question of the amendments to the constitution as adopted by the Confederated States of America, as the only true principle upon which we could act and operate to reconstruct the old Union. When I found that the committee was about to rise I asked leave to withdraw that proposition. That courtesy was refused me. Then I asked the privilege of letting the question go over till to-morrow morning. That courtesy was also refused me—a courtesy which has been extended to other gentlemen on this floor. I hope, sir, I have not offended the committee in any manner that would justify the treatment that I have received at their hands. I would remind gentlemen that sometimes there is an opportunity to give tit for tat; and as I have my rights upon this floor as well as anybody else, I will demand them, and no power on earth shall take them from me. I am not going to indulge in abuse of this body or of this committee, but I will now make this declaration, that we are getting a great deal of distinction and notoriety. I have no aspirations to distinguish myself here by originating any proposition. I am not so vain as to believe that I could improve upon the handiwork of those who framed those amendments to the Federal Constitution which are embraced in the Constitution of the Confederate States of the South; I am disposed to give the credit to whom it belongs. Therefore it was in no spirit of vanity or vain glory that I presented it; but I say that, if the gentlemen want to have their names handed down as second James Madisons and Thomas Jeffersons, I think they will find themselves very much mistaken; and when the future historian shall record the acts of this Convention and of this Committee, he.Page402 will record them in the terms of the Hartford Convention.

The gentleman will come to order and confine himself to the question before the Committee.

I am speaking upon this question of notoriety. I have always been willing to extend a reasonable courtesy to any gentleman in the Convention, and I demand the same for myself.

Will the gentleman from Wetzel allow me to make a personal appeal? I do not see that any earthly good can be accomplished by this protracted struggle. It is presenting a deliberative body before the country in an attitude in which a body like this ought not to be presented. This is a struggle that can accomplish no good whatever. I am free to say, that whilst I have voted to extend this courtesy asked for by the gentleman from Wetzel, on every occasion except one, I am perfectly satisfied, that when the vote is taken, an overwhelming majority will vote down this proposition of the gentleman from Wetzel. Now, if there was something like an equal division of the body on this question, some purpose might be accomplished by this protracted debate. I suggest that the gentleman would relieve himself and the Committee by permitting a vote to be taken now upon his proposition. At the same time, I am constrained to assure the gentleman that, not having had an opportunity of examining fully this Constitution of the Confederate States, I must vote against that proposition; I also feel certain that the relations which I hope I sustain to that gentleman will justify me in making this appeal. I should be glad that this question would be taken, so that we may be permitted to retire to our respective abodes, instead of being here at this unseasonable hour.

It would afford me infinite pleasure to comply with the request of the gentleman; and, so far as the gentlemen who have voted with me are concerned, I must say that I sincerely regret the position in which they are placed. It is a source of great pain to me that my friends find themselves in the position in which they are placed. But, sir, I have asked nothing of this committee but the usual courtesy that has been asked by gentlemen upon this floor, and that has been extended to every man upon this floor who requested it. I tell you I do feel upon the subject. I have just as good a heart and as brave an arm as any man who lives within the limits of the State of Virginia. This Committee can relieve themselves in a moment, by extending the usual courtesy to me that they have extended to other gentlemen. I simply asked to have the consideration of this proposition .Page403 postponed till to-morrow morning, or that I might be permitted to withdraw it. Every courtesy that I have asked has been refused me, and I want the fact to go to the country, sir.

I have no doubt the committee will feel at this time, that some courtesy is due to the gentleman from Wetzel as well as to other gentlemen on this floor. He desires to present his views upon the question of the proposition which he has submitted. There can be no harm in letting the subject remain over till to-morrow morning, and in order to have that courtesy extended to the gentleman, I move that the committee do now rise, and on that I demand the ayes and noes.

The ayes and noes were called, and the committee refused to rise, by a vote of 32 to 59, as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Ambler, Boyd, Chapman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Fisher, Garland, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Thos. F. Goode, L. S. Hall, Harvie, Haymond, Kilby, Lawson, Leake, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marye, Sr., Morris, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Sheffey, Speed, Thornton, F. P. Turner, Whitfield, Williams, Woods-32.

NAYS—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, J. H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Forbes, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, MOORE, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Pugh, Rives, Sharp, Slaughter, C. J. Stuart, Sutherlin, White, Willey-59.

EXPLANATION OF VOTES

I have no disposition to offer any discourtesy to the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] . If he was discussing a question of the success of which there was any probability, I would cheerfully accord to the gentleman the courtesy usual in such cases; but inasmuch as it is manifest that there is no chance of the gentleman's substitute being carried, and it is unreasonable to allow a minority to control a majority, I must vote No.

Mr. STAPLES stated, when his name was called, that he paired off with Mr. BOISSEAU.

Mr. HOLLADAY, when his name was called, said he had paired off with an absent member.

Mr. BRENT, when his name was called, said he paired off with Mr. MILLER, of Botetourt.

Mr. CHAPMAN J. STUART said he paired off with Mr. MORRIS, who was sick.

I desire to say a word or two in explanation of my vote. I have, in every instance, since this discussion commenced, voted for the Committee to rise as often as a motion of that character was submitted. I am aware that this system of operations is costing the State a good deal of money, and I suppose the majority of this Committee is also aware where the responsibility for this expense rests; and I suppose the people of the State will be slightly interested in knowing who is responsible.

The gentleman from Barbour will remember that the courtesy of the House has been extended to him for the purpose of explaining his vote.

That is a part of my explanation. Another reason why I shall vote, as I will do, is that I desire to extend to the gentleman from Wetzel, the same courtesy that I would like to have extended to myself, the same courtesy that has been extended to every other gentleman, except on one occasion. I think the members of the Convention owe it to themselves to accord that courtesy. Therefore, I shall vote aye.

FEDERAL RELATIONS

Is there a quorum present?

Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman: When I yielded the floor for the purpose of allowing a motion to be made for the Committee to rise, I was endeavoring to show what the Northern people had done or were doing with the power that they have acquired, and I was explaining, also, the manner in which they had acquired this power.

I will now proceed to speak at length [laughter] upon the effect and the policy of this tariff. It may be necessary for me to go into details to a considerable extent before I close. I am satisfied that this Committee will be vastly interested. [Laughter.] And, before I proceed to the investigation of this elaborate subject of tariff and tariffs, I will make a remark in reply to a gentleman who spoke in explanation of his vote.

I ask the gentleman to allow me to make a motion that the Committee now rise.

I rise to a question of order. I ask if it is competent for a gentleman to yield the floor for a motion and then resume his remarks again?

The Chair is of opinion that, in Committee of the Whole, a gentleman has a right to do so.

I understand the Chair to decide that the gentleman can yield the floor and resume it again?

If he got the floor in advance of any other gentleman.

Ah! then the Chair has not decided in the manner I supposed he did.

I understand the rule to be this: That when a gentleman is entitled to the floor, and he yields it merely for the purpose of allowing a motion to adjourn to be put, and the House refuses to adjourn, he is entitled to it again. That is the principle we have acted on throughout the session.

The decision of the Chair is, that the gentleman from Wetzel has a right to proceed.

I move that the Committee rise, and on that I call the ayes and noes.

The ayes and noes were called, and the Committee refused to rise by a vote of 12 to 56, as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Boyd, Cabell, Chapman, Goggin, L. S. Hall, Haymond, Kilby, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, Marye, R. E. Scott, Whitfield-12.

NAYS—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Campbell, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, J. H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Forbes, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Marshall, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, MOORE, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, Sharp, Sitlington, Slaughter, Sutherlin, White, Willey-56.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE

I have generally voted, late in the day, for an adjournment. I have understood this evening, from gentlemen who are good judges of the probable time it will take us to dispose of the various amendments involved, in the proposition presented by the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] , that it will take us a month to vote upon them. I understood that from the gentleman from Princess Anne, who, I know, is a good judge of parliamentary matters. Believing that we will be detained here too long unless we are faithful and vigilant in obtaining votes upon all the propositions, I vote no.

It being ascertained that there was no quorum voting,

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the course now .Page406 to be pursued is, for the Chair to report to the Convention that there is no quorum. When the Committee rises, I shall move a call of the House.

The committee then rose and reported to the Convention [Mr. SHEFFEY, of Smyth, in the Chair] , that the business of the Committee was arrested for want of a quorum.

I move a call of the House.

I believe a motion to adjourn is a privileged motion. I make that motion.

I call the yeas and nays upon that motion.

A motion to adjourn does not take precedence of my motion for a call of the House.

I don't know what is the exact rule; but I imagine that a motion to adjourn has precedence over a motion for a call of the House. It has precedence over all motions, and must necessarily over that.

The Chair does not profess to be familiar with parliamentary law, and would be glad to have the opinion of some gentleman who is, as to the matter now in dispute.

A motion to adjourn takes precedence over any other motion in all parliamentary proceedings.

The Chair decides that the motion to adjourn has precedence over the motion made for a call of the House, by the gentleman from Wood [Mr. JACKSON] .

I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

I call the yeas and nays upon that motion.

Suppose it is ascertained there is no quorum in Committee of the Whole, as it has been ascertained, is not the proper course to be pursued when the Committee rises, to make a call of the House?

It has been suggested to me, by a friend, that I withdraw my appeal from the decision of the Chair, and ask for the yeas and nays upon the motion to adjourn. I shall adopt that plan, and accordingly withdraw my appeal. I call for the yeas and nays upon the motion to adjourn, made by the gentleman from Richmond city [Mr. MACFARLAND] .

The roll was then called and resulted, yeas 26, nays 54, as follows:9Both Proceedings and Journal state that there were 54 negative votes. The Proceedings list only 52, while the Journal lists 53, omitting Armstrong from, and adding Baldwin and Barbour to, the negative votes as listed in the Proceedings.

YEAS—Messrs. Ambler, Conn, R. H. Cox, Fisher, Goggin, T. F. Goode, L. S. Hall, Haymond, Kilby, Leake, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, Marye, Montague, .Page407 Morton, Neblett, Price, Randolph, Richardson, R. E. Scott, Slaughter, Speed, C. J. Stuart, F. P. Turner, Whitfield, Woods-26.

NAYS—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Carter, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, James H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Forbes, Fugate, Gillespie, Gravely, Addison Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Lewis, McGrew, Marshall, Masters, Moffett, MOORE, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Pugh, Rives, Sharp, Sitlington, Sutherlin, White, Willey-54.

So the motion to adjourn was decided in the negative.

Mr. President—

I rise to a point of order, and it is this: that the gentleman is bound to rise from his seat before he can be recognized by the President.

I did rise from my seat.

The gentleman was standing before he addressed the Chair and did not rise for that purpose.

Mr. President, I beg leave to offer the following resolution:

Resolved, That all discussion shall cease upon the pending proposition, in fifteen minutes after the Convention shall be resolved into a Committee of the Whole.

I would like to know whether by "the pending proposition," all the propositions now pending are meant?

The Chair understands the resolution as referring only to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] .

That is all, sir.

I rise to a point of order. It is this: that the pending question before the Convention is the resolution of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , and upon that question, sir, I am entitled to the floor.

I am not aware that the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] , or any other gentleman, can claim the floor upon any such ground as he represents. It is true that the courtesy of the floor has been extended to gentlemen from day to day, to discuss questions introduced before the Convention went into committee of the whole; but when a member gets the floor for the purpose of offering a proposition, surely that position cannot be taken from him merely upon the claim of courtesy.

I will state that that very question was decided this .Page408 very day. The Chair decided in committee of the whole that a member having the floor could be deprived of it by putting another in his place.

I apprehend the question was very different from that now before the Convention. The proposition of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , has been under consideration here from day to day, but only during the morning hours. We find that other propositions have been interposed almost every morning by different gentlemen, and yet it cannot be claimed that these can be introduced here to the exclusion of the important question now under consideration. The state of the question as it now stands makes it entirely incompetent for the gentleman, as it seems, to claim the floor upon this taxation question. The Convention has just come out of Committee of the whole for the purpose of making a call of the House to ascertain if a quorum be present. That fact having been ascertained, it is now proceeding to determine what is to be the course of proceeding in Committee upon this question.

But, sir, this is a question of vital importance and ought not to be set aside for the consideration of matters of comparatively little importance. It is moreover, unreasonable that the minority should be permitted to control the majority, and that too, upon a question the most important that a Convention ever assembled to deliberate upon. The question now is whether a majority or a minority shall control the Convention. It is not a matter of jest, as I regard it, and I offer that resolution to test that question. The gentleman says it is out of order because he may be entitled to the floor upon the resolution offered some days ago by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] . He may be entitled to the floor to-morrow morning, before the consideration of this question is entered upon; but, really, it seems to me, that to make such a claim now, is trifling with this momentous subject, and I say so with great respect, because if we are prevented from controlling the proceedings of the Committee of the whole tonight, the same obstacle may be interposed for months.

I submit that I am not out of order.

I move to amend the resolution of the gentleman from Frederick.

I rise to a question of order. That is a privileged question.

The gentleman must state his question of order, and I demand that it be reduced to writing. He is required to do so under the rule.

Show the rule.

There is no doubt about it.

If you refer to rule 31 you will find that every motion is required to be reduced to writing.

It is not a motion; it is a point of order.

There can be no point of order without a motion. I ask the decision of the Chair upon the question.

The Chair is of opinion that every point of order requires a motion; and, under the rule, every motion is required to be reduced to writing.

I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. President—

I desire to get time to reduce my motion to writing.

The gentleman ought to have had his motion in writing before he submitted it.

I call the previous question.

Upon that I demand the yeas and nays.

The gentleman from Jackson has appealed from the decision of the chair, and the question is, will the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the Convention.

In order to sustain a call for the previous question, there must be 20 members.

Mr. President, will you be so good as to let us know what is before the Convention?

Mr. President, is there anything before the Convention.

I move that we adjourn—I believe that motion is in order.

I had the floor when the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] rose—I hold in my hand a privileged resolution, and I would ask an opportunity to allow me to offer it. I am desirous to expedite the proceedings of the Convention.

I rise to a point of order.

The gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , is not in his seat, and the Chair can entertain no motion from him. Mr. President, I beg leave to offer the following resolution.

I rise to a question of order.

I move to adjourn.

The Chair has no right to recognize the gentleman, as he is not in his seat.

I move the previous question. The gentleman has a right to make a motion to adjourn.

The call for the question was not sustained.

I offer the following resolution :

Resolved, That all discussions shall cease upon the pending proposition in Committee, in fifteen minutes after the Convention shall resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

I move to adjourn.

It is not in order.

The Chair decides that the motion is in order.

I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

I call for the ayes and noes upon that appeal.

The call for the ayes and noes was sustained, and the Secretary was proceeding with the call, when—

I will state that while I was on the floor I had this resolution in my hand, and was about to send it to the Secretary, intending, at the same time, to offer some explanation in reference to it. The gentleman from Orange made his motion to adjourn.

My point of order is, that while I was on the floor and offering the resolution it was not competent for the gentleman to make a motion to adjourn.

The impression of the Chair is that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEMENS] had submitted his resolution.

No sir; I had not.

I rise to a point of order. The Chair has ordered the roll to be called, and it is not in order for the gentleman to interrupt the call.

I voted against sustaining the decision of the Chair upon the understanding that the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] interposed his motion while the gentleman from Ohio was on the floor.

The call of the roll was further proceeded with, when it was found that there was no quorum voting.

I think the question is wrongly decided by the Chair. I am of opinion that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEMENS] , had the floor when the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] , made his motion to adjourn.

The Chair will take leave to explain to the Convention its own understanding of the question. A resolution was offered, not by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEMENS] , but the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] . The gentleman from Ohio was not .Page411 understood by the Chair to have had the floor at the time the motion to adjourn was made; and he was further satisfied that the motion to adjourn was in order, from the fact that the resolution was not offered by the gentleman from Ohio, but by the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] .

The Chair will permit me to say that I took the resolution of the gentleman from Frederick and amended it by inserting the words "in Committee;" and before I had an opportunity of stating what my object was in making the amendment, the gentleman from Orange rose and made a motion to adjourn. The resolution I offered was not the same resolution offered by the gentleman from Frederick. This being the state of the case, I appealed from the decision of the Chair.

I rise to a question of order. I find, sir, that there are some members present who have not voted, and the rule requires that all members present when a vote is taken shall record their votes, unless excused by the House. I see a number of members around me who have not voted. There is the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , and the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , neither of whom have voted.

I am responsible to my God and my country for my vote, and to no one else. It is for my constituents, and not for the gentleman, to take me to task for my course here. I do not hold myself subject to that rule.

The gentleman has taken his seat in this Convention, and I think he voted for these rules. I understood the gentleman to say that notwithstanding the rules have been adopted, he does not hold himself subject to them.

I will say to the gentleman that I mean to observe the rules strictly; but in this instance I choose to withhold my vote. I am not ambitious to have my name recorded upon every petty question of this sort that may arise. I shall vote or not as I please, and it is for the House to say what course they will pursue in reference to me. I do not see why I should be singled out as a mark to be shot at here. I have taken no part in this excited scene, here to-night, and I do not understand why I have been thus made the object of the gentleman's peculiar concern.

I desire to ask the gentleman a question. I desire to know whether this question of ayes and noes has not arisen at the instance of the very gentlemen who are now refusing to vote?

The yeas and nays have been called upon different .Page412 questions here, and I do not know who called them. But I know that I did not call them nor second a call for them.

I call the attention of the House to the fact, that it may be known.

I alluded to the fact of the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , and the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , not having voted, from no object of singling them out for special notice, as the gentleman from Middlesex intimated, particularly as regarded himself, but because they happened to meet my eye first.

The gentleman speaks of his having no ambition to record his vote upon every petty question that may arise here. I would say that I am governed in recording my vote by no motive of ambition to be recorded, but purely from motives looking to the performance of the duties which I came here to perform.

The absentees were called, when the following result was announced—ayes 9, noes 72.

So the decision of the Chair was not sustained.

I understand that the chair was overruled in his decision in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Orange. I now move the amendment which I indicated a while ago, to the resolution of the gentleman from Frederick, and upon that I call the previous question.

I accept the amendment.

The call for the previous question was sustained, and the main question ordered to be put.

I rise to a question of order. The point of order that I make is this: When I rose a while ago and made a point of order, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEMENS] , objected on the ground that I should reduce my point of order to writing. I have accordingly done so, and I now present it. It reads as follows: "The pending question before the House is the resolution offered by the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , and upon that Mr. TURNER, of Jackson, has the floor, and during the pendency of that question no other proposition can be taken up."

The Chair decides that the point of order ought to be made in writing when the original resolution was offered. It is now out of order.

I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

The previous question has been ordered, and this proceeding is out of order.

I demand the ayes and noes upon the main question.

I understand that it is not in order for the Chair to entertain any proposition now except a motion to adjourn. I make that motion.

I call the ayes and noes upon the main question.

A motion has been made by the gentleman from Lynchburg [Mr. SPEED] to adjourn—that has precedence.

It is not in order to make a motion to adjourn pending a question which was ordered by the House to be put.

The call for the ayes and noes was sustained.

I would ask the Chair if the motion to adjourn, which I made, was not in order.

The Chair decides that no motion is in order until the question is taken.

I appeal from the decision of the Chair.

I desire to know what the question is.

It is upon the adoption of the resolution as amended by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEMENS] .

I ask that the resolution be reported.

The Secretary read the resolution as amended.

The roll was then called but there was no quorum voting; the vote being ayes 71; noes 5.

No person here has a right to pair off with another and thus cause a suspension of business. The rule requires that every member within the Hall shall vote. No member has a right to arrest the progress of business by pairing off with absent members.

I move a call of the House.

I will state, sir, that there are members present who have not voted.

I paired off with the gentleman from Botetourt [Mr. MILLER] , but I desire inasmuch as there is no quorum, to record my vote, and, as far as I can, cause the business to go on.

The gentleman cannot vote, the result of the vote having been announced.

I move that the gentleman be permitted to vote.

As long as this House has rules I will submit to them and remain here. The vote has been announced in this instance, and it was ascertained that there was no quorum.

Now if this house means to abide by its rules, I will stay here until to-morrow morning in order to enable gentlemen to carry out their policy if they can. But if this House decides that after a vote is taken .Page414 and the result announced, it is competent for a gentleman to vote when he refused to do so before, I for one will leave.

I believe one of the rules of the Convention is that all who are present shall vote unless excused. I would ask the gentleman who has just preceded me whether he was present while the vote was being taken, and whether he voted.

I was present, and would have voted if this House required me to vote.

I rise to make a suggestion. There is now a quorum present, and if the vote has been announced and a quorum is not found voting, we can call the roll over again, and give those who did not vote an opportunity of doing so now.

I deny that the gentleman or the House has a right to take the vote again, after that vote has been taken and the result announced. If the gentleman wants another vote he may make another motion. That vote is beyond the power of this House, and it has no right to take it over again.

There is no principle better established in parliamentary practice than this. When the presiding officer of a deliberative body can see by an inspection of the members that there is not a quorum present, it is competent for him to direct the clerk to call the absentees. The House cannot tell whether there is a quorum present or not until the roll is called, and the very fact that it is ascertained there is no quorum present, devolves the duty on the Chair of ascertaining, by inspection, whether a quorum is present, and being satisfied that there is, it is competent for him on the call of any member to order the absentees to be called.

There is no manner of doubt that before that vote had been announced, if the Chair had seen that there was a quorum present and withheld the announcement of the vote until he ascertained whether there was or was not, it would be competent for any gentleman to make a motion to have the absentees called. But the Chair did not so ascertain, the Chair did not so announce, and the result of the vote being given, it is not now in the power of the Chair or of this House to have the vote taken over again.

I move to adjourn.

Here is a question pending which must be settled. The gentleman from Greenbrier, moved that the gentleman from Alexandria have leave to vote.

The Chair has not decided that it was not in order to make a motion to adjourn.

I rise to make an explanation. I am a member of the minority here—I had the floor in the early part of this day and was deprived of it by a vote of the majority of this House. Now, if the rules of this House are to be interpreted to the disadvantage of the minority, we shall insist that the same interpretation shall apply when it is made in a similar matter with reference to the majority.

I don't agree with the gentleman as to his recollection of this matter. I got up to move that the roll be again called, to ascertain whether we had a quorum or not, and the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] just as I had made the motion, submitted his motion to adjourn.

I rise to a question of order. The gentleman from Wheeling [Mr. CLEMENS] moved a call of the House since the vote was taken, and that question is now pending.

No, sir.

The Chair will state that the question now pending is the motion of the gentleman from Greenbrier [Mr. PRICE] , to permit the gentleman from Alexandria [Mr. BRENT] , to vote.

