consisting of Messrs. Hall, Allen, and Shanklin, were appointed to wait upon the Governor and inform him of the passage of the resolution inviting him to withdraw his resignation. [Mr. GANTT offered here "An ordinance on the subject of the election of Judges of the Supreme Court," accompanying it with some remarks, but the MSS. failed to reach the printer in time for insertion.] Mr. SAYRE. I wish to give notice of an ordinance I propose to introduce to-morrow, en titled "An ordinance appropriating $50,000 for the relief of the sick and wounded soldiers of Missouri." Mr. BRECKINRIDGE called the attention of the Convention to the request of the Secretary of the Methodist Sunday School, for the use of the Hall for the purpose of a concert and exhibition, which, after a few words of explana tion, was put to a vote and carried. On motion of Mr. BRECKINRIDGE, the Convention adjourned to Wednesday, at 9 o'clock A. M. On motion of Mr. BoGY, the reading of the sions of this Convention have been held in journal was dispensed with. Mr. STEWART presented a resolution to the effect that the Convention do adjourn without day, but, on leave, withdrew it. Mr. WELCH presented a petition from the loyal citizens of Johnson county, asking the Convention to reinstate Gov. Gamble until the regular election of 1864, or until such time as a fair election could be held throughout the State. Mr. BoGY presented a petition from citizens of St. François county, asking the Convention to provide by ordinance for payment of the enrolling officers of the State, no provision having been made by the Legislature. On motion of Mr. BoGy, the petition was referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Messrs. Bogy, Smith of St. L., and Scott. On motion of Mr. SCOTT, the regular order was suspended, and leave given to present the report of the committee appointed to take into consideration the case of James Proctor Knott, as follows: "The committee appointed to take into consideration the resolution offered respecting the vacating of the seat of the Hon. James Proctor Knott, Delegate to this body from the 27th Senatorial District, respectfully report— that interval; that due notice was given of each session, and that Mr. Knott was not charged with any public duties which I could furnish an excuse for his absence; that he was in Missouri in October, 1861; that shortly thereafter he removed to Kentucky with his family, avowing his purpose to return to Missouri when peace should be restored, but not before. "Your committee are of opinion that such conduct is a virtual abdication on the part of Mr. Knott of his duties as a Delegate to this Convention, and that his seat ought to be declared vacant, and report back the resolution recommending its adoption." Mr. STEWART. I agree with the sentiment of the resolution, that Mr. Knott's seat should be declared vacant. Mr. Knott was a man of genius and ability, and the highest offices of the State might have been open to him. The report was agreed to, and the resolution adopted. Mr. SMITH of Linn presented an ordinance entitled "An ordinance establishing the County of Lyon," which, on his motion, was referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Messrs. Smith of Linn, Marvin, and Rowland. Mr. DONIPHAN offered the following repamble and resolution on the subject of the school funds of the State: "WHEREAS the moneys belonging to the cause of public education were taken under the direction of the late Claiborne F. Jackson for the purpose of arming such portions of this State as he could induce to join in the rebellion, for the sole reason and with the desire that Missouri should be recreant and join the so-called Southern Confederacy; and whereas the cause of education of the young is all-important, and as ignorance of the laws is no excuse for crime under them; therefore, “Resolved, That it is the duty of the State to return to the General Superintendent of Public Schools the moneys so taken as speedily as possible, and with this view only we recommend that the next Legislature pass the necessary laws for this purpose." The resolution was passed over informally. The special order for this morning, namely, the report of the Committee on Emancipation, was here ordered to be taken up. Louis may reach his object by offering to amend the amendment. Mr. DRAKE. Not exactly. I do not think it will do any harm to allow the earlier dates to be passed upon first. I ask iny colleague to withdraw his motion temporarily, in order that we may try an earlier date. Mr. SOL. SMITH. If an ordinance of eman cipation is to be passed at all, I believe we shall come, eventually, to the date I have named. I think if the vote were taken now, we might, in a spirit of compromise, agree on this date. I go in for giving and taking, and so I have been advised to do by other gentlemen in whose judgment I have great confidence, who, I know, have this object at heart as much as I have. I will not, however, stand in the way of my friend and colleague from St. Louis; at the same time I must say, without intending anything personal or offensive, that there are radicals here who seem determined not to give their assent to any date I call reasonable. Now, I want it understood that if I consent to withdraw my amendment temporarily, for the purpose of allowing an earlier date to be introduced, I do it in the spirit of compromise, and that the work we have set for ourselves may be accomplished without unnecessary delay, and with the understand Mr. SOL. SMITH. I beg to offer an amendment. I move to strike out "1876," and inserting that I shall vote