the
general manner it was yesterday.
Mr. FIELD:--There seems to be a disposition to stop debate now, after
nearly the whole time has been occupied by the other side. Yesterday
the whole session was occupied by a general discussion of this
question. It is my right to debate it as generally as other gentlemen
have done. I shall avail myself of that right. I may not speak thirty
minutes, but I will not submit to the imposition of a different rule
upon me, if I can avoid it, from that which has been imposed upon
others. The first question is on striking out the last clause of the
resolution. On that I have nothing to say except that I ask for a vote
by States.
A vote by States was then taken, and resulted as follows:
AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Vermont--12.
NOES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--8.
Mr. CLAY:--I move to lay the whole subject upon the table. It is
useless to attempt to stop discussion in this way.
Mr. CHASE:--I call for a vote by States.
The motion of Mr. CLAY prevailed by the following vote.
AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts. New York, Vermont, Virginia, and New
Hampshire--10.
NOES.--Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee--9.
Mr. McCURDY:--There is really but one question that ought to engage
the attention of this Conference. All others may be settled in half an
hour. This question is a great one, and assumes a variety of forms. I
wish to vote upon it understandingly, and I want some information from
the committee which has had it in charge.
I ask that committee whether they are not proposing a change in the
Constitution, which, if adopted, will operate as a direct and
effectual protection of slavery in all the territories of the United
States? This appears to me to be the true question for our
consideration. I wish to know what meaning is attached by its friends
to one part of the proposed article.
It states that "the _status_ of persons owing service or labor as it
now exists shall not be changed by law," &c.; and again, "that the
rights arising out of said relations shall be subject to judicial
cognizance in the Federal courts according to the _common law_." The
_status_, then, sh
|