I call the previous question.

There was no vote taken upon sustaining the call, and the question being put, on granting leave to Mr. BRENT to cast his vote, was decided in the affirmative.

The other gentlemen who paired off and whose names are given in an early part of the proceedings, voted, giving as their reasons those stated in connection with the vote where their names are given.

The vote was then announced as follows: ayes 71, noes 6:11The Journal states that there were 5 negative votes; it does not include Brent, but does include Wilson.

AYES—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Carter, Chapman, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, J. H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Forbes, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Goggin, Addison Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marye, Sr., Maslin, Masters, Moffett, MOORE, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Rives, Robt. E. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Sutherlin, White, Whitfield, Willey-71.

Noes—Messrs. Brent, R. H. Cox, Dulany, Randolph, C. Stuart, Tayloe-6.

I move to reconsider that vote, and lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

I would be glad to hear the gentleman's reason for making that motion.

I withdraw it, and move instead that the Convention .Page416 go into Committee of the whole, and upon that motion I call the previous question.

The call was sustained.

I move to adjourn.

The motion is not in order.

I desire to call the attention of the House to another fact, and it is this, that the gentleman from Orange [Mr. MORTON] , would not vote to make a quorum, while he is making motions to adjourn, which rather cause delay than otherwise. I hope the reporter will take a note of that.

I am responsible to my constituents and nobody else for my course here, and I would say to the gentleman that his admonitions will avail nothing in diverting me from the course which I think proper to pursue.

What is the question before the House?

The question before the House is the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CLEMENS] , to go into Committee of the Whole.

I call for the ayes and noes upon that motion.

The call was sustained, and the vote being taken by ayes and nays, resulted, ayes 74, noes 8, as follows:12A correction (March 30) notes that Dr. R. H. Cox voted with the nays, and not with the ayes. The Journal states that there were 74 affirmative votes, although it lists but 72: it omits R. H. Cox, and Critcher, but adds Forbes, Johnson and White to names given in the Proceedings.

YEAS—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Alfred M. Barbour, Berlin, Bogges, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Carter, Chapman, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, Robert Y. Conrad, James H. Cox, Richard H. Cox, Critcher, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Goggin, Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Hammond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Charles K. Mallory, James B. Mallory, Marshall, Marye, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, McD. MOORE, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, Robert E. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Sutherlin, Whitfield, Willey-74.

NAYS—Messrs. Brent, Dulany, L. S. Hall, Haymond, Montague, Chapman J. Stuart, Tayloe, Woods-8.

ABSENT MEMBERS

Mr. BALDWIN, of Staunton, when Mr. BAYLOR'S name was called, stated that he was absent on account of indisposition.

Mr. EARLY made a similar excuse for Mr. SAUNDERS.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The Convention then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. PRICE, of Greenbrier, in the Chair.

It is due to myself and to other gentlemen on .Page417 this floor, who voted in a certain way to-night, to say, that so far as the offering of the motion that I submitted was concerned, I consulted with no mortal man about it. Whatever blame is attached to it falls upon me. I take the responsibility of the whole matter.

What is the pending question.

The substitute offered by the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] , to the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

I say, that whatever blame may be attached to the introduction of the proposition submitted by me, I alone am responsible for, and, in answer to the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , that he regarded this as a very important matter, that it was no more nor less than a question whether a factious minority should control a responsible majority, I—

I beg to correct the gentleman. I did not characterize either the majority or minority as factious.

Now, sir, I will refer briefly to the history of this matter. I was seated at a remote end of the Hall this evening, when I heard the Secretary read the first section of the committee's report. I came over, with a view of getting the floor, believing that the usual courtesy would be granted to me that was granted to other gentlemen. I submitted my proposition; I was at the time unprepared, not having the proposition with me, but the Secretary stated that he had the proposition to which I referred. I immediately afterwards determined, should the House afford me an opportunity, to present it in better form to-morrow. The gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WIsE] , called for the reading of the document, and, after it was read, I asked for the courtesy of withdrawing it. That courtesy was refused, and hence the scene which followed. I would ask if there was anything in my course that was calculated to provoke the discourtesy manifested to me. I shall not retaliate in language befitting such a course of conduct towards me as has been exhibited. I shall be respectful, and I will state, that for the course I have pursued here to-night I am perfectly responsible here or elsewhere or under any circumstances. And gentlemen may understand that, too. I merely want to place myself right. So far as responsibility is concerned, I tell the majority here that if the gag is to be put on men in the manner in which it has been to-night, the sooner the people know it the better for their interests and their rights. There is a power, sir, behind, that will be respected ere long, so far as the privilege of discussing the propositions seriously and honestly, is concerned. I had no sinister purpose in view in offering that substitute; .Page418 and in order to show you that I am not factious in this matter, I will state that the whole of the conservative journals of the North—the "Journal of Commerce," the New York "Herald," the Cincinnati "Enquirer," Cleveland "Plaindealer," and other conservative papers, have agreed on the plan that I proposed here to-night. I will read an extract from a letter signed Robert Tyler, which also takes the same ground.

I am not alone on this question. Gentlemen may arrogate to themselves all wisdom, power and authority, yet, sir, they will find a greater power to whom they will have to render a strict account. I disclaim arrogating to myself anything. I am only carrying out the opinions of other distinguished men and of the conservative papers of the North which appealed to the South to adopt these amendments. And here, sir, I am to be gagged and cut off from the exercise of my just rights as a representative, because I choose to adopt the opinions of men as good as any in this Convention.

The gentleman must not be disrespectful to the committee.

I am not disrespectful. It is no manifestation of disrespect to say that there are other men as good as any in this Convention. I will remark that many gentlemen who proclaim opinions in keeping with those which I hold, are as good as any in this body, however this body may affect to disregard those opinions.

Order, order, order.

The gentleman is out of order. He will please take his seat.

The pending question is upon the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wetzel.

I call for the ayes and noes on that substitute.

The call was not sustained at first, but soon after a sufficient number arose to sustain the call.

I ask if it is not now too late. The call was not sustained at first, and the Chair so announced.

It has been announced since that the call was sustained. The Chair thinks the call was duly sustained.

I appeal from the decision of the chair, and upon that I ask for the ayes and noes.

The call for the ayes and noes was not sustained.

The question on the appeal was then put, and decided in favor of the judgment of the chair.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays upon the substitute offered by Mr. HALL, and resulted—Yeas none, nays 78, as follows:13The Journal also states that there were 78 negative votes, and adds Hammond and Holladay to those listed here.

NAYS—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, Berlin, Boggess, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Carter, Chapman, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Jas. H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Early, Echols, Forbes, French, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Goggin, John Goode, Jr., Addison Hall, Ephraim B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, Marmaduke Johnson, Peter C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Jas. B. Mallory, Marshall, Marye, Sr., Maslin, Masters, Moffett, MOORE, Nelson, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, Robert E. Scott, Sharp, Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Sutherlin, Tayloe, F. P. Turner, White, Whitfield, Willey, Woods-78.

EXPLANATION OF VOTES

While there are several propositions in the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wetzel [Mr. HALL] , which I would approve as bases of settlement, I shall still vote no.

Mr. BROWN stated that Mr. CARLILE was absent from illness.

Mr. CHAPMAN J. STUART stated that he had paired off with Mr. Moms, who left the Convention on account of illness; but, in order to secure a quorum, he would vote as he believed Mr. MORRIS would vote, if present. He voted no.

Mr. HOLLADAY, from the same considerations, recorded his vote in the negative.

I now move that the Committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee rose and reported progress, whereupon, on motion of Mr. R. Y. CONRAD, the Convention adjourned at quarter to 11 o'clock, PM.

1.9.1. THE TAXATION QUESTION

The resolutions of the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , are now in order, and the gentleman from Jackson is entitled to the floor.

Mr. President, in proceeding with the discussion of the question before the House, I shall depart from the rule which I laid down for my own action, and will confine myself to the question which I deem of vital importance to the people of my section of the State. I said before that this question should be disembarrassed of all other questions;.Page422 and, after a full, free and fair discussion of the difficulties of our Federal relations, this Convention should proceed to investigate the subject of taxation, and render that justice to the people of the Western part of the State to which they are entitled, by equalizing the taxes of the State. I desire to call the attention of the members of this Convention, and of the people of the State, to the great inequality which exists in the apportionment of the taxes. I desire to meet the facts as they are, to deal with them frankly and fairly, and not to shirk any issue whatever. I desire that gentlemen will look at this question as it exists, and the consequences which would follow a refusal to act upon this matter.

Sir, it is a fact, and a remarkable fact, that in order to obviate the necessity of taxing this particular species of property, every industrial pursuit of our inhabitants is taxed inordinately. The merchant is taxed and the auctioneer is taxed, to an enormous extent to meet the necessities and wants of this Commonwealth in supporting our Government.

The class of the profession to which I belong (the legal profession), is

not only taxed as a class, but is taxed in the revenue derived from the pursuit of the profession, for the purpose of meeting the same necessity and the same want. The income of the mechanic is taxed for the same purpose. Every branch of industry, every avenue of trade contributes to the support of the Government of the State; and especially does this burden fall upon Western Virginia, because every corporation which is now formed for the purpose of developing the mineral resources of that portion of the State, is to be taxed inordinately. These are facts that are irresistable, facts that must be met, facts that come home to the minds of the people, facts that they know and that they are determined to have investigated, in order that a remedy may be secured for the wrongs that are imposed upon them.

And, sir, not only is it necessary that this investigation should proceed, not only has it been necessary on account of the increased burthens of the State for years, but it is essentially necessary at this particular time. Why? Propositions are now before this Convention proposing to put the State upon a complete war footing—upon a complete military posture of defence. Already the Legislature of our State has appropriated $1,000,000 for that purpose. This extra session of the Legislature, and this Convention itself, will still further increase the indebtedness of the State. In order to meet that indebtedness, we are informed by the Auditor of public accounts, in order to keep the government in motion during the incoming fiscal year, it is necessary to increase taxation fifty per cent. upon what it is now; making it .Page423 necessary, instead of a tax of 40 cts. upon the $100, to impose a tax of 60 cts. upon the $100. Where is this increase of taxation to fall? What is the exigency that requires this increase of taxation at this time?

It is an exigency presented for the protection of a species of property which does not contribute even for its own protection, and in the protection of which the section of the State from which I come have very little pecuniary interest. And, sir, I give those gentlemen in this Convention, representing the Western portion of the State, notice that they will be held to a strict accountability by their constituents and by that portion of Virginia, if they in any manner shirk this question or allow it to be passed by. They must stand up and meet the issue which is presented. They cannot get round it. I shall endeavor, by every means in my power, to secure some definite action upon the subject before any final adjournment, or before any adjournment of this body for any considerable length of time. In order that it may be investigated fully, I desire that it may be disembarrassed from all other questions, and that it may be presented fairly without any side issues to affect it.

Sir, it is said that if the State remains in the Union in its present condition, or that if this increase of taxation is put upon slaves, a large portion of the population and wealth of the State will desert it. Mr. President, I do not know whether gentlemen appreciate the responsibility they owe to the State of Virginia or not. I cannot understand that they do, if, for any such cause, they are prepared to desert the old Commonwealth. We of the West are told what we have to expect if the State remains in the Union in its present condition. We are told that if the State remains with the Northern Confederacy, this portion of her population will desert her. If slave property is to be taxed, this population will desert us. Sir, the alternative is nothing to us. What I object to is, that we shall be compelled by Eastern gentlemen to remain in a Union upon terms of inequality with them, for the purpose of retaining within the limits of the Commonwealth property that does not contribute to its support. I ask simply that we shall be placed upon terms of equality with our Eastern brethren, and that our property may be placed upon terms approaching equality with the property we are taxed to protect.

1.9.2. FEDERAL RELATIONS

The hour of half past ten having arrived, the Convention, in pursuance of its standing order, resolved itself into Committee of the .Page424 Whole [Mr. SOUTHALL in the Chair] , and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

1.9.3. CORRECTION OF THE JOURNAL

Before proceeding to the business before the Committee, I ask for the reading of the first portion of the journal of this Committee of yesterday. A question was decided in Committee yesterday, affecting my rights as a member of this body—not to speak of courtesy—decided in a way which I think violated my rights, and I now only ask that the facts may be correctly stated upon the journal. I don't think the journal, as made up, states the facts as they occurred, and I ask that it may be corrected as to the point which was decided.

Now, sir, the journal states that the Chairman spoke of a question before the Committee. The question which I heard the Chairman speak of was a possible contingency which might arise, and as to what course he would take if it did arise. Ergo, that it was a question before the Committee.

Therefore, if the journal is allowed to stand as it now reads, it would appear that I was interrupted by the Chairman upon a matter which was germane to the subject before the Committee for its decision; whereas, he was only commenting upon a contingency which might possibly arise. No question was before the Committee upon which any such decision could then have been made; I ask, therefore, that the journal may be corrected by striking out so much of it as states that the Chair interrupted me upon a question which was before the Committee.

That part of the journal alluded to by the gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] , reads:

"While Mr. AMBLER was occupying the floor having been recognized by the Chairman [Mr. PRICE] , he was interrupted by the Chairman, with an explanation of the question before the Committee, before concluding which, Mr. NELSON claimed the floor."

I move to strike out from that portion of the journal just after the word explanation, the words "of the question before the Committee," so that the journal would read:

"While Mr. AMBLER was occupying the floor, having been recognized by the Chairman [Mr. PRICE] , he was interrupted by the Chairman, with an explanation, before concluding which, Mr. NELSON claimed the floor," &c.

It is proper that I should make an explanation. I desire, if the Committee please, to state the facts, as I recollect them, so that if .Page425 there is any injustice done to the gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] , the Committee may correct it. When the House went into Committee of the Whole yesterday morning, there was no competing proposition to the Committee's report. The Chairman stated that the question was upon the report of the Committee; that, in his opinion, the minority reports did not come up, as a matter of course, in competition with the Committee's report. The gentleman from Louisa rose and stated that the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , was not in his seat, so as to offer his substitute, and that he supposed it would be done at some subsequent time. That is my recollection of what transpired. The Chairman then stated that the report would be taken up, acted upon by sections, and if a section were adopted, it would be competent for the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , to substitute his proposition for the entire report, including the amendments which might have been adopted by the Committee. The gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] , seemed to be dissatisfied, as I thought, with that decision, and put further interrogatories to the Chair. The Committee will bear in mind that you, Mr. Chairman, had rendered such a decision, that when a section was adopted by this Committee it would stand as the act of the Committee. As I said, the gentleman from Louisa seemed to be dissatisfied with the decision I had made and he put farther questions to the Chair in reference to the course of proceeding, and the effect of the action of the Committee. The gentleman from Clarke [Mr. NELSON] , then, who had moved an adjournment the preceding evening, with a view of speaking, claimed the floor, and the Chairman accorded to him that right. If there is anything unjust in that course of proceeding to the gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] , I hope that the Committee will correct it and place him right. The gentleman from Louisa sent to the Chair a statement made after the transaction which he desired entered upon the journal. The Chairman, whilst in the Chair during the progress of the debate, wrote out his recollection of the facts. If it be agreeable to the Committee, I will read that statement.

"The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole upon taking the Chair, stated the question before the Committee to be the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, that the minority reports would not come up for consideration except upon motion. Mr. AMBLER thereupon arose and was recognized, and stated that the gentleman from Amelia was not in his seat, but he supposed that that gentleman could offer his substitute for the Committee's report, to which the Chairman replied that the report would be taken up by sections, and .Page426 the vote was taken on each as they occurred, and when any section was adopted it could not afterwards be substituted by another proposition by the Committee, but would stand, as far as it went, as the action of the Committee. Mr. AMBLER questioned the correctness of this opinion, and asked for further explanation, whereupon Mr. NELSON, who had moved the session before that the Committee rise, indicating a wish to speak, here claimed the floor, and the Chairman accorded it to him, to the exclusion of Mr. AMBLER; from which opinion, Mr. AMBLER took an appeal, and the question being put to the Committee, the Committee sustained the opinion of the Chair."

Now, that was just as fair a statement of what did transpire as I, at that time, could possibly give. I showed it to the gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] . He was not satisfied with it, and the Assistant Clerk [Mr. GRAEME] , made out a statement of his own, with which I was satisfied; but the gentleman from Louisa was not. The Clerk then made out another statement which was modified by me so as to make it conform to my recollection of what did transpire. If there is injustice done to the gentleman from Louisa, I hope the Committee will correct it and do him full justice. I desire to say this: that I have had but little experience as a presiding officer and may have erred. If I have erred in any particular, let the error be corrected. With reference, however, to the facts that transpired, although inexperienced as a presiding officer, I have as distinct recollection as though I were more experienced.

It is too late now to enter upon the question whether justice or injustice was done me. That question is decided. Now, what is due to me is that I should have on the journal such a statement as will place me fairly upon the journal. I submit to the Committee that it is evident that these words which I propose to strike out, and which say distinctly that there was a question before the committee and that the Chairman was speaking to that question, are not sustained by the statement made by the Chairman himself. It was a statement of what the Chairman would do in a contingency not then having arisen. Therefore, such a statement does me injustice in stating that I objected in any way, or threw any obstruction in the way of the Chairman expressing an opinion upon the question before the Committee. Now, Sir, I hope that it does not require any argument to show that this question was not before the committee. The proceedings themselves show that this question was not before the committee. It is doing injustice to me to state, not only by implication, but directly, that this question was before the committee, when it is acknowledged on all.Page427 hands that such a question was not before the committee. Does it not place me in a false position to say that I was making objections when he was explaining a question not before the committee? There was no amendment offered. There was nothing in the proceedings in committee which required that the Chairman should express his opinions upon this question. Then if I am right in that—and, in my opinion, I am clearly right, and I think that the statement of the chairman himself shows that I am right—these words should be stricken out, as the merest act of justice to myself.

There is another amendment to which I propose to ask the attention of the committee, when the present question is disposed of.

Was not the whole report before the committee? Was it not proper for the Chairman to explain what is the effect of the action of the committee upon any part or the whole; and was it not perfectly legitimate, when it was remarked by the gentleman from Louisa that the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] was not in his seat to offer his substitute for the whole report, to say if any part of the report was adopted, that the substitute of the gentleman from Amelia could not be substituted for it, so far as the action of the committee went?

The question now pending is upon the motion of the gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] , to have the journal corrected in the manner indicated by him.

The question was taken and the motion was agreed to.

I also wish to have the fourth paragraph of the journal stricken out, and these words inserted:

"Mr. AMBLER propounded an interrogatory to the Chairman, without answering which, the Chairman decided that Mr. NELSON was entitled to the floor."

Now, sir, if there was any answer propounded by the Chair to the interrogatory at that time, I am not aware of it.

The Chair will state the question. A proposition is made still further to correct the journal, which now reads as follows:

"Mr. AMBLER propounded an interrogatory to the Chairman, and the Chairman having answered the same in part, decided that Mr. NELSON was entitled to the floor."

The gentleman from Louisa moves to strike out that portion of the journal and insert the following in lieu thereof :

"Mr. AMBLER propounded an interrogatory to the Chairman, without answering which, the Chairman decided Mr. NELSON was entitled to the floor."

The question is upon the proposed amendment.

I wish to explain the position of the matter. I do not know that the record of the journal is wrong. I think the committee will certainly bear in mind that there was an interrogatory propounded and answered. In the first place, the gentleman from Louisa [Mr. AMBLER] , said that the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , was not in his place to offer a substitute, and the response was, that if the Committee adopted any of the sections, a substitute could not be introduced for the entire report. So far as the sections were concerned, they would stand as the action of the committee. And I am sure the committee will remember that I stated the opinion of Mr. SOUTHALL to be the same as mine. I admit that all the interrogatories which were propounded, were not answered, so that the journal is literally true.

I am satisfied that a large number of the members of this Convention have not heard one word of the correction that has been made. I am satisfied that very few of them heard the statement made by the gentleman from Greenbrier [Mr. PRICE] , and I do not think there were a dozen members voting on the question to correct the journal. I think that now a large number of the members do not understand the question, because they have not heard the statement made by the gentleman from Louisa and that made by the gentleman from Greenbrier. I desire that the corrections shall be stated.

The CHAIRMAN repeated the question as previously stated by him.

The question then came up on the motion to strike out and insert, when the committee refused to alter the journal.

1.9.4. FEDERAL RELATIONS

When the committee rose yesterday, it had under consideration the report of the Committee on Federal Relations. If no amendment is offered to that report, shall we now proceed to take action upon the several resolutions seriatim?

Mr. Chairman, I offer the following as a substitute for the Report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

The substitute was then read as follows:

Seven States having withdrawn from the Federal Union and formed a new and distinct Government, it has become necessary for Virginia, if she remains in the present Federal Union, to obtain guarantees, by way of amendments to the Constitution of the United States upon the following points:

1st. A recognition, that by virtue of the Constitution, African slavery does exist in all the territory of the United States, and must be protected by the Federal Government.

2d. Upon all questions relating to the acquisition of territory a concurrent majority of the Senators in Congress from the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States shall be required.

3d. With a view to settle the vexed question of the territories it is agreed that in all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired, situate North of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude, slavery is prohibited, and in all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter acquired South of said line African slavery is recognized as existing, and shall receive its necessary protection as property from the various departments of the Government.

4th. On all questions relating to laying taxes, duties, imposts and excises, or any other means necessary to raise revenue for the support of the General Government, a concurrent vote of a majority of the Senators in Congress, from the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, shall be required.

5th. The right of transit by the citizens of the several States with their property, slaves included, through the States and territories.

6th. The rendition of fugitive slaves, and in case of their loss by violence or intimidation, remuneration by the General Government to the owner; and Congress shall provide for its reimbursement by laying and collecting a tax upon the State, city, or county in which said loss occurred.

7th. That Congress shall not abolish or interfere with slavery, as it now exists, in the District of Columbia; nor shall it abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States, by whose laws it is or may be allowed or permitted.

8th. The withholding from persons who are in whole or in part of the African race, the elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether Federal, State, Territorial or Municipal.

9th. Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.

10th. That the importation of slaves from foreign countries into the United States shall be forever prohibited.

11th. That Congress shall have no power to interfere with the slave trade between the States.

12th. That the foregoing amendments shall not be subject to repeal

or modification except with the consent of all the States of the Union.

