IN accordance with an Act of the Legislature, approved November 29th, 1861, entitled “An Act to provide for a Convention of the people of Mississippi,” “to adopt such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State as shall appear to them to be demanded,” said Convention assembled in Jackson, the Capital of the State, in the hall of the House of Representatives on Monday, the 7th day of January, 1861.

On motion of Mr. Gholson, of Monroe, the Convention, at 12 o'clock, M., was temporarily organized by the election of Henry T. Ellett, of Claiborne, as Chairman, and Wm. H. H. Tison, of Itawamba, as Secretary.

Prayer was offered by the Rev. C. K. Marshall, as follows:

The counties being called in alphabetical order, the delegates registered their names—two only being absent: J. S. Yerger, of Washington, and Jas. S. Johnston, of Jefferson.

The Convention proceeded to the election of permanent officers.

For President—William S. Barry, of Lowndes, was elected on the third ballot.

The following gentlemen were also voted for: J. L. Alcorn, H. T. Ellett, Hugh R. Miller, A. M. Clayton, S. J. Gholson, W. P. Harris, D. C. Glenn, Walker Brooke, J. S. Yerger, Geo. R. Clayton, J. W. Clapp, Samuel Benton.

For Secretary—F. A. Pope, of Holmes, was elected on the second ballot—Messrs. Liddell, Dozier and Rowe being also voted for.

For Door-Keeper—Sam'l Pool, of Hinds, was elected, after the first ballot, by acclamation—Messrs. Israel and Clingan being also voted for.

For Sergeant-at-Arms—W. Ivie Westbrook, of Oktibbeha, was, after the first ballot, elected by acclamation—Messrs. J. J. Denson and E. Farish being also voted for.

On motion of Mr. Ellett, the rules of the House of Representatives were adopted, so far as applicable.

On motion of Mr. Lamar, of Lafayette,

The Convention met at 10 o'clock, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Harrington.

On motion of Mr Chalmers, of De Soto,

On motion of Mr. Rogers, of Monroe,

Committee—Messrs. Rogers, Wilkinson, Yerger, Reynolds, and Bookter.

On motion of Mr. Clayton, of Marshall,

On motion of Mr. Glenn, of Harrison,

Mr. Clayton, of Lowndes, from committee to wait upon his Excellency, reported that communications had been received by the Governor which he would lay before the Convention in due time.

The Convention was called to order at 10 o'clock, A. M., and was opened with prayer by the Rev. W. C. Crane.

A message, with accompanying documents, were received from the Governor, and laid on the table for the present.

The Commissioner from South Carolina, Hon. Armistead Burt, and the Commissioner from Alabama, Judge E. H. Pettus, being in waiting, were invited in, received by the President, and took their seats.

Mr. Lamar, chairman of the committee to prepare an Ordinance providing for the withdrawal of Mississippi from the present Federal Union, reported the following:

On motion of Mr. Lamar, the Convention, at 11 1/2 o'clock, went into secret session, and continued therein until 4 1/2 P. M.

The doors being opened, on motion of Mr. Rogers,

The consideration of the Ordinance of Secession being resumed, Mr Yerger, of Washington, offered the following as a substitute:

Which was rejected by the following vote:

YEAS.—Messrs. Brooke, Blair, Bonds, Bullard, Cummings, Farrar, Flournoy, Herring, Hurst, McGehee of Bolivar, Myers, Parker, Reynolds, Sanders, Sumner, Stephens, Thornton, Winchester, Yerger, Young—20.

NAYS.—Mr. President, Messrs. Alcorn, Anderson, Aldridge, Barksdale, Baldwin, Backstrom, Booth, Brantley, Benton, Beene, Berry, Bolling, Bookter, Clayton of Marshall, Clayton of Lowndes, Catching, Chalmers, Colbert, Clapp, O. Davis, J. S. Davis, Dease, Denson, Douglas, Dyer, Deason, Eckford Edwards, Ellett, Fizer, Fontaine, George, Glenn, Gibson, Gholson, Gwin, Harris, Hill, Holt, Isom, Johnston of De Soto, Johnston of Jefferson, Jones, Keirn, Keith, Kennedy, King, Lea, Lamar, Lewers, Lewis, Mayson, McGehee of Panola, Miller of Pontotoc, Miller of Tunica, Neely, Nelson, Orr, Pattison, Powell of Covington, Powell of Jones, Ramsey, Roberts, Rogers, Semmes, Smart, Terral, Tison, Taylor, Thompson, Vaughan, Walter, Welsh, Witty, Wilkinson, Woods, Wright.—78.

The Convention was called to order at 10 o'clock A. M., and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Jno. Hunter.

The President announced the following Standing Committees: Committee on Citizenship in Mississippi.—Brooke, Orr, Clayton of Lowndes, E. F. McGehee, Hill, Dyer and Neely.Committee on Federal Jurisdiction and Property.—Harris, Walter, Marshall, George, Wilkinson, Wright and Stephens.On Postal, Financial and Commercial Affairs.—Clapp, Gholson, Miles H. McGehee, Jones, King, Keirn, and Bullard.On the State Constitution.—Miller, Ellett, Yerger, Baldwin, Beene, Bolling, and Herring.On Military and Naval Affairs.—Chalmers, Brantley, Welsh, Fontaine, Smart, Fizer and Tison.On Southern Confederacy.—Glenn, Lamar, Hurst, Aldridge, Douglas, Johnston of Jefferson, and Lewis.

On motion of Mr. Orr,

Mr. Welsh offered the following:

Mr. Welsh having briefly advocated the resolution, Messrs. Benton, Wright, Ellett and H. R. Miller spoke against it; and on motion of Mr. Fontaine, the resolution was laid on the table.

Mr. Dyer offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Military Affairs to inquire into the propriety of erecting batteries at Vicksburg, Natchez, and at other points on the Mississippi river, which resolution, after considerable discussion, was laid on the table; and,

On motion of Mr. Harris,

The following communication was read:

Mr. Gholson read the following for information:

On motion of Mr. Gibson, of Issaquena,

On motion of Mr. Chalmers, of De Soto, Major Earl Van Dorn was invited to a seat within the bar of the Convention.

