I hope not to weary the Convention if I suggest one other reason why this "necessity" for emancipation exists. I have given two, which affect most directly the citizens of Missouri. Their loyalty and their interest both impel them to desire the removal of this aid to the rebellion, this obstacle to their prosperity. But why should the moderate and law-abiding men throughout the loyal States, "with the President at their head," join in that desire so earnestly, that as the delegate from Livingston declares we must conciliate them first of all? Sir, the answer is not difficult nor obscure. It is because the conscience and the judgment of mankind declare that slavery is wrong. - Hitherto, the institution of slavery in these States claimed toleration at their hands. It was recognized by the National Constitution within the States where it existed-nowhere else, and even to that extent not by name but by implication. The Fathers of the Republic permitted it to remain only because they found it so interwoven with the social and industrial organization of those States as to deter them from any direct interference. What they thought of it, their writings and speeches abundantly show. I cannot state it better than Alexander H. Stephens did in that same "Corner-Stone Speech," on the 21st March, 1861. He said, speaking of Thos. Jefferson by name"The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution, were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last." And thus tolerated, thus sheltered, thus protected "while it should last," it has steadily pursued, for nearly eighty years, its unwavering policy of aggression; and, as Mr. Stephens declared and proved, has controlled the Government itself until the recent election of a Republican President. Then, those whose wealth, whose power, whose hopes of greatness all rested upon the continued predominance of the Slave Power, threw off all concealment. Scornfully refusing to receive that which alone they were entitled to claim from the Governmentprotection within its proper limits they demanded its whole power to perpetuate and extend slavery'; and failing in this, they undertook to overthrow by violence the Government itself. But that act has arrayed slavery before the bar of Public Conscience, no longer as an evil to be tolerated "while it should last," but as a bold and dangerous criminal to be judged. It is not my duty nor my purpose now to prosecute that indictment. I have undertaken simply to assign the existing reasons for that state of public sentiment which the delegate from Livingston confessed, but failed to explain. I have shown, in part, what are its causes in Missouri. Iassert that still deeper and more powerful than these is the overwhelming fact, that, except among those who profit by it, slavery is an offence to the conscience of the civilized world. What has been the progress of this anti-slavery feeling? The abolition of the slave trade, long since outlawed by Christendom, the emancipation of their colonies by the great Powers of Western Europe, and this very year the execution of that decree by which twenty millions of serfs were enfranchised throughout the vast Empire of the far Eastwhat are all these but expressions of that deeprooted conviction which, however long and bitterly you may strive against it, will conquer in the end? No matter how ably or how plausibly its cause is argued, the judgment is ever the same, that "slavery is a violation of the laws of nature; that it is socially, morally and politically wrong." When its defenders urge that the cruelty and injustice which attend it; the separation of families; the refusal of knowledge; the subjection of one man to another's will, are all found in other relations of life and conditions of society, and dare appeal to the Word of God itself in behalf of a system which daily ignores its blessed precepts, the fallacy is not far to find; for it is easily seen that what are only incidents in those relations, marring their true purposes, are of this system the legitimate fruits. The inherent and ineradicable vice of slavery lies in this, that it necessarily implies the exercise of arbitrary and practically irresponsible power by one class of 1 And thus, sir, I tell the gentleman from Livingston that the first cause of that "necessity" which he admits is one which must only grow stronger now forever; nor can it be satisfied until that cause is removed. I shall not follow the gentleman from Livingston beyond this, the chief feature of his remarks. He thought it necessary — I do not see how he found it consistent, after admitting the "necessity" of emancipation to paint horrible pictures of the degradation which will ensue upon the adoption of certain plans. Sir, the gentleman need not be alarmed. No proposition, no suggestion, is made here in favor of the "social and political equality of the negro." It is proposed, for our own sakes, to abandon a system of enforced labor which experience and conscience both condemn. As to the rest,-women and foreigners do not vote, but do we make them slaves? Does the gentleman find himself obliged to keep company with the ignorant and degraded, even of his own race? Such declamations as he indulged in, fell, not for the first time, somewhat dull upon my ear; and I dismiss such appeals as fitter for a different class of hearers from the body whom I address. men over another class whose only crime is new empire; and this, through the destruction their color. I say of necessity. It is the very of that noble and beneficent Government to essence of slavery, and every slaveholder knows whose shelter it owes its life? Can they wonit and maintains it. The moment this right of der that all its evils, its vices, its crimes, are the master is given up, that moment slavery written down against it; its palliation swept ceases. The master may grant favors, he may aside; its plea for toleration unheard, and its lighten tasks, he may be