And in order that amendments to the Constitution of the United

States, carrying into effect the foregoing suggestions shall be submitted

to the people of the several States now in the Federal Union for their approval or rejection, therefore:

Resolved, That this Convention will appoint one Commissioner to each of the States of the Union, who shall be instructed to submit to the Legislatures of said States, if in session, and if not, to the Governors of said States, the foregoing amendments, with the request that the same may be acted on either by the Legislatures of said States, or by Conventions called by the Legislatures of said States, on or before the first Monday in October next.

Resolved, That in case said amendments shall not be approved by the Legislatures or Conventions of said States on or before the first Monday in October next, that then an ordinance to the effect indicated in the following resolution, shall go into operation on the third Monday in October next.

Resolved, That this Convention will adopt an ordinance resuming to the State of Virginia the powers heretofore delegated by her to the Federal Government, to take effect on the third Monday in October next, in case the amendments indicated in the foregoing suggestions are not approved by the several States of the Union on or before the first Monday in October next.

Resolved, That the said amendments and ordinance be submitted to the people of this State at the next general election for their approval or rejection.

Mr. CONRAD, of Frederick, called for the ayes and noes, on the adoption of the above substitute, offered by the gentleman from Jackson [Mr. TURNER] .

The Committee refused to adopt the substitute by a vote of 89 to 37, as follows:

AYES—Messrs. Ambler, Blakey, Boisseau, Borst, Chambliss, Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Fisher, Graham, Gregory, Jr., John Goode, Jr., T. F. Goode, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, Kindred, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Randolph, Richardson, Seawell, Strange, Thornton, R. H. Turner, F. P. Turner, Tyler, Williams, Wise, Woods —37.

NOES—Messrs. Janney (President), Armstrong, Aston, Baldwin, Baylor, Berlin, Blow, Jr., Boggess, Boyd, Brent, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Cabell, Campbell, Carlile, Chapman, Clemens, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, J. H. Cox. Custis, Deskins, Dorman, Dulany, Early, Echols, Forbes, Fugate, Garland, Gillespie, Gravely, Gray, Goggin, A. Hall, C. Hall, E. B. Hall, Hammond, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, M. Johnson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Marshall, Marye, Sr., Maslin, Masters, Miller, Moffett, Nelson, Osburn, Parks, Patrick, Pendleton, Porter, Preston, Price, Pugh, Rives, R. E. Scott, Sharp,

Sheffey, Sitlington, Slaughter, Southall, Speed, Spurlock, Staples, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Sntherlin, Tarr, Tayloe, Waller, Whitfield, Willey, Wilson-89.

During the calling of the roll, Mr. MARYE, of Spotsylvania, called for another reading of the substitute. The calling of the roll was suspended, and the substitute was read again by the Clerk. After the reading,

Mr. Chairman, is the question now upon the propositions just read as a substitute for the report of the Committee on Federal Relations?

Yes, sir, and the Committee is voting.

Have you begun the call of the House, sir.

Yes, Sir.

It is not in order, I suppose, then, to make any alterations now.

No, sir.

Although there are some features of the propositions, offered by the gentleman from the county of Jackson [Mr. TURNER] , to which I object, yet, preferring it, as a whole, to the report of the Committee of Twenty-one, I vote aye.

I ask to be excused from voting, as neither of the propositions suits my views, inasmuch as both look to delay.

Objection was made, and Mr. GOODE, being compelled to indicate his preference, voted in the affirmative.

There are some things in this substitute that I don't approve of, but as a whole I prefer it to the majority report of the Committee, and so I vote aye.

In explanation of my vote, I would make a similar statement to that of the gentleman from Middlesex—that, although I object to some features of the substitute, still, preferring it to the report of the majority of the Committee, I vote aye.

Mr. Chairman, I desire to state very briefly my reasons for the manner in which I shall cast my vote. Whilst there are propositions in this substitute that I would approve, I think the form in which it is presented does not come up to the necessities of the question. It does not at all propose guarantees and amendments in the form in which they are to be adopted. It merely suggests the points upon which those guarantees and amendments are to be made. Therefore, I am under the necessity of voting no.

I enquired whether, if this substitute be adopted, it would be amendable or not?

No, sir; not after it is adopted.

I mean, if it is adopted simply as an amendment, will it be subject to amendment before final action?

No, sir, it was open to amendment before the house commenced voting.

This is a proposition so nearly similar in some of its features and in some of its forms, to the substitute which I have reported, that I cannot vote against it; and yet if it is not amendable, and materially amendable, I should not like to vote for it. But considering it, with all its defects, superior to the report of the Committee, I vote aye, and take my chances.

Mr. Chairman, I have been enquired of by a great many gentlemen, whether it was my purpose, and if so, when, to offer, in this Committee, the minority report that I had the honor to submit to the Convention, as a substitute to the majority report. In order to relieve myself from further enquiries of that sort, and in order also to satisfy the Committee of what my purpose is, I rise to give notice that I undoubtedly shall, at a proper time, at such time as I shall deem most expedient, offer the minority report which I had the honor to submit to the Convention, as a substitute for the majority report. I make this announcement now, not so much because of my personal desire to debate the question, but because I understood the Chair to decide that when any member indicated his desire to offer a substitute, he could enter into a discussion upon the merits of the subject.

The Chair did not decide that.

I should like to hear what the decision of the Chair was.

The decision of the Chair was, that nothing is debatable except the propositions before the House.

I understood that the Chair decided that if a gentleman indicated that he would offer an amendment, the Chair would tolerate discussion upon it.

The Chair now believes that the gentleman from Amelia is right.

Then I shall, at a subsequent period, offer my report as a substitute for the whole.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Amelia has indicated what will be his course as to the amendment, and having .Page433 given notice of his purpose to offer it, I ask the same indulgence; and I wish to say that whenever the gentleman from Amelia shall offer his report as a substitute for the report now before the Committee, I shall move, if it be in order, to substitute my propositions for the report of the gentleman from Amelia. I did not understand the Chair as deciding that any proposition which was offered as a substitute for the whole of the report of the Committee of Twenty-one was not subject to amendment.

It is susceptible to amendment in part, so as to perfect it before the final vote upon it is taken.

Do I understand the Chair as deciding that if an amendment is offered by the gentleman from Amelia, that amendment is not subject to amendment?

It is subject to partial amendment; but a motion would not be in order to strike out the whole of it, and insert another. The gentleman from Bedford can take the same course that the gentleman from Amelia has taken.

I merely wished to indicate that it was my purpose to bring my propositions in competition with the report of the gentleman from Amelia.

The Clerk will proceed to read the first resolution in the report of the Committee on Federal Relations.

The Clerk read the first resolution as follows :

"1. Be it resolved and declared by the people of the State of Virginia in Convention assembled, That the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent sovereignties, and in adopting that instrument the people of each State agreed to associate with the people of the other States, upon a footing of exact equality. It is the duty, therefore, of the common Government to respect the rights of the States and the equality of the people thereof, and within the just limits of the Constitution, to protect with equal care, the great interests that spring from the institutions of each."

I move to amend that resolution. As it now stands it reads, "that the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent sovereignties," &c. I move to amend by inserting after the word "were" the words "and still are," so that it will read "were and still are independent sovereignties."

I trust that this amendment will not be adopted. While it is probable that there might be no difference of .Page434 opinion between the gentleman and myself, yet I think, if he looks carefully to the phraseology of this resolution, he will find that it really does not present the question which he wished to raise before this Convention. He will see that it does not speak of the people of the States so as to raise any question whether the people of Virginia are or are not a sovereign and independent people. It speaks of the State in its corporate capacity. Well now, sir, I think the gentleman as a constitutional lawyer, would be prepared to admit that the State of Virginia, in its political capacity, as a State, is not properly speaking independent, because the people of the State of Virginia have made it, by the adoption of the Federal Constitution pro tanto dependent on and subordinate to the Federal Government. Unquestionably the Federal Constitution says that the Constitution and laws enacted under that Constitution shall be paramount to any laws enacted by the State of Virginia. We cannot, therefore, with any sort of propriety hold that the State in its political capacity remains after this adoption of that Constitution, independent of the Federal Constitution. It would be an affirmation in fact that the State Government is independent of the Federal Government.

Now, while the people of Virginia as I admit, have the right at any moment to declare, by overthrow of the Federal authority, that they resume their independence in regard to that government, yet I cannot admit that after the adoption of the Federal Constitution and while the people of Virginia do not choose to sever their connection with the Federal Government, the State Government which they have created and to which they have given a part of their sovereign power, if the gentleman chooses to call it so, is entirely independent of the other government which they have also created, to wit, the Federal Government; and although this would, perhaps, be a very material alteration, yet so far as it is of any practical consequence, I cannot imagine that the Convention will adopt it. I certainly cannot consent to it, because it would involve us in a declaration of that which, as a lawyer, I am unable to affirm; and I think that upon reflection my friend himself will be unable to affirm.

I desire to say just one word in support of my amendment. I knew very well before I offered it, what was the view of the distinguished gentleman who has just taken his seat. I knew very well that he believed this Federal government at Washington was a consolidated central government, and that the States were merely corporations dependent upon it.

The gentleman does not state my position .Page435

I am glad the gentleman has made that explanation. The gentleman, then does not believe that the government at Washington is a consolidated central government. Then it must be a government which is the mere creature of the States. And if it is a mere creature of the States and not a consolidated government, I ask how you can arrive at the conclusion that the States are not sovereign and independent? But the gentleman says the Constitution of the United States declares that all the laws, treaties, &c., made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and that the States by assenting to that, have ignored their sovereignty so far as these questions are concerned. But he says that the State of Virginia can, if she thinks proper, break her connection with the Federal government, dissolve her relation to it and withdraw from the concern. I ask the gentleman and I ask the Convention, how Virginia can sever her connection with the general government, if she is not sovereign and independent? how can it be done? I ask the question and I call upon every member of this Convention to answer, whether the admission upon the part of the gentleman from Frederick, that the State of Virginia can do that, is not an admission that she is a sovereign and independent State?

Mr. Chairman, I had an object in view in offering this amendment, but I have no disposition to discuss my motives about anything. I suspect that a majority of the members of this Convention entertain the opinion that Virginia is not a sovereign State now. Her people have always entertained the opposite opinion, and I want the people of Virginia to see whether their representatives now will take back what they have contended for in this State for seventy-five years. That is why I have offered the amendment, and why I insist upon it. I call for the yeas and nays upon its adoption.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

It seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from Middlesex involves rather a question of fact than a question of law. I understand the gentleman proposes the adoption of an amendment by which we shall be made to declare that the States which yet remain in this Union are now independent.

Sovereign.

Independent. If we were to declare that, Mr. Chairman, we should declare what every gentleman, upon a moment's consideration, must see to be untrue. If Virginia is a sovereign and independent State now she may unquestionably do whatever a .Page436 sovereign and independent State may do. She may declare war; she may regulate her intercourse with other nations; she may regulate her commerce with other nations. Does the gentleman from Middlesex mean, that while Virginia is a member of this Confederacy she has the war power? Does he mean to say that she has the commercial power? Yet she must have these powers if it be true that she is now sovereign and independent. I cannot conceive how any gentleman can bring his mind to the conclusion that while the State of Virginia is a member of the Confederacy, while the most important powers that pertain to sovereignty have been parted with by us and the exercise of these powers ceded to a common government, that she is yet sovereign and independent. On the contrary, is it not true to a great extent that she is dependent upon the will of her associate States. She is dependent upon their will in respect to declarations of war. She is dependent upon their will in respect certainly to the regulation of her intercourse with other nations and so in respect to all those great powers which properly pertain to sovereignty and with which she has parted; for, alone she can exercise none of them, but is restricted, is dependent upon the will of her Confederate States for their exercise. I trust, therefore, that it will not be the pleasure of the Committee to engraft the amendment upon this resolution, which would make us speak so contrary to the fact.

We are going over the old ground now that we went over, as is very well known, in the Committee of twenty-one. I rise to say directly in the teeth of the argument of the gentleman from Fauquier that the State of Virginia is more independent this day than she was when George III recognized her independence; more independent now after the formation of the Federal Union than she ever was before she formed that Union. And why? The Union was one intended and calculated only to strengthen her independence, and it is so declared on the face of the act and deed of Union. I mean what I say. I mean to answer the gentleman's question as to the attributes of sovereignty. I might ask him what are the attributes of sovereignty. He has not defined them, and he cannot, and I, to help him, cannot define them. The best writers on the law of nations never have been able to define the attributes of sovereignty. He asks me if Virginia has the power to declare war. I say yes, emphatically. How? Through her General Government. That is her power. Has she the power to regulate commerce? I say yes. How? Through the Federal Government. That is her power, and she never parted with the war making power. She never parted with the commercial power when she merely .Page437 created an agent by whom to exercise the power. The compact of the Federal Government, in that respect, is nothing more than a compact with co-States to exercise their respective powers jointly, yet independently, more independently now than ever, because the independence thereby has been, I repeat, made stronger than ever. If the gentleman's rule be true, will he please tell me of a nation on the face of the earth that is independent? I will take a nation that is just formed and has no treaty with any other upon earth, if there be such an one that is recognized de facto and de jure; is that nation, if his rule of construction be true, independent? No, sir. Why not? Because there is a code, an international code, binding upon nations, pledging the nations in the great family of nations, which itself creates in one sense the dependency of the nations. All nations are dependent in the sense in which the gentleman says we are dependent.

I go further, sir. If his mode of reasoning be correct, France is not independent, England is not independent. Why? She is not only dependent upon the law of nations, but upon special contracts and treaties, binding—musty from time, sanctioned by iteration oft repeated —governed by international laws, from which she cannot absolve herself. In that sense she is as materially dependent as you are upon any compact you have made with co-States. Yet France and England, I presume the gentleman will say, are independent sovereignties.

I go farther still. Not only are the powers which you refer to, the power of war and commerce, not granted away from Virginia; not only were they never ceded—but they were in what is called the grant, expressly recognized, called, named, known as the powers of the United States—the powers of the States United—their independent powers, their co-powers, their Union powers, independent and separate, brought together by consent into the hands of a common agent. Did any man who ever created an agent by power of attorney, suppose that he parted with his rights of property or proprietorship, of control over the subject matter of the agency? No, sir! I go farther still, and, especially as to the war power, will show that the Constitution of the United States expressly reserves to Virginia, and to every other State in the Union, the very specific power called the war power. Whenever she, in her sovereign, independent judgment, shall declare that her safety requires the exercise of the war power, by and according to the Constitution of the United States, she has the power to engage in war. She has the power to make treaties, compacts or agreements with other States, or with foreign powers also; and I presume if she has the power to make compacts and engage in war, to make compacts and treaties with .Page438 other States or with foreign powers, she will have the power to regulate commerce, or to do anything else. I knew, sir, that your report would bring up the fundamental principles that have guided us in this State, at least from 1800 down to this time. It is impossible to keep them down. The old strict construction of the States Rights principle meet an antagonism here. The federal principles of consolidated power could not be better and more strongly stated than they have been stated in the questions put to us by the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. Scow] . This very amendment now moved, I tried to have inserted in the report of the committee. It failed there, and I supposed it would fail here.

I beg to make a single observation. It seems to me that if the States were independent under the old articles of confederacy, they are independent under this Constitution. The argument of the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] would go to prove that this resolution itself is not true, because under the old articles of confederation the States had evidently parted with a large portion of what he calls their sovereignty. But the sovereignty of a State, we who belong to the school of States Rights hold cannot be alienated, and that a sovereign State cannot part from her sovereignty without an entire destruction. If you give way any amount of power; if a sovereign State parts with any amount of power and leaves but little, to that little clings the sovereignty of the State, and that little she has a right to protect. That is my idea of a sovereign State. It is the soul of a State. You may lop off the hand and the arms from the body; you may cut off the leg; you may mutilate the face—but if you leave the soul, that entity which we call the soul still exists. A nation may part with almost every power without parting with her sovereignty. The gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] very truly remarks that every nation has compacts and treaties which are binding upon them, and which do, in fact, interfere with her sovereignty. We know that England cannot tax the wines of Portugal; nor can Portugal tax the woollens of England. But does that interfere with the sovereignty of either of these Governments?

Mr. RIVES addressed the Committee.

I propose to make a few remarks only. Being one of the Committee on Federal Relations, I deem it proper to do so, whilst I admit that there are other gentlemen, especially the distinguished gentleman who is chairman of that Committee, who are better prepared to discuss questions which will be presented to this Convention than I am. Yet, I cannot remain silent and hear doctrines avowed here, which, if they be true, will render us utterly powerless to do any act .Page439 ourselves. We will never agree that any ground shall be assumed here that repudiates, denounces and renders null and void the action of the Convention, which was held in Virginia to ratify the Federal Constitution. If the doctrine be true, that these States are now independent States, above and beyond control, superior in themselves, not able to bind themselves, nor to bind anybody else—if that doctrine be true—there is but a very short step between us and omnipotence. What, sir, is the principle of government? It is that a State when it is admitted into the government surrenders a portion of its natural rights, in order to be secured in those which remain. Do we claim all the protection of the Government? You surrender, sir, a portion of your natural rights upon the condition that you are to be more strictly guarded by that society into which you enter. We are assembled here in Convention, and so were those who ratified the Federal Constitution—James Madison, Patrick Henry, James Monroe, and the whole host of departed statesmen. Yes, sir; statesmen and heroes were in the Convention which ratified the Federal Constitution. Did they have any power to speak for the people? Did they have any power delegated to them, in ratifying the Federal Constitution, in the name and on behalf of the people of Virginia? Have we anything delegated to us that we can do in the name and on behalf of the people of Virginia? If these men had the power to do anything which was calculated to bind us as a people—to establish for us a Government which now stands up as a beacon light to the nations of the earth; if they had any power to do anything, did they do it? Let us see what they did. Here is the last paragraph on the ratification of the Federal Constitution. I will read it:

"We, the said delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the 17th day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, by the Federal Convention, for the government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said people, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed."

Binding upon whom? Upon the people of Virginia. Bound by whom? Those who are delegated to do the act. Now, sir, there is a modern set of repudiators who repudiate the act of the Convention of 1787, who repudiate the doings and actions of James Madison, the father of that Constitution. I tell you what they have got to do. Before they get out they must commit perjury, before they can get clear of their duty, because they stand committed to it through the whole line and letter of the history of the country.

Sovereignty is a thing that asks nothing. She stands and surveys the world, and says, I am your equal. No "pent up Utica" can contract her powers, and she can look and say, "the whole boundless continent is mine." Sovereignty wants nothing; begs nothing. She speaks but to command. But, what does the report, signed by the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , and the gentleman from Shenandoah [Mr. WILLIAMS] , say —

"Resolved, That the Committee on Federal Relations be instructed to report an ordinance resuming the powers delegated by Virginia to the Federal Government, and to make provision for submitting the same to the qualified voters of the Commonwealth for their adoption or rejection.

"LEWIS E. HARVIE, "ROBERT L. MONTAGUE, "SAMUEL C. WILLIAMS."

Yes, sir, their proposition is to resume the powers delegated to the General Government. The doctrine contained in their report would strike at doctrines that must not only destroy this Government, but every Government under God's Heaven which restricts its powers. Sovereignty! Virginia has her sovereignty now. Granted. But what says the second section of the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States? "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Did you ever read this article of the Federal Constitution? Did my friends see there that this Constitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme "law of the land," the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. I say that if the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , had the same power conferred upon him that this article confers upon the General Government; if he had that power delegated to him, and there was another acting in a subordinate sphere, to be controlled and regulated by him, he would be the last man to allow any departure from the line and rule of action that he had laid down. He would permit no insubordination; he would hold the lines up straight, and he would make every one walk up to them; but I do not believe that line or chain would keep him in.

But, sir, take this article and look at it and say where the power is conferred; say, when a State law comes in contact with a law of the United States, which is to give way? Strike that out of the Federal Constitution and you will have no defence against Personal Liberty Bills. It is upon that section, that we must fight those Personal Liberty Bills. Look at the fifth amendment to the Constitution which relates to powers, the exercise of which is prohibited alike to the State, or the Federal Government. I tell my friend from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , that no man's life, liberty or property, can be taken from him, except by due process of law. Who can take your life, sir? who can take your liberty? who can take your property in the face of the prohibition in the Constitution? If this independent State sovereignty without restriction or limitation be true, that restriction would only extend to the Federal Government, and Virginia might play her part unchecked in that circle in which some seem to be disposed to place her. If there be anything at all in the argument it will go a great deal farther than gentlemen wish to carry it. Sovereignty? Who has the power to declare war? The power to declare war, who has it, Virginia? No sir! Look at the eighteen delegated powers, and tell me whether the power to declare war is not conferred upon the Congress of the United States? Is that an attribute of sovereignty? Then the power to make treaties, is not that conveyed? Take the attributes of sovereignty. Look at every one of them, from the first to the eighteenth section of the delegated powers, and you will see every one of those attributes of sovereignty are given to the General Government for the purpose of establishing a Union for the preservation not only of all the States, but to make them all one colossal gigantic power to resist every attempt at home or abroad to strike down that Government—leaving to the States the exercise of all powers which they did not delegate.

I wonder, if the argument is to be carried out, how this provision is to be carried out? I mean the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, which reads as follows :

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

Suppose we should accept the attributes of sovereignty for which the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , contends, we could establish a monarchy in Virginia for the government of the people. Could such a government be forced upon them? No, sir, this provision .Page442 in the Constitution of the United States secures to them a Republican form of Government; and the Father of our Country, whose monument graces yon Capitol Square, and who presented that Constitution to us, would arise from his grave and tell the people of Virginia that the people of the other States had pledged themselves in that instrument that they should have a Republican form of government.

Mr. Chairman, I had supposed that the especial friends of these Cotton States would have reserved all this fire which they have expended, so that they might have it to use whenever the question of secession is presented in a tangible form before this Convention. Have they forgotten what distinguishes the present position of Virginia from South Carolina? Look at her Declaration of Independence, if you please; look at her whole proceeding; look at her ordinance annulling and rescinding all connection with the Federal Government, and assuming to herself the powers which she had when she was an independent Colony, before she became connected with the Federal Government. Look at that, sir. Ah! all that is necessary to be done before you can take your stand among the powers of the earth. And Virginia, not having taken any such action, if we should pursue the course recommended in this minority report, which is signed by the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , we would be placing Virginia in a very false position. It would be placing her on the same platform with South Carolina, and Mississippi, and Alabama, and Louisiana, and the other States that have seceded from the Union. Those States had to annul the action that they took at the formation of the General Government, and I trust to God Virginia never will annul that action which made her a part of the Federal Union, until every Constitutional means is exhausted to redress her wrongs.