The Convention was called to order at 10 o'clock, A. M., and was opened with prayer by the Rev. T. W. Caskey.

On motion of Mr. Gholson, of Monroe,

Committee—Messrs. Clayton, Harris and Ellett.

Mr. Winchester, of Adams, addressed the Convention on the powers of the Convention, dissenting from the proposition that “we are the people in sovereign power assembled, with the entire sovereignty of the State vested in us.”

The President announced as the

Committee on Ways and Means—Messrs. Wright, Benton, Anderson, Catching, Alcorn, Gibson and Denson.

On motion of Mr. Tison,

On motion of Mr. Anderson,

Mr. Benton offered the following, which was referred to the Committee on Citizenship:

Mr. Clapp, from committee on Postal Affairs, submitted an Ordinance, which was ordered to be printed. Mr. Clapp addressed the Convention in explanation of said Ordinance.

The President announced as the

Temporary Executive Council—Messrs. F. M. Rogers, J. L. Alcorn, A. M. Clayton, W. P. Harris, Alfred C. Holt.

Mr. Clayton, of Marshall, submitted the following report:

The committee to whom was assigned the duty of comparing the Ordinance of Secession as enrolled with the original Ordinance as adopted, beg leave to report that they have performed the duty entrusted to them, and that they find the Ordinance prepared for the signatures of the delegates to be a true and perfect transcript of the original.

On motion of Mr. George,

The Hon. Armistead Burt, Commissioner from the Republic of South Carolina to Mississippi, addressed the Convention.

After which the Convention adjourned till Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, and was opened with prayer by the Rev. D. A. Snow.

The President announced the committees on engrossed and enrolled bills.

Mr. Dyer offered a resolution instructing the Committee on Ways and Means to inquire into the expediency of this State issuing bonds, or certificates of deposit, the interest and one-tenth of the principal to be expended in the military defence of the State. The resolution was appropriately referred.

Mr. Chalmers, from the Committee on Military and Naval Affairs, submitted a report, which was ordered to be printed.

Mr. Brantley submitted “An Ordinance to provide for surveys and fortification of military sites within the State of Mississippi,” which was ordered to be printed.

On motion of Mr. Ellett,

The Convention met at 10 o'clock, A. M.

The President read a telegraphic dispatch, dated Washington, 12th, announcing the formal withdrawal of the Mississippi members of the House that morning.

Mr. Harris, from Committee on Federal Jurisdiction and Property, submitted all Ordinance, which was ordered to be printed, and made the special order for 11 o'clock on Wednesday next.

On motion of Mr. Chalmers, the Convention went into committee of the whole on the Ordinance reported by the Committee on Military and Naval Affairs.

After considerable discussion, and sundry amendments, the committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again on Thursday at 12 o'clock.

Mr. Anderson, from committee to prepare a hall for Convention during the session of the Legislature, reported that the new Concert Hall was being put in readiness for that purpose.

After some discussion as to the joint use of Representatives' Hall, on motion of Mr. Jones,

Mr. King offered a resolution requiring the Secretary to have the proceedings of the secret sessions separately recorded. Before the resolution was disposed of, On motion of Mr. Chalmers, the Convention went into secret session, and continued therein until adjournment for the day.

The following resolution was adopted in secret session, and the injunction of secresy removed from the same:

Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

The President announced as the committee to confer with the House of Representatives relative to the joint use of hall, Messrs. Jones, O. Davis and Young.

Mr. Glenn, chairman of Committee on Southern Confederacy, submitted a report, which was ordered to be printed, and made the special order for Wednesday, at 11 o'clock.

The special order, Mr. Smart's resolution, providing for one brigade of regular troops, was taken up, considered, and laid on the table.

The President announced as the

Committee on Indian Affairs—Messrs. Fontaine, Benton, Reynolds, Orr and Keith.

On motion of Mr. Rogers,

Mr. Brooke, from Committee on Citizenship, submitted a report, which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Ellett moved that the Convention proceed with the regular order—signing the Ordinance of Secession.

On motion of Mr. Clayton, of Marshall,

On motion of Mr. Brantley,

Committee—Messrs. Brantley, Booth and Tison.

Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

Mr. Clayton of Lowndes, offered a series of resolutions relative to the powers and duties of this Convention—that it was called by the people for a specific purpose, to-wit: the secession of the State from the Federal Union, and the formation of a Southern Confederacy, and that its powers and duties are limited to that end, and such incidental subjects as may be necessary to accomplish the same. The resolutions were ordered to be printed.

On motion of Mr. Glenn,

Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

On motion of Mr. Fontaine,

Convention met pursuant to adjournment, in the Masonic Hall, at 10 o'clock, A. M.

On motion of Mr. Alcorn,

The consideration of the revenue bill being resumed, on motion, the Convention went into secret session, and continued therein until the hour of adjournment for the day, 6 o'clock, P. M.

Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

On motion of Mr. Rogers,

On motion of Holt,

Mr. Orr called up his resolution suspending execution of judgments, decrees, etc., except attachments.

Mr. Jones moved the resolution be indefinitely postponed, which motion prevailed, by the following vote:

YEAS—Mr. President, Messrs. Anderson, Aldridge, Barksdale, Backstrom, Booth, Brooke, Beene, Benton, Bonds, Bolling, Clayton of Marshall, Clayton of Lowndes, Cummings, Clapp, O. Davis, Dyer, Deason, Eckford, Edwards, Ellett, Flournoy, Fizer, George, Glenn, Gibson, Gholson, Gwin, Holt, Hurst, Johnston of De Soto, Jones, Keirn, Kennedy, King, Lea, Marshall, McGehee of Bolivar, McGehee of Panola, Miller of Pontotoc, Nelson, Parker, Pattison, Powell of Jones, Ramsey, Roberts, Rogers, Sanders, Semmes, Tison, Taylor, Thornton, Thompson, Vaughan, Walter, Welsh, Witty, Woods, Wright—57.

NAYS—Messrs. Brantley, Berry, Catching, Dease, Denson, Keith, Lewers, Neely, Orr, Powell of Covington, Wilkinson, Young—12.

Mr. Brooke introduced the following, which was referred to the Committee on State Constitution:

Convention met pursuant to adjournment.

