January 31, 1865

1 have said that the word amendment in the fabric of the Constitution answers very nearly to repair" as applied to buildings, but addition is very different from either repair or amendment. The owner of a house is discontented with its extent: he adds a library room a dining room or a kitchen; this is no repair; nor would any addition in substance to the powers of the General Government or any destruction of the powers of the State be an amendment. St ill 1 concede that amendment has a somewhat more extensive signification than repair, and that it would not be always safe to resort to the analogy.

The Constitution in its true spirit delegated certain powers of general interest in every State to the General Government; in no instance did it seek to interfere with the merely local interests or institutions of any State. Indeed, any such interference would be entirely Inconsistent with the declaration of the Constitution itself as to its objects. I do not believe thatany one State voting for the Constitution would have done so had any such exercise of the power of amendment been deemed possible. We are therefore on our oaths to declare that interference with an institution local in us character is not merely an addition to the powers of the General Government as a destruction of the local powers of the States, but is a matter necessary to the general weal of all parts of the country. I cannot so hold, and am less inclined so to hold because there is no tribunal to review our decision. I am not now and never have been nn apologist for slavery. I have never believed that it could be a permanent institution; the seeds of death were in its nature. Had lived in Maryland I should have voted to abolish slavery; I should so have voted in Missouri; I would so vote in Kentucky. Their material interests will undoubtedly be advanced by such abolition; but it is still a question reserved under the Constitution for their own people.

This is, however, not even a question of the practical abolition of slavery. There are causes at work, which in any event will destroy it; the progress of our armies is wasting it; even a recognition of the confederacy would not save it from its final doom. The rebels have themselves challenged for their favorite institution the attention and hostility of the world; they have placed it in the front rank, where every blow dealt by our soldiers at rebellion strikes it with destructive force.

Thousands of the mostintelligent have already escaped; new ideas as to liberty (a word hitherto unknown to them) have through intermingling with our soldiers been scattered among them; the patient drudge of former times (who then scarce knew that he had a soul) will soon inquire into the reason why his bone and sinews are the property of another; the wealth of the southerner in slavery, if it cannot take to itself wings, will at least lake to itself legs and disappear.

Nor am I altogether indifferent to the effects upon national character of such an amendment. It is a declaration upon our part that slavery is not merely a local institution, but a national sin, sustained and upheld by the Constitution. Our fathers carefully avoided the possibility of this charge; nowhere have they used in the Constitution the word slave. In providing for their surrender it uses the words" persons held to service or labor;" in depriving the South of full representation for slaves, it requires an enumeration of free persons, &c., and three fourths of all others. So careful were they to avoid a recognition in any way of slavery! We might fairly change these two provisions; but to ingraft upon the Constitution a provision abolishing slavery, is to declare upon our oaths that slavery was connected with the purposes and object of the Constitution, and belonged to the North as well as to the South. But while for the reasons stated I cannot vote for the amendment, I have been extremely doubtful whether I ought to vote against it. 1 recognize the absolute fealty due from a member of Congress to the interests of his country and his constituents. Not only is it his duty, as a matter of conscience, not to vote for a bad measure, but he is bound, when he cannot defeat bad legislation, not to increase the evil by useless opposition. We all know that in the next Congress there is a majority of extreme men. They will, without regard to the effect of this measure upon the country, pass it. And whatever may be the personal wishes of the President, he is so committed to the radicals on this question that he must call a special session of Congress. A session of Congress unsettles all the business interests of the country. JNo man seeking legitimate profits can know what course to pursue. Some new freak of legislation may tax him into bankruptcy, or so depreciate the currency as to effect the same result. Better a pestilence than a session of Congress, so far as business is concerned, if a session is pernicious to the business interests, it is ten times more so to our armies. Each day politicians throw stumbling blocks in their path. "It was only yesterday that this House passed a resolution impliedly censuring the most successful genera! of the war complete soldier in his plans, a hero in the field a statesman in council. I mean Geneial Shtrnun.

If, then, there is no hope of great advantage by the mere delay of this measure, it is the duty of those opposed to it not to vote.

But is it not of the greatest consequence to relieve our armies, even fora short time, of this burden. which we are attempting to put upon their shoulders? Grant, Thomas, and Sherman, in despite of both rebels and radicals, may, if we delay this blow at them, succeed in a few months inoverthrowing the rebellion. I have stated that, ho far as slavery is concerned, I consider this question as one involving simply the difference between a healthful process of emancipation and one injurious alike to the negro and the country. But that is certainly a mere matter of opinion, and gentlemen honestly believing in emancipation may well ask for a security. I have, to avoid this doubt, drawn a substitute for the amendment, which obviatesthegieater part of the practical objections which I have raised; it leaving only the question of abuse of power. I ask that it may be read, as at the proper time I intend to offer it.

The amendment was read, as follows:

Sec. 1. Hereafter every sale, transfer, or assignment of the right of one person to the service or labor ot" another, shall be void; and by the m re fact of the consent of the owner to such sale, assignment, or transfer, the person owing service or labor shall be released from all such obligation and become free.

Sec. 2. All females, such as are usually termed slaves, owing service or labor to others, are hereby released from such obligation, and are and bliall be wholly free.

Sec. 3. From and after the 1st day of January, A. D. 1880, slavery, and all involuntary service, except that arising from the relations of parent and child, master and apprentice, guardian and ward, or that imposed as a punishment for crime, are and shall be abolished.

Sec. 4. Cong ess shall by law provide compensation for the actual and direct damage or lo s sustained through the operation of this law, by loyal citizens of the United States.