kind and merciful, but | doom declared wherever it may be found? all this depends upon his will. What if his will be that of a tyrant? Do you wonder that free men hate and denounce a system whose best apology is that, in a Christian land, the majority of those who might be tyrants are not? Because the Autocrat may be just and merciful in his decrees, is a despotism a Government to be desired? It may be tolerated "while it lasts," and it is better than Anarchy, — but | shall free men praise it as "divine," perpetuate it, extend it, sacrifice to it the very name and hope of human liberty? But with slavery as a system there can be no compromise between the absolute dominion of the master and the wishes of the slave. Every code of a slave State recognizes this, and hence the perfectly consistent denial of all rights save such as the brutes share with him, and the jealous exclusion of all light and knowledge, which, by elevating the aspirations of the man, may lessen the security or value of the "property." These things are inevitable if you once grant the system, and its only consistent or logical advocates are those who boldly justify them as necessary to its safety. When they are for the time relaxed, it is not because of the system, but in spite of it. I know well that slaveholders are not always brutal tyrants. Many of them do conscientiously seek the welfare of their slaves. Would it not be a foul blot upon human nature -a hideous sham of Christianity—if this were not so? Born on the shores of the Gulf, brought up in the midst of slavery, I know all that can be truly urged in its defence. But I know, too, that the vilest passions of the basest men have nowhere so free scope as under a system which permits, if it does not encourage them, whenever their interest or caprices dictate, to deny to an immortal soul every ray of light, to ignore the sacred ties of home and family, and to condemn the human chattel, forsirable for the State to make, we know is imtheir benefit, to perpetual and hopeless toil. How can the world beyond us but stand arrayed against a system which bears such fruit as this? What can its friends expect, when its chief defenders proclaim their purpose to make it the shibboleth of a new faith, the arcanum of a new philosophy, the "corner-stone" of a But I agree with his conclusion, so often and so earnestly repeated, that we must act, fearlessly and yet wisely ACT. We are called upon, in the Providence of God, to do away with a false and injurious principle heretofore engrafted upon the social and industrial economy of this Commonwealth, which has intertwined itself with many and varied interests and taken deep root with the habits of our people. It is the part of wisdom, it seems to me, to recognize all this in whatever may be done. I shall not now trespass upon the Convention by examining in detail the plans before it. Direct compensation to the slaveholder, however just and de possible. We must act in view of the larger interests at stake, and in the present unavoida ble condition of slave property, if the labor of his slaves can be secured to him under proper restrictions, for a time, he may at least receive it as a choice of evils. For the sake of the slaves themselves, few of whom are probably now fitted for entire freedom and self-dependence, I am in favor of a system something like apprenticeship, which shall still require them to work, but during which their personal rights shall be protected and the opportunity given them to prepare for their change of condition. I am glad to see that my friend from Pike (Mr. Henderson) advocates this feature. I have been surprised at the opposition which it encounters. As yet, I have not heard one tangible reason set forth against it. I earnestly trust that gentlemen will either adopt it or give a good reason for its rejection. men be adopted for Missouri. That step taken, it will never be retraced. Is there not a profound lesson for us, Mr. President, in that old legend of the Sibyl, handed down from ancient Rome? Long ago, in her very infancy, was offered to Missouri the precious book of the future upon which the promise of freedom, peace, prosperity, was inscribed. In her blindness she rejected it. A year ago, but at a heavier cost, it was offered and again refused. Another year of strife and turmoil has passed; and again the still more costly volume is presented. Who is here among her sons who shall still madly refuse to heed the warning? Sure he may be that in this guise it will not come again. Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Convention for a few moments, in which to give the reason for the vote Í expect to cast upon the question now under consideration. I shall be brief, and only ask this to enable me to place myself properly upon the record. And I start out by saying I am opposed to the use of language in this debate which can by any reasonable construction be deemed personal or offensive to members, either individually or collectively. I shall say nothing in derogation of those in military power; it is unpleasant to me, for although irregularities will occur in our armies, I honor the soldiers who are fighting to perpetuate the liberties transmitted to us by our fathers - the defenders of your wives, daughters, and my children. I shall use no such unpleasant words as "robbers," "thieves," in connection with the action of members of this body, whilst speaking even upon the subject of emancipation, but will endeavor to deal courteously with all questions and all parties. As to the time when emancipation shall take effect, I am strongly opposed to any such delay as that proposed by the committee-1876. The gentleman from Livingston, in advocating that date, thought that if the slave knew he was to be free in 1870, he would not wait that long, but run away. Will he wait any more patiently for a freedom six years further off? If, as I hope, by a judicious system of apprenticeship, the