When I look at the Constitution I find that every state is to have a Republican form of government, and is bound to be protected by the whole thirty-four States of this Union. All this is to be done, sir. The Constitution guaranties that we are to be guarded; and yet we are to lay down the doctrine in Virginia, that Vermont, for instance, if she wants to go out of the Union to-morrow, with a thousand negroes which she may have stolen from Virginia, all she has to do under this new-fangled doctrine, is to say "that I do not believe man can hold property in man, and I will secede." This is the practical working of the doctrine. Establish it and you lose the protection given by the Federal Constitution, and I warn my friend to "shake not his gory locks at me, he can not say I did it."

I vow before God and man that I believe the relation between the .Page443 Federal Government and the State of Virginia, the Constitution of each of which every officer takes an oath to support, is as binding as the marriage vow itself. When I made a vow at the Hymeneal altar, as to what I would do, I vowed before God, with all the solemnity and obligations of an oath; but I tell these gentlemen, that if their logic holds good, you have but one step farther to go, and that is to repudiate these solemn obligations, and you can get new wives as well as destroy your existing Constitution, just as often as you please. [Laughter.] The one is not any more simple than the other to a man who has any regard whatever for his oath.

I have detained the Committee longer than I intended in the beginning, because I only wished to refer to the prominent features, and to call the attention of this body to what I consider—I will not say the absurdity of the ideas advanced—but to the folly and inconsistency of a State conferring on the Federal Government attributes of sovereignty, and imposing obligations on her citizens to support the Constitution of each, and yet, with the compact yet standing in all its binding force, to say such a State is entirely sovereign and independent.

Further, sir—all the States, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent States. These States formed the Federal Constitution. South Carolina was one of the States which composed the United States of America when the Federal Constitution was formed. She was an independent State before she gave her consent to the compact. Is South Carolina one of the States of this Union now? Shall we state that South Carolina is an independent State in the Union? You undertake, by that amendment, to say that she is one of the States of this Union, and yet in the exercise of her independence she has declared herself out of it.

I have but one more remark to make, and that is, that it was expressly declared that this condition should be binding upon the people of Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to my friend, the Chairman of the Committee on Federal Relations, for taking the part that I have taken. The ability, the zeal, the thorough investigation which were displayed by him and others on that Committee, and I include my distinguished2Probably "friend" has been omitted after "distinguished."from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] and my equally distinguished friend from Fauquier [Mr. ScOTT] , entitled the Report to careful consideration. Every point was guarded, and every conciliatory measure taken that could be taken consistently, to bring about a satisfactory .Page444 adjustment of our difficulties and protect the rights of the people of Virginia.

By the adoption of conservative, constitutional means of redress, guarantees and amendments to the Constitution, such as those recommended by the Committee on Federal Relations, Virginia and the whole South will be secured in their rights under the Constitution, and the Union preserved. If this is denied us, and we are not allowed to separate in peace, let us take our stand like men, sword in hand, and not rely upon the miserable pretext of peaceable secession. Let the friends of the Union stand firm, and defend the report of the committee, that our country, the best government on earth, may be saved, and become an abode for the oppressed of all nations, to worship God in their own way, under their own vine and fig tree, without any to molest them or make them afraid.

Mr. Chairman : I wish to make a few remarks. I shall not attempt to reply to the gestures of the gentleman from Prince George [Mr. RIVES] . I mean no disrespect to that gentleman when I say that it is evident from the applause which followed the close of his remarks that his gestures constituted the most interesting part of his discussion. When I first knew him he stood upon the platform I stand on to-day, of State Sovereignty. Subsequently he went over, and denied the doctrine of State Rights. After being out in the sterile pastures of the opposition for a while he came back, and again assumed the position of State Rights and State Equality; and there he stood until now. Having deserted his first love, he is proclaiming with his unique, and peculiar, and inimitable gestures, that he is on the side of the Opposition.

Sir, the proposition that I present here is, that the report of this Committee declares the fact, that these States, when we formed the Constitution, were sovereign. I say that they are sovereign now. I ask gentlemen to meet that proposition, not by gestures, but by sound argument and by historical facts.

Sir, if I understood what fell from the gentleman who preceded me, he proclaimed a doctrine never before uttered in Virginia—a doctrine that is subversive of every principle of civil liberty and constitutional freedom. I have heard him, not amidst the plaudits, but amidst the smiles of this House, assert the doctrine that the great American nation is sovereign. Why is your American nation sovereign? Where are your people of the United States? Where are the people of the American nation? I lay down the proposition here—I do not mean to argue it now—that there are no such people known as the .Page445 people of the United States. If there were, then the doctrine that that Government at Washington is a sovereign Government would be true, and then the States would be mere political corporations, and the will of a numerical majority would regulate and control us all. Mr. Chairman, do not the States stand now where they did when they went into the confederation? And did not the articles of confederation expressly declare upon their votes that each and every State was sovereign? Then, when were they divested of their sovereignty? I ask gentlemen here, I ask the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] , I ask the gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. SCOTT] , to point me to any word, to any syllable, one jot or title in this Federal Constitution, by which these States were deprived of their sovereignty. Where is it? Cannot sovereign powers, such as these States were, delegate to an agent the power to exercise their sovereign will to a restricted extent, without surrendering their own sovereignty? Cannot you delegate to your overseer, upon your farm, certain powers for the management and control of your estate; and cannot you, in the exercise of your sovereign will, divest that agent of the sovereignty with which you have invested him?—cannot you revoke the powers you have delegated? That is the question and the only question.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose, at this time, to go into any argument. I do mean at the proper time to present my views in extenso upon this question, for the purpose, it affords me infinite pleasure to say, of calling the attention of the people of Virginia to the fact that there is an attempt in this Convention to put forth to the world the dogma that there is such a thing as a sovereign nation in this land, and that the States are mere dependencies. If that is so, then farewell ts) your liberty. We will sit down under—not a monarchy, but under a despotism of mere numerical numbers.

"But," says the gentleman, "if Virginia is sovereign, Virginia could form a monarchy." I ask you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, I ask this whole Convention, if Virginia is not sovereign, why is this Convention here? How did you get here in any other way than in obedience to Virginia's sovereign will? Virginia's sovereign call? Sir, if the doctrine is sound, that the government at Washington is sovereign, then may Lincoln and Gen. Scott, at the head of the Army of the United States, come here and by force disperse this body and subjugate the Old Dominion to the will of the sovereign government at Washington. Is that the doctrine of the people of Virginia?

But, Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to take up the time of this Committee by discussing these questions here and now. I intend to do .Page446 it as fully as I can on some future day. I desire this Convention, by this vote, to put themselves upon the record—upon this amendment. You may be able, by a majority, to carry your point, against this little minority, with bold and defiant front; but I tell you that you can never get your masters, the people of Virginia, to entertain your doctrine of consolidation. Go before the people of Virginia upon the naked question, that this State has lost its sovereignty and independence, and when you go into the conflict, although the celebrated war horse of Prince George may be the leader in the charge, a little corporal's guard will be all that will be left, when the battle is over. The simple question is, are the States sovereign now? I hold that they are, and I have offered this amendment for the purpose of getting the sense of this House upon that question.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully call the attention of the gentleman from Middlesex, and those who advocated his amendment, to what I shall read. And I will remark, that if he and those gentlemen who think with him are correct, the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Federal Constitution, certainly did not understand their own work. On the 18th of January, 1788, the Constitution of the United States being under consideration in the Legislature of South Carolina, General Pinckney, who was one of the framers of the Federal Constitution, and was a member of the Legislature at the time this question was considered, said :

"The gentleman had mentioned the treaty of peace in a manner as if our independence had been granted us by the King of Great Britain. But that was not the case; we were independent before the treaty, which does not in fact grant, but acknowledges our independence. We ought to date that invaluable blessing from a much older charter than the treaty of peace—from a charter which our babes should be taught to lisp in their cradles; which our youth should learn as a carmen necessarium, or indispensable lesson; which our young men should regard as their compact of freedom; and which our old should repeat with ejaculations of gratitude for the bounties it is about to bestow on their posterity—I mean the Declaration of Independence, made in Congress the 4th of July, 1776. This admirable manifesto, which, for importance of matter and elegance of composition, stands unrivalled—sufficiently confutes the honorable gentleman's doctrine of the individual sovereignty and independence of the several States. In that Declaration the several States are not even enumerated, but after reciting in nervous language, and with convincing arguments, our right to independence, and the tyranny which compelled us to .Page447 assert it, the Declaration is made in the following words : 'We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.' The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several States were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several States are not even mentioned by name in any part of it—as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it, we could neither be free nor independent. Let us then consider all attempts to weaken this Union by maintaining that each State is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."

I will now read from the speech made by Mr. Madison, in the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States. While that instrument was under consideration, before that body, in reply to a gentleman who asserted the individual sovereignty of the States under the articles of Confederation, Mr. Madison said :

"Some gentlemen are afraid that the plan is not sufficiently national, while others, that it is too much so. If this point of representation was once well fixed, we would come nearer to one another in sentiment. The necessity would then be discovered of circumscribing more effectually the State governments, and enlarging the bounds of the General Government. Some contend that States are sovereign, when in fact they are only political societies. There is a gradation of power in all societies, from the lowest corporation to the highest sovereign. The States never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty. These were always vested in Congress. Their voting as States, in Congress, is no evidence of sovereignty. The State of Maryland voted by counties. Did this make the counties sovereign? The States, at present, are only great corporations, having the power of making by-laws, and these are effectual only if they are not contradictory to the General Confederation."

Now, sir, one more remark upon this point. If my friend from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] who I know is a great admirer of Calhoun, will turn to his speech on the Force Bill, in the Senate of the United States, which I have in my room, but which I have not with me, or I would read it—if he will read it, he will find that Mr. Calhoun .Page448 expressly said there is no such thing in a State as sovereignty under this government of ours; that sovereignty resides in the people.

The people of the States?

Resides in the people, sir. I imagine there can be but little doubt in the minds of those who have referred to cotemporaneous history of the Constitution that it resides in the people and in the people alone.

With the permission of the gentleman, I desire to ask him whether he holds to the proposition that sovereignty resides in the aggregate people of the nation or in the people of the States?

Sovereignty resides in the people of the several States.

Then you yield the whole question?

No, sir; I do not yield the question. The people of the several States have agreed one with the other that certain sovereign powers shall be exercised for the benefit of all, and they have so far limited their sovereign power as to agree further that any amendment to the Constitution of the United States agreed upon as provided by three-fourths of the several States shall bind the other fourth, although they unanimously oppose it.

I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Middlesex, but not upon the issue which he presents. I deny his right to make any such issue for me at this time, under these circumstances, at this point in the consideration of the report of the Committee on Federal Relations. I shall not depart from my rule of silence at this time, so far as to go into any special argument in regard to the question, or questions, which may be raised upon this amendment, and which might occupy the time of this Convention from now until the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. I will content myself with stating, upon the general doctrine of States rights, that there might be but small difference between him and myself. I believe that when Virginia united with the other twelve colonies, on the 4th of July, 1776, and declared with them that they were free and independent States, that she became as free and independent a State as she had been before a separate colony. I cannot agree that the independence thus declared was ever surrendered since by implication. And unless it has been surrendered by implication, it has never been surrendered at all. I say that she is as free and independent to-day, in the proper sense of these terms, as she was free and independent on the 4th day of July, 1776, and I will stand to that doctrine.

But I do not say that I will, at this time, for the especial purpose of the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] introduce words .Page449 into this report that would bring up questions, the discussion on which would keep us here until the 4th of July next—to next Christmas—aye, sir, to the end of time—judging from the capacity of this body for debate. I do not say that is the purpose of the gentleman from Middlesex, but I do say, that the effect of his amendment is simply to embarrass the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, the consideration of which, as it is now before the Committee, cannot properly involve the question raised by the amendment. For that reason I shall take the liberty of voting against the proposition of the gentleman, but at the same time, I desire to place myself right upon the record. I desire to place myself there as declaring, that while I vote against it, I yield nothing to him in my devotion to States rights. I am in favor of no doctrine of consolidation or centralization, but I will not vote to suit the purpose of the gentleman from Middlesex to change the phraseology of the report before us, as he proposes.

I will only say, in addition, that I trust that those who desire with me, that this report shall be considered with reference to arriving at a definite conclusion, will unite with me in voting down all amendments. I care not how proper they are, I care not though their propriety in themselves be as plain as holy writ—I care not if they be as true as the words of Scripture—I hope they will vote down every amendment, unless it shall have a proper bearing upon the precise point before us. This amendment has no such bearing, and was not introduced in reference to any such consideration, and I trust, therefore, that it will be voted down.

I have always regarded myself as a States rights man, and I still regard myself as such. I am a citizen of a State, but I am also a citizen of the United States; and while I hold that each State has certain rights, yet I am bound to hold that I owe some allegiance as a citizen of the United States. I will read the second section of the 6th article of the Constitution of the United States, in order that I may make myself perfectly intelligible.

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Now, sir, I want to ask a question of this Convention, and particularly of my friend from Middlesex. If the Legislature of Virginia, or any authority in the State, has no right to make any law nullifying .Page450 a law made in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States, how is Virginia sovereign and independent?

That is the way to get at it. My idea is that the sovereignty cannot reside in two places. While I hold that the State of Virginia has certain rights, and that to the extent of these rights the General Government dare not infringe upon them, I hold also that the General Government has certain powers and rights delegated to it by the people of the several States, and that under the Constitution of the United States these rights, properly exercised, are the supreme law of the land. I hold that so long as that is the case, the State cannot be sovereign and independent.

The gentleman says, that "if we decide to-day that the Federal Government at Washington is a supreme and independent sovereignty."3The sentence seems to be incomplete. We do not intend to decide any such thing; but I will tell you what I do intend to decide so far as my vote is concerned. I intend to decide that this Government is sovereign and independent, so far as the powers delegated to it, extend under the Constitution of the United States; but that Congress has no reserved power, has no power beyond that delegated under the Constitution. I want to read the 10th amendment of the Constitution, which is sometimes, I know, relied on by gentlemen to prove the Sovereignty of a State, but which I shall quote to prove that a State is not sovereign.

"The powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

"The powers not delegated." It seems then that there were some powers delegated ; or else how did you come to get a constitution of the United States if you never delegated any powers? How did it ever become a compact if all the powers were to remain where they were? I should like to see how gentlemen get over that point.

But, sir, I did not rise for the purpose of going into a debate of this proposition. I only wanted it to be understood why I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Middlesex. I agree with the gentleman from Rockbridge, that even if we could dispose of the proposition of the gentleman from Middlesex at this point, isolated and alone, I would not consent to do it—because the question does not arise here and I do not want to throw any obstacles in the way of the report of this Committee; for I have no doubt that every opportunity will be embraced to throw every obstacle in the way that is possible. I shall vote against the amendment.

I desire to make a few remarks upon this subject, .Page451 and especially do I desire to read some authority from Mr. Madison, inasmuch as my friend from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] has given us what he declared were the opinions expressed by Mr. Madison in the Federal Convention. As to Mr. Pinckney, he was well known not to entertain opinions which sympathize with my own; and I shall, therefore, not undertake to make any reply to the remarks he is reported to have made in the South Carolina Legislature upon the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

I am a little surprised that my friend from Rockbridge [Mr. DORMAN] should have expressed so strong an attachment for this report and the resolutions accompanying it, as that not even the work of inspiration itself could be interposed to induce him to reject the action of the Committee of twenty-one. I understand that one of the difficulties that now beset the minds of some gentlemen in reference to this matter, is the failure to recognize the manner in which our Federal Constitution was inaugurated.

Why, sir, the argument of the gentleman from Harrison is as destructive of this report of the Committee of Twenty-one as it is of the position which the States Rights party upon this floor take in vindication of their position; because the report of this committee expressly declares that at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the thirteen States accepting that instrument were sovereign and independent; and the gentleman from Harrison has little understanding if, while sustaining that report, he denies that proposition.

I trust my friend from Northampton will not see the inconsistency after I have recorded my vote upon the report of the committee.

I hope the gentleman will stand by me in voting against the report as it stands. Why, sir, Virginia inaugurated that Federal Constitution as a sovereign and independent State. She consented to this federal compact as a Union between States. In the Federal Convention, each proposition was voted on by States, the little State of Delaware having the same power and influence as the, at that time, great States of Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania. It was submitted for ratification to the separate and independent sovereignties, and each State, in its sovereign capacity, adopted and ratified the federal compact which was formed in the city of Philadelphia, by the gentlemen elected to represent separate and independent sovereignties. In all this there was the action of sovereign and independent parties, forming a compact as between themselves.

But was there a surrender of power? Was there an abrogation of .Page452 power? Was there in any sense an abandonment of the sovereign and independent powers which appertained to each separate State anterior to the adoption and ratification of the Federal compact? I respectfully submit that there was no abandonment. There was a delegation of the exercise of some powers which I admit were sovereign in their character; but is it true that a government cannot delegate the exercise of powers sovereign in their character to any functionary which it may select? Why, sir, when any one of the powers of the civilized world delegate a minister plenipotentiary to enter into a treaty, which disposes in any sense or in any way of any territory or thing that pertains to sovereignty, it is not an abandonment, it is not a surrender of the functions of sovereignty. As was well remarked by my friend from Middlesex, and also, the same idea expressed by my friend from Princess Anne, if an individual, by a regular power of attorney, authorize an agent to dispose of his patronage, he does not thereby dispose of the proprietorship of it. If an individual is the owner of a cotton plantation—and cotton, I am afraid, has but few friends upon this floor—in one of the Confederate States—himself residing in Virginia—appoints an agent to that State, who is authorized to appoint a manager, the individual who exercises the power to appoint a manager exercises the same power which would be exercised by the proprietor in person, if he were there, but in that delegation of power to an agent, he does not thereby surrender his right of proprietorship to his plantation in the South. Undoubtedly not.

Now, sir, let us see—for a recurrence to fundamental principles is a great safeguard against innovations. In what language did Mr. Madison draft the 3d resolution which was presented by Mr. Taylor in the Virginia House of Delegates in 1798. It was in these words; and now let us see how this original draft of Mr. Madison comports with the argument of Mr. Madison in the Federal Convention, as quoted by the gentleman from Harrison. Hear what Mr. Madison said in 1798:

"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the States alone are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their .Page453 respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

From whence, if they be not sovereign, do they derive this right of judging? For, sir, I hold that coupled with the power of judging is the power of enforcing the judgment, and I enquire if anything less than sovereign power could enforce judgment which had thus been the result of the sovereign power?

But, sir, not only did Mr. Madison maintain this doctrine in this resolution which he drafted, and which was offered by Mr. Taylor in 1798, but Jefferson maintained the same identical doctrine in his resolutions which were offered by Mr. Breckinridge in the Legislature of Virginia.4This should be Kentucky. From the first resolution offered on the 10th September, 1798 in the House of Representatives of the State of Kentucky, the draft of which is universally conceded to Mr. Jefferson, I read as follows:

"Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution of the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes; delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force. That to this compact each acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge; each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

That resolution received the sanction of the Legislature of Kentucky, in 1798. And the resolution, which I first read, was drafted by Mr. Madison, and received the sanction of the Legislature of the State of Virginia, when offered by John Taylor in the same year.

From that hour to this, from the time that these resolutions were adopted by Kentucky and Virginia, both of these States have maintained the doctrine therein incorporated, and no party in this Commonwealth has ever triumphed politically—no party has ever obtained the control of the legislation of this State, that has not endorsed the.Page454 truth of the doctrine embraced in these resolutions. It is strange, at this late day, when the Union is disrupted, that gentlemen on this floor should be levelling their darts at the doctrine upon which the action of this Convention must be necessarily based, if, indeed, this Convention is, according to my expectation, to vindicate the honor and protect the rights of the Commonwealth.

I propose to read a portion of the report made by Mr. Madison in 1799, when he was a member of the Legislature, acting on his official oath, in vindication of his resolutions. I would not read it on this occasion, but I am anxious it should go out in the same paper that carries the quotations made by the gentleman from Harrison county [Mr. CARLILE] , from what Mr. Madison said in the Federal Convention; and I hope the extract will not be so unwelcome to this Convention that they will not bear with me whilst I read it. I will not read the whole of it, but only a short portion of it. The argument he makes here is based upon the third resolution of his report:

"Clear as the position must seem, that the Federal powers are derived from the Constitution, and from that alone, the Committee are not unapprised of a late doctrine, which opens another source of Federal powers, not less extensive and important than it is new and unexpected. The examination of this doctrine will be most conveniently connected with a review of a succeeding resolution. The Committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking, that in all the cotemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended, on the ground that the powers not given to the Government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 10th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares 'that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' "

The other position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the States are parties to the Constitution or compact" is, in the judgment of the Committee, equally free from objection. It is, indeed, true, that the term "States" is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus, sometimes it means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular Governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into these particular Governments; and, lastly, it means .Page455 the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty, from the different applications. In the present instance, whatever different constructions of the terms "States," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur in that last mentioned; because, in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "States;" in that sense, the "States" ratified it; and, in that sense of the term "States," they are consequently parties to the compact, from which the powers of the Federal Government result.

The next position is, that the General Assembly views the powers of the Federal Government, "as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact," and "as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants therein enumerated." It does not seem possible, that any just objection can lie against either of these clauses. The first amounts to merely a declaration, that the compact ought to have the interpretation plainly intended by the parties to it; the other to a declaration, that it ought to have the execution and effect intended by them. If the powers granted be valid, it is solely because they are granted; and, if the granted powers are valid, because granted, all other power not granted, must not be valid.

The resolution, having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, that, in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded on common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact .Page456 made by them, be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

It does not follow, however, that because the States, as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought to be interposed, either in a hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior occasions. Even in the case of ordinary conventions between different nations, where, by the strict rule of interpretation, a breach of a part may be deemed a breach of the whole, it is always laid down that the breach must be both wilful and material to justify an application of the rule. But, in the case of an intimate and constitutional Union, like that of the United States, it is evident that the interposition of the parties, in their sovereign capacity, can be called for by occasions only deeply and essentially affecting the vital principles of their political system.