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. It will be perceived that it immediately obviates the worst objections to negro slavery, and yet presents inducements for the rebels to return to their allegiance. It is much better for them than Davis s proposition to free and arm the slaves, and therefore may defeat that measure.

It prevents an industrial revolution which, destroying the South, will utterly forbid the idea of aid from that quarter in paying the interest on our public debt.

If this substitute is accepted, while I cannot directly vote for it, as being an abuse of power, I shall not vote against it, and I am well assured that there are others on the Democratic side who will either directly or indirectly support it; so that the measure will pass the House. It is for gentlemen on the other side to say whether they urged this in good faith, or as politicians*, if in the first view, they will accept the substitute; if in the last, reject it,

Mr. HARDING addressed the House. [His remarks will be published in the Appendix.]

Mr. KALBFLEISCH. Mr. Speaker, the argument upon the question now before the House has been so ably conducted and so long continued that it is with more or less reluctance I venture to delay the public business by stating even hi icily the reasons which induce me to dissent from a majority of my fellow members and to cost my vote as I propose to do, to maintain the Constitution as it is and as it was when our country, governed under it, was marching with proud and stately step to empire and to greatness. I am not sure, sir, that I would trespass at all upon the House at this stage of its proceedings upon this question if it were not for the fact that, my immediate associate, speaking for a constituency closely connected with that which I have the honor to represent, sees the line of his duty in a different direction from that which I propose to take. Though what I have to say may not influence the vote of any member who hears me, still, sir, I believe the people of the great city in whose behalf I have the honor in part to speak on this floor would not be fairly represented in the national councils if I did not in the name, and I believe with the approval, of a large majority of them state here that their faith in the Constitution as it is and as it was when they required of me the promise to faithfully maintain it, is not impaired by anything which has since transpired, but that, on the contrary, they cling to it still as their fathers did before them as to the sheetanchor of their safety.

Mr. Speaker, I have watched the course of events to little purpose if the troubles which now surround us are in any degree due to imperfections in the Constitution; on the contrary, sir, I am mistaken if these troubles might not have been averted had we rendered a more cheerful, a more implicit obedience to that instrument. Instead of squaring the Constitution to suit our notions, we would do better to make our opinions conform to the Constitution. All our misfortunes are, to my mind, clearly traceable to a disregard of its provisions. I can understand those who have never loved the Constitution in the past eager to tinker it now, and if you show me a man who has been noted in the past for disloyalty to the Constitution, and for his disregard for the Union which it made possible, I will show you a man in favor of this amendment. The party to which I belong have looked ever to the Constitution as the guide of their policy. It was the chart by which they directed the course of the ship of State in the better days when the vessel was under their guidance. The chart has been discarded by others; the ship is among the breakers; storms, dark and menacing, shut out the sky. In such an hour, instead of trying to amend the chart, 1 am for following it, and I doubt not, if we do, but that there is still a pleasant voyage before us, and a haven of safety at the end of it, in which the old ship may lie in security and at peace.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that if I desire to save the Democratic party I will help to amend the Constitution so as to abolish slavery; I must try to cut it loose, so it is said, from dead issues. Singularly enough, sir, this advice comes from men who have spent their lives in misrepresenting the Democratic party and in vilifying its leaders. These men have become very suddenly solicitous for the welfare of the Democracy. They tell us, sir, there is a great future in store for us, if we Democrats only follow their advice. I am suspicious of this new born zeal for the interest of the Democratic party coming from such a source. 1 for one have not learned Democracy from its most inveterate foes, and I will not place myself under their instruction now. I cannot but believe that my immediate colleague has been giving too much importance to this new school of Democratic advisers. I am afraid, sir, he is repealing second hand the charge that the Democratic party had been always subservient to the South, and found its subserviency followed by increased exactions in the interest of slavery. I owe it to my own self iespect as a Democrat, I owe it to my party, to say that this charge is entirely unfounded. When the South asked what the Constitution gave her we cheerfully yielded that; we as Democrats could not do less, and we never did more. My colleague again says that he has an especial enmity against the South as a Democrat, because the South abandoned the Democratic party. Well, sir, here the South committed for herself and for all ot us a very sad mistake, as all who purpose to follow the bad example will; but I cannot believe that the spirit of revenge and recrimination which such remarks as these indicate is that which should be indulged in by those who are intrusted with the grave responsibility which devolves on the members of this body. Not only the South, but a majority of the people of the North, have abandoned, temporarily, the Democratic party; and sir, the majority of both sections have traveled further, and I believe have fared worse.

Mr. Speaker, since 1 entered this House I have endeavored to shape my conduct to the end that no word or act of mine would stand in the way of the restoration of peace and Union to these States. I believe the legislation of the country should be shaped in the spirit by which, I believe, I have been actuated. In my opinion the amendment you now propose to provide for may stand in the way of both peace and Union. Even while this measure is under discussion messengers are passing between Washington and Richmond, and if these men are successful, and if the negotiations they propose to inaugurate result in anything, the very question we now propose to commit ourselves upon will form the chief obstacle in the way of a settlementof our difficulties. Suppose, sir, that the South should be willing, as the basis of peace, to consent to gradual emancipation? Should we place ourselves m a position that would prevent the acceptance of such terms? The amendment you now propose to make will then stand as the only obstacle in the way of peace. If there be men here willing to risk the life of the nation on the hazard of battle, and willing to see rivers of human blood shed for immediate as against gradual emancipation, among such men I do not desire to be numbered.