industrial interests of the State shall be guarded from any sudden shock, it seems to me altogether best for all parties that the essential feature of slavery - the chattel character or condition of the slave-should be destroyed without delay. The slave, then become a free man, would render more hopefully and more willingly the services required of him in return; and certainly it is to the interest of the slaveholder, if he has to give up his slaves as such, to consent to such terms as will deprive merely lawless agitators of all pretext for interfering with the rights still reserved to him. I ask those who are fighting for the very longest day they can get to think seriously of this suggestion; they are pursuing, I think, a suicidal policy. For these reasons, I am in favor of declaring slavery in Missouri at an end on the first day of January, 1864; but coupling with it apprenticeship for a term of years, Sir, I have ever been opposed to the princivarying with the ages of the persons emanciple of immediate emancipation, and, I might pated, during which they shall be held to serve their former masters. I would require the Legislature to provide, by suitable penalties, against bad treatment on the one hand, and bad conduct on the other. I would give the freedmen the right to make contracts and hold property; prevent the separation of families, and encourage education of the young. These general views are already set forth in the resolutions I have presented. At the same time, even if as I anticipate-the date I prefer be deemed too soon, I should acquiesce in a somewhat later one, so the principle of freedom to all add, all modes for the abolishment of slavery in Missouri, save upon a similar plan to that submitted by Mr. Clay of Kentucky; but, sir, I must make use of the adage, "circumstances alter cases." And as I conceive the circumstances surrounding us now are materially different from those of even one year ago, I believe them to have become so much more pregnant with future evil to my native State and her people, that I am willing, per force, to make concessions now, to do all in my power to set this hateful negro question at rest. Whether our action will produce that effect, or the contrary, is an abstruse problem, difficult to solve. I am content to try the experiment, for it is but an experiment, as the last and perhaps the only chance for both the peace of the State and the protection of the rights of her loyal citizens; and when I vote for gradual emancipation I shall do so as a dernier resort, believing it has become necessary to pass such an ordinance as the one submitted by the majority committee, for the protection of slave owners, or do worse. The institution of slavery, as an institution, has, to use a common phrase, "gone up" in Missouri, theoretically and practically, and we must now do the best we can with what remains. Mr. President, twelve months ago I voted in this Convention to lay upon the table an ordinance for gradual emancipation, which was offered by my esteemed friend from St. Louis, Judge Breckinridge. I gave my reasons for that vote. I shall vote for gradual emancipation to-day, and my constituents must judge the act. Sir, I have been reminded by gentlemen, that in opposing immediate emancipation I do not reflect the will of the people of my county. In reply to which I may remark, that that populous county has fifteen members in this body, and that upon this subject they are divided. The immediates represent the Radicals, I take it, and the disproportion in this particular is not so great. The conservative portion of the delegation (I do not agree with my friend from the Register's office that they are Abolitionists) are supposed to look to the interests of that other portion of the loyal people of St. Louis county, who are unwilling to have all their vested rights in slave property suddenly taken from them. I place myself among the friends of that portion of her citi zens. It matters not, in my opinion, however extreme or radical the people of St. Louis county may be in their political notions, they are, as a body, too honest, fair, and liberal in heart, to say, after mature deliberation, that from seventeen to twenty million dollars' worth of property shall be taken from the citizens of their State forthwith without compensation, and that property, too, which the owners purchased in accordance with the laws of the land; that their vested rights in their slaves are upon the same footing that your right is to your horses, lands and moneys, each and all alike, negro and horse, are guaranteed to you by the constitutions of the United States and of this State. Mr. President, I might have been better pleased with a different date than 1876 for the cessation of slavery in Missouri, but am satisfied to accept it, because it is proposed by the majority report; and hence, not to clog its passage, and thereby get some plan not so fair, I have voted against amendments for other dates; it is but a compromise upon time, at any rate, and I am at this time, especially upon this all-absorbing question, a compromise man. Sir, what was right yesterday, in a political sense, may be wrong to-day; and what is best These are to-day may not suit the morrow. terrible and rapid times, and we can only act for the best, according to our consciences, as the event passes before us. But the wise and good men of this Convention cannot hide their prudence and good sense under the wild and furious passions of the hour. We are dealing with a great and solemn subject; not with reference merely to passing events, but with regard to the permanent condition of the people of this State for all time to come. The acts of this Convention, in this as on many subjects which it has dealt with, will form an important chapter in the history of this State and of the United States. We are responsible not only to our cotemporaries, but to posterity, for what we do or leave undone. We should