Mr. Brooke, from Committee on Citizenship, re-submitted the Ordinance originally reported, with an amendment thereto, which Ordinance was adopted without debate.

On motion Mr. Fontaine, the Convention went into secret session.

After some time spent therein, the doors were opened. The injunction of secresy was removed from the following proceedings in secret session:

Mr. Holt offered the following resolution:

Be it ordained by the people of Mississippi in Convention assembled, That the Journals of this Convention shall be deposited by the Secretary in the office of the Secretary of State; and the Ordinances passed, and the said Journals, shall be printed by the State Printer in the style and manner prescribed by law for the publication of the Laws and Journals of the Legislature, except that the Ordinances and Journals shall be bound in one volume, in the style prescribed for the binding of the laws. Two thousand copies of the said Ordinances and Journals shall be published, and the printer shall be allowed the same compensation as for printing the Laws and Journals of the Legislature. When printed, the Secretary of State shall transmit, by mail, to each member of the Convention one copy thereof, and shall distribute the residue pro rata to the several counties, as the Laws and Journals are distributed.

He said that the committee of which he had the honor to be the organ, appreciated the novelty and importance of the measures coming before them, and the necessity of moving with great caution and deliberalion, and he thought that no ordinance or resolutions contemplating action on the part of this body, should not be adopted until every facility was offered for scrutinizing and criticizing it thoroughly. The subject of postal arrangements was a very complicated and comprehensive one, and the legislation deemed necessary to make these arrangements efficient, extended through a long series of years, and covered a very wide field. If the object contemplated by Mississippi were a separate, independent political organization, it would be necessary by an amendment of the Constitution to clothe the Legislature with the authority to provide a system of laws for the mail service within and without the State. But as we looked forward to a new confederation at an early day, of which Mississippi would be a member, and as these postal arrangements would properly pertain to the federal jurisdiction that may be established, all that is now necessary, is not to interfere with the State Constitution, which is a system of permanent organic laws, but by special Ordinance to make a provisional and temporary arrangement, to avoid as far as practicable any disturbance in existing regulations, and in the habits of our people, which might lead to invidious comparisons between the new state of things and the old.

In the Ordinance reported by the committee, the laws, contracts and regulations made by authority of the United States, in connnection with the postal department, were recognized and continued in force without recognizing the jurisdiction of the government by which they were made. In drafting this ordinance the committee had availed themselves of the action of our sister State, South Carolina, who had broken the ice and was the pioneer in the present movement at the South, but had gone a step further than the South Carolina Ordinance, by making provision for the enforcement of the penal laws heretofore in force, and which are neccessary to protect the mails from depredations. This Ordinance would afford relief to those at present committed with the mail service, who feel embarrassed by the new attitude assumed by the State, and the new duties thereby imposed upon her citizens; and it will, at the same time, continue existing safeguards, without which confidence in transmissions or remittances by mail will be lost.

At present the Federal Government ignores the independence of Mississippi, and as long as the two governments occupy towards each other the present anamolous position, the presumption is that existing postal arrangements will be continued unless obstructed by the action of Mississippi, which it is not her interest to do. Should, however, the views or policy of the Federal Government change in this respect, it will then be necessary for us to adopt other and appropriate steps to supply the citizens of the State with mail facilities.

The position and character of this body, as respects its powers and functions, in our political system was discussed the other day. He did not intend to renew that discussion. There was no conflict of opinions on the main point, which was the power to adapt our State government to the new order of things initiated by the Ordinance of Secession—those who believe that our power is without limitation, acknowledge a sense of duty which will confine our action within the narrowest limits compatible with the necessities springing out of the change of relations with the government of the United States, and the resumption of powers conferred by the Constitution of the United States on that govornment, in its former relations to us. It is not necessary, therefore, to fortify by argument, the opinion which I entertain in common with a majority of the committee, that when the sovereign power is called into action, it is supreme, and that the causes or motives for invoking it, however strongly they many constrain the representatives of the people here, through their sense of duty, cannot be assumed as the limit of their power. It is undoubtedly the unanimous sentiment of this body that the disturbing hand of indiscriminate innovation shall not be employed on the State Constitution. The public mind may and ought to repose in the conviction that the existing State government stands today unshaken in its authority, and that in making it independent, so far from weakening it we have made it stronger, for the protection of life, liberty and property, and moreover we have made it stronger, because it is now the object of our undivided devotion.

The act of secession has been achieved through the forms of the Constitution so far as the people of Mississippi are concerned, and by their free consent, It is sanctioned by their organic law and their bill of rights. It is completely obligatory within the limits of this State, and its legitimate consequence must be accepted by all of her citizens, and undoubtedly is accepted by a vast majority of them with hearty good will. In his mind there is not a doubt that one of these consequences is to clothe the existing State government with all the powers which belong to the sovereign authority of a nation, and which were suspended by the operation of the Constitution of the United States, so long as we acknowledged is authority, and that the State government is to-day supreme over all the rightful subjects of government except so far as it may be restrained by our State Constitution.

The Legislature, therefore, on this hypothesis may rightfully, without an alteration of the Constitution, and without further authority from this body, deal with the soil of Mississippi—the public lands, and dispose of the subjects of the judicial power of the United States, arising in this State; or which are now in process of litigation in the Federal Courts.

The political jurisdiction of the United States acquired by cession, as in the case of the Ship Island fortifications, is annihilated by the Ordinance of Secession, and that jurisdiction which was exercised through the Federal Judiciary, shared the same fate.

There exists in the minds of some persons, however, a doubt whether the mere declaration of the powers which were dormant while we were in the federal Union, imparts to our State government, under the present Constitution, any additional power; as that Constitution was framed by a people, living at the time of adoption, under the Constitution of the United States, having emerged from the territorial condition into a State. It is supposed that the language of a Constitution made with reference to admission into the Union, and by a people already bound by the Constitution of the United States, must be construed with reference to that condition, and consequently, that the words “legislative power” in the State Constitution, meant only such power as the people then had, and could not now be construed to embrace subjects covered by the Constitution of the United States. Hence the necessity of some additional organic provision by this body, to bring these subjects within the range of the legislative power of the State government. Without examing the soundness of this view, to remove all doubt, the committee have deemed it best in form, to confer this power. It is important that no doubt shall exist, and none can exist if the ordinance is passed.