The resolution has accordingly guarded against any misapprehension of its object, by expressly requiring for such an interposition, the case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous breach of the Constitution by the exercise of powers not granted by it. It must be a case, moreover, not obscure or doubtful in its construction, but plain and palpable. Lastly, it must be a case, not resulting from a partial consideration, or hasty determination; but a case stamped with a final consideration and deliberate adherence. It is not necessary, because the resolution does not require that the question should be discussed, how far the exercise of any particular power, ungranted by the Constitution, would justify the interposition of the parties to it. As cases might easily be stated which never would contain aught to fall within that description, cases, on the other hand, might, with equal ease, be stated, so flagrant and so fatal, as to unite every opinion in placing them within that description.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Madison in the argument he made to sustain the position assumed in the third resolution, has not vindicated the position that the States are now sovereign and independent, I should like to know how it may be maintained. I think that the argument is irrefragable. I regard the position which Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson have taken, that the States have the right to judge of the infractions of the compact and of the mode and measure of redress, necessarily implies the exercise of a sovereign power, a power independent of all other powers. But the gentleman from Prince George [Mr. RIVES] , would seem to suppose that we have a national sovereignty that covers this whole Union, in such a manner as if ours is a consolidated .Page457 and not a Federal government. If this be so, although Virginia shall throw the panoply and shield of her sovereignty over her citizens, yet, if they obey her injunctions and mandates, they are traitors and rebels against this consolidated government at Washington and liable to be treated as such.

This doctrine reduces our people to the condition of the serf of Russia and the slave of Virginia—the right to resist intolerable and unbearable oppression5Some part of this parenthetical remark seems to be missing.—to the condition in which if their revolution shall be successful, they may receive the plaudits and honors which usually attend successful revolutions, but if otherwise, may be compelled to fill the graves assigned to felons and traitors. It is to such extremities that these gentlemen are driven.

But, Mr. Chairman, these doctrines find no sanction in the history of the formation of our Federal Government, or in the character of our institutions. They are at war with the great principles of human liberty upon which our governments rest, and are antagonistic, as it seems to me, to the impulses of every patriotic heart. According to the arguments of some gentlemen, the deduction is clear and indisputable: if we adopt an ordinance of secession, and Virginia withdraws from the present Black Republican Confederacy, and her citizens obey the ordinance, they will be traitors to, and rebels against the Federal Government.

There is no gentleman on this floor either a traitor or a rebel ; for although I find gentlemen differing from me widely as to the best means of vindicating the honor and maintaining the rights of our own Commonwealth, I will do every one of them the justice to say that it is only a difference, as I humbly believe, as to the best means of accomplishing the same common object. I hope, for these reasons, which have been more strongly impressed upon this Committee by others than by myself, that the Committee will sustain the amendment offered by the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. Montague] .

I agree, in general, with the doctrine laid down by my friend from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , in regard to States Rights; but I think that the amendment he proposes is impolitic and unnecessary, for several reasons. In the first place the resolutions of the committee are so bound together, and the principles contained in them are so connected together, that if you begin to amend them in any respect, you will mar and destroy their symmetry. In the second place the words which he proposes to insert are incongruous with the proposition upon which he seeks to engraft them. The proposition of the committee speaks of the condition of different States at the time the Confederacy .Page458 was formed and of their action at that time. It says they were then independent sovereignties, and in adopting the Constitution they then agreed to associate on terms of exact equality. The gentleman proposes to amend so as to make the resolution speak of their present condition. Moreover, when you come to examine the conclusion which the committee deduces from these premises, you find that the words proposed to be inserted are not in the least necessary to sustain the principle announced by the resolution, viz: the duty of the common Government to respect the rights of the States and the equality of the people thereof.

I, therefore, contend that the amendment of the gentleman does seem to me to be out of place in this connection. Why the necessity of introducing any thing more? When this amendment was first proposed by the gentleman, I prepared an amendment which I proposed to offer, embracing my views of the subject. I proposed to change the section so as to make it read as follows : "In adopting that instrument, the States did not part with their sovereignty, but agreed to associate with each other upon a footing of exact equality."—but, upon examining the whole report, I think these views are so clearly enunciated by the whole taken together, that I have deemed it unnecessary to offer the amendment suggested by me.

I have not risen to discuss the question as to the right of secession. On the contrary, I have risen expressly for the purpose of giving my reasons why I do not propose to discuss it and why I shall be constrained to vote against the amendment which has been proposed to be offered. I occupy, I presume, the same position occupied by every member upon this floor, that of having been supported by constituents who essentially differ in reference to the right which is sought to be admitted into this resolution. I take it for granted that the assertion of the principle sought to be maintained here is one to which the right of secession, as a right appertaining to a State sovereignty, necessarily connects and attaches itself.

Now, sir, in my humble judgment, whatever may be the opinions of others similarly situated, as I believe all are so situated, I should unquestionably, by voting for that amendment, act in bad faith to my constituents or a portion of them, either upon the one hand or the other. My constituents, or that portion of them who elected me to a seat upon this floor, differ essentially upon this subject; and it cannot be believed for one moment that differing radically and essentially upon this subject they elected me here to settle this particular question which must be settled either against the one set or the other set of opinions .Page459 of the individuals who supported me. If this be true in reference to the constituencies which we all represent, does not the same propriety attach to those who have united together and may unite together in the support of the resolutions as reported on behalf of the Committee on Federal Relations?

Sir, it is sought to incorporate into that resolution the direct assertion of a disputed principle, or a disputed fact, I care not in which light it be regarded. What will be the object of this? I will not say that it has been designed by the mover of the amendment, but what is the necessary effect of the proposed amendment? I understand gentlemen have met here, not for the settlement of the political question which divides our own people, but for the settlement of the great questions which disturb the public mind of the country. We find upon the floor of this Convention two parties—one of which is in favor of withdrawing the State of Virginia from the Union, and the other in favor of constitutional guarantees, and of perpetuating the Union. Now, sir, does any gentleman understand and fully appreciate that the tendency of the amendment sought to be incorporated into these resolutions is, as the majority is composed of gentlemen differing in opinion upon this subject, to create division in the ranks of those who have met here for a very different purpose? For the reason that the effect of the amendment to those resolutions will be to disturb and divide those who wish to agree, and who ought to agree together upon more vital issues, I shall vote against the proposed amendment to the resolutions; and, for the reason that I hold that the whole discussion of this subject, upon the Union side of the house, is out of place, and after the first gushes should not have been taken up. I shall vote against the amendment to the resolutions of the Committee on Federal Relations.

It is quite important, Mr. Chairman, that we should obtain distinct and defined ideas of the proposition before us, if we would avoid error and confusion. The proposition simply affirms, that the State of Virginia is now under all her obligations to the Union, and, whilst it is her pleasure to remain in it, independent and sovereign. That is the proposition. Now I put it to gentlemen, to say whether their knowledge of the relations existing between Virginia and the Federal Government, and the actual condition in which the State stands in respect to that Government, authorizes an affirmative response to the question? Can gentlemen conceive of a sovereign power which is not invested with the authority necessary to the maintenance of her independent existence? And that, sir, is simply the test.

Under the relations established by the Constitution between Virginia and the Federal Government, Virginia, for the time being, is denuded of the power to establish treaties with foreign empires, is deprived of the regulation of her own navigable streams, is subject to taxation, is liable to have her own citizens prosecuted under laws in the enactment of which she had had no agency whatever.

Now, Mr. Chairman, whilst it may be true, but I do not mean to express my concurrence in it, that it is beyond the reach of clear and definite exposition to define what sovereignty is, I apprehend we can all say that it does not exist when we find it deprived of certain attributes. Well now, sir, I beg gentlemen to mark that the question is not whether Virginia may not resume the powers delegated to the Federal Government; the question is not whether she may not assert an independent and sovereign existence; in truth, the object of our assembling is to determine whether we will place Virginia on her reserved rights and resume the authority delegated to the Federal Government, But I apprehend until we have passed through that gradation it must be conceded that Virginia, for the time being, has relinquished, upon her part, attributes and powers indispensable to her sovereign existence.

I refer you to the important attribute as to establishing treaties with independent Empires. Did you ever hear of a sovereign that had not the power to establish treaties? Did you ever hear of a sovereign power which could not levy an impost upon its own navigable waters for the purpose of its own improvement? Yet I beg leave to say that Judge Marshall decided against the exercise of that power. And so I might go on, referring to taxation, referring to criminal jurisdiction that may be asserted by the Federal Government against Virginia; nay, sir, to that appellate power which has been asserted on the part of the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction of State decisions.

Now, do gentlemen mean to say that a State which is under the relations to which I have referred, of subordination in essentially the important particulars, is not properly described by being called a sovereignty? I beg gentlemen to mark, that all this does not, in the slightest degree, infringe upon the proposition of the absolute and the unconditional right, on the part of Virginia, to assert her separate existence, whenever it shall be her pleasure. But, I confess, sir, that I have heard now, for the first time, that in the actual subsisting relations between Virginia and the Federal Government, we are in a condition of absolute sovereignty.

Why, gentlemen seem to suppose, that because these relations .Page461 between Virginia and the General Government were established by the Convention of Virginia, that that qualifies the proposition and relieves Virginia from the condition of having parted with some of her powers, from being regarded as sovereign, as she would have been regarded if these powers had not been taken from her. As a logical proposition, is it true that a State may not reduce its condition below a sovereign power by its own Convention, by its own agreement? If a principality, theretofore, invested with supreme power for the sake of alliance and protection, or any other consideration, placed herself under the protection of another power, and consented for the time being, with the original attributes of a sovereign and independent State, would our vernacular be properly applied to the language, to be used in the ordinary usage, to call such a State sovereign?

Sir, I insist that some regard be paid, in the deliberations of this body, and especially in the conclusions to which they may come, touching a legal fact, if I may so describe it, that they use words which are well defined, explicit, and not likely to mislead. Sir, if it were now announced that a State, heretofore unknown in the history of the world—and an example of such kind might be furnished by Sardinia in its present condition—was sovereign, would it not be understood that she was invested with all the attributes to establish foreign commerce, to regulate her intercourse with foreign powers; that within her limits she was not subject to taxation by any foreign power; that she had at least, within her own control, her own criminal and civil code? I apprehend, sir, that if the word "sovereign" be as I consider it is, definite and expressive, I must have the consent, at least, of the major part of this enlightened body to the proposition, that the term "sovereign" would apply to the case to which I have referred.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I beg it may be understood that these views are not intended to have any effect upon all other and ulterior questions. I am not aware of any propositions in the public mind which incline it to the use of this term in the sense in which it is here applied. And when an effort is made upon this floor, to enlist the popular prejudice, and incite the popular clamor, I beg leave to recall the memory of the gentlemen to their classical expositions. I am not aware of any popular excitement or feeling whatever upon the specific subject we have now before us. I trust that I shall be found upon all proper occasions in giving to the popular voice the consideration and respect which it may so properly challenge; but in the absence of any indications of public opinion, when I know nothing about it, I have no other .Page462 rule to ascertain the sentiment of the public mind than my best reflections to ascertain what is right; and when I have satisfied my own judgment upon that subject, in the absence of indications of popular opinion to the contrary, I shall find myself vindicating the popular privilege in following out the best conclusions of my own mind.

But my whole purpose in rising, Mr. Chairman, was to call, if I could, the deliberate attention of this enlightened body to the application which is sought to be made of the word "sovereign." If Virginia, denuded for the time being, as I have said, of the powers to which I have referred, be sovereign, how is that condition to be described which retains this power, as that that Virginia has reserved?

That there is difference between them, specific, organic, unmistakable, I apprehend can hardly furnish room for doubt or controversy. I then submit, Mr. Chairman, that in retaining the resolution in the form in which it was adopted by the Committee, I assert never was dangerous and heterodoxical.6There seems to be either some omission, or a change of construction in this sentence.It was in the form, as I understood, and just the very language fit to describe the important matter in hand.

As I am one of that Committee, I ask your indulgence for a few words of reply to another member of the Committee who has taken rank, strong Federal ground. I use this language in no opprobrious, in no demagogue sense whatever; I use it in its fair, legitimate sense. I say that another member of this Committee has taken the bull by the horns, and has distinctly, in your presence, claimed that the State of Virginia, in her present attitude and relation, is not an independent State, and is not a sovereign State. I ask the attention of the Committee while I reply to the last two gentlemen who have taken their seats.

Does anybody say that the State of Virginia, or any power on earth, is absolutely sovereign? He says he has heard it asserted here to-day, for the first time, that the State of Virginia is endowed with absolute sovereignty. I have not heard that asserted here to-day, sir. Such a thing as absolute sovereignty is not known upon earth. Sovereign and independent are both relative terms, and not absolute terms; and the gentleman undertakes to say that it was asserted here to-day, not only that the State is a separate and independent sovereign, but that such sovereignty is absolute. I have not heard that opinion expressed, sir. The assertion made here to-day is that she is sovereign in the sense of international law, in the relative sense, in the sense of her connections and dependencies, which necessarily belong, to some extent, to every independent and sovereign power. No one has asserted that she is today absolutely separate, sovereign and independent; but every gentleman, .Page463 who has advocated the adoption of this amendment, has avowed that she is undoubtedly, in the relative sense, sovereign and inde pendent. And one of the gentlemen has put it in this form. He says:

"Does any one say that a State now sovereign may not by compact or agreement unite or fuse herself with another power, delegate her sovereignty and become subordinate?"

I intended that as an exact reply to the arguments of several gentlemen that Virginia ceded powers to the General Government. Hence the arguments, that if she ceded her powers the State was, therefore, deprived of her sovereignty.

I beg pardon. He has put the case expressly and has illustrated his meaning. If a power consents to unite with another power, and merge her sovereignty, may she not do it? I tell the gentleman we have got a case in our own history that will illustrate the meaning on both sides. But yesterday, Texas was a separate, independent and sovereign power. I say to the gentleman that Texas is no less a sovereign now, united with the United States, than she was when she was a separate, sovereign and independent Government. She is now a united sovereign, independent power. I need scarcely repeat to the Convention the argument that Virginia, whenever she shall declare herself in such imminent danger as will admit of no delay, has immediately, and by her separate act, the power of war, and she has the power of making agreements and treaties with other States, even with foreign powers, according to the express words of the Constitution, in the reserved powers and expressed limitation of powers to the Federal Government, put in by her act of sovereignty when she came into the Union. But the gentleman asks me whether she can levy imposts or not. I reply to him, as I did to the gentleman from Fauquier; she may declare war when she is not in imminent danger. How? Through the Federal Government. That is her power, precisely as though Texas alone should unite with Virginia, and all the other States should unite with both in a mere offensive and defensive treaty, to unite in war against a common enemy. Sir, they do this, now, whenever they declare war. How? By their own treaty-making power. By the treaty which each, severally, by Convention made.

Will my friend be so good as to answer me this question?—whether; if it should so happen that Virginia should be committed to a foreign war against her own remonstrances, against all her power to prevent it, that would be one of the instances in which she could be regarded as sovereign?

Yes, sir; yes, sir. Why? Her abiding and solemn compact .Page464 and agreement in the Union under the Constitution must override a mere temporary and particular disagreement with her partners in that compact. And it is no less true of the German States than the American States. I beg the gentleman's attention. Does he not know there are certain confederacies in Europe? Is he not aware of a certain German confederacy as well as this North American confederacy? Will he not agree that Prussia is a sovereign and independent power, separate and yet united, too? Sir, Prussia is bound to the German confederacy; and may she not be forced against her consent into war? Yet who will deny that Prussia is a sovereign and an independent power? Will the gentleman answer that? Will he show me the difference between the case here and the case there? These are very great difficulties. Sir, I can inform the gentleman that I have had puzzles put to me by foreign ministers upon this very question, which, perhaps, might be difficult to solve. I remember meeting the Russian Minister, Lomonosoff. He always called himself Lom-monnosoff to prevent it sounding like blow-my-nose-off. [Laughter.] He always contended with me that, according to the European code of international law, the United States, the whole United States, had not the attribute of the war power, although it was known to him and to everybody else that we can declare war. Why? "Because," said he, "according to all the elementary writers, the war power is a sovereign power, and must be wielded by the unit power, to be sovereign; and therefore it has always been placed in the Executive department. Where have your republican Americans placed it? Instead of a united, executive war power, you have made it a legislative power, in organizing a municipal government under the Federal Constitution. I mean the government at Washington. It cannot pretend to sovereignty—it is a mere municipality. And you have put your war power in the legislative department. What then? One House of Congress can check another House of Congress, and after both Houses have agreed, the President may veto a law passed by both Houses. And there is another check upon your sovereign power. If the executive and legislative departments have united in declaring war, one of your legislative Houses may withhold the appropriation of money, and thus deny to war the very sinews of war. It is a very questionable sovereign power."

I tried to convince him that these very checks and balances of our government were necessary to restrain the arrogance of war powers, that might crush our republican liberty if placed in the hands of the Executive. He could not comprehend it. But it seems my friend cannot .Page465 comprehend the difference between a separate, independent sovereign and a united, independent sovereign; that is the only difference.

Now, sir, I call attention to the remarks of my friend from Norfolk [Mr. HOLLADAY] . Permit me to say to him that I do him the credit of saying that he has put this matter upon its fair, bold, great, grave ground. He admits that it is to the sovereignty and the independence of the States that the doctrine of secession attaches. Admitting that, he admits the truth. That is the question which lies at the groundwork of our deliberations. Now, mark you, for I intend to hold my friend to his proposition, the doctrine of the right of secession attaches, as he tells us—and I concur with him—to the doctrine of the independence and sovereignty of the States. Secession is very odious, I mean immediate secession, he thinks; and I do not mean to reproach him at all; I merely state the fact as a premise from which to draw a conclusion. I would not, as a citizen of Virginia, drag her out of the Union without an effort to restore the Union. To this extent I concur with him. Perhaps I would not wait as long as he is willing to wait.

The hour of two having arrived, the Committee took a recess until four o'clock.

1.9.5. EVENING SESSION

The Convention resumed its session at 4 o'clock, Mr. WISE being entitled to the floor.

I really was not aware when I commenced the few remarks I proposed to myself to make, how near it was to 2 o'clock, or perhaps I should not have taken the floor. It is the second time I have been cut off by "Shrewsbury clock," but not the first time by any means.

When the Committee rose, I was addressing myself to my friend from Norfolk, who took, as I said, clear, distinct, sound ground of objection. I mean sound for him, sound for his position, logical for his position. He objected to this amendment, because secession attaches to the independence and sovereignty of the States. I called his particular attention to the results of the plan of objection he has taken to this amendment.

I think the gentleman labors under a misapprehension as to what I did say. I think I declared no opinion upon the subject to which the gentleman refers, at all. I simply said, the amendment meant to assert a power, an abstract power, indirectly, which I did not deem we had been sent here to settle, and that, therefore, I should vote against the proposition. I think the gentleman misunderstood me, when he said that I opposed it because secession attached to the sovereignty of the States.

The gentleman said a great deal more than what he now says. I think he is mistaken in saying I misunderstood him. He certainly said that secession attached to these powers.

I did sir; I do not deny it.

Then he did say all that I claimed he said—that secession attaches to the independence and sovereignty of States. But it is not upon that doctrine whether it does or does not attach that I wish to comment or to which my aim is to call my friend's attention. He is opposed to secession now. I do not understand him as opposed to it ever and under all circumstances. I hope I am right in understanding him in that, correctly. There is a time, there may be a time when he too will be, or may be compelled to resort to the remedy of secession. I presume that is his opinion, because I see him going along with the report of this committee. This Committee says that it will become necessary, under certain contingencies,—and the gentleman from Harrison, [Mr. CARLILE] , was right when he read the letter from his friend, and his friend was right in saying that the report of this committee itself, advocates secession. Now, mark you, my friend from Norfolk, means to support this report—he may be called upon to support secession. Am I wrong in that?

On the sixth page of the partial report of the Committee, they lay down an American principle—and I have had to deal with American principles before to-day. What is it?

"8. The people of Virginia recognize the American principle that government is founded in the consent of the governed, and they concede the right of the people of the several States of this Union, for just causes, to withdraw from their association under the Federal Government with the people of the other States, and to erect new governments for their better security, and they will never consent that the Federal power, which is in part their power, shall be exerted for the purpose of subjugating the people of such States to the Federal authority."

Is not that secession, sooner or later? I will inform my friend from Norfolk that when it originally came before the Committee, it had before the word "right," the word "revolutionary." The Committee was not content with that word, and with the consent of the mover himself, it was stricken out; and the resolution now stands as asserting the great American principle. I ought to have called it the great Virginian principle. Why? Because Virginia was the mother of the first bill of rights of which there is any record, in the history of bills of rights. Old George Mason, of this State, was the first to assert this great principle, and to write it. All the United States of America .Page467 adopted this principle, and the Committee have truly and correctly laid down this principle, of which Virginia was the founder and finisher.

I say "founder," because she first declared it; "finisher," because in 1801 she sealed it by her resolutions, and by her standing army. That standing army has not yet been disbanded. It now stands, small as it is, in your arsenal on the banks of the James River, within the limits of this city; it now keeps guard over the capital of this State.

Now, do the Committee mean to assert the State right of secession here, or do they mean to assert the mere revolutionary right of the individual people, which was the only right that George Mason declared? James Madison and Thomas Jefferson declared the right of a State to withdraw when the Federal compact should become intolerable —in 1798 and 1799—and the victory of that principle was consummated in 1801. But the principle declared by George Mason in 1776, was simply the revolutionary principle, the right of the individual people, or the people in their individual capacity to revolutionize their Government, to run the risk of the halter, to run the risk of the charge of treason, all the risks of civil war, all the risks of criminal prosecution, in order to overturn a Government which should pervert its end, aim and object, and which should destroy the happiness of the people.

Now, sir, is it not a serious inquiry what this report means in this paragraph? Does it mean the mere revolutionary right, the right to seize arms? Yes, sir; that is the doctrine of my friend, the Chairman of the Committee. That is what the Committee mean—the mere revolutionary right, uncovered by the wgis and panoply of State sovereignty, of State independence, having the sovereignty and independent power to command citizens, willing or unwilling, to take up arms in defence of the rights and dignity of the States and their own rights of property.

My friend from Norfolk will agree with the committee and will not insert the word that these States are now, and ever have been, independent and sovereign; and the majority of the Committee of twenty-one mean to assert that although under the old Confederation these States were sovereign, they ceased to be sovereign and independent when they adopted the federal constitution. Let it be understood then that the committee mean to imply a denial of the sovereignty, a denial of the independence of the States. Let it be understood then that the committee, and those who support their report, mean to declare by this eighth clause only the revolutionary right of the people to withdraw.

I will inquire of the gentleman whether he thinks there is no distinction between the position of a State which is bound .Page468 only by her own consent and one bound by a majority of associated States?

I am coming to that directly. I will take you on your own report. I have not had time to write out my objections in full to this report. I must take it in limine as it comes up. I am now laying the inducing matter for the consideration of the very point which the gentleman suggests; and I do not want the point of my logic turned by anticipating its conclusions.