It is not many months since the President of the United States, above his own signature, publicly stated that if he could save the Union he would do so, irrespective of slavery. 1 am for leaving open to him the opportunity of redeeming the pledge thus given to the country. Since that time the President, in his famous note addressed" to all whom it may concern," insisted upon the abolition of slavery as a preliminary to peace. The position taken m that, document was so generally condemned that even the editor of the New York Tribune was disgusted by the folly of the man who wrote it. We now propose to commit the country to a policy which everybody condemned but a few months ago. Sir, I, forone, cannot give my vote to do it. The proclamation ofemancipation was all but universally condemned by the true friends of the Union. I believed it to be at once impolitic and illegal, and yet i am asked to give my assent now to legalizea policy which I cannot approve of, either in the president or in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I desire to save the party in power from itself, and I tell its leaders here that they had better never have been born than live to see the day when their experiments in legislation, of which this amendment is one, may be the chief obstacle in the way of the realization of that most dear to the truly loyal American heart—the restoration of the Union.

While I have argued, sir, against this measure as if it were in truth an" amendment" to the Constitution, I regard it as subversive of the entire spirit of that instrument. We have been warned by the" Father of his country" to discountenance irregular opposition to the Constitution," and at the same time to resist with care tlie spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretextsOne method of assault, he tells us, sir, u may be to effect m the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undemnine what cannot be directly overthrown." These, sir, are words of prophetic warning. Under" specious pretexts" of amending the Constitution, you desire to make it the instrument of depriving men of vested rights, and to leave behind you a precedent which, if followed, will leave every right, civil or religious, which the minority possesses at the will of the majority. When the Constitution went into operation there were twelve slave States and but one free State. It was within the power of the twelve slave States to force slavery on Massachusetts, in the same way that you propose to force abolition on the South. Would Massachusetts, think you, have submitted to so gross a perversion of the compact she had just entered into? Did she fight against England for seven years for the right to manage her own affairs only to transfer that light to another authority against which she had no legal safeguard? Sir, Massachusetts might have been left u wilderness, but this right could not have been wrested from her people. Do you propose to force from South Carolina, men of Massachusetts, what you would have yielded yourselves only with your lives?

We are told, sir, and the fact seems to be conceded by a vast majority of those in favor of this measure, that slavery is dead. The progress of the war and the incidents connected with it, we are told, have destroyed the institution in this country, and placed it beyond the hope of resurrection, Why then do we find gentlemen, and especially those most clamorous m insisting that slavery is dead, so urgent and pertinacious in seeking to lay sacrilegious hands upon that venerated and almost sacred instrument, our glorious Constitution, underthe pretense that alteration of U is necessary for the abolition of slavery? Has not its abolition been proclaimed by the President? Nay, further, does not the President demand as a condition precedent to the restoration of peace, and in fact as the only terms upon which he will consent to a restoration of the Union, that the States in rebellion shall themselves abolish slavery? In the face of all this, how can his political supporters now deny that the destruction of slavery is demanded at our hands? Taking these gentlemen at their words, Mr. Speaker, and there is no necessity for any change in the Constitution to secure the abolition of slavery. What, then, is their object in demanding this change? Let us beware that under a false pica other and more nefarious objects are not really sought to be obtained, and which it is feared openly to avow; such as the establishment of freedmen s bureaus with numerous hordes of political leeches, confiscation of property, to be divided among favored victors, and kindred and equally objectionable schemes which have found advocates upon this floor. Above all this, in the absence of any valid reason for bringing this proposition again before the present Congress, let us make ourselves sure that it is not in reality a covert attempt to ascertain to what extent the American people are willing to consent that the sovereignty of the States shall be curtailed and their form of government converted into a strong, centralized, imperial Power. It is not the first time in our history that such an attempt has been made. Nay, sir, it was resistance to such an attempt that gave existence to the Democratic party itself. There are some of us who can remember the administration of the elder Adams, who remember his odious alien and sedition laws, and other measures of his administration destructive alike of the rights of the States and the liberty of individuals. i contend, Mr. Speaker, even admitting, which 1 do not, that the Constitution needs amendment in reference to the question of slavery, that this is not the proper time to agitate much less to act upon, so grave and important a question. Let us wait until the nation shall calmly repose in peace, and all feelings of enmity toward our erring brethren of the South shall have subsided, and good will and harmony again prevail overall sections of the country. Now, in the midst of war, when passion and prejudice are inflamed to their highest pitch, is not the time to essay the amendment of our fundamental law; and the more especially when it is admitted by the advocates themselves of the proposition to amend that the object they seek to attain, namely, the abolition of slavery, lias already been accomplished. Let us not, impelled by the mere excitement of the hour, engage in acts which may cause us to repent for all future time. We have, Mr. Speaker, in the history of one of our churches an apt illustration proving how in our over zeal to accomplish an apparent right we may perpetrate the most palpable wrong. The Methodist church in this country was originally, and for many years after its establishment, a piosperous and a united body. Some years ago abolitionism made us appearance in the church, and m the over anxiety of some of the members lor the welfare of the negro, it came very near being the instrument, in bad hands, of working grievous wrong upon a portion of their white brethren. It was first insisted upon that slaveholders should be disqualified from holding the office of bishop in the church. This disqualification was next extended to the ministry, and afterward urged by some to the extent of applying it to lay men by excluding them from membership. A disruption of the church was the natural consequence, and the sequel was the establishment of two distinct and separate bodies, the Methodist church North and the Methodist church South. After the separation, the church South insisted upon having their pro rata share ot the property owned in common by the disrupted body, and also a proportionate share of the fund raised for the support and maintenance ot aged and indigent preachers to which they had contributed,) but the radical abolition wing of the church North denied their application. The injustice ot their proceeding must be clearly manifest to every unprejudiced mind, and I refer to it only as an illustration of the extent to which men impelled by an ultra spirit of fanaticism may become blinded to the most palpable considerations of even handed justice. Of course the church South could not submit to be deprived of their lights and their propel ty upon the simple plea that they were slaveholders, and not to be recognized for that reason afl pait of the chuieh community, and they applied to the Supremo Court of the United States for redress. The result was a verdict in their favor.