The government of the United States was not only a polititcal sovereign in some respects and in some localities in this State, but was a property owner—in trust for all the States of the Union. This ownership existed as to the public lands, the fortifications, lighthouses, hospitals and the like. As to the public lands, we cannot recognize in future any title derived from a foreign government after the act of secession, nor can we permit a foreign government to dispose of fortifications or other property held within our limits, as the mere instruments of an authority which has ceased. The committee therefore thought fit to declare that the title is now in the State of Mississippi, in order that no doubt may arise on that subject, with a view to the sale and disposition of the public lands and other property, and at the same time looking to the adjustment by treaty or otherwise, of the claim of the United States for compensation.

The propriety of the disposition made by the ordinance, of the pending suits and unsatisfied judgments in the Courts of the United States, will be assented to, we think, by every one. Our object has been not to legislate, but to remove all doubt of the power of the Legislature over the subjects embraced in the ordinance.

Mr. Dyer said, in substance, that as one of the committee that reported the Ordinance, he heartily endorsed it. The object of the committee was to make as little change as possible in the naturalization laws of the United States—indeed, to continue them, with slight modifications, until a Southern Confederacy should be formed, when a general system could be adopted. He was in favor of a liberal system. He had no desire, as some gentlemen seemed to have, to dig an impassable chasm between us and the non seceding States. If some of their people wish to come here and unite their fortunes with ours, he would not throw obstacles in their way.

There were now in the Northern States upwards of five hundred thousand persons who were born upon Southern soil, and to the South and its institutions are warmly attached. Many of them will return to their native land. If war shall take place between the two sections, thousands of them will rush to our support. Will you require those who have gone from Mississippi, when they return home, to take an oath of allegiance to their mother? Can you suppose that they will be untrue to her? There is now here a gallant Mississippian, who has been, for upwards of twenty year, absent from the State, in the military service of the United States, but like a true son, when difficulties surround it, he has come back and tendered his sword to his native State. He will, if necessary, peril his life in its defence. He will uphold our flag, or fall beneath it. Will you ask him, who is ready to sacrifice life, everything, in defence of his State, to take an oath of allegiance to it? His presence at such a time, and for such a purpose, is the best evidence that he can offer of his fidelity to Mississippi. There are other sons of Mississippi now in the military service of the United States who will rush to our standards if a collision takes place between the North and South; their acts will prove their devotion to their State; from them no oath of fidelity should he exacted. He referred to this class of persons to show the hardship of requiring them to be naturalized.

There were also Northern people who were as true to the South and its institutions as if born here, and who are ready to give to us our full constitutional rights. Many of this class will desire to move South, in the event of a permanent division of the Union. He could see no necessity for their going through a regular course of naturalization; but it is said that unless an oath of allegiance is required, that enemies and spies will come from the North to reside amongst us. If there be such, an oath will not restrain them. If they are base enough to come here and act the part of spies, they will not hesitate, to commit perjury. If such come here, we will deal with them promptly and decidedly—deal with them as Texas did with a similar class lately. They will find no protection in an oath of allegiance.

He thought that in our system of government and laws, too many oaths were required—they are too often made but to be broken.

There is a large amount of capital now out of employment at the North, which we should, by every proper means, invite and induce to come South; but if the views of some gentlemen are to he adopted, it will be driven away. Capital is timid, and will not go where risks are to be incurred. If Northern capitalists are to be looked upon with suspicion—if they are to be treated as foreigners—they will not come here. Their money will seek other channels for investment.

If foreigners come here, he would require them to be naturalized. They generally speak a different language from ours, and are unfamiliar with our laws and our system of government, and hence should go through a course of pupilage to fit them for citizenship; but such is not the case with those born within the United States, and with them such pupilage is not necessary.

But, further, those who come here will not be at once clothed with the rights of citizenship. A residence of twelve months in the State, and four months in the same county, will be necessary to authorize them to exercise any public rights.

In the short period of sixty days, a Southern Confederacy will be formed. Why not wait till then, before adopting a general system of naturalization? There is no great necessity for adopting one now. The Ordinance, if adopted, will be sufficient for the present exigency, and the General Convention can make provision for the future.

He said in substance—that he had introduced the resolutions for the purpose of defining the duties and power of the Convention to prevent confusion hereafter, and also save the State from a precedent which might endanger the liberties of the people. That he could not subscribe to the theory that the power of the Convention was absolute and unlimited over the persons and property of the citizen. Conventions of the people by delegates occurred but seldom, and some crude opinions existed as to their power. He conceived that they possessed no inherent power, but only derivative. The relation between the delegate and the people was that of representative and constituent; principal and agent; and they could exercise no power except such as had been entrusted to them by those they represented. They acted alone in a fiduciary character, and not discretionary beyond the trust reposed.

Mr. Clayton said: The proposition before the committee, is to lay a tax of sufficient amount at once, to meet the necessities of the State in the present crisis. He frankly acknowledged that he preferred the system reported by the Committee of Ways and Means. Their plan, in substance, was to raise by means of Treasury notes and bonds to be issued from time to time, as the Executive might deem necessary, as much money as would serve the purposes of the country. In their general plan he concurred, though he might differ as to some of the details, and he was ready to surrender all minor differences to the paramount interests of the State.

In the last hundred years, no nation had undertaken to raise by immediate, direct taxation, the funds necessary to carry on war. The most absolute despot in Europe would as soon think of abdicating his throne as to resort to such a course. Indeed, it would amount to abdication, for it would result in revolution, and in an overthrow of the government. Now, in the event of war, every nation in Europe seeks the capitalists to obtain funds for its maintenance.

The same course is now being pursued by the States on this Continent. New York has just passed a bill to raise a loan of ten millions to be tendered to the United States to aid in coercing the South. Virginia has passed a similar bill to raise one million, by way of loan, to prevent this coercion. Let Mississippi follow these examples, and appeal to the patriotism of her own people. Let her issue treasury notes of so small an amount that even the humblest of her citizens can aid in the movement.

