COXGEESS, IT. S. 



329 



to amend tLe proposed amendment by adding 

 thereto the following proviso : 



Provided, That the provisions of this section in re- 

 gard to slaves, shall not apply to the State of Ken- 

 tucky. 



"I regret that it becomes necessary, on a 

 matter of such vital importance as this, to 

 plead and plead for even five minutes' time. 

 As my colleague (Mr. Mallory) very properly 

 remarked, what more do gentlemen desire than 

 that Kentucky shall furnish her proper quota 

 of men and contribute her proper amount of 

 money ? It is manifest to every man that this 

 seeks to inaugurate a general scheme of eman- 

 cipation in the loyal slaveholding States. That 

 can no longer be disguised. Gentlemen are 

 disposed to pass it by as if that was a clear 

 constitutional right. Sir, it is an absolute 

 violation of the constitutions both of Kentucky 

 and of the United States. Xo man can meet 

 that proposition in argument. From the foun- 

 dation of the Government to the present time 

 the right to slave property was secured by all 

 the laws, and approved by the Constitution, as 

 much as the right to land was secured. It is a 

 constitutional right in the State of Kentucky 

 to hold slaves ; and there can be no system of 

 general emancipation inaugurated under the 

 pretence of raising soldiers except by a plain 

 and palpable violation of the Constitution. 



Moreover, sir, slaves have never been re- 

 garded as forming part of the military force of 

 the country. They are property. A man in 

 Kentucky holds his slaves by the same title as 

 he holds his land. I defy any man to draw a 

 distinction between the two. The title is as 

 clear to slaves in Kentucky as it is to a man's 

 home and land ; and that spirit which will run 

 lawlessly over the one would need but little 

 temptation to run as lawlessly over the other. 

 I beg gentlemen of the Eepublican party to 

 look back a few years to the Chicago platform, 

 and see what its language was. It was, that 

 the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the 

 States, and especially of the right of each State 

 to order and control its own domestic institu- 

 tions according to its own judgment exclusively, 

 was essential to that balance of power on 

 which the perfection and endurance of our sys- 

 tem depended. I embodied that same profes- 

 sion in a resolution which I offered a few days 

 ago, and it was unceremoniously laid on the 

 table ; seventy-three members on the other 

 side rising and voting to lay it on the table. I 

 deny that there is any constitutional power to 

 wrest a slave from his owner, either by taking 

 the slave as a volunteer or as a conscript. You 

 have no right to do it even thongh you allow 

 compensation. You cannot inaugurate eman- 

 cipation in that indirect way. The President 

 has disclaimed, and the Eep'ublican party has 

 again and again disclaimed, all power to do so. 

 And yet now it is proposed to violate all these 

 pledges, to trample under foot this platform, 

 ami with it the Constitution of the United 

 States, in order to bring about emancipation by 



a wholesale system of lobbery. Do y.m pro- 

 pose to take the loyal man's slave at a fair 

 valuation? Xo. you propose to take him by 

 conscription, to take him by an arbitrary pro- 

 cess, and to fix his price by the same power. 

 It amounts to nothing bnt robbery. It is a 

 mockery of justice. The highwayman might 

 as well seize my horse and take him from me, 

 and then offer me a pittance." 



The amendment to the amendment was lost 

 and the amendment was agreed to. Other 

 amendments were made, when it was moved 

 to strike out all after the first section of the 

 bill and insert a substitute, which was carried, 

 and the bill then passed by the following vote : 



TEAS Messrs. Alley, Allison, Anderson, Arnold, 

 Ashley, Bailey, John D. Baldwin, Baxter, Beaman, 

 Jacob B. Blair, Boutwell, Boyd, Brandegee, Broomall, 

 William G. Brown, Cobb, Cole, Creswell, Henry 

 Winter Davis, Thomas T. Davis, Dawes, Deming, 

 Dixon, Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, Frank, 

 Garfield, Gooch, Grinnell, Griswold, Hale, Higby, 

 Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, John H. 

 Hubbard, Hulburd, Hutchins, Jenckes, Julian, Kas- 

 son, Kelley, Francis W. Kellogg, Orlando Kellogg, 

 Loan, Longyear, Marvin, McAllister, McBride, Mc- 

 Clurg, Mclndoe, Samuel F. Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, 

 Daniel Morris, Amos Mvers Leonard Myers, Norton, 

 Odell, Charles O'Neill, Orth', Perham, Pike, Pomeroy, 

 William H. Randall, Alexander H. Rice, John H. 

 Rice, Edward H. Rollins, Schenck, Scofield, Shan- 

 non, Sloan, Smith, Smithers, Spalding, Starr, Ste- 

 vens, Thayer, Thomas, Tracy, Lpson,"Van Valken- 

 burgh, Elihu B. Washburne,' William B. Washburn, 

 Webster, Whaley, Wheeler, Williams, Wilder, Wil- 

 son, Windom, and Woodbridge 94. 



NATS Messrs. James C. Allen, William J. Allen, 

 Ancona, Augustus C. Baldwin, Bliss, Brooks, James 

 S. Brown, Chanler, Coffroth, Cox, Cravens, Dawson, 

 Dennison, Eden, Edgerton, Eldridge, Finck, Ganson, 

 Grider, Hall, Harding, Harrington, Benjamin G. 

 Harris, Herrick, Holman, William Johnson, Kalb- 

 fleisch, Kernan, Kuapp, Law, Lazear, Le Blond, 

 Long, Mallory. Marcy, McDowell, McKinuey, Wil- 

 liam H. Miller. James R. Morris, Morrison, 'Nelson, 

 Noble, John O'Neill, Pendleton, Radford, Samuel 

 J. Randall, Robinson, Rogers, Ross, Scott, John B. 

 Steele, Stiles, Strouse, tStuart, Sweat, Yoorhees, 

 Wadsworth, Joseph W. White, Winfield, and Fer- 

 nando Wood 60. 



This resulted in striking out after the first 

 section of the Senate bill, and substituting a 

 House bill containing the amendments adopted 

 and many provisions of the Senate bill. 



A Committee of Conference between the 

 two houses was appointed, and their report 

 was made in the Senate on the 19th February. 

 A debate ensued which resulted in the adoption 

 of the report by the Senate yeas, 26 ; nays, 16. 



In the House, the report was adopted yeas, 

 VI ; nays, 23. 



This act changed the law of March 3d, 1863, 

 by abolishing the two classes of enrolled men ; 

 authorizing the President to call for men when- 

 ever he deemed it necessary ; making drafted 

 men subject to the liabilities of their substi- 

 tutes, and exempt only for the term for which 

 the draft was made ; abolishing all exemptions 

 except for physical disability, service for two 

 years, and being in the service. The other de- 

 tails were of less importance. 