Does not this history, Mr. Speaker, afford us a lesson and warning which we should heed? It is not many years since the occurrence of these events, and many who were participants therein are yet 011 the stage of action. 1 have no doubt that they are now satisfied that they were then in error, and will agree with me that they should not too hastily act where it is possible that hurried action may cause injustice and wrong.

Let us then, in our action in reference to this question of constitutional amendment, heed this lesson, and be careful not to encroach upon the rights or enslave the white man, under the mistaken idea that we are thereby benefiting the negro. A blind spirit of fanaticism, under the excited passions of the moment, if suffered to sway our action, can bring harm only to both races and to the country.

There is, Mr. Speaker, another reason which should induce us to approach the consideration of this question with great caution. Adopt this amendment to the Constitution, force it upon the States now in rebellion, and let the result be then restoration to the Union, and who can predict what stumbling blocks may be thrown in the way of the execution of the Federal laws on the subject? The abolition of slavery forced upon them without their consent and against their will, it is but natural to suppose that the people of those States will riot feel particularly anxious to aid in carrying the measure into practical effect. Every one remembers the trouble experienced in theexecution of the Federal law known as the fugitive slave law m some of the States which now claim to be filled to overflowing with what in modern parlance is called" loyalty 10 the Federal Government," but which, m my humble opinion, oftener piu takes of the nature of party fealty than of that of true patriotism. In opposition to that law, some of the States adopted enactments going to the extent of disfranchising officials or citizens attempting or aiding to enforce it. Is there not, at least, danger to be apprehended that other States, following this example, may in like manner attempt to thwart and interfere with the execution of laws carrying into effect the abolition of slavery' Would it not be better to wait until the people of these States themselves, by their own action, provide for the practical abolition of slavery, or rather for the removal of the corpse from which, we are told, the life has long since departed. All the free States at the North have done so, and Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Missouri, Louisiana, and Tennessee are said to have followed suit already. Why not leave the causes which operated upon these States to work out the same efi ects upon their sister slave States? Mr. Speaker, the platform upon which I was elected was" the Constitution as it is and the Union asitwas." The Constitution was framed by far brtterand wiser men than ourselves. They are all gone, but they have left a record of purity and patriotism that m my opinion casts far in the shade the blatantclaims of the mostloud mouthed and loyal of all the" loyal leaguers" in the land. For myself, Mr. Speaker, I shall prefer to be guided in my action by the landmarks laid down by the fathers of the Republic, and which, adhered to three quarters of a century, bore the ship of State safely and prosperously upon a glorious career, and the disregard of which has thrown the noble craft among the rocks which now threaten her destruction.

I shall strive to preserve inviolate the pledges I have made to support and defend the Constitution. I have lived underit for half a century, arid I but do justice to my constituency and reflect their views when I say that they have not only been happy and contented under the rule of the Constitution, but will never consentto its amendment until at least the necessity for it shall be so manifest that the question shall not be fairly open to controversy.

The abstract question of our right to amend the Constitution has been discussed at length and with great ability by members on both sides of the House, but the debate has elicited little really new. Conceding, even, that Congress has the right to amend the Constitution in reference to slavery as a domestic institution (which do not) my position is that this is not the proper time for this power to be exercised. The pretense assigned by some that Congress should abolish slavery for the purpose of benefiting the slaveholders themselves is to my mind simply absurd. Are they incompetent to judge as to what is best for their own interests, and Congress alone competent so to do? That is the argument; and what an argument it is to be seriously urged in a representative republican Government like ours! It is the old British theory that "King and Parliament are omnipotent," and which our fathers repudiated when they framed our Constitution. Those who favor this theory are at least consistent in advocating an amendment of this instrument.

It is claimed by some that the result of the i« cent presidential election affords conclusive eviU nce of the fact that the people are in favor of amending the Constitution of the United States so that it shall abolish and prohibit slavery. This I deny. Whatever may have been the hopes and wishes of ultra abolitionists, I insist that this was not the issue made up and presented to the people. In my own State, at least, 1 know that this was not the case. What is the record in connection with this question? At the last session of Congress this same resolution was submitted and it failed to pass. The people had every reason to suppose that would be the end of it.