When Louis Napoleon, in his war with Austria, was reduced to extremity for money, and when he found the coffers of every capitalist closed against him, he resorted to this plan. He appealed to the French people for loans in very small sums. It enlisted the sympathy and support of his people; they came to his aid, furnished the necessary means, and caused victory to perch upon his banners.

The same policy here will lead to the same result, and exempt the State from heavy taxation.

There is another reason for this course. The benefits of this great movement, if our hope should be realized, will be greater to our children than to ourselves. It is but just, then, that they should bear their share of the burthen. This call only be done by raising a fund of which they will have to pay their share.

But the plan of the committee does not propose to rely entirely on this issue of notes and bonds to create the necessary funds. It also proposes to lay a tax of limited amount for the same purpose. Of this I entirely approve. It has the double effect of lessening the amount of treasury notes to be issued, and of inspiring confidence in their payment. In this manner it will tend to secure their sale, and to raise the money which is needed.

The point on which I must differ from the report of the committee, is as to the nature of the tax to be laid. Instead of placing it on all the taxable property of the State, I propose to lay a special tax of seventy-five cents on each taxable slave in the State, in addition to the already existing tax upon slaves. I propose to do this, because the entire tax will then approach very nearly to the advalorem principle adopted in reference to most all other kinds of property. If we assume $600 as the present average value of negroes, the tax of one dollar and fifty cents is just one-fourth of one per cent. on the value.

It is with no wish to discriminate against this species of property, nor with any wish to inaugurate a system of class legislation, that I advocate this plan, but solely with a view to make the system of taxation as nearly uniform as possible, and to place it on the most equitable principle, Taxation is the price which property pays for protection; and that price should be commensurate to the value. I shall submit an amendment in conformity with these views.

Before concluding, I beg to say a few words on the banking feature contained in two of the substitutes offered in lieu of the ordinance of the committee.

The first proposes to make the State a large stockholder. I object to any union of Bank and State. It converts the bank into a political machine, and turns it away from the proper objects and purposes of a bank.

The other proposes the free banking system. In highly commercial cities, as in New Orleans, this system has proved successful. In agricultural communities, I should have great fears of its appropriateness. In Illinois and in Tennessee it has proved a lamentable failure. I should therefore very much distrust its efficiency to aid in raising revenue, in an emergency like this. I very much prefer the plan of the committee to these.

The amendment proposed is as follows:

Mr. Clap said: When this subject was before the Convention on a former day: he had expressed no opinion in reference to it, but it was not because he did not entertain a fixed and matured opinion. He did not suppose that any one who had studied the philosophy of the present movement could have a reasonable doubt that there was an irreconcilable antagonism of opinion between the two sections. The President elect has sounded the key-note, and struck at the root of the difficulty when he said “there is a judgement and conscience at the North against slavery which casts more than a million and a half of votes, and which must find an outlet either through the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, or in the multiplication of John Brown raids.

Our policy toward the non-slaveholding States should be dictated by prudence; and whilst we prepare for war, we should do nothing to produce unnecessary exasperation, but extend to them the olive branch. However brave a people might be, and however well prepared for war, yet war was, under almost all circumstances, a calamity—a terrible calamity, to be avoided by all honorable means. But whilst we avoid giving unnecessary offence, we should at the same time reject all idea of re-union or political confederation with the non-slaveholding States. The moral antagonism is irreconcilable and ineradicable, and must wherever we are brought together under the same government, necessarily result in political antagonism. Their tendency is toward aggregationalism and centralism—ours toward individualism; their idea of liberty was the unrestricted control of numerical majorities—our idea of liberty was Constitutional and Institutional. Our fathers who framed the Federal Government, perceived these sources of discord, and endeavored to guard against them in the provisions of the federal compact. But how long before these guaranties were disregarded? It was because of the inefficiency of these Constitutional restraints that we were driven to the necessity of separating from the non-slaveholding States.

We are now touching chords that will vibrate throughout the world, and for coming years, vitally affecting not only the interests of our State and of the South, but of this continent and the world. Having snatched the Constitution, the work of our fathers, from the hands of those who were ruthlessly violating its provisions, we owe it to the memory of its authors and to ourselves that we shall not expose it to the same peril, with the moral certainty of a like result.

Were we to re-unite the scattered fragments of this confederacy to-day upon the footing of equality of representation, giving to each section the same population, this inequality must, in the nature of things, be of short continuance. As long as we remain almost exclusively an agricultural people, our white population must he comparatively sparse, and whilst the North would at least keep pace with us in natural increase, the drift of immigration would add to their numbers from two to four hundred thousand annually, which would swell the basis of their representation until the South would soon find herself again in a hopless minority, warring against a spirit of aggression, that it diverted from one object of attack, would soon single out another. It is not slavery alone that is now assailed, but government and law wherever they impose restraints, or tend to conserve existiag institutions.

Woman was to be degraded, by conferring upon her rights foreign to her sex, and identifying her with the strifes and competitions of the sterner sex, whilst the marital tie is to give way to the licentiousness of free-loveism. Agragrianism, now directed against the public domain, will be directed against property rights in some other form. The Bible is to be overthrown and supplanted by spiritualism and infidelity, and the Deity Himself dethroned, that fanaticism may have undisputed sway. These are the fearful elements at work under the foundations of society in the non-slaveholding States, and which must work out their legitimate results—first anarchy—then civil commotion and bloodshed, from which a refuge will be sought in military despotism.

The eternal antagonism between labor and capital, whose battle cry is “bread or blood!” will produce the same results in the North that have been witnessed in France and wherever the experiment has been tried, and the same feeling of self-preservation that placed the crown upon the heads of the two Napoleons, will hand over the reins of government to some military chieftain clothed with despotic power.

Having escaped from this “irrepresible conflict” by peaceful separation, let us not be so blind to the lights of history, so forgetful of the past in our own experience, as to incorporate these perilous elements of discord and dissolution into the new government which we propose to inaugurate, but let that government set out in its career composed of homogeneous interests and materials, that it may have a fair opportunity to vindicate the great cause of constitutional and institutional liberty, and to develop those gigantic resources within its control. If our fathers were baffled in their patriotic effort to bind this demon of discord with the thongs of the Constitution, how can we hope to be more fortunate? Let us profit by their experience, and, if I may use the expression without irreverence, let us be wiser than they were, and instead of vainly attempting to adapt man to government, let us adapt government to man.