against all dates that are "1870." I came here to assist in passing an act of emancipation, but I grant it cannot be done without the manifestation of a spirit of compromise. Some gentlemen here have fixed their minds on 1876, others on 1864. I take the medium between those dates. Unless we can agree upon a date, we cannot agree upon anything. It is with a view of ascertaining the sense of the Convention, in respect to the possible date at which emancipation can be consummated, that I introduce the motion at this time; and I deem it eminently proper to have an expression of the Convention on the subject. Mr. DRAKE. Would it be in order, Mr. President, to offer to amend that by striking out "1870,” and insertiug the "first of January, 1864 "? The PRESIDENT. I think not, sir. Mr. SOL. SMITH. Would it not be better to ascertain the sense of the Convention, by taking a vote on the earlier period named, and let other dates be voted on afterwards? The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from St. offered until we come to that which I can con scientiously adopt. Motion withdrawn. Mr. DRAKE. I propose to amend the second section of the report of the Committee on Emancipation, by striking out "1876," and inserting the 1st of January, 1864." I desire to state to the Convention that it is not my purpose, after receiving such courteous and patient attention on the morning of the second day of the Convention, upon the general aspects of this question of emancipation, to trespass upon their time now with a repetition of my views. I offer that amendment, sir, I confess, with little anticipation of its being adopted, after what I have seen and heard; but I wish that every stage and step of this great transaction should be recorded, that it may be known who it is here that desires to bring this matter to an end at the earliest possible moment, and who it is that labors to prevent it. I will simply repeat, sir, my conviction of the infinite importance to the people of Missouri, in the present and the future, of adopting an ordinance of emancipation in this State at the ear liest practicable moment. I submit the amendment to the Convention, and desire, sir, when a vote is taken upon it, that the ayes and noes may be recorded. be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed upon such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person. It is thus seen, that whatever difference of opinion may have existed amongst "the fathers," it was finally and formally agreed that during the succeeding twenty years (from 1787 to 1808,) the States should retain the right to supply themselves as they had previously done Mr. BIRCH. To a correct appreciation of the reasons upon which I shall continue to oppose the adoption of any measure which shall divest the people of their slave property without their "consent" or without paying them therefor the fair and full "equivalent" which is guaranteed in the Constitution, it will be suf-paying a tax or duty (should Congress enact ficient to inquire, firstly, what it is that has been handed down to us by our ancestors or purchased with our toil? And, secondly, have we so misdemeaned ourselves that we should be driven into other lands if we would continue to enjoy it? I am of course aware how irksome and ineffective all argument may become to those who would destroy whatever is as sumed to stand in the way of political combinations which look to the fruitions of political ambition; but upon the eve of a decision which I no longer expect to change, it may at least be pardonable to recur to the fundamental considerations upon which I shall rely to justify the record of all my votes. I shall do this in no factious spirit-with no expectation, as already denoted, of averting the "doom" which it has become fashionable to concur in with respect to an institution which we were elected to "protect"—but in the hope which now alone remains to me, and which is, that so far as it may depend upon our action here, it shall be at last decently entombed for the sake of what it has been, instead of being falsely epitaphed for what it has not been. Arraigned here in debate as “the great criminal which has caused the rebellion," and which should therefore be consigned to "immediate execution," if I shall be able to demonstrate that this count in the anti-slavery indictment is the very reverse of truth, the extinction of the institution must needs be predicated upon other grounds than those of "immediate necessity. My argument will consequently be "in order" upon the pending amendment, and my references will be appropriate to my argu ment. I proceed, therefore, to reply to my first inquiry in the light of the Constitutions we have all sworn to support, reading, for that purpose, from the first article of the ninth section of the Constitution of the United States, as follows: Sec. 9.-Art. 1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not one) upon such importations as were necessary to supply the institution of slavery, just as they might have to pay upon the property deemed necessary for other institutions, or (if you please) coming into competition with other institutions. It is of course sufficient to add, that out of the "persons" thus and previously imported, has grown the present population of more than four million of slaves; and that whatever of immorality or of wrong may be alleged against the origin of the institution, the framers of the Constitution were either unable to perceive it, or regarded its abolition as involving a greater injury than its conservation. For the sake of "the Union," therefore, they may be said to have compromised with it upon such terms as to expand it to its present dimensions; and that in this State, in order to render it secure against such temporary ebullitions of popular clamor as might otherwise be brought to bear upon it, it was constitutionally guaranteed, as follows: Sec. 26.