There may be some who will claim that the fact that Reuben E. Fenton received a majority of the votes of New York State for Governor is to be received as an indorsement of his act in voting in favor of this proposition at the last session of Congress. This claim, I imagine, will not bear the test of the slightest scrutiny. There were other causes which produced that result. The people, in my opinion, were in many cases led astray by brawling, hireling demagogues, who lived and thrived upon the spoils of office; who misrepresented the position of the Democratic party by charging its leaders as being in favor of a dishonorable peace at the sacrifice of theUnion. In addition there was brought to bear in favor of Mr. Fenton and his party the immense patronage of the General Government; the army of customhouse, post office, and internal revenue officials; the employes in the navy yard Army and Navy contractors, and others. Yet with all this aid the party supporting Mr. Fenton would have failed (as 1 think even my colleague will concede) had the thousands who were unable to deposit their votes in New York and Brooklyn in consequence of inadequate provision for their reception, have been able to express their preferences at the ballot box and the Democratic soldiers now serving their country in the field been at home to vote untrammeled. I feel assured no reasonable man could have doubted but that the State would have given a handsome majority. Even as it was, sir, Mr. I enton a majority was less than the number of Government employes in the single city of Brooklyn. I say, then, it is preposterous to claim that the people of the State of New York voted in favor of this constitutional amendment. So far from the question being submitted to them, it was carefully kept out of view during the campaign.

The platform upon which those of us from NewYork representing Democratic constituencies stood when we were elected was," the Constitution as it is and the Union as it was." My colleague, I believe, stood there with me then; for myself, I am content to stand there now. The phrase, the Constitution as it is," admits of no misunderstanding; it is plain, direct, and unequivocal, and cannot be tortured to mean the Constitution as a party majority see fit to make it." The Union as it was," I construe to mean the Union of former days, when constitutional guarantees were regarded as sacred by all sections of the country, and the integrity of that Union, with or without slavery, it will be my humble effort ever to preserve inviolate.

Mr. Speaker there are those and mycolleague fsknwftg them, who plead as an excuse for voting &r this proposition thatafterallitamountsmerely t a reference of the question to the people of the Jt tes and they are finally to decide the question. This argument would, I confess, have some force with me if it was a correct one, but so far as New York is concerned it is not; The present Legislature of the State will be in session long after this Congress has ceased to exist, and it is to that Legislature, who have already given utterance to their sentimentsupon the subject, that this resolution, if U passes, will be referred. But, ■sir, as- a Representative in this House I cannot fulfill the duty intrusted to me by shirking a responsibility which lam called upon to bear. My constituents do not desire this measure. I fulfill their wishes and perform my own duty in voting against it.

The Legislature now in session was not chosen with reference to the opinion of its members or •their probable action upon the proposed constitutional amendment. No one will claim it, and yet it is proposed by my colleague that they shall ■act for the people of the State on the subject. Divided up as are the counties the Republican party, "with a bare majority of the popular vote of the Staterhas nearly two thirds of the Legislature, and judging from the acts of their Representatives here it is easy to predict what would have been their action. The people of New York will never be permitted to give a direct vote upon the question. For one I will never consent that the voice of my constituents shall thus be suppressed and overriden.

Mr. Speaker, I am no advocate of slavery. Years ago I was opposed to its extension, so far as I could legally and constitutionally do so, beyond the limits within which it then existed. I believed slavery to be an evil then, and. 1 believe it to be an evil now. I have been charged with inconsistency by some of my Democratic friends, who, when the institution had powerful friends, favored its extension, but who now, when its power has departed, are over zealous in efforts to exterminate it. Nay, they are not satisfied with its acknowledged death, but are clamorous to be allowed to act as grave diggers at its burial. It is, perhaps, the zeal which we are told ever inspires new converts. For myself I have only to say that i have endeavored to be thoroughly consistent, My opposition to slavery does not permit me to aid in perpetrating gross wrong. I hope that slavery may be. abolished, and have ever hoped so, but not through the impulses of a wild fanaticism, surging on reckless of the rights and interests alike of the slave and the slaveholder; not by the exercise of doubtful powers under the excitement of passion and prejudice, but by Calm, careful, and considerate action. Let us convince the States interested in its abolition of its propriety, and let them abolish it, as under the Constitution they may do, and as some of them are doing. It is purely a local question, and Congress might with as much propriety interfere with the system of labor in the large manufacturing establishments in the East, as with slavery in the South because evils are incidental to both. These have ever been my views, and they are my views now, and 1 cannot see wherein J heyarc inconsistent.

Among otherrodbons adduccd by my colleague for favoring the proposed amendment, is the alleged effect slavery produces in retarding the growth and prosperity of the States where it exists as compared with those where it does not. This is, in my judgment, jumping at conclusions. Why, let me ask my friend, does New York show agreater growth and a greater degree of prosperity than New Hampshire or Vermont? Js it because the latter are slave States? Why, letme ask again, does the city of Providence show a greater degree of prosperity and advancement than the city of Warren, both in Rhode Island, and both free? He will look in vain to find in slavery a solution of these questions. There are other causes which produce the effects ascribed by him solely to the institution of sia eey and my friend cannot but admitthis if he compares thestatistics of Louisiana orGeorgia with those of New Hampshire or Vermont, or those of New Orleans with those of Newburyport or Bennington.

My colleague further says:

"When labor shall be free at the South, then will it command and have the respect which i& its jus t due. Then will millions of the white men of the Nnrtli participate and share in the blessings thus secured. The masses of our native and foreign born laborers, now toiling in the severer climate of the North, will be invited to enter upon there newly opened fields for their industry and occupation. The now hidden resources of the States south will be developed l by the brain and muscle of the northern luboier."

I, sir, was of the class he alludes to. My Caucasian blood revolts at the idea advanced by my friend that were the negroes freed by abolishing slavery the South would at once become the El Dorado of the native and foreign born white laborer of the North by allowing him the privilege of laboring side by side with the African freedman of the South. We may as well expect the most opposite things in nature to be reconciled, the most incongruous to harmonize, as that such a thing can happen. He needs but to take one step further to advocate amalgamation.