The report denies the sovereignty and independence of the States at this time, and admits and means to admit only the right of revolution. Now, sir, is there any salvum in this report, to save us from this clamor about treason, if force should be employed to keep our people in the Union, when the time shall have arrived for them to declare themselves out of it? My friend from Norfolk and myself do not perhaps differ much about saving the Union or restoring the Union, except in point of time and the greater or less effort that may be made to accomplish the end which is as dear to me as to him.

He may be more hopeful than I am. I am willing to go to what I think a reasonable length, and I will not make my opinions the standard for my friend from Norfolk. He is as much entitled to his opinions as I am to mine; and I know that he will act on the same high, patriotic, conservative, country-loving motives by which I myself profess to be actuated. If he cannot persuade me to go along with him a little further, in effort and time, I must stop.

I may come, perhaps, to a point where I will stop short of his stopping; and he will go on and on. Loving the old Union as he does, it will not surprise me if he does go very far, and I will give him, and every other lover of the Union, a broad margin of time and effort. But this report contemplates a time at last—at last, when all reasonable efforts may have failed, and when we will have to count the time of the old Union as no more. What then? Are we to resort to revolution then, to the right to rise up and seize arms, without a shield over us, without a sovereignty to stand by us, without an independent power to say, "these are my citizens, and I have commanded them to obey their own sovereign"? Are we to be left only to the individual right of revolution, or are we not? If we are to be left to that naked right, if we are to be left bare, not only to the sword, but with necks bare to the halter, then I ask, in the name of the people, who is to protect your people and my people from the consequences of their action? What else is there but the independence and sovereignty of the State of Virginia? Nothing else under Heaven, except the red right arm of war.

Gentlemen contemplate that the time may come when they will be in the now condemned attitude of my friend from Amelia, or in my attitude; when they, too, shall be brought to the condition of secessionists. What is to shield them then, if they now ignore the independence of the State, which alone can shield them?

Well, sir, they have got a panacea for that too. And now I come to the question of my friend from Richmond. The Committee itself answers that question, in the eleventh section of their report. The latter clause of that section, which was put in, I believe, on my motion, reads as follows :

"And in the event that this Commonwealth fails to obtain satisfactory responses to her requests, from the non-slaveholding States, she will feel compelled to resume the powers granted by her under the Constitution of the United States, and to throw herself upon her reserved rights."

This means something, a little more than the revolutionary right—does it not? The revolutionary right is put in the eighth clause; and if the eleventh clause means anything, if I meant anything by that amendment, it is that the people should have not only the revolutionary right, but that they should have over them, covering them like the Heavens, the shield of the sovereignty and independence—of what? Of the individual people? No! no! the independence of the Commonwealth—the most holy, the most ancient, the proudest, the grandest name that Virginia ever took for her sobriquet. Not "State." That is not commensurate with it. Not "community of people." That is not equal to it. A community of people may be a mere neighborhood, may be a city, may be a corporation. But a Commonwealth! What is a Commonwealth? In the view of any man who has read international law or political history, or a political vocabulary, does Commonwealth mean anything short of independence and sovereignty?

Indeed, I am somewhat afraid to comment upon it in this way, for fear some of those gentlemen may strike it out.

I think the gentleman is now commenting on the section of the report which speaks of "resuming."

I have just come to that.

Will my friend allow me to ask him whether resumption does not imply a taking back, and whether, in the connection in which it is used, it does not imply a yielding theretofore of sovereign power?

Not at all. It does imply resumption—exactly what it expresses. But it does not imply that sovereign power ever was yielded .Page470 up or in any manner surrendered. I may create my friend my agent, giving him any extent of delegated power, maintaining at the same time my own power of revocation at any time, and I have still the power to judge of the infraction of my rights and of the mode and measure of redress. I do not thereby deprive myself of any of my powers, and may resume them to my immediate exercise, by withdrawing them from the agent. The gentleman will not say as a lawyer, that I cannot thus take back those powers. Is the gentleman answered?

And I will answer him further. I show him in the first place, ex vi termini, by the very use by the committee of the word "Commonwealth" in the eleventh section, that you mean to recognize Virginia as a Commonwealth now; and, secondly, although the gentleman has cut me short in some of my comments on the word "Commonwealth," I come to his point about "resumption," and I will ask him, in turn, one question. Can he conceive of a Commonwealth with the power of resuming at any moment sovereignty and independence, without attributing that Commonwealth with sovereignty and independence?

Is it uncertain whether Virginia is sovereign or not? To prove that she is sovereign I cite to gentlemen the fact that she has power at any moment, by resuming the powers which she has granted, to make herself sovereign—and is not that, in itself, sovereignty?

Why, sir, war power, peace power, land power, fisc power, are not, in the sum of them equal to this one great, God-like power—that of bringing her sovereignty, in full panoply, into being—whether resurrected or not—by the fiat of her word. And yet gentlemen are quibbling whether she is or is not, sovereign and independent now.

If you grant me she is sovereign enough, and independent enough, whenever she dares to choose or chooses to dare, to resume all the powers that she has delegated, and to bring them back home to her own immediate exercise and unite them with the powers which she has reserved, then you admit all that I wish to demonstrate. Not absolute sovereignty, not absolute independence—for, as I said this morning, there is no such thing on earth as absolute independence or absolute sovereignty. In the absolute sense, England is dependent, France is dependent. The whole nation, with all the States combined, is dependent.

We are very apt to tell each other that each one is a sovereign. I claim to be an independent, sovereign man in my individual capacity; and we all, on the stump, delight too much to tell our constituents that they are sovereign. Some drunk and some ragged are told that. But yet how dependent we are! For all that ministers to our pleasures,.Page471 for all of enjoyment, how miserably dependent we are! We say we are sovereign, and yet how are we bound about and hedged around by every municipal statute and by sovereign power over municipal power, in all its varied forms of statute! So with States. Without a Confederacy, without a treaty even, States are dependent on the observation of international law. They are obliged to observe it. They are dependent for their existence on the countenance of other nations. They must enter into the obligations and duties of nations; for nations, as individuals, are dependent, each and all, one on the other. I therefore say, that there is no such thing hardly, as separate, much less absolute independence. The terms "sovereign" and "independent" are relative, not absolute. Gentlemen shall not drive me to the wall by claiming for Virginia more than I could claim for Great Britain herself—absolute independence.

All I want for her, all I want for myself as a man, is merely relative independence. God save me from being made independent of the dependencies of life! I should not be happy without being dependent, partly on you, sir, to whom I am comparatively a stranger, for the pleasure of association and companionship—for the pleasure of knowing that there is such a man with me in the Commonwealth, and that you and I help to make up a mighty people, who combine to constitute a common Commonwealth. There is no word that imparts the dignity, the independence, and the sovereignty of a State, like that precious time-honored word, "Commonwealth." If Virginia be a Commonwealth now, if she has the power to shield her people and to say to the agent "you have maltreated my people, you have wronged them, and I will take their affairs into my own hands," that is all I want to make out for her. That is all the sovereignty and independence that is needed, and therefore, it is all that I will ask. Let her now, or in your own time, gentlemen, or at some time, when you are satisfied that she cannot obtain satisfactory responses to her request, say then, "I, the Commonwealth of Virginia resume my powers—the powers which I had delegated to an agent in trust for my people, and which have been abused. I now take them into my own hands." Let her say that, and her people are safe. Then, if any United States attorney in the North can be found to prosecute me for treason, I may put in my plea that I was commanded by my sovereign, who, when this federal compact was formed, reserved to herself all the sovereign powers in the very fact of her reserving to herself the right of resuming those she had delegated. Is not that so? Ought not the people of Virginia to be protected .Page472 to that extent? Grant me this, and, if your people are oppressed, this protection is over them, and you might as well attempt to

"Fetter the flame with flaxen band,

To stop the ocean with the sand,"

as to stop secession by all the powers of tyranny. I would ask my friend from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] , how he would feel, if after revolution had commenced, he should be prosecuted for treason on the ground that the State was not sovereign and not independent; and if, when he should plead her sovereignty and independence, the United States attorney should cite the debates in this Hall and quote the gentleman himself for the doctrine that Virginia did give away her sovereignty? Why? Because if she did not give it away, she would not have to take it back.

The gentleman will allow me to say that I regard the citizen as occupying a very different position, after a State has terminated her relation to the Union, from that which she occupied while she acknowledged her obligations to the Union.

Well, that is curious talking. The State is either bound or not bound. If she is bound, her failure to acknowledge the obligation will not release her from her bond.

If she has been stripped of her sovereignty and is bound hand and foot, her denial of her obligations will not save her. The stronger party will enforce the obligations.

We have had this doctrine of coercion preached last fall throughout the State. I have had to answer it before the people. I am glad that my friend does admit, that though there is now an obligation, one of the bound parties may for itself decide when the obligation ceases, and when it does not. That's a curious confusion of doctrine. Let the gentleman beware of his words now, for the time of trial may come.

I feel too deeply, I feel too hotly, that I am now over the almost belching crater of the volcano of revolution. I would implore you to put me on safer ground than mere revolutionary ground. I would implore you to put me on States rights ground and under the cover of independent sovereignty; but I say to you that if you forsake the people, the people will not forsake themselves. If you will not cover them with the shield of the Commonwealth, they will go into battle under their own shield, and they will trust to God, as their fathers did, for their protection.

The gentleman seems to draw a distinction between the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of a Commonwealth, .Page473 and talks of the State throwing up her shield as a protection to the people. I do not comprehend exactly the idea, and I should be glad if the gentleman would explain it.

It is very easily explained, Sir. I make no distinction between the sovereignty of the State and the sovereignty of the people. I spoke of the difference between the sovereignty of the State and that sovereignty of the individual to which the bill of rights applies—as between Virginia and her own people, for example. The gentleman understands that. The people of Virginia are the only sovereigns.

Well, what shield does the Commonwealth hold up over the people of Virginia?

Sir, the sovereign people of Virginia have made what they call a body politic, a Commonwealth or State, which has certain political attributes known to the laws of nations, and which the individual people have not. You and I as men, have no corporate, no body-politic, powers; but an organized State has. A State is party to the Federal compact, but the people in their individual capacity are not. The State must judge for me of the infraction of its rights and of the mode and measure of redress; but all the people in their primary assemblages, without authority of law, cannot judge for themselves. Is not that so? Is not my friend from Norfolk [Mr. HOLLADAY] , one of that school of politicians that will agree to my doctrine, that the people cannot, by mere voluntary convention, upset the government—that they must have the authority of the law? That has been tried. Dorr tried that doctrine—holding that the people could upset even the charter of Charles II. So that you perceive there is a distinction even between the sovereign people and the sovereignty, constituted by the people and called a State; and though the people of Rhode Island should, by two to one, vote up free republican institutions over the charter of Charles II, yet they could not have them. Why? Because the State sovereignty, the State authority was invaded by mere popular meetings. Am I not right? Am I not on conservative ground now?

I tell you, gentlemen, that if you throw the people on their revolutionary rights, you may have the war and the revolution much sooner than you expect. But if you tell the people to be patient, to wait; that there is a parent and protecting power over them—the power of a united, organized, independent sovereignty which presides over them, you may prevent war. Put your shield over them; guard them ; guide them. Throw away that shield, renounce that sovereignty, renounce that authority, leave them to themselves, and you may see a rush for revolution. As far as I am concerned, I mean to wait a reasonable time, .Page474 and long. I mean to bring down pretentions and claims of rights as far as safety and honor permit me. I mean to go along with you, according to the Constitution, according to laws; according to State and Federal statutes, to guide, guard and regulate us all in our deliberations, and in our final action. But after a reasonable time shall have passed, or when our demands shall have been brought down so low that I could not even prefer them, with self-respect, then, if no other man in the Commonwealth shall raise the flag of revolution, I will raise it as high aloft as I can make it flaunt in Heaven's air. "If that be treason, make the most of it."

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that I may be pardoned for claiming the attention of the Committee for a few moments, since the gentleman who has just taken his seat made my remarks of this morning the subject of some strictures. Now I beg it to be understood that on the question before us, I have no reference to ulterior questions. The gentleman and myself would probably not differ in the application of our general doctrine. But we are concerned just now with a simple, elementary proposition ; and as I know the gentleman [Mr. WisE] , does not desire to gain an advantage to which his logic does not entitle him, I request his attention for a moment, and I especially desire to know from him whether, while Virginia acknowledges her obligations to the Union, she can be out of it? whether, while she is in it, the powers and authority delegated to the Union are hers in fact. That is the whole question between us.

There are two questions. I will answer, one one way and the other the other way.

You can answer me after I shall have done. I take it, Mr. Chairman, that if there be anything which is a self-evident indisputable truism, it is this, that in a Confederation which deprives the States of many essential and important attributes, they are not sovereign. So the question simply is, whether certain attributes are not essential to sovereignty?

That is the question, and the ingenuity of the gentleman will find it impossible to escape it. If, while we are within the Union, there be an obligation to respect those concessions of power which the State made to the Union, then the powers delegated were not retained. So that, whatever may be the right of the States to resume their powers, and assert their independence, such resumption must precede their restoration to sovereignty.

Is there any doubt about that? Virginia conceded to the general government the right to impose duties on foreign commerce. Can we, .Page475 so long as we remain in the Union, claim the power of imposing such duties? The power over our navigable rivers was yielded. Can we claim to dispute its exercise? An appeal from the decisions of our own courts, in certain cases, lies to the Supreme Court. Can we deny the appellate jurisdiction? Coinage alone is the privilege of the Federal Government, and the States cannot issue bills of credit.

But, Mr. Chairman, after all, the inquiry runs into a mere criticism upon words. Are we, by the Constitution as it now exists, under obligations to the Federal Government? Does any one deny that we are? Does any one deny that we have delegated to the General Government the control of our external commerce, the treaty-making power, the enforcement of national laws within our own limits, the cognizance of a vast variety of subjects which concern our wealth and power?

If any one denied this he would be answered by producing the Constitution, with its limitations on State authority. If, then, Virginia has, by her solemn agreement deprived herself of powers essential, indispensable to a separate national existence, it is a contradiction of terms to call her sovereign. What does the gentleman mean by sovereignty? Sovereignty may be a very indefinite term. All sovereigns are peers. Can that be a sovereignty which is under compulsion and restraint? Is that a sovereignty the line of whose conduct may be prescribed, and which is under the necessity of yielding to alien authority in many essential particulars? Every one must perceive that according to familiar and ordinary speech, he is no sovereign who must depend for his course, not on the sanctions of his own judgment, but on the will of other and different powers.

Now, what is the relation which Virginia and the other States occupy to the Union, in regard to the question of peace or war? A controversy may arise between America and England or France. The sentiment of Virginia may be that there has been no provocation, and that it is an uncalled for controversy—that in point of fact, the States have no just and fair ground of quarrel with England or France, and yet, in despite of that solemn conviction, Virginia, if she acknowledged her obligations to the Union, would find herself committed to a war which she regarded as without sufficient motive, and as not being justified by prudence or discretion. Is she then sovereign when committed to a war which she condemns as unnecessary and unprovoked, and to which, nevertheless, she is forced to furnish her full contingent of men and money? If that be sovereignty, let the gentleman reconcile it with the common sense of the country.

Will the gentleman allow me to answer him?

Not till I shall have got through.

We know that the Congress of the United States claims and exercises sovereign powers within the boundaries of the States. We are parties to this Union. Prosecutions grow out of these acts of Congress against our own people. Can Virginia, so long as she remains in the Union, defend her citizens against these prosecutions? Can she interpose any plea of sovereignty in their vindication or defence? Why, sir, the gentleman will not pretend that it is so. In all such cases Virginia is reduced to the necessity of disclaiming her connection with the Federal Government, or of submitting to the execution of the laws, as they may be interpreted by the Federal Judiciary. Is that denied? Will any gentleman upon this floor deny it? Will my friend from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] , deny it? Without fatiguing this committee by going through the details, it is enough to say that the States, so long as they retain their position, are subject to the Federal Government, to the full extent of its constitutional authority. It may well happen, and it has happened, that laws of Congress have been in violation of the Constitution, and against such the only redress is through the Federal Judiciary. Would my friend say whilst Virginia remained in the Union, that he would muster a force to resist the execution of the federal laws? Is there one so insurgent, so turbulent here or elsewhere, that, whilst adhering to the Federal Government, he would be found in armed opposition to its laws ?

In all such cases we must of necessity be reduced to the alternative of deciding between continuing in the Union and departing from it. I admit that any and all of the States have the privilege of retiring from the Union and thereby to escape its laws, when they find their grievances more intolerable than separation. That I concede in its fullest extent. But I am now engaged in insisting upon the proposition that the authority of the Government and its benefits cannot be claimed and acknowledged with the privilege at the same time of deciding what laws we shall obey. Is that the gentleman's opinion? Or does he mean to say—is there any member upon this floor who will say—that whilst claiming the benefits of the Union, whilst professing loyalty to it, we may determine which of its laws we will obey; and unless the gentleman will go to that extent he will find himself reduced to the alternative of disclaiming the jurisdiction of the Federal Government or of submitting to its requirements.

A word or two more. All sovereigns are peers, and no State or empire can with any propriety be said to be sovereign which has not the privilege, without the sanction of any outside authority, of deciding .Page477 upon what is due to its own dignity and rights. I put it to the gentleman, and I beg him to meet it. Can he conceive of a sovereignty, which, besides the sanction of its own wisdom, has to wait for some outside authority, to pursue the course recommended by its own judgment? Conceive a people in that condition. Are they not dependent, necessarily dependent? And is a dependent people, in respect to matters of great national concern, sovereign? Will the gentleman say that? Is the word sovereign alike fitted to describe an independent and a dependent power? Will he say that? Will he say that the term "sovereign" is equally appropriate and descriptive of a condition of a puny power, who seeks impunity by submission, and a power reposing upon the strength of its own arms and challenging contradiction? Will the gentleman say that? Be it remarked that this word "sovereign," has always imported indefinite comprehension and force. There is no term descriptive of power or of independence beyond it. Our Maker is sovereign in the universe, and no power upon the earth is sovereign from whose awards there lies an appeal.

I confess, that with all the gentlemen of this Committee I admire the dexterity and fertility of my friend from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] . He can tax his ingenuity as greatly and make as clever an escape from a difficulty as any gentleman in this hall—and if he will pardon me for saying so—I will intimate that he finds some pleasure and pride in it; but let me remark, Mr. Chairman, that it hardly contributes to just conclusions. If the gentleman means to assert that Virginia has the right for just cause to separate her connections with the Federal Government and to claim her original powers, he will find, I apprehend, an assent on the part of all the members of this Convention. But if he means to say that in the face of the concessions of power which have been made by the States to the General Government, by which the State is bound, so long as she is a party to it, that she still retained her sovereign powers, I apprehend that this Committee will, in response, say that he has drawn upon their credulity for something which all their respect for him can hardly accord. Why, sir, does the gentleman really believe, that at the foundation of our government, when her federal institutions were established, that their purpose was to constitute not only one but to provide for many sovereignties? Why I dare say that there are parts of the world in which the existence of Rhode Island is scarcely known. Did my friend ever hear that Rhode Island was pronounced a sovereign, denuded, as she is, of the privilege of making herself known abroad by receiving or accrediting ambassadors?

I am afraid that I am protracting these remarks to a most unreasonable .Page478 length; but I think it important to escape both an error in theory, and a mal application of terms. If gentlemen mean to say that Virginia has a quasi independence or an absolute independence, as she may choose to assert her reserved rights—agreed. But I protest that a State is not sovereign which has, by convention, surrendered the most significant attributes of an independent empire, so long as she is content to retain her disfranchised position.

Did you, Mr. Chairman, ever, in your life, hear such a catalogue of questions as that just iterated to this Committee? Why, my friend has not added one single question to those of this morning. Does he want us to be like the dogs that play in the yard, running around in a circle, chasing our own tails? I cannot reason in that way. I cannot reason in a circle. I must reason in a direct line, to a point.

Now my friend has given me a homily. I am past majority. I have lived more than half a century in this world; and he tells me that I am very ingenious, very dexterous in getting over difficulties, and that I like to show ingenuity, perhaps, at the expense of ingenuousness in doing so. I can say to my friend that I do not take that as a compliment, I might, in turn, say to him, that Beau Brummell, in all his impudence before King George, never did exceed the bravery with which the old federalism pouts out of my friend from Richmond. [Laughter.] Why, sir, what do you suppose? He stands up before this assembly, and affects to treat the ideas and arguments which I had used to-day as a novelty, as something new. Why, sir, I cannot claim originality in a single thought I have uttered to-day. I am but repeating old truths, which for more than forty years have been repeated in the Senate of the United States by the prototype of that image [pointing to Calhoun's bust] , and he did not repeat them half as well as the Virginia fathers—the father of the Federal Constitution, and the father of the Declaration of Independence—repeated them to Virginia ever since 1776.

What is the first question he asks you? If a State is in the Union can she be out of the Union? Is that question worth answering? It answers itself. He then asks me the question as if it was the same—can a State that has divested herself of sovereign power still claim to be sovereign? Well, sir, I can answer that question very easily. If she has divested herself and can divest herself of her sovereignty, then she is not sovereign. There is one thing that can divest her—and that is subjugation by war or otherwise; or it may be that she may merge herself in another people and not enjoy her separate sovereignty; but, .Page479 without going into the question of potentiality, I come to the question of fact. In creating this Federal Government, in forming it as it is written before us in the Constitution which they did create—did they divest themselves of that sovereignty? Did Virginia give away her war making power? Did Virginia give away her commercial power? Did Virginia give away her power of eminent domain? She did not.

She granted (she was one of the grantors), she delegated (she was one of the delegating powers), certain of her own powers to a mere agent of the States, to be exercised for her in trust, the powers still remaining her own. The agent is merely their administrator. I see no difficulty to get over there. The gentleman has not even placed a mole-hill before me, much less a mountain, to get around. Any man who has a hollow to his foot, could stand on this obstacle without touching its apex with the sole of his foot.

The gentleman first assumes that the State has divested itself of all powers of war, of peace, of commerce, of land and of everything else, and then argues from this arbitrary premise that the State is not sovereign. This is an obvious petitio principii. Again, I say to the gentleman, that his definition of the word sovereign is not correct. It is not true in political law that nothing can be above a sovereignty; a sovereignty recognized de facto and de jure. All Europe knows the fact. The Papal States have been sovereign as long as the Pope has sat upon the throne. How many years was it during which the Papal States did not elect their sovereign themselves—had nothing to do with it—that the Emperor of Germany dictated who should be Pope? Yet were not the Papal States sovereign? How many grades of sovereignty are there in Europe? Are there not as many as five different gradations? Do you tell me that the King of Holland is sovereign as Louis Napoleon? Do you tell me that the Duke of Hesse Cassel is sovereign as the King of Holland?

