Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Iowa, and Kansas--18.
Mr. CRISFIELD:--Maryland votes "No," not because she specially objects
to the amendment, but she stands by the report of the committee.
Mr. DENT:--I dissent from the vote of Maryland.
Mr. CLAY:--And I from the vote of Kentucky.
Mr. ALEXANDER:--[5]
[Footnote 5: The published Journal states that Mr. ALEXANDER dissented
from the vote of New Jersey. My notes do not show that he dissented,
and I think the Journal may be erroneous in this particular.]
Mr. HALL, of Vermont:--I move to amend the third section by striking
out the word "nor," immediately succeeding the words "persons so bound
to labor," and inserting the following:
"But the bringing into said District of persons held to
service, for the purpose of being sold, or placed in depot
to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be sold
as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may pass
all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual; nor
shall Congress have."
It is well known that much of the agitation upon the question of
slavery has formerly arisen from the existence of the slave-trade in
the District of Columbia. Since the prohibition of 1850, the public
mind has been much more quiet, so far as this subject is concerned. I
suppose the committee did not intend to change the law of 1850, but I
fear their action will not be so understood at the North. I propose to
make the matter clear. [Mr. HALL here read the section of the Act of
1850 referring to this subject.] My amendment puts the language of
this act into the Constitution. My only purpose is, to have this
question left in exactly its present position. Without the amendment,
I fear it will be claimed that the article restores the slave-trade in
this District. Nothing would more effectually destroy the article at
the North.
Mr. WHITE:--The language of the report is clear. It gives no right to
sell slaves in the District.
Mr. HALL:--I wish to be understood. The article prohibits Congress
from interfering with slavery. _Ergo_, it will be claimed they cannot
prohibit the exercise of any of its functions. The construction, to
say the very least, will be doubtful. It should not be left in doubt.
Mr. NOYES:--The slave-trade in the District of Columbia has always
been a subject of great dissatisfactio
|