If history has taught us one truth more clearly and unmistakably than another, it is that if the institution of slavery is to be permanent, it must be controlled exclusively by the people amongst whom it exists. Foreign authority, or the power to intermeddle by a government or people not identified with the institution, is death. It was a clear perception of this truth that weighed upon the mind of the illustrious Calhoun, and it was his inability to avert the impending doom of the South in the Union, and the misconception of his motives, that ultimately crushed his proud spirit and broke his great heart.

Let us, then, whilst we cultivate friendly relations with the people and States of the non-slaveholding section, and if need be, present an unbroken front with them as to the rest of the world, yet preserve our government and institutions separate and distinct. But whilst I entertain these views—the result of my deliberate convictions—I would not feel justified in persistently maintaining them against a contrary opinion entertained by the Southern States with whom we propose to confederate; and if I were to find my individual judgment, or that of my State, against South Carolina—the Harry Percy of the South, that has led the van in our great movement—against Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and other Cotton States, thoroughly identified with us in interest, I should distrust the correctness of that judgment, and defer to their opinion. This, our delegates to the Southern Confederating Convention would not be at liberty to do, under the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Monroe, (Mr. Gholson) but would be compelled to return home; whilst there, I would not make the exclusion of every free State a sine qua non with our proposed Confederate States. I would, by the vote of this Convention, advise our delegates of the course we wish them to pursue as our representatives.

He said, in substance, that the Convention, before taking further proceedings, should settle definitely the powers of the delegates here. The question was incidentally raised on the second day of the session, and various members participated in the discussion. From the opinions then expressed, it was obvious that there was a great difference of opinion. That he could not assent to all that was then advanced. That it was asserted that we were the people in sovereign power assembled, with the entire sovereignty of the State vested in us. That he could not agree to this. That while it was true we represented the sovereignty of the State, it was to a limited extent. The Legislators represented the sovereignty of the State, but it was to a limited extent. His Excellency, the Governor, represented the sovereignty of the State to a limited extent, also; and so did the Judges. They, as well as we, are the agents of the people in their sovereignty. But our powers are limited by the letter of attorney which called us here. We are delegates to a convention. The powers of a convention, for the purposes for which we are elected, are as well defined under our American system of conventions, as are the powers of a Legislature. The delegates to a Convention have the power to form, where no government has been established, a government; or, where a government has been formed, to make such revision, change or alteration as circumstances may require. But the power of a Convention is, by our American system, limited to the establishment of a democratic, republican form of government. Now when we met here, how stood the State of Mississippi? She had a government formed. Part of the powers were vested in the federal government of the United States, and the residue in the State government. This Convention had seen fit to annul and abrogate the powers confided to the Federal Government. Having done that, our powers were at an end, unless it became necessary to alter or add to the powers of our State government. Some alteration might be necessary in our State Constitution, and some additions might be rendered necessary. The people had seen fit to place a restriction upon themselves as to their qualifications as electors. They had said none but a citizen of the United States should be a qualified elector in this State. It might be necessary to strike out this clause, as well as several others of the same import, in the Constitution, by way of amendment. It might be necessary to add, that the Legislature should have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisals, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; and it might be deemed advisable to abrogate entirely the 9th section of Article VII. of the Constitution, and insert in lieu a provision that the Legislature be empowered “to borrow money on the credit of the State.” This done, our powers and duties were at an end. The public anxiety would be relieved: no fears would be apprehended that we were about to establish a monarchy, a despotism or an oligarchy. We would have finished our work, and established a complete, democratic, republican form of government, with all the machinery to carry it into execution, “The powers of the government of the State of Mississippi shall be divided into three distinct departments, and each of them confided to a separate body of magistracy, to-wit: those which are legislative to one, those which are judicial to another, and those which are executive to another.” By adopting these amendments, changes and additions to the organic law, which, in his estimation, embraced the whole power of this Convention, our work would be ended in an hour so far as settling the organic law of Mississippi is concerned—all matter else would be as to our own internal affairs.

Mr. Yerger said, he had not intended to have said anything in support of the amendment offered by the delegate from Copiah, (Mr. King,) but to content himself with casting his vote in favor of it again, as he had done on two previous occasions when it was before the Convention.

The propositions contained in the amendment had seemed to him so eminently just and proper under the circumstances in which we were placed, as to commend them to the sanction and approval of the Convention, without the necessity of speech or argument to enforce their adoption.

But in this supposition, it seems, by the determined opposition manifested this morning to the adoption of the amendment, he was mistaken. He should, therefore, ask the indulgence of the Convention whilst he made some suggestions tending to show the power of the Convention to levy the tax proposed by the amendment, and the justice and propriety of the tax itself. The liability of the citizen, and his duty to pay his contributive share to the revenue, to support and maintain the government, is a debt of allegiance which every citizen and subject owes to the sovereignty and government of which he is a member. This debt and duty rest alike upon every citizen, and is a personal obligation that attaches to him individually, and not on his property, unless so provided by law.

The amount and the mode of payment are to be determined by the sovereign will, either in fixing it, as a debt in personam, to be paid per capita, or as a debt in rem, to be charged alone upon the property of the citizen within the jurisdiction of the State. In this State, by its policy and legislation, taxes have always, with a few rare exceptions, been assessed in personam, and the property of the individual used as a criterion by which to ascertain and adjust equally and fairly the amount which each citizen should contribute and pay to the support of the State government, and as a means of securing the punctual payment of the tax assessed and ascertained. The proposition contained in this amendment is to introduce, as an additional subject of taxation, money loaned at interest, invested in stocks, bills, etc., beyond the limits of the State, by the citizens of the State. It simply proposes to tax the citizen personally, and as a means of ascertaining the proper and just amount with which he should be taxed, directs that it shall be ascertained what means he has in addition to his property located in the State, and upon the amount being ascertained, fixes the per centum upon the whole as the amount that it is his duty and obligation to contribute to the revenue of the State; thus creating a more personal debt and liability on him.