Will the gentleman tell me what connection there is between the sovereignty of those States—

I am talking not by a schoolboy's dictionary, but, as I ought to talk, by the vocabulary of political law. I am talking now by the laws of diplomacy, by the law of nations. Is not Turkey this moment sovereign? Who will deny that Turkey is sovereign? And yet is she not helpless, hopeless Turkey?

Yes, sir, as weak as that bird among the fowls we call turkey [laughter] , and yet she is sovereign.

Are there not States of Europe that cannot make war without the consent of other powers, and this under express treaty stipulations? Is .Page480 not that the case with many of the German States? And yet, are they not recognized as sovereign, and treated as sovereign by all the powers of Europe? You have there Imperial sovereignty, and Royal sovereignty, and Ducal sovereignty—and I don't know how many other sovereignties—all more or less dependent, not by divesting themselves of power, but by simply delegating powers, and consenting to unite with powers, by compact, or agreement, or constitution, or convention—for there is almost every variety of name by which sovereign powers will consent to limit, not the power, not its own original character, but the mere exercise of the power. That is all that these States have done.

Now, I want to ask a question; but before I do that I have a word to say which has just occurred to my mind. The gentleman asks me: if the Federal Government shall choose to go to war, however obnoxious it may be to Virginia, yet she is compelled to march to the field, whether she is sovereign or not? Why did the gentleman talk about Virginia? Why did he not refer to the instance which occurred in the State where his own school of politics claims its origin; in the State which is the mother of the elder Adams; that State that burned blue lights for the enemy, and that tried to overthrow Mr. Madison's administration because the General Government declared the war? She was made to fight because, by her own sovereign act, she had agreed not to exercise the power by herself, not to give up the power, but to exercise it in common with the other States. And the war was made for her defence, for the defence of free trade and sailors' rights, by the authority of her sovereign consent, and only against the consent of a cursed Hartford Convention, she was made to fight in that war.

Now, if gentlemen affect to treat this subject as a novelty, and to compliment me over the left by saying that I am resorting to dexterity to escape difficulties, let me answer by these old historic musty facts. If he wants an answer whether a State in the Union on the other hand can remain in the Union and resist the powers of the Federal Government, and even raise an army to do it in the face of the Constitution itself that forbids her to keep troops in time of peace, let him go back to the time of the Alien and Sedition Laws; let him turn to those resolutions of Virginia that were read to-day; let him go to the Acts of our Legislature which created a standing army of the State Guard, organized to be the nucleus of an army intended to meet the forces of the Federal Government if necessary. Yet he affects that these things are novelties, and says that I am losing character by practicing upon the credulity of gentlemen. Now, after these two instances—Massachusetts resisting a war and Virginia raising an army .Page481 without going out of the Union—I come to ask him a question. When the Constitution was formed there were thirteen States, each one of which was sovereign—so George III said, at all events. He acknowledged each and all of them as free, sovereign and independent States. Each of the thirteen had the war power, the commerce power, the land power— (oh, what a domain of land Virginia would have now, if she had only kept what was her own—if she had kept it, I mean, in her own hands and entrusted nobody with its administration!) —and each had all the other powers—that grand power of sending diplomats and of receiving foreign ambassadors included. Each and every one of those thirteen States had those powers. The gentleman says that they divested themselves of those powers. I say they did not divest themselves of those powers. They merely granted them in trust. They merely delegated them to be used not by another, but for the several States, as still sovereign, as still proprietors, as still sovereign proprietors of the power. But if they divest themselves of those sovereign powers, where did they go to? Will the gentleman answer me now, where did they go to?

My friend will allow me to say, in answering his enquiry, that I suppose the subject of gifts obeys the intent of the giver. If they were delegated to the general government, of course the general government received them, and is entitled to exercise them until they are recalled.

Is the general government a sovereign government?

Agency, or whatever else you may call it; I speak now of receiving the delegation of the powers. You imply by your question that certain powers were given; I say they follow the grant. If they were given to a proper agent, that agent received them.

I ask the gentleman if they went to the Federal Government, did they constitute the Federal Government a sovereign Government?

No, sir, by no means.

Why not?

The gentleman must allow me to give the whole force of the answer. The gentleman will please mark that a gift may impoverish the donor without enriching the donee.

And let me say to the gentleman that he might as well have told me that the moon was made of green cheese, for it has as much to do with the question. Sir, the donor in this case was no donor at all. There was no gift. There was a grant, I repeat, in trust, that deprived the grantor of nothing, and that did much benefit to the.Page482 grantee, the delegate—if I may make a word—the Federal Government. The Government now has the power to declare war; it has the power to make peace; it has the power to regulate commerce; it has the power to regulate the disposition of the public domain; and yet, with all these powers, the gentleman tells us, that Government is not sovereign. But he didn't tell us why. Why, sir, with all these cardinal points, delegated to that Government, was it not made sovereign? Why? Because it was of a mere derivative character. It was not an original Government, and could not be made sovereign. It was not sovereign, was not intended to be sovereign, it was a mere derivative power, it was a Great Municipal Government. And you may invest it with all the power of making war, with all the power of making peace, with all the power of concluding treaties, with all the power or regulating commerce, with all the power of disposing of the public domain—five or six cardinal powers of sovereignty—and yet you cannot make it sovereign. Why? Because the powers which it wields belong to others. They belong to the several States.

Now, does the gentleman tell me that this is false logic? Does the gentleman tell me that this is mere ingenuity? I ask is it not fair logic? Is it not a fair answer? Go to my agent and ask him, "Have you power to sell Mr. WISE'S live stock?" "Yes, sir, I have." "Have you power to sell this piece of land?" "Yes, sir, I have." "Have you power to sell that?" "No, sir, I cannot; I must go to my principal." "Well, sir, I will make a bargain for that which you have a right to sell; but there are terms, I find not within your power; I ask you whether you can undertake to assume the responsibility in his absence, to sell to me on terms that I would like—to add to your power?" He says, "No, sir, I cannot do that; I must go to my principal."

Now, why is not he sovereign? Why can't he sell all the land? Because it is not in the power of attorney. Why can't he sell the land or stock that is in the power of attorney on other terms? It is because he is merely an agent. The powers are not his. They are mine. I have never divested myself of them, and if he exercises power he exercises my power, not his power.

Is the gentleman answered? Is there any escape? Is there any false logic? Is there anything new in this? Is it not affectation to pretend to ask these questions and then to try to startle this House with the idea that I am trying to practice upon their credulity? Sir, I do not like that imputation. I have an honest earnestness in argument, and may go beyond the bounds sometimes, in pressing my argument. It is not because I am playing trickster or practising upon anybody's .Page483 credulity; but it is because I am earnestly driving full tilt after the truth. I am like the swift greyhound in the chase, which sometimes runs beyond the game; but I am sure soon to check my speed and turn again in the pursuit as soon as possible. [Laughter.] If the gentleman's theory be correct, we have divested ourselves of the cardinal point of sovereignty. It has gone like soap bubbles somewhere into the thin air—it is now nowhere. This is the old Federal doctrine. This is the bluest of it. When a gentleman representing a States rights State, having the care of States rights, openly takes this doctrine and even scolds me for not taking it, I think it is pretty high time that we recur to fundamental principles; we had better go back to the old doctrines; we had better revive old Virginia as she once was. Once the plantation song of old Virginia was "Old Virginia never tire." It seems now that some gentlemen are tiring of old Virginia and want a new Virginia. Sir, I have had an antipathy to a black cravat all my life. They were never invented, except to hide dirt. [Laughter.] I believe, now that I think of it, I will go back to what I wore thirty years ago, I will take a white cravat, and "chaw" tobacco, in order to show one man, at least, who is willing to revive old Virginia. [Laughter.] The question has been asked among other things—the gentleman with much self gratulation asks, whether I would not admit that sovereigns were peers? No, sir, I have only to turn to the horn books of history to show that sovereigns themselves are very unequal. I say to the gentleman, in answer to his question, no, sovereigns are not peers. You may go to France, you may go to England, you may go to Belgium, you may go to Constantinople, you may go to St. Petersburg, you may go to Rome, you may go to Naples, you may go to Sardinia, and you will find that princes are not peers. Sir, the Emperor Napoleon of France looks down with as much contempt upon some of the sovereigns of Europe in point of grade as my Lord looks down upon his lackey. And there is no less variation of grade among sovereigns in their status of kingly or imperial power than there is among sovereignties of States in the grade of their relative rank. Do not understand me, however, as recognizing here any of these gradations, either among officers or ministers of powers of State or among the powers of the States themselves. I claim here that Virginia is now as sovereign not only as she ever was, but that the Constitution was intended to increase and strengthen that sovereignty; that, therefore, she has more sovereignty, inasmuch as she is stronger than she was when the Constitution was made, and that she is now as sovereign as it is .Page484 possible for any State on earth to be. More than that—I claim that as little as Rhode Island is, as much contempt as the gentleman sneers out upon that little State, under the theory of that Constitution you profess to stand by, she is as sovereign as the mother of States, as sovereign as Virginia, as sovereign as New York is, which State is now called in these times the Empire State.

If my friend will suffer me for a moment, I wish to say that I referred to Rhode Island with some little satisfaction. She has acquitted herself, recently, well, but she is so geographically small, and so little known in the intercourse of the world, that I hardly supposed she would be called sovereign.

Aye, sir, the gentleman alluded to Rhode Island very kindly, and I know he always means kindness to me, as I do to him; but he alluded to Rhode Island as he did to me. He paid her some compliments "over the left." [Laughter.] I say Rhode Island is as sovereign as Virginia or New York, and I say it upon the authority of the Constitution of the United States, which authorises her to have two Senators in the Senate of the United States, when New York has but two; which authorises Delaware to have two, for two from Virginia. Put New York and Virginia side by side with Delaware and Rhode Island, and tell me, after you have compared their dimensions and their powers, tell me, gentlemen, if you will, why it was they were made equal in the Senate? It was because the Constitution of the United States recognized all four, each and all, as sovereigns, and therefore made them equals.

But my friend from Richmond has taken another position. He asks what is sovereign power, and then says it is the highest power of government. If that be true the Federal Government is sovereign, which he says is not sovereign, for it has the highest powers of government. What is the highest power of government under our system? Is it any power that the Federal Government has got? Is it the power of war; is it the power of peace; is it the power over the public domain; is it the power of commerce; is it the power of treaty; is it the power of diplomacy? No, sir. There is a power greater than all these. The gentleman said, and he is a good Christian, whom I honor and respect and who I know would not allude to the Deity irreverently—he said that God was the sovereign of the universe. I might have said in reply, that the great enemy of God and God's people is sovereign in the infernal regions—yet the devil is dependent after all. [Laughter.] I do not mean irreverence. But I know he is a very potent being with far the greater portion of mankind, and I am very sorry that I am yet .Page485 under his dominion—yet he is dependent. But what D. D. will not tell us how sovereign he is over much of this world, and perhaps, a large part of the universe. Yet there is a higher sovereign in the universe. God can command him, and I hope he will command him, in my heart and in yours. I give you that instance, but I refer to it only because He is the Author and Creator. He can create and he destroy. But what power is there now in the United States that is God like—that can, like God, create and can destroy? Sir, it is the Constitution-making power. The States, each for themselves, created the Federal Government; and by your Constitution the States, and the States only, can destroy it. There is the test of power; there is the power that is the most sovereign of all sovereign powers. Is that false logic? Is that ingenuity that imposes upon credulity? Is that an enormity? Sir, I came here a beardless boy in 1833. You [Mr. BRUCE] did me the honor to allude to it the other day; and, by the bye, now is as good a time as any to settle accounts with my friend from Halifax. It just comes into my head. I came with a long address in manuscript, which it had given me the rheumatism in my right arm to write, upon a cold mahogany table. So absorbed had I been in my labor, that I had suffered the fire to go out, and myself to be chilled with cold. I came here with that sophomore address, and had it printed for a district which was not yet formed. When I had got to this city I met my friend from Frederick, not the Chairman of the Committee of Twenty-one, but my venerable friend from Frederick [Mr. MARS HALL] —I roomed with him—I had been somewhat under his tuition when a boy at the Winchester law school—I had been often taken by my venerable preceptor, the late lamented Henry St. George Tucker—to hear the arguments of that eminent lawyer upon the great and high questions then distracting the public mind—I came to this city with that first address acknowledging the doctrines of States rights; acknowledging that great truth put forth by Madison, but maintaining the doctrine of the Union against the doctrine of nullification of that day, but still opposed to the Force bill, and denouncing it with as much earnestness as my venerable friend, the Ex-President of the United States [Mr. TYLER] , who to his immortal honor, be it said, was the only Senator in his place voting against it. If his child will not put it upon his tomb I will put it there, and if I cannot pay the graver, I will scratch it there with a point of steel that shall be touched with blood. I was ready to baptize my faith in blood against that Force bill, though a Union man at that time. I came here to find Richmond at that moment, in January 1833, in a state of excitement such as I have never seen. There was Jones, of .Page486 Elizabeth City, there was the lamented Gilmer, there was Bruce of Halifax—all Richmond was alive with excitement. Men deliberated with arms at their sides. Men debated with their hands upon their hilts; gentlemen were even walking armed in this city. When I arrived here the debate was waxing hot and strong. On the other side, there was MOORE, of Rockbridge, and Shell, of the south side—men standing up for the Union—there they stood, eye to eye, toe to toe in the conflict of debate. No man knew at that day at what moment a bloody conflict would be precipitated. I went to the printer, and after seeing him I found my friend from Frederick, and we roomed together. With his keen, scrutinizing and sifting logic, he searched me as a well stored, astute, experienced man would search and sift a school boy. He did it, and did it well, and when he was done with me, sir, I ached all over. He made me ashamed of my address. I was almost ready to go and take it out of the hands of the printer, but it was too far gone. Of that address I believe my friend from Northampton [Mr. FISHER] , has the only copy that is left.

I have one.

Have you? Well, sir, I hope you will keep it. [Laughter.] I am a little better prepared for my venerable friend now than I was then. I have gone through twenty-seven years exercises, but none more valuable than the exercises he gave me on that occasion. Then, for the first time, I met my friend from Halifax—for he said the other day that he desired to call me his friend, and I can tell him he did not desire it more than I do to reciprocate the friendship.

He did not wear grey or pepper-and-salt then. He was strong, young, vigorous. Does it not make you sad sometimes, when you think what you were then? How hopeful, how jubilant we were, both of us then! I had not seen the gentleman from that day—now twenty-seven years ago—till I met him the other day, and was introduced to him by my other friend from Halifax—I mean my old opponent of 1855 [Mr. FLOURNOY] . I very brusquely said to the gentleman from Halifax—pulling down my spectacles—"I believe I have seen you before. I need no introduction to you. When I came here, twenty-seven years ago, you were a nullifier; I hope you are not a submissionist now." Said he, "No, sir, I am where I stood then." Down he sat. The gentleman says he has been buried for 25 years, and that he is dug up a fossil. That is his language, not mine. It was impossible to bury him. He is too good and useful a citizen. Certain it is, that if he was buried, they taught him the Bible well in the other world. The angels had something to do with him. But, sir, he was not gone—he was .Page487 not buried. The only reason I had to suppose that my friend had perhaps forsaken his old States-right idea of 1833, was that, if he were gone, his ghost some years ago, was wandering about Richmond here and was found in company with Henry Winter Davis, and somebody else just as bad. [Laughter.] But such a man is always bound to be incorruptible. The grave itself could not corrupt him. His faith is fixed and firm, and, in the fullness of fidelity, he has maintained the faith. I grasp his hand through life. I was a Union man then, I am a Union man now, precisely in the same sense. I was a State rights man then, I am a State rights man now, in the same sense. I did not then think that a tariff bill was an excuse for dissolution or nullification. But as soon as we are satisfied, that if we cannot cure the disease I am for excision. I am driven to it against my will, I am obliged to take this ground. I have waited and will wait patiently and try and get what is reasonable. If that be rejected I will resume the powers granted, and, if not permitted to do that, I will seize the arms at hand, and if not covered with the aegis of the State, I will assume my own inalienable rights of self-preservation, and, live or die, sink or swim, I will fight for them to the death. You created this government—you, and you alone, can destroy it. This is your sovereign power, which you have never delegated. I ask you now to exercise it for yourselves, because your agent is faithless. The Government into whose hands you confided your powers, has already proved itself unworthy of the trust. If that were all, there would be no necessity for dissolving the Government; but that is not all. Your partners to the compact have themselves become faithless, untrustworthy, and worse than the agent. Let not the gentleman from Harrison iterate to me that the agent—the General Government—has not wronged us. Let him not reiterate to me that the agent is not the power which deprives me of my rights of property in slaves—that the agent has never wronged me.

Grant it, for the argument's sake. Do not the partners wrong us? Do not the co-States wrong us? Suppose that I am an agent, and that I have the disbursement, for example, of the partnership funds to each. I deal out to three of the gentlemen in a partnership of four, their dividends, and I give to the other fourth none, telling him that all has been paid over to the other three. "How comes that?" "Why, the firm have so ordered, and it is not my fault, I cannot give you your share even pro tanto. These gentlemen, your co-partners, compel me to do what I am doing. They direct what sums are to be paid over to A., B. and C., and there is nothing left for you."

Suppose he then says to me, "Sir, I cannot blame you. Whom am .Page488 I to blame?" and I tell him, "Look to your partners." Now, even in that view of the case, because the agent is not to blame, has not the injured party a right to look to the co-partners? Has he not a right to say to them, "If you are robbing me in this way, I must break up the partnership"? And is not that the case here? Is it not worse than that? Remember who the agent is. The agent is constituted of the bone of their bone, and of the flesh of their flesh of the co-partners themselves. Your partners make the President. They make the majority in Congress, in both Houses; and very shortly they will make the tribunal of arbitrament and award. The agent then is part of the principal. The agent in this case is to blame, because consentingly he stands and sees Stephen stoned without raising a hand except to help to stone him.

There is our position. These are the doctrines, this is the faith, this is the practice, this is the cause. And yet my friend gets up in the morning and asks a round of questions, hears the replies, comes back after dinner, and in the same form exactly asks again precisely the same questions, to be answered in the same way.

Sir, I did not intend to speak fifteen minutes this morning, but my friend has given me a text out of which he has got a pretty long speech—and I expect it is the last I will make for some time, on account of my lungs.

Mr. Chairman, there is a rule on the journal which says that no member Shall speak more than twice on the same question, without leave, nor more than once till every other member, intending to speak, has spoken. I desire to know if that rule applies in Committee of the Whole?

I apprehend it does not.

Mr. W. C. SCOTT obtained the floor.

Will the gentleman allow me? I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Middlesex, [Mr. MONTAGUE] .

The gentleman will state his amendment.

The first resolution now reads:

"That the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent sovereignties." The gentleman from Middlesex, moved to insert the words, "and still are." I propose to amend it so that it will read, "That the States which composed the United States of America, when the Federal Constitution was formed, were independent sovereignties and still are sovereign."

I have no objection to the amendment. I accept it.

I have offered that amendment in consequence, very much, of certain expressions of opinion which I have heard in this hall in regard to the phraseology of the resolution. The gentleman from Fauquier [Mr. ROBERT E. SCOTT] , directed his entire argument to this word "independent," ignoring in the course of his remarks, as far as I heard him, all discussion as to the word "sovereign." I think that my amendment, as accepted by the gentleman from Middlesex, obviates this difficulty and meets all the arguments which I recollect to have heard from the gentleman from Fauquier: but it does bring up the argument urged against this entire amendment by the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] . That gentleman did not seem to discriminate in his argument. It seemed as if it made no difference to him whether the word "independent" was used alone, or whether the word "sovereign" was used alone, or whether both words were used conjointly. His argument, so far as it had any application at all, was applicable to both terms. I simply desire now to say, with all deference to the gentlemen who have so ably discussed the question this evening—much more ably, than I could ever hope to do—that it seems to me the question is now resolved into a nutshell. I do not choose to go into the discussion now as to where the attributes of sovereignty are to be found under our present government.

I did not yield to a speech, only to an amendment.

I will not detain the committee by going now into the argument as to where the attributes of sovereignty are to be found located in any government on this continent, but with all due deference to the gentlemen who have so ably discussed this question, it seems to me they have been discussing it on erroneous principles or rather have used erroneous terms. I take it that sovereignty, as applicable to nations on this continent, cannot be assimilated to sovereignty as belonging to the nationalities of Europe. Sovereignty in Europe, may, and in many instances does appertain to the Government; because, where the Government is sovereign the people are slaves. But here, my impression is, and it is one I have entertained through life, and if I am in error, it is a life-long error, my impression has always been here that according to the theory of government on this continent, sovereignty resides in the people alone; that sovereignty here, is only to be found in the people of the States, and not in the Government of this State of Virginia. Because, if it is so, if sovereignty is to be found here resident in the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia, then .Page490 why are we here now? Is the argument which the gentleman from Richmond [Mr. MACFARLAND] ,—for whose talents and reputation I have the highest respect—has offered against the use of this term in the sense in which the gentleman from Middlesex [Mr. MONTAGUE] , used it, to be made applicable to this exposition of the term sovereignty? Why, sir, if I understood the drift of his argument, it was that you have delegated a portion of your powers, a portion of your sovereignty, to the government of the United States. If that be so, if any portion of the sovereignty of the people of Virginia has been delegated to the government at Washington, where is the other portion of it? If in forming a government for the purpose of carrying on our business and our national affairs, we thereby parted with a portion of our sovereignty invested in us, the other part of it is in Washington. If it be true that the sovereignty of Virginia is thus divided, if it be invested in two Governments, where is the power in Washington to move? Cannot a sovereignty move? Do you mean to hold by that doctrine that Virginia can never move, because she has but half sovereignty, unless she can move by the consent of the General Government? On the other hand, will you contend that the General Government cannot move because it possesses but half of the sovereignty of the State of Virginia—the Government of Virginia possessing the other half? I think this is the dilemma in which the argument of the gentlemen must lead them. We are now discussing the primary questions of principle. The resolutions which are now under consideration, are to go down to all time as the exposition of Virginia's first political principle. And, therefore, it is that I am desirous that they shall go down properly and fairly set forth, fully ascertained and maintaining our political principles of the past and the present.