1 hope, sir, that this hithertoglorionsand happy country, the home and asylum of millions of white men, will not be doomed to become the land of a race of hybi ids, and thus by degrees be blotted out of existence in accordance with the immutable laws of nature.

Another question, Mr. Speaker, although of great importance, appears to be silently passed over by those favoring the amendment. How, sir, are the expenses of this war to be paid? Are they to be borne and made a burden upon the white labor of the North solely? Abolish slavery, and you destroy the ability on the part of the South to contribute a portion of what they should in justice be held to pay. Adopt the plan of gradual emancipation, as proposed, and it is reasonable to suppose they would be unable to bear their share. The South have been largely instrumental in creating this liability, and should not be permitted to evade payment by affording them an excuse for it. This cannot but be the case, unless abolition at the South produces results totally different from those experienced elsewhere, and the natural habits of the negro have become entirely changed. Indirect confiscation of the lands, if they should under the circumstances be of sufficient or any value, will have to be resorted to to get from the States now in rebellion what under a more humane and politic system might have been more easily obtained. Conciliatory action on our part, combined with proper vigilance, is more likely to produce good results than any system of violence and severity, which only produces irritation and discontent, and which is almost sure to result in lealinjuiy to the white man, while of doubtful benefit to the freedmen of African descent.

I have briefly stated my reasons, Mr. Speaker, for being opposed to the passage of any resolution having for its object a change in the fundamental law of the land, and shall vote against it. In so doing 1 shall act not only as my own convictions piompt me, but 1 am satisfied in direct conformity with the wishes of those whom I represent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, permit me to add that I have been for thirty years a Democrat. The experience of a long and not uneventful life only lead me to place fuller and firmer faith in the principles of my party. I have seen these principles one by one stricken down, but in their fall I have seen no advantage to my country. I see in this amendment to the Constitution but the consummation of a policy which has led to the bloodiest war in history, and which has placed the fate of the Republic more than once on the hazard of battle. Upon you gentlemen upon the other side, the responsibility for this measure must rest. I, for one, cannot and will not aid you. You will soon have full power; exercise it. Take all the credit the act will bring, and assume all the danger it involves. The Democratic party will stand by its old and well tried policy, guided by its old land marks under its old banner, and keeping step to the music of the Union. I cannot wish my country better, sir, than that the party opposed to that to which I belong rival the success of the Democracy, and shall emulate its glory. But I am constrained to say the past history of the party in power excites m my breast but little hope for the future. I am weary of the experimental legislation, ending no man can tell in what unforeseen disaster. Of such legislation the proposed amendment is a bad specimen, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. ASHLEY. I call the previous question upon the pending motion to reconsider the vote by which the House on the 15th of last June rejected a joint resolution (S. No. 16) submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. STILES. I move to lay the motion toreconsider on the table; and upon that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was put; and it was decided in the negative—yeas 57, nays 111, not voting 14; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Bliss, Brooks," James S. Biown, Clmnier Clay Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgcrton, Eidndge, Fmck, Ganson, Grider, Hall, Harding, 1 Ja ningvm Kenjainin G. Harris, ChaiiesM. Hums, UoJmau Philip Jolin on William Johnson KalbfI isch Kernan Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, William H. Miller, James 11. Morns, Morrison, Noble, John O Neill Pendleton, Perry, Priiyn, Samuel J. Randall, ltobinson, Ross, Scott, William G. Steele, Stiles, Strouse, Stuart, Sweat, Townseud, Wad worth Ward, Chilton A. White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Benjamin Wood and Fernando Wood—57.

NAYS—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, At nnid, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C Baldwin John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Buaman, Blame, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, P Boyd, Br m degee. Brooin iH William <5. Brown, Ambrose W. Claik, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cole, Creswell, Homy Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Doming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eekley, Eliot. Fari worih Frank Garfield, Gnoeh, GrinnclL Griswold, ltalc, Ilornelc, Higby, Hooper, Ilotchkiss, Asahel W. Uubt tid John II. Hubbard, Hulbnrd, IngersoH, J one key, Julian, Ka son ley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, King, Knox, Litllejolm, Loan Longyear Marvin, McAllister, MeUnde, McClurg, Melndoe, F unuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers. Notton Odell Charles O Noll Orlh, Patterson, Perham, Pike, Pomeioy, Price, William 11. Randall, Alexander Id. Rice, John H. Rice, Edward II. Rollins, James S. Rolling, Soheuek, Seofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Simthers, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenbuigh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, W lister, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wilt on Wuidom Wood bud e Worthington, and Yeamau—111. not voting—Mc ms English, Hutehins, Lazear, Le Blond, Marcy, McDowell, MeKinney, Middleton, Nelson, Radford, Rogers, John B. Steele, Voorhees, and Whaley— H.

So the motion to reconsider was not laid on the table.

During the call of the roll,

Mr. ROLLINS, of Missouri, stated that Mr. Rogers, of New Jersey, had been confined to his room several days by indisposition.

Mr. CRAVENS stated that Mr. Voorhees was still detained at his home in Indiana m consequence of severe sickness in his family.

The previous question was then seconded, and the mam question ordered.

