Maryland;
the third concerns the subject of the removal of slaves from place to
place. It is desirable that these three subjects should be so
presented that one or more of them may be adopted, and the others
rejected; a purpose that cannot be accomplished if they are all
embraced in the same section. My substitute is plain and simple, and I
think covers the whole ground.

Mr. ROMAN:--Has not the gentleman entirely left out the provision
relative to bringing slaves into the District of Columbia?

Mr. GROESBECK:--I have, because I believe it entirely unnecessary.
Cannot the South take a proposition that is fair? A slave within the
District cannot be taken from the owner under any authority of
Congress, unless the owner receives full compensation. Compensation
would in all cases be an equivalent for the slave in the District, or
elsewhere. Under the Constitution, slavery cannot be abolished without
compensation, except by the consent of all parties interested in the
subject. It is not pretended that Congress has a right to abolish
slavery anywhere without making compensation to the owner.

Mr. SEDDON:--The owner should always have compensation, it is true;
but his right in this respect is based upon the right of property in
slaves. It is not true that compensation is in all cases an equivalent
for the slave. An owner should be free to determine for himself the
question whether he will part with his property upon receiving
suitable compensation. Under the gentleman's proposition this right
would be exercised by Congress and not by the owner. But there is a
farther, and still greater objection to the proposition: The North
denies the right of property in slaves, and would deny compensation
also, unless compelled to make it under the Constitution. The North
holding slavery to be unjust and unrighteous, would desire to abolish
the institution without paying for it.

Mr. GROESBECK:--I am willing to amend Section 4 of the substitute I
offer, by denying to Congress the power to abolish the relation
without making compensation, and the section may be thus considered.

Mr. DODGE:--I wish to support the proposition of Mr. GROESBECK; and
let me say one thing farther: our words should be plain and simple; we
should use language which common men can understand, and which does
not require to be construed by lawyers. Above all, let us have some
confidence in each other.

Mr. BARRINGER:--There is another entire and important omiss