therefore weigh well the vast importance of this subject. The great Benton said "it was a delicate subject to handle," and the distinguished Kentucky orator said it was like taking a wolf by the ears" dangerous alike to hold on or to let go." Sir, stupendous as is the value of the property that is proposed to be offered up on the altar of peace, yet the pecuniary view of the subject is, to my mind, of less importance than the social and political changes to follow from this measure. It is idle to talk to sensible men about the labor of free negroes; it is an insult to the intelligence and information of the people of this State to tell them that a free negro will work better than a slave. What do the people of Illinois, whose gallantry and patriotism, like that of Missouri, stand attested by every battlefield in this war, think of free negroes? Her people, by a majority of 150,000, forbid their importation into that State. Indiana, New Jersey, and New York, if not so unanimous, are equally emphatic in excluding them from their borders. Will any honest man say the people of Missouri love free negroes better than the people of the free States? Are we to fasten upon the people of Missouri, and that without giving them a chance to vote upon the proposition, no less than one hundred thousand free negroes — one-tenth of our entire populationforever, when our good neighbors of Illinois excludes every such person from her limits? Is this mass of beings, “stale, flat, and unprofitable," to remain here to scathe and fester in our social system? I say no; and in this I do not at all contravene the policy of the General Government, or even of the present Adminis tration. It is well known that many of the firmest original anti-slavery men are, and have always been, opposed to this juxtaposition of the races, and among them I enumerate the elder Blair and both of his distinguished and patriotic sons, and even the President himself, with a majority of the last Congress. The President, in several of his messages to Congress, urged the deportation of the blacks when freed, and Congress, acting upon this suggestion, actually set on foot an expedition under Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, (I believe,) for the purpose of establishing a colony in the West Indies. The Administration has been occupied for months past in negotiating for portions of Central America for this very purpose, and no other. In addition to this, the Secretary of War issued an order months ago to the Federal Commanders in Illinois to import no more free negroes into that State, and this order is now in force. So if this Convention were to ordain that the slaves of this State were to be free to-morrow, no Federal officer dare take one of them to that State, on account of this prohibitory order, as well as the Constitution of that State. Certain public journals and frantic partisans are making quite a war of tin horns and pans, in the fashion of the Chinese, upon this Convention, for being too slow; but it seems to me we are going a little too fast, even for these rapid times, in passing this ordinance, without providing for the removal of these slaves upon the inauguration of the negro millenium. Mr. President, I am a plain man, pretending only to as much honesty and as pure patriotism, and willing to make as many sacrifices for my country, as any man in or out of this Convention; and I wish not to interfere with patriotic purposes that move this Convention, but I deem it my duty to offer for the consider ation of this body the following amendment to the proposed ordinance. Amend by adding: "Provided, the Government of the United States shall, prior to the time this ordinance shall go into effect, make adequate provision by law for the removal of all slaves hereby emancipated, or to be emancipated, beyond the limits of this State." Which amendment I shall offer when the date shall have been agreed upon in the ordinance. In conclusion, Mr. President, I beg leave to say, that, great as this subject is, it is subordinate, and all other subjects, to the preservation of the Union, which is my country. May God, in his universal goodness, preserve it amidst all the wreck of revolution for me and my children forever. Mr. HOWELL. Mr. President: not formerly or at present sympathizing fully with the policy which I apprehend will be agreed upon by this Convention, I had intended to content myself by casting my vote on the primary question that might be proposed to the Convention; but, as very little has been said by any member of this body from the northeastern portion of the State, and nothing by any member from the district I represent, I think it proper to define my position upon this question, and the position of my constituents as I understand it from the limited discussion and conference that has been had among them since the call for the present session of this Convention. Mr. President, I do not propose here to go into a discussion of the question of the divinity or the wrongfulness of slavery in Missouri, or elsewhere. We have the institution among us: it has been brought upon us not only by the agency of the ancestors of the people of Missouri, but by the co-operation and active agency of the ancestors of all the present population of the United States; and not only that, Mr. President, but, whatever the present feeling of the rest of the civilized world may be upon this subject; however intensely antislavery it may be at the present time, the ancestors of the present civilized Europe are responsible for the institution as it existed and does exist in all Southern States. This, sir, is not only well authenticated by history, but it is recognized and argued out by the Presi dent of the United States in his recent message to Congress. In that message the great chieftain, in the honesty and fairness of his heart, has recognized the great truth, and from his high position has attempted to obtain a |