The question being on the motion of Mr. Ashley, to reconsider,

Mr. ANCONA called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was put; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 112, nays 57, not voting 33; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Alloy, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beamaii, Blame, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Bo> d, Biandegee, Bioomall, William G. Brown, Ambrose W. Chuk, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, CofTYoih, Cole, Cteswell, Henry Winter Davis* Thomas T. Davis, Duvves, Doming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eekley, Khot, English, Farnsworth, Fi mk Gaifield, Gooch, Gnnneil, Gri woid Hale, Ilerriek, Uiyhy, llooper, Hotohkiss Asahel W. Hubbard, John 11. Hubbard, Hulbuid, Inger oll Jewkes, Julian, Kas on Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kelloet;, King, I\n x, Litllejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, MeAlli tei MeBude, McClurg, Melndoe," Samuel F. Miller, Mooiheud, MmnU, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myei Notton Odell, Chnilos O Neill Orth, l'att«is on, Peiham. Pike, Pomeioy, Price, William II. Randall, Alexander II. lliee, John H, Rice, Edward II. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Seheuek, Seofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smuhets>. Spalding, St or Stevens, Thayer, Thomas, Ti iey I Upson, Van Valk -n- burgh, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wheelei, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windotn, Woodbudgo, Woithiugton, and Yeaman—112.

NAYS—Messis. James C. Allen, William J- Allen, Ancona, Bli s Brooks, James S. Brown, Clianler, Clay, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, Demson, Eden, Edajerton. Eldridixe, Fmck, Ganson, Grider, tlali. llaidmg, Hamilton, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. Harris, Holman, Ij iulip Johnson, William Johnson, KalbHei eh Ktnnan, Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, William IL Miller, James. 11. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O Neill Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, Samuel J. Randall Robinson Ross Scott William i Steele Stiles Stiou e Stuart, Sweat, Tovvn end W ufewotih Waul, Chilton A White, Joseph W. White, Winfield, Benjamin Wood, and Fernando Wood—57.

NOT VOTING—Messts. Augustus C. Baldwin, Hutchins, Eazear, Le Blond, Marcy, McDowell, MeKinney, Middleton, Nelson, Radford, Rogers, John B. Steele, and Voorhees—

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.

The question recurred on the passage of the Joint resolution.

Mr. ASHLEY. I demand the previous question.

Mr. MALLORY. I rise to a question of order. My point of order is that a vote to reconsider the vote by which the subject now before the House was disposed of in June last requires two thirds of this body. That two thirds vote has not been obtained.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the point of order. The rules of the House authorize every bill and joint resolution to pass by a majority vote. The Constitution of the United States, however, declares that no constitutional amendment shall pass except by a two thirds vote. On the question of the passage of the joint resolution the constitutional provision will operate, and not till that time. All other qncstions are governed by the rules of the House.

The Chair will state that this has been the uniform usage of the House in regard to bills vetoed by the President. In such cases all votes up to the time of taking the question on the passage of the bill over the President s veto are decided by a majority vote; but on the final vote a two thirds vote is necessary.

Mr. MALLORY. My action upon this question of order will depend a good deal on the response to a proposition whu h I am about to make tothegentleman fromOhio, [Mr. Ashley.] There are gentlemen belonging to this side of the House who can be here to morrow but who are not here to day who are anxious to vote upon this question. if the gentleman from Ohio will agree that the vote shall be taken at a fixed hour to morrow all action upon this side of the House for delay will cease.

Mr. ASHLEY. It lias been the universal understanding that we were to have a vote to day Gentlemen upon the other side of the House will bear me witness that I have prolonged tlusdebate against the protest of gentlemen upon this side of the House and of leading friends of the measure in the country; and 1 think it does not come with a very good grace from the gentleman from Kentucky, m view of the time which has been extended to his friends on that side of the House, that he should demandnow, when notice was given again and again that a vote would be taken to day that it shall be postponed until to morrow It seems to me that if gentlemen choose to absent themselves from the House their action ought riot to operate eithorto keep us in session here or justify members in resorting to the usual parliamentary rules to procrastinate and put off the vote.

Mr. MALLORY. #I was not aware that any understanding had been arrived at as to a vote on this question to day It was postponed till to day but at that tune there was certainly no undeistandmg that there should be a vote to day

Mr. ASHLEY. In reply to a question by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr, Stiles,] I gave notice last week that the vote would be taken to day and at the beginning of the discussion this morning I fixed three o clock as the time the vote would be taken, instead of which we have procrastinated it almost an hour to accommodate gentlemen upon the other side of the House.

Mr. MALLORY. Did that understanding exist upon this side of the House? If it did and if gentlemen will say so, I shall take no action in this matter.

Several Members. It was so understood.

Mr. ASHLEY. I cannot yield any further. I desired this mot rung to be heard on this question, and came into the House intending to close the debate, as under the rules I had a right to do. The time, the subject and the occasion, all united to make itdesnabie; but I yielded the time to gentlemen on the other side, until it is now nearly four o clock and members on all sides of the House demand a vote. I therefore decline to take up the time of the House, and demand that the main question shall now be p ut

Mr. BROWN, of Wisconsin. I ask the gentleman from Ohio to yield to me to offer a substitute for the joint resolution.

Mr. ASHLEY. I cannot yield for that purpose. I have a substitute myself, which I should much prefer to the original joint resolution, but I do not offer it.

The SPEAKER. No motion to amend would be in order at this stage. The joint resolution has passed its third reading, and is now on its passage.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio says that he has a substitute which he himself prefers to this joint resolution. If so, why does he not offer it to the House? There certainly will be no objection on this side.

Mr. ASHLEY. I do not offer it, because I would not procrastinate this discussion or hazard the passage of the measure.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. It seems to me that if the gentleman has a better substitute, he should propose it. [Calls to order.]

