gly, had separated, and all but the Chairman retired from the
hall, could he thereupon have changed the vote to Aye, because he
disagreed with the majority and alone remained on the floor? Or could
the Convention have refused this vote of the State? And if not, how
is that question different from the one here?
It was, therefore, I must think with good reason, assumed by me when I
left the hall, that if the question should be put in my absence, which
by the way I considered uncertain, as the debate then going on might
last for hours, and I hoped still to find some means of deferring my
argument to the next day, I might certainly depend on the vote of New
York being declared again as it had been declared before, never
doubting for a moment the ability and the will of my associates to
defend against all opposition the rights of the State, their own
rights, and mine.
On my arrival at the Court I did not succeed in my desire to defer my
argument to the next day; but had I done so, it would have made no
difference, as the vote in the Convention must have been called before
I reached the Capitol.
What occurred in my absence I can only know from report. Five
different statements are given: one by Mr. King in a published letter,
another by the secretary of the delegation in the minutes kept by him,
the third by the chairman of the Massachusetts delegation, who had the
best opportunity to observe what was passing, the fourth by the
secretary in a correspondence with me, and the fifth in the published
Journal of the Convention.
Mr. King's statement of what occurred in my absence is as follows:
"The vote on the amendment soon followed, and before New
York was called I asked my colleagues what vote should be
given, and the reply was that in the absence of Mr. Field
the vote was divided. Nevertheless, I stated the case to the
Convention, and asked permission to cast the vote as before.
This was objected to by one of the Commissioners of the
minority, and permission having been refused by the
Convention, by direction of my colleagues when the State was
called I answered that the vote was divided."
The other statements are subjoined, and numbered, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
From a comparison of these statements it appears.
_First:_ That the direction given to Mr. King, when the whole
delegation were together, regularly convened, in contemplation of my
absence, was to "declare that
|