If you take the view that the sovereignty of Virginia resides in the people of Virginia, and that they accredit agents solely for the management of their interests and their affairs, then you have two agencies for the sovereignty of Virginia, one at Washington and one in the State of Virginia, either of which, if there is an attribute of sovereignty worth one cent in this world—that sovereign power which created them has the right and power to revoke and annul it at any moment it may please. If, I say, the sovereignty resides in the people, these governments of ours are but agencies; and although that sovereign power slumbers for a while, yet it is but the slumber of a giant, which may arise at any moment and tear down the fabric which it has erected. I submit the amendment for the purpose of obviating the objections .Page491 that I think have been made, and with some force, to the first resolution.

Mr. WM. C. SCOTT obtained the floor.

Mr. JOHNSON moved that the Committee rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The Committee accordingly rose, and, the President having resumed the chair, the Chairman [Mr. PRICE] , reported that the Committee of the Whole had, according to order, had under consideration the report of the Committee on Federal Relations, and had come to no resolution thereon.

1.9.6. CLOSE OF DEBATE IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

I move the adoption of the following resolution, and upon it I ask the previous question.

The resolution was then read by the Clerk, as follows :

"Resolved, That the debate in Committee of the Whole on the reports of the Committee on Federal Relations, shall be terminated on Monday next at 12 o'clock, M."

Upon that resolution I demand the previous question.

I move to lay it on the table.

I rise to a question of order before the resolution is reported. I wish to know whether a gentleman can make two motions in one breath. He moved first, the resolution which he offers, and then moved, before that resolution is reported, the previous question also.

The Chair is of the opinion that the gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] , sent his resolution up to the table, and that no motion was in order until it was reported to the Convention.

I did not make any until after it was reported. After it had been reported I asked for the previous question upon it. I rose and addressed the Chair, and sent up a resolution which was reported by the Clerk, and when I sent it up I remarked that I had a resolution which I desired to be reported upon, and upon the adoption of which I should move the previous question. When it was reported, I moved its adoption and demanded the previous question, as I maintain that I had the right to do under the rules.

According to the recollection of the Chair, when the gentleman sent up his resolution he called for the reading and stated that he should demand upon it the previous question. If the Chair is mistaken in that, he will change his opinion.

The disorder was such that I never heard it reported, and, taken in that way, it was a snap judgment.

The Secretary will report the resolution if it is desired by any member.

I desire it.

I am no Parliamentarian—

I dislike very much to do so, but the order of this body must be preserved; and I maintain, pending the motion for the previous question, that no discussion, is in order.

The Chair will state, that under the rules of this Convention, debate is allowed under a demand for the previous question, ten minutes to each member.

I do not propose to occupy ten minutes—but this I do mean to say—

I rise to a question of order, and it is one I am certain that the President will be compelled to sustain. The gentleman from Harrison [Mr. CARLILE] is right. I was standing near him. He offered his resolution and the Clerk reported it, and as soon as the Clerk finished the reporting of the resolution, he then called for the previous question. The Chair did not propound the question to the House and the point of order which I raise is, that there is no question before the House until it has been propounded by the Chair; and the gentleman from Harrison, in this case, demanded the previous question before the resolution was propounded to the House. I, therefore, say that the gentleman is out of order and I ask experienced gentlemen here to sustain me in that.

I would ask if the Chair propounded the question, whether or not the previous question should be sustained?

The Chair did propound the question upon the adoption of the resolution and was about to proceed to ask whether the call for the previous question should be sustained or not, when he was interrupted by the gentleman from Princess Anne [Mr. WISE] rising and asking to have the resolution reported. The question now is, shall the call for the previous question be sustained.

I desire to say but a few words on the motion made by the gentleman from Harrison. All will bear me testimony that thus far I have consumed very little time and have occupied very little of the attention of this Convention. I do not propose to occupy much more, if any more of it. But I think, sir, that fair play is a jewel. I am in favor of free, full liberty of legitimate discussion. I am not for any gag law; and I trust, assembled as we are here in the consideration of the most momentous questions that have ever been called to the attention of any of us, that it will not be the pleasure of this Convention .Page493 to say, when some gentlemen have had the fullest opportunity to express their views fully and elaborately, that other gentlemen shall be cut off from a fair expression of their sentiments and the presentation of the views of their constituencies by any parliamentary diplomacy. I do not think that it is right, and I appeal to gentlemen, as a matter of plain and simple justice to say, that they will not cut off the fair and legitimate consideration of the important questions we have to determine. I shall vote against the resolution of the gentleman from Harrison, and I trust all here will.

I have not occupied one moment's time of the Convention since its commencement. I do know that I feel as deep an interest in the questions upon which we are now consulting, as any member upon this floor. I have not occupied any of the time of the Convention, from the fact, that I believe that the people of the country were already restless and weary, from the fact that this Convention were not acting, but instead thereof, making long speeches. I receive letters day after day from my constituents, saying, why don't you act; we have become tired of reading long labored arguments; there is a crisis upon the country; act and come home and say what Virginia intends doing; if you intend to go out of the Union and make common cause with the Southern Confederated States, or if you intend assuming your own rights say so, or if you intend holding on to the North say so; do what you will, but do it quickly and come home. Therefore, I say, that I am prepared to vote for the resolution, and I shall do so with the greatest pleasure.

It has not been my privilege nor my intention, nor is it my purpose now, to occupy very much of the time or attention of this Convention, being entirely without experience in parliamentary proceedings. I have listened with a great deal of interest, to the discussions that have taken place in this Hall, and to the speeches that have fallen from the lips of the various gentlemen who have taken occasion to address us. While I feel like complaining that we have been in session so long and done so little; while we have listened, and patiently listened, to so many long speeches; yet, I cannot conceal from my mind, and we cannot conceal it from the people of Virginia, that the most of these speeches have been occupying the time and attention of the Convention, while we were patiently waiting for the report of the Committee upon Federal Relations. We appointed a Committee of twenty-one, to whom we were to refer the various resolutions that were offered here. The most of them were referred, without debate, and, for lack of something better to do, I suppose, the various gentlemen who occupied.Page494 the time and attention of the Committee, thought it was a good time to deliver the various addresses to which we have had the pleasure of listening. I think, then, since we have reached a legitimate subject for discussion, that we have not had, as yet, as much time as should be required for the consideration of so important questions as are here involved. I have been struck with the disposition manifested on the part of this Convention, to have their own way, as they are entitled to, and to make us feel that they will cut off debate on this question ; but I trust that the people of Virginia, whose ears have been patiently turned towards us for the last six weeks, in order to learn what we were saying, and to know, if possible, what we intended to do, will not be prevented from hearing this question discussed.

It may look very well to some gentlemen's ideas of consistency, after they have discussed a question until they were tired, and I suppose until some of the rest of us were tired, to endeavor to cut off debate, to prevent the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia from knowing that there is but a single question for Virginia to determine, and that is whether she will remain in the Union or not. After you have canvassed the subject in all its various relations, it resolves itself into that simple question. The people realize that this is the issue, and it may be possible that it is to the interest of a portion of this Convention to prevent the people from fully comprehending the question. We meet here in the morning, and we sit here late at night in the consideration of the question. I am disposed to undergo all this labor, and as much more as may be necessary, but I am opposed to cutting off debate. The people have a right to have this subject fully discussed, as it is the most important subject in which they were ever interested. The course attempted to be pursued makes it appear to me as if we intended to prevent the people from understanding the issues, and I trust, unless a majority of the Convention has foreclosed the question, that it shall be the pleasure of the Convention not to do so. I do not intend to occupy much of your time, now or hereafter, but I desire that every man who may wish to submit his views shall have a reasonable opportunity to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I reckon, sir, I am the oldest man in the Convention, except one, and that is my venerable friend from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] . I don't know, I may or may not be older, but I am old enough to give advice, anyhow. Some gentlemen here have spoken two or three days, and I think they might let others have the poor privilege of occupying one day. I should despise myself if I would vote to sustain the resolution offered to cut off debate on Monday next. I am as anxious to go home as any one, and, to tell you.Page495 the truth, I am sorry I ever came here at all. [Laughter.] But the people of Brunswick would send me here—it is no egotism in me to say so; yet I am sorry I made the bargain to come here. I wish I could go home to-morrow. But I cannot consent to cut off debate as early as Monday, and I appeal to gentlemen of all parties to vote down the proposition.

This resolution only terminates debate in committee of the whole. You can discuss these propositions in Convention as long as you choose.

Mr. Chairman, I shall feel constrained myself to vote for the resolution which is before the house, and in deference to the opinion of the gentleman from Brunswick [Mr. MALLORY] I beg leave to state that it is not with any view whatever of restraining debate in the Convention. We have, as I understand, in the Convention, a rule which, in the first place limits each member to one speech upon the same subject. In Committee of the Whole, there being no such rule, it is in the power of one member, provided he has physical strength to do so, to engross the whole debate and attention of the house. We have also in Convention the power of limiting the length of the speeches. I understand there is no such power in Committee of the Whole, and the consequence is that in the Committee of the Whole the house possesses no power to control in any way the debate. Now, sir, I should be very unwilling—and I will vote with that gentleman, with great pleasure against any resolution, to place any undue restriction upon debate in this house, or against preventing any member who has not had an opportunity to express his opinions and desires to do so, from having an opportunity to express these opinions. But, sir, if we go on without some such rule as that adopted by the Convention to restrain debate in Committee of the Whole, the debate may be, and to all appearances will be, interminable. It is impossible for any man to say when we will see the end of it. And whilst I would be far from undertaking to restrict debate upon this subject yet at the same time, sir, I have a strong sense of the importance of this Convention acting, within some reasonable time, upon the subject before it. For these reasons I shall be compelled to vote for the resolution as it is offered.

I move to adjourn.

Upon that question I call the ayes and noes.

O, no! withdraw the motion.

Does the Chair understand that the motion is withdrawn?

I withdraw it, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I was a little surprised at what fell from the lips of the gentleman from Frederick [Mr. CONRAD] . He advocates a proposition that debate shall terminate in this Committee on Monday, but is willing that you may have as much in Convention as you please. Now, when you terminate the debate here you come to a vote in the Convention, and then it is proposed that there shall be full liberty to debate after the question is already settled! I am very free to say that I desire to have the privilege of debating this question, and if it is the pleasure of the Convention to hear me, I infinitely prefer to argue the subject before than after it is decided. I should have availed myself of the opportunity of speaking before this, but for the condition of my health, which induces me now to postpone it. I know that in the scramble that would follow if this resolution should be adopted, I would have no hope of getting the floor. I hope it will not be adopted.

You will all testify, sir, I suppose, that I have spoken enough. I have had my share, sir, but I tell you now, I haven't begun. And, why? Why, sir, the preliminary questions, alone, required such hard work, and such hard discussion as you have heard to-day; and be it remembered, that you have just got to the first two lines of the first section of that report; and the Chairman of the Committee who reported it now asks that we shall come to a decision without any debate upon all of thirteen pages besides.

Now, sir, there is my friend the Lieutenant Governor [Mr. MONTAGUE] , was on the Committee; there is my friend from Culpeper [Mr. BARBOUR] , there is the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , there is my friend from Shenandoah [Mr. WILLIAMS] , and the gentleman from Halifax [Mr. BRUCE] , and myself have been the only members who have been heard, and I have been heard on only a few points. I haven't been heard upon the thirteen pages for my text. [Laughter.] I am honest when I mean to say that this subject never shall be let off on no discussion; for really we have had but little in proportion to the number of members, or the points embraced in the report. The gentleman makes one objection to remaining in Committee of the Whole, and that is that gentlemen may speak twice. Sir, it is a rule in the Committee, that when a gentleman has spoken once, if another competes with him for the floor, the one who has not spoken is preferred, in the Committee as well as in the house; and I will always yield, as far as I am concerned, to any gentleman who has not spoken when I have spoken upon the subject. I say, sir, that it will be unjust to the minority of this Committee, and when you reflect that on that Committee.Page497 of Twenty-one, there are fifteen or sixteen in the majority to five or six in the minority, after you have allowed the strong and able gentlemen, who have recommended this report to defend it, and but one of the minority to be heard upon it as yet. If you cut off debate now, when we have only discussed the first two lines of the first section of that report, I know of no case like it in all the history of legislation in my experience, except the case that occurred in the Congress of the United States, when my friend from Charles City [Mr. TYLER] , was President. I knew of one case like it, and that was when a bill to provide for a United States Bank was reported to Congress one day, and in an hour after the previous question was called, and it was passed, but was promptly vetoed, thank God, by the member who now sits in his seat. And if you pass this report in the same way, you will find a power greater than a President that will veto such work.

Mr. Chairman, I have not heretofore occupied the attention of this body, except for the purpose of voting. The Chairman of the Committee upon Federal Relations, has surprised me exceedingly by giving his adhesion to the proposition before the Convention. Let it be borne in mind that the Chairman of the Committee, and those who acted with him took six weeks to make this report. They have had to debate this question among twenty-one members for six weeks; and then to come here and require 152 members to decide upon that action in a little more than two weeks, it seems to me is rather a strange idea. To have us adopt it, and then debate it afterwards, seems to me to be most extraordinary legislation. I have had no experience in legislative assemblies, but if this is a fair sample of legislation in this country, I trust I never shall have anything more to do with it. If the nerves of gentlemen have become unsettled in consequence of popular demonstrations, I think they had better try to quiet their nerves, and give others on this floor a fair chance to express their opinions.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know, sir, that I shall make any speech at all in this Convention; I have not spoken much here, and I did not speak much in the committee. But I will say this to you, sir, and to the Convention, that there is not one solitary word, at least, not one line of this report that was not sifted, examined and discussed thoroughly. There is scarcely a section of this report that did not create division in that committee. There are many sections of this report that were passed by one vote in that committee. That committee kept this House waiting three weeks upon them, doing nothing; and for form's sake and shame's sake, the members of this Convention .Page498 appeared to be doing something, because, otherwise, odium would have attached, and justly attached to them, for wasting the time of the people in this Convention.

I rise to a question of order.

I any entitled to the floor for ten minutes.

My point of order is, that it is against parliamentary rule to refer to the proceedings of another committee. I want the decision of the Chair on that point.

The CHAIR is of the opinion that the gentleman is in order; he is referring simply to the time occupied in discussing the report and is explaining why the session of the Convention has been so long prolonged. The CHAIR decides that the gentleman is in order.

Then I beg to call attention to the fact, that the gentleman himself gave the vote.

If there is anything to be exposed here about that committee, if the gentleman knows anything, I do not.

But, sir, I do mean to say what I am entitled to say about that Committee and about the proceedings of this House, and I intend to be heard in this House as to what I have to say. Gentlemen had, therefore, as well take it patiently and quietly for they cannot gag me or conceal from the public what I intend to say.

Mr Chairman, I repeat, that this Committee—and I do not say it, and my colleague upon the Committee knows that I do not say it in censure—I say that it labored faithfully for twenty odd days before making this report; that every sentence, word and line of their report was examined thoroughly and voted upon by them; and I repeat, that they would have been false to their trust if they had discussed these questions less, and if they had not taken votes separately upon every one of these important questions. Various propositions were presented, and I hope I may be allowed to say that in some instances if there had been a full Committee present when the votes were taken; some of the propositions in the report would have been rejected, and other propositions which were rejected would have been inserted.

Now, sir, I appeal to this House whether, upon questions involving so important interests in this Commonwealth, and which involve, I trust, the very integrity and existence of this Government, they will allow the gag to be applied, to prevent us who were upon that committee, and who have more information upon some of these questions than other members of the Convention, from imparting that information to the other members of this body, in order that they may vote understandingly upon all these questions. I ask if they will allow the .Page499 gag to be placed upon us, when, as my friend from Princess Anne has told you, you have only got through one line and a half of this whole report—when you have not approached any portion of the report involving practical questions requiring the close examination of every member? I ask, and I repeat, whether, under all these circumstances, and particularly upon the appeal of a gentleman who has exhausted more time than any other member of this body, in presenting his views, sustained by a member of the Committee on Federal Relations, who has also presented his views while there are many other members of the committee who have never been allowed that opportunity, whether you will place the gag in our mouths, and require the Convention to vote upon the undigested work, now under consideration of the committee of the whole, that, if adopted, will place the Commonwealth of Virginia in a position which she ought not to occupy?

It is hardly necessary, I presume, in presenting the facts, to enter into any discussion upon them. I hope upon their mere presentation that this body will vote down the resolution and permit a full and free discussion upon the questions before us.

I have not been able to discover why there should be particular excitement upon this question more than upon any other connected with our deliberations. We are here in the consideration of an ordinary parliamentary proposition. We have been in session here six weeks. We were told when we came to this Convention, it was of the utmost importance that there should be speedy action, that our action should not only be prompt, but that the decision of Virginia should be made before the 4th of March. If I am correctly informed the 4th day of March has passed by and yet the action of Virginia has not been sent forth to the country, has not even been determined on by the Convention itself.

Now, sir, as the gentleman from Amelia [Mr. HARVIE] , has brought before the Convention some of the proceedings and actions of the Committee of Twenty-One, I desire to say in that connection, as a member of that Committee, that I and five members who acted with me, were not absent during its deliberations upon a single vote—although we were almost always in a minority—I will not tell you how often the gentleman from Amelia was absent.

The gentleman from Amelia will tell you himself. The gentleman from Amelia was absent only from extreme illness in his family, and, when absent, by an arrangement the gentleman from Monongalia [Mr. WILLEY] , did not vote, so that although really absent for a portion of the time, I was practically present always.

I understood the gentleman from Amelia, to some extent, to cast censure upon that Committee.

In that the gentleman mistakes.

Not directly, but as a consequence of his argument. Now, sir, that Committee was in session some four or five weeks. The gentleman tells us that every sentence, every line, and every word was canvassed there, but he forgets to tell you that at the very time he speaks of some of these propositions passed by a single vote, when there was the bare number of twelve present out of its twenty-one members. And, sir, let me tell you, that the gentlemen with whom I act were there, and always there. And let me tell you that if all the members of that Committee had been as faithful in their attendance, and if all the members of this Convention had been as faithful, the business of this Convention would long since have been transacted, and the apprehensions of the people would have been quieted. We are told here, over and over again, that there is great excitement in the public mind, and that this Convention ought to have closed its labors long ago. Whose fault is it? I have not debated these propositions in Convention, and but very little in Committee. I am one of those who are considered as entertaining extreme opinions, but I have been anxious that those opinions, whatever they may be, should be expressed by my vote. I apprehend that no gentleman who now talks about having the gag applied believes that any single vote will be changed, that any single opinion will be changed; that any impression whatever will be made upon any member of this Convention, by any speech made in this body. I apprehend that no body entertains any such opinion. For what purpose then shall we continue the debate? Why shall we not act? Permit me to tell you that, in my parliamentary experience, small though it has been, scarcely ever has any subject been considered in Committee of the Whole at all, because debate in committee was known to be, as a general thing, a very unprofitable sort of debate. And I think our experience here will attest that fact. Every proposition before the Committee of the Whole can be more satisfactorily discussed and we shall arrive sooner at a satisfactory conclusion than we can possibly do by continuing the debate in committee.

As I am here, as has been suggested, in the minority, I presume I may be allowed to give some advice.

Oh! You are on the right side now under your instructions from Petersburg.

Very well. I beg to inquire whether there has been any day suggested that will suit the purposes of gentlemen who are .Page501 opposed to this resolution? Getting a little tired of hearing speeches in this body, I took the liberty last night of going home for a day's recreation. I do not know that you have lost anything by it and I have certainly been the gainer by my absence. [Laughter.] Now, sir, I have no idea of gagging any minority here, though I do desire, within some reasonable time, to finish the work of this Convention. I have no disposition to sit here until after corn-planting. I hope gentlemen will recollect that it is not the longest speeches that are always the most instructive. I am perfectly willing to extend the debate for any reasonable length of time, but I think some period should be fixed for its termination. Let it be extended to Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. If that will suit the wishes of gentlemen here, I will move to amend by inserting Friday of next week at 2 o'clock.

No motion to amend is in order pending the demand for the previous question.

If you will agree to adjourn the Convention sine die and let the Commonwealth get rid of you I will go with you.

Perhaps I will, but I am not prepared to do so tonight.

I desire to propose an amendment before the previous question is sustained—for I understand that after the call has been sustained an amendment will not be in order.

No amendment is in order after the call has been made.

I do not so understand it, but let it go.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered to be put.

Mr. CARLILE called for the yeas and nays upon the adoption of the resolution.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken and it was decided in the negative—yeas 66, nays 70—as follows : 7The Enquirer omits from the affirmative votes the name of Dorman, which is found in the Journal.

YEAS—Messrs. Armstrong, Aston, Baylor, Berlin, Boggess, Brown, Burdett, Burley, Byrne, Carlile, Carter, C. B. Conrad, R. Y. Conrad, Couch, J. H. Cox, Custis, Deskins, Dulany, Early, French, Fugate, Gillespie, Gray, A. Hall, E. B. Hall, Haymond, Hoge, Holladay, Hubbard, Hughes, Hull, Jackson, P. C. Johnston, Kilby, Lewis, McComas, McGrew, McNeil, Macfarland, Marshall, Marr, Maslin, Masters, Moffett, MOORE, Orrick, Osburn, Parks, Pendleton, Porter, Price, Pugh, Wm. C. Scott, Sharp, Sitlington, Spurlock, A. H. Stuart, C. J. Stuart, Summers, Tarr, Tayloe, Whitfield, Wickham, Willey, Wilson-66.

NAYS—Messrs. Ambler, Baldwin, A. M. Barbour, J. Barbour, Blakey, Blow, Boisseau, Borst, Boyd, Branch, Brent, Cabell, Campbell, Chambliss, Chapman,

Coffman, Conn, R. H. Cox, Echols, Fisher, Flournoy, Forbes, Garland, Graham, Gravely, Gregory, Goggin, J. Goode, T. F. Goode, C. Hall, L. S. Hall, Hammond, Harvie, Holcombe, Hunton, Isbell, M. Johnson, Kent, Lawson, Leake, C. K. Mallory, J. B. Mallory, Marye, Miller, Montague, Morris, Morton, Neblett, Nelson, Preston, Randolph, Richardson, Rives, R. E. Scott, Seawell, Sheffey, Slaughter, Speed, Staples, Strange, Sutherlin, Thornton, Tredway, R. H. Turner, Tyler, Waller, Williams, Wise, Woods, Mr. President [Janney] -70.

So the resolution was rejected.

Before the vote was announced, Mr. TURNER stated that he had paired off with Mr. PATRICK; and then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

1.10.1. RESOLUTIONS OF NELSON COUNTY