-Art. 2. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws, First, For the emancipation of slaves, without the consent of their owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated; and Second, To prevent bona fide emigrants to this State, or actual settlers therein, from br nging from any of the United States, or from any of their Territories, such persons as may there be deemed to be slaves, so long as any persons of the same description are allowed to be held as slaves by the laws of the S'ate. If I have comprehended aright the postulate involved in the remarks of the distinguished delegate from St. Louis, (Mr. Breckinridge,) it was that the patriotism of the slave owners themselves must be relied upon to bear the losses incident to emancipation, as well in view of the necessity which existed for putting down the institution as an abettor of the rebellion, as because it would so greatly augment the revenues of the State to have it at once constrained to confront the same assumption, when originally put forth in the celebrated lecture of the same gentleman, more than a year ago. It will be unnecessary, however, as replying to anything which has been reiterated by that gentleman, or by others here, to go further backward in the political history alluded to than the celebrated "Wilmot Proviso"-that having been the germ of which the subsequent "free." Now, I suppose, sir, that the very re-authorities or reminiscences with which I felt verse of this was the theory of our fathers who made the Constitution, which we propose to disregard. I suppose it was intended by them to at least so far guaranty the institution of domestic slavery to those who then were, and to all who might thereby be induced to become, slave farmers, (as many of us are,) as that we should never be divested of such property, until it came to be seen that a change to the exclusive "free labor" system would sufficiently promote the tax-paying capacity and prosper-political platforms at Philadelphia and Chicaity of the State, to render it able and willing to pay a "full equivalent for the slaves so emancipated." So much, Mr. President, for the difference between us in respect to the constitutional guaranties under which slave owners have helped to erect the Capitol in which we are now assembled, to deliberate upon its uncompensated annihilation! Upon this ques-dominant section of the Union? Our armies tion, however, as well as upon the inhibitions and guaranties of the organic act under which we were elected, (Secs. 5 & 10,) it is perhaps sufficient to add that there will still remain to us the final recourse of the courts-and I hence pass on. So far, sir, as I have authority to speak for the class of citizens thus alluded to, their patriotism has been in no sense overrated. Were the mere money value of their interest in slave property demanded of them, with the reasona ble assurance that it would be sufficient to restore "the Union as it was," I undertake to affirm that there is no class of citizens in the State who would more promptly essay their utmost to respond to the requisition. It is far otherwise, however, when placed upon the ground it has been, in the arraignment of the institution as a criminal; and as that is the only point of view in which we can here consistently take cognizance of it, I shall proceed to repel the calumny of its outlawry, and leave the record of our votes to stand as mementoes, respectively, of our justice or our injustice. If, in the language of the no less distinguished delegate from St. Louis, (Mr. Drake,) it has been "the cause" of the desolation which yet so deeply and despondently afflicts the country, it ought to die; but if, on the contrary, the war owes not only its origin, but its continuance, to influences the exact reverse-to anti-slavery, instead of "slavery "'-so should the judgment which we are called to pronounce be the exact reverse of that which it most probably will be. To the testimony, therefore, which will consist mainly in the reproduction of the historical go were but natural culminations-furnishing at least the main element of that inadequate reason for the present rebellion, in which we all concurred at our first session. What was that "Wilmot Proviso ?" And what were the subsequent platforms by which it was set up as the very gospel of the dominant party in the had conquered from Mexico an empire of territory on the Pacific-the Southern States and people, having furnished (as usual) more than their fair proportion of the blood and the treasure expended in its acquisition. Even South Carolina, now so earnestly and uncompromisingly in rebellion, had furnished a regiment from Charleston, of the gallantry of which it is sufficient to repeat, that having gone into the contest upwards of 600 strong, it came out of it with less than 200-its daring and intrepid leader having been numbered among the slain. Would you not think, Mr. President, that the widows and orphans of such a regiment should have had perpetuated to them the "old time” right to carry their property, and locate their land warrants, upon the territory thus watered with the blood of their husbands and their sires-or was it right, as early as the year 1849, to attempt by this "Proviso" to prohibit the slaveholding section of the