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; which was on the passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. DAWSON called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 119, nays 56, not voting 8; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus U. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Boanian, Blame, Blair, Blow, Bontwell, Boyd, Brandogee, Broomal William G Biown Ambrose W Clark Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cojfiotli, Cole, Co lax Cre well lit iny Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davi*, Dawes, Doming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont Eekley, Eliot, English, Fartisuorth, Frank, Ganson, Garfield, Good), Grinnell, Gri wold Hale, Ilernck, Hooper, ilotchki s A a hel W. Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hutching In eisoll Jt nekes Julian, Kas on Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, r Kmp, Knox, Inttlejohn, Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, Melndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhcad, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Mj ois Leonard Myers, Nelson Norlon 0 U ll Ch ulej O Neill Onh, PatteiMm, Perham, Pike, Pomeioy, Price, Radford, William II. Randall, Alexander II. Rice, John II. Rice. Edward H. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shannon, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, John B. Steele, Stevens Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenhuigh Ehhn 13. Washburne William B. Washburn, Webster, Whaley, Wheeler. William-*, Wilder, Wilson, Wmdom Woodbt idge, Wort hingum, and Yraman—119. NAYS— Messrs James C. Allen, William J. Allen, Ancona, Bliss Brooks, James S. Brown, Chanler, Clay, Cox, Craven*. Dawson, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Grider, Hall, Ilaidmg, Harrington, Benjamin U. Harris, Charles M. Hums, Dolman, Philip Johnson, William Johnson, Ivalbrlei rh Kernan. Knapp, Law, Long, Mallory, William H. Miller, James R. Morris, Morrison, Noble, John O Neill Pendleton, Perry, Pruyn, SamuelJ. Randall, Holunson, Ross, Scott, William G. Steele, Stiles, Stiouc e Stuart, Sweat, Town end Wadsworth, Ward, Chilton A. White. Joseph W. White, Wmheld, Benjamin Wood, ami Fernando Wood— r 6 no t voting—Messi>. La „ear Le Blond, Marcy, McDowell, MeKinney. Middleton, Rogers, and Voorhees So, the two thirds required by the Constitution of the United States having' voted in favor thereof, the joint resolution was passed.

During the roll call

On Mr. English and Mr. Ganson voting ay 55 there was considerable applause by members on the Republican side of the House.

The SPEAKER called repeatedly to order, and asked that members should set a better example to spectators in the gallery.

Mr. KALBFLEISCH and other Democratic members remarked that the applause came, not from the spectators in the gallery, but from members on the floor.

The SPEAKER. Members will take their seats and observe order.

The SPEAKER directed the Clerk to call his name as a member of the House.

The Clerk called the name of Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, and Mr. Colfax voted" ay." [This incident way greeted with renewed applause.]

The SPEAKER. Theconstitutiomil majority of two thirds having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution in passed.

[The announcement was received by the House and by the spectators with an outbuist ofenthusiasm. The members on the Republican side of the House instantly sprung to their feet, and, regardless of parliamentary rules, applauded with chceis and clapping of hands. The example w as followed by the male spectators m the galleries, which were crowded to excess, who waved their hats and cheeied loud and long, while the ladies, hundreds of whom were present, rose in their seats and waved their handkerchiefs, participating in and adding to the general excitement and intense interest of the scene. This lasted for several minutes.]

Mr. INGrERSOLL. Mr. Speaker, in honor of this immortal and sublime event I move that the House do now adjourn.'

The SPEAKER declared the motion carried, and again the cheering and demonstrations of applause were renewed.

Mr. HARRIS, of Maryland. I demand the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 121, nays 24, not voting 37; as follows:

YEAS—Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Ancona, Anderson, Arnold, Ashley, Baily, Augustus C. Baldwin, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, Blaine, Blair, Blow, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandogee, Broomall, William G. Brown, Chanler, Ambrose W. Clark, Freeman Clarke, Cobb, Cole, Cox, Cresweli, Henry W mter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Doming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eek> ley, Eliot, English, Farnsworth, JTiank, Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Herrick, Higby, Hotchktes, Amabel W. Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, Hulburd, Hutching, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, Kernan, King, Knox, Littiejohn, Loan, Longyear, Mallory, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, McClurg, Melndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Daniel Morris, Amos Myers, Leonard Myers, Nelson, Notion, Odell, Charles O Neill Patterson, Pendleton, Perham, Pike, Pomcroy, Price, William II. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John II. Rice, Edward 11. Rollins, James S. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Scott, Shannon, Sloan, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Strouse, Stuart, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Upson, Van Valkenburgh, Wadsworth, WardjElihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Whaley, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wilson, Windom, Winfield, Benjamin Wood and Woodbridge—121.

NAYS—iVle sr« JamesC. Allen, William J. Allen, Coffrotli, Denison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Gudcr llamng ton, Benjamin G. Harris, Charles M. harris, Uohnau, KalblieiMjh, Knapp, Law, Long, Morrison, Noble, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Ross, Stiles, Townsend, and Jo cph W. Wlme— J4

NOT VOTING—Messrs. Bliss, Brooks, James S. Brown, Clay, Cravens, Duiuont, Finck, Ganson, Hall, fiani ng Hooper, Philip Jolui on William Johnson, Lazear, L j Blond, Marcy, McDowell, MeKinney, Middleton, William II. Miller, James R. Morris, John O Neill Orth, Pruyn, l'i in n. Kobinson, Rogers, Smith, John ft. Steele, William G. Steele, Sweat, Voorhees, Webster, Chilton A. White, Fernando Wood, Worthington, and Yeaman—37.

The House thereupon (at twenty minutes past four o clock p. m.,) adjourned.