The power and authority of the State so to fix and determine his liability is unquestionable. It rests upon the jurisdiction of the State over the person of the citizen, and of his duty and obligation to pay that which the State may determine is his proper proportion, toward the necessary support and maintenance of the revenue of the government which protects him.

The certificates of stock, bills, notes and securities for money, are but choses in action, which in contemplation by law follow, and are always with the person of the owner, and as much within the jurisdiction of the State, for the purpose of taxation, as his land and slaves lying within the borders of the State, or his money in his possession, or loaned within the State. If he dies, they pass by the law of distribution of his domicile. If transferred, they pass by the law of the State in which the transfer may be made; thus showing that they are purely personal rights, which have no situs except the place where the holder resides, or is. Wherever he is, or wherever they reside, there they are. Thus it is with money: wherever the citizen resides, with him his money always is, in contemplation by law, for all purposes of disposition and appropriation.

The State of which he is a citizen as much protects him in the possession, use, enjoyment, investment and disposition of his money and choses in action, as it does in the possession and cultivation of his lands, or the labor and profits of his slaves. The opponents of this amendment mistake its object and scope, when they suppose that the tax is laid upon the money, and choses in action in which the money has been invested. The tax, is upon the citizen. The money, and choses in action in which it is invested, are but used as the criterion for ascertaining the amount proper to be assessed against him, as has been remarked before.

There is no restriction in our Constitution, or in the act of convoking this Convention, which limits the power of the Legislature or of this Convention to the imposition of a tax upon the property located, or the money invested, within the State. They can impose the tax upon the person of the citizen alone, or upon the property alone. It is a subject peculiarly within their discretion and jurisdiction—the exercise of the sovereign power, without any constitutional check or limitation. They can impose it upon one, or both, or upon the individual personally, making the property security for its payment, as is proposed to be done by this amendment.

If gentlemen who oppose this amendment will show the decision of one respectable Court gainsaying the position he had assumed, in any State having similar provisions to our Constitution, or which denies to the State the right to ascertain and fix the liability of the tax payer, as a personal obligation, he would at once change his vote, and cast it with them in opposition to the amendment. This, he was confident, they could not do, as he had, in another forum, occasion most carefully to examine the authorities upon that question, and was unable to find any respectable authority militating against the proposition here assumed. He did, however, find ample authority to sustain and uphold his position, and the principle of this amendment. If the power exists, the propriety of its exercise, in the present exigency of the State, is unquestionable. Why should we scruple or hesitate to exercise this power in the manner designated in the amendment, at this time of all others, when the very existence of the sovereignty of the State, and the protection of its citizens, and their property, so much depend upon the accumulation of revenue sufficient to arm and equip an efficient body of citizen soldiers. We now tax the money of the citizen loaned and invested within the borders of the State, and why should we refuse to tax the citizens of the State an equal amount on account of the money that he lends or invests beyond the limits of the State.

The exemption and immunity, thus sought to be created in favor of the citizen who loans and invests his money abroad, have no sound policy to sustain them, and would be most unjust and iniquitous so long as we tax the citizen of the State on money loaned and invested within it.

If any exemption is to be made, it should be in favor of the citizen who loans his money within the State, thus adding to its capital and means of development.

If the citizen takes the proceeds of his crop, and product of his property, and invest it in the purchase of land and property within the State, this property, so purchased, is taxed. Upon what principle of policy or justice is it that the citizen, who takes the proceeds of his property, and instead of investing it within the State in other property, diverts it to other channels of trade beyond the jurisdiction of the State, should be exempt from the same tax paid or imposed upon his neighbor. He could see none. The same constitution, the same law protects the persons of both citizens, and the possession and use of their property alike; and he thought it but just that each should bear an equal proportion toward the support and maintenance of the government that protected both. These suggestions, thus hastily thrown out, had been sufficient to determine him to support the amendment before the Convention, and he hoped might aid in disabusing the minds of members of the Convention of the artificial and sophistical reasons assigned as sufficient to warrant members in opposing the amendment. He knew that gentlemen could not find any respectable judicicial authority to sustain their view on the question of power to lay the tax, and to his own mind the justice and fairness of the proposition were evident. The legal power and authority of the Convention to impose the tax proposed by the amendment is unquestionable, both in principle and authority. The proposition itself had fairness, justice and equality to sustain and sanction it, and he should vote in favor of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am in favor of the resolution offered by the gentleman from Carroll, (Mr. George,) for the simple reason that it embodies the same proposition, in substance, that I had the honor to submit a few days ago. In providing means for the defence of the State, there is no good reason why negroes should not bear as great a burthen as any other property. I do not wish my position upon this question to be misunderstood. I am utterly opposed to class legislation, or of making any discrimination against negro property, or of doing anything else that would be prejudicial to the institution of slavery. No one, sir, believes more strongly than I do in the great truth enunciated by Mr. Calhoun: that African slavery, as it exists in the South, is a blessing to both the white and black races. In no other country, nor in any other age of the world, so far as their history is known, have the African race attained so high an elevation, or enjoyed so much happiness, as they have in a state of servitude in the South. On the other hand, there is no place upon earth where the poorer classes of white people occupy so high a position as they do here, where African slavery exists. An abiding conviction of these truths upon the public mind gives to slavery its chief strength. It is this conviction that places it so high in the affections of the people. We should be careful to do nothing here that would, in the slightest degree, diminish this attachment for it. And I now ask gentlemen, in all candor, if the conviction should be forced upon the minds of the non-slaveholders of this State that negro property is not to bear as heavy a burthen in providing means for our defence, as land or other property, if it will not sow the seeds of discontent and excite a prejudice against the institution of slavery itself? I represent, sir, a constituency, a large majority of whom are non-slaveholders; and I venture to predict that should the soil of Mississippi be pressed by the footsteps of an invading foe, my constituents will be found in the front rank and in the thickest of the fight, in repelling the aggressor. But I do not ask, nor do they desire, any discrimination in their favor, or any exemption from a just and equal share of pecuniary burthens. What I ask, and what they have a right to demand, is, that every one shall be taxed according to his ability, or in proportion to what he is worth, This is in strict accordance with the good old Scriptural rule; and here permit me to remark, that as distinguished as this Convention is for talent and ability—composed, as it is, of the most distinguished men in the State, with the exception of myself, and perhaps a few others, [laughter]—they are not so highly exalted as to be above the obligations of Divine authority. The Scriptural rule alluded to, is: Let every one contribute “according to what he hath, and not according to what he hath not.”