Union from expanding with its industrial system to such portions of the common domain as might fall to its share or be suitable to its necessities? As that question is answered, sir, so must the question which involves the true cause of the rebellion be answered; for had it not been that this great injustice was again menaced in the Philadelphia platform of 1856, and still more in the election of the Chicago nominee, in 1860, the Southern leaders could not have "fired the Southern heart," even into incipient rebellion. Sir, it was against the inju-tice thus originally menaced by this "Proviso," which passed one house of Congress as early as the session of 1849, that in an address which I had the honor to deliver, upon invitation, before the two houses of the General Assembly on the 8th of January of that year, I premonished those who then listened to me from the stand you now occupy, that, "in the fatal cycle of human passions thus aroused, wrong would be answered but by wrong until at last, having realized that bellum plusquam civile-that worse than civil war, in which a man's worst foes might be come those of his own household-this fair fabric of American self-government, hewn out and reared amid the commingled blood and tears of millions, and grown up to be the wonder and the admiration of all the earth, would obey what would then be written as "a common destiny." Drawing from a printed copy of the speech which, well nigh a year ago, I delivered upon the sime subject, it may be repeated with commingled sensations of despondency and of gratit de that that cup was permitted to pass. The state-men and patriots of that day averted the portentous gathering of those calamities; but when their sun was set, and from that period to the present, either every man knows for himself, or every man's father knows, what has been the conduct of the more prominent anti-slavery partisans, who were then foiled, but not silenced. Observe, I do not say "the North" of the great body of whom I shall continue to speak in the spirit of a congenial brotherhood-but I put the question to the sectionalists of the North, to the men who are now falsely charging that "slavery" has been the cause of the present rebellion-and demand to know of them, through their friends upon this floor or elsewhere, what has been the line of their conduct, even up to the present hour? I am not, of course, about to argue that the South had "adequate cause" for doing what it did. B-fore all my people I have argued that they had not, and I so voted with eighty-nine of the original members of this Convention at our first session. We, nevertheless, conceded in our report and resolutions that they had some cause, and that that was anti-slavery and not "slavery," which we then assumed to be a "constitutional right," unjustly aggressed upon. As the issue, thus fairly stated. between the original members of this Convention and those who have so imperiously assumed the opposite position, is my issue here to-day, may I not bespeak your patience and indulgence, should I seem a little tedious in again collating the testimony in the case? I shall act upon that presump ion. I have not before me the "personal liberty bills" of such Northern States as attempted thereby to defeat the reclamation of our slaves under the "Fugitive Slave Law," but as the gentleman from St. Louis himself admitted in a correspondence with the gentleman from Randolph, that at least four of them had passed very unjust laws in that respect, it is respectfully submitted that that was at least four too many, especially for a gentleman who now says that "slavery" (and not anti-slavery) was the cause of maddening the people into rebellion. Observe: The possession and reclamation of slave property was and is a constitutional right; and the South had a right to complain, as she did complain, of the exasperLet it ating injustice thus briefly alluded to. be conceded and repeated, therefore, that whilst neither these nor the additional indignities and exasperations to which I shall allude in continuation, constituted either an "adequate cause" or a sufficient justification for rebellion, it was nevertheless the insufficient cause, and the only cause, so far as the negro was the cause at all. I but obey, therefore, the instincts of a Southern manhood. (as it should be of all other manhood) when I pronounce the new dogma to be UNTRUE, and proceed to PROVE it so. The first witness I shall summon for this purpose is Joshua R. Giddings, long a member of Congress from Ohio, and now a Consular Representative of the Government abroad. In the course of his speech in the House of Representatives in May, 1854, he had the exasperating audacity to denote to the white people of the South the hopes he entertained of their extermination by the knife and the torch of their slaves-led by whom? Listen: "I look forward to the day when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South, when the black man, with British bayonets, and commanded by British officers, will rage a war of extermination against the white man; when the master shall see his dwelling in fl mes, and his hearth-stone polluted; and though I may not mock at their calamity, nor laugh when their fear cometh, yet shall I hail it as the dawn of a political millenium." What had the South then done to provoke so demon-like a menace from the leader of the anti-slavery fanatics of the North? Had she asked for anything then but to be "let alone" leaving her citizens, with their property, to the same chances in the common territories that was accorded to the people and the property |