The distinguished gentleman from Marshall, (Mr. Walter,) contends that negro property already bears a full share of public burthens—even nine-tenths of the burthens of the country, if I understand him correctly; and furthermore, that negroes were a burthen, or tax, to their owners, from infancy until they are twelve years of age. Now, by whatever process— speculative or otherwise—by which my distinguished friend arrived at his conclusions, I beg leave to assure him, with the kindest feelings and highest respect, that as long as the people have before them the plainest facts and figures, deduced from the public records, directly conflicting with his position, so long will they believe that our present revenue system makes a discrimination in favor of negro property, and is therefore unequal and unjust. To show this conclusively, let us pause a moment. The average value of land in this State, according to the last assessment, is seven dollars per acre, or eleven hundred and twenty dollars per quarter section. The State tax is twenty-five cents for every one hundred dollars in value, amounting on an average to two dollars and twenty-four cents per quarter. By imposing the same rate of taxation upon all negroes under sixty years of age, estimating their average value at six hundred dollars, the tax upon each one would amount to one dollar and twenty-five cents—precisely sixty per centum more than the present tax, which is seventy-five cents per capita. These facts and figures speak for themselves, and cannot, I think, be gainsayed or refuted.

With regard to the burthen of supporting young negroes, to which the gentleman alludes, allow me to say that it is just such a burthen, or tax, as most persons are very willing to pay, and usually results in making them and their children rich.

The question again recurs, sir, with all its force, what good reason can there be for exempting negro property from a full and equal share of taxation? This policy is not only unjust, but, under existing circumstances, I think exceedingly unwise. I beg leave to remind gentlemen that it is a storm without, against this species of property, that is the source or all our troubles, and we should be careful to give no just cause of complaint, within, against it. Conflicting views and opinions should be respected, and, if possible, harmonized. Indeed, sir, it is one of the highest attainments of true statesmanship, in revolutions like that through which we are now passing, to unite all discordant elements, and to bold the masses of the people together, and to keep them moving steadily on toward the accomplishment of the great object in view. We have an illustrious example of the success of this policy in the history of Virginia. In the beginning of the Revolution, some of her people were too hot, some too cold—some were moving too fast, others too slow. Such were the consumate skill and wisdom of her councils, that those who were too fast were held back; those who were too slow, were impelled forward; and thus all were kept moving steadily together in support of the great cause of Independence. The result was, less division in Virginia than in any other Colony, or, in other words, fewer tories. I trust, sir, that we shall profit by her noble example. Let equal justice be meted out to every interest and to all classes. Let all the citizens of the State feel, from our proceedings here, that we regard them as standing upon a common platform, and united with us as a band of brothers in a common cause, determined to maintain, at all hazards, the rights, the honor, the dignity and the independence of the State of Mississippi.

Permit me to apologize to you, sir, and to the Convention, for having detained you longer than I intended. Nothing but all imperative sense of duty, which I owe to those whom I have the honor, in part, to represent on this floor, could have induced me to address you at all upon the present occasion.

His reasons were these: He confessed himself not familiar with the principles or details of measures of revenue. Since he had been here he had sought information where he could best find it, the Committee of Ways and Means, and no member of it had sent us any report. He had heard all said upon the floor and was not greatly enlightened. In this condition of things, members propose a sudden increase of taxes upon slaves. To justify it they have offered a bare assertion that the present tax on slaves is greatly less than the tax on lands. If this be so, it certainly should not remain so. Equality, or so near an approach to it, in a tax bill, as in the nature of varied property can be attained, should be our rule. In reply, those who oppose this motion have been as sparing of facts, figures and argument for their cause as those who maintain it. Thus members are left to be guided solely by their own reflections.

The first reason which presented itself to him was, that the gross inequality of the tax on slaves complained of, had for years existed by law in our State, and had received the sanction of many Legislatures. How could this be? Why has it not been pointed out and corrected before? Why was it not brought to the attention of the law-makers in time of quietness and peace? Why was its discovery reserved for this hour of perplexity and confusion? Is there not a significant, a dangerous implication in the fact that it is now for the first time pressed home upon the law-making power? It is said, though, that it has been pressed upon the Legislature. If so, then it must have failed there of course, and that alone raises a powerful presumption against it.

As for the position that there was anything in the nature of the property sought to be taxed in connexion with present or coming events, which would sustain the resolution, he wholly dissented from it. As for himself, if his mind was in doubt on any subject, and one course might suggest the idea of discrimination and the other would not, that fact would solve his doubts, and resolve him upon the latter course. No especial property was here imperilled, but all property and all right. The law was violated, without which no property can usefully exist. If violated as to one species it is violated as to all. Though aimed at a special point, the whole frame-work of our civil rights must bear the shock. For instance, but one citizen may hold a contract, if you violate it, for the time being, but the one may suffer; yet all in this or in some other vital point will inevitably say a penalty for a violated principle. Under the law it is true a man's rights are positive, but they are also relative. While my rights are protected it is an implied, if not an expressed condition of society, that my neighbor's shall be also. There is, there can be no property in Mississippi which needs either special privileges or merits special burden. There are, there can be no rights in Mississippi, which under any circumstances should pay a dearer price than others for that protection which is the end and aim of all government.

He believed there was wisdom in adopting the present revenue laws of the State as a basis for our action. There may be mistakes, errors or inequalities in them. The presumption is, however, against them. If there be such, leave them for the Legislature to correct, amend or abolish as the may feel instructed by their convictions to do Taking this basis, with addition of new subjects of taxation only, he was willing to vote an increase of any per cent. upon present rights deemed necessary to meet the wants of our people.

My apology for asking the attention of this body, is, I have rarely expressed my opinions except by voting. The ordinance under consideration provides for increasing the revenue by an increase of the present State tax fifty per cent. That law taxes negroes seventy-five cents each—a specific tax—and land at twenty-five cents on the hundred dollars. The amendment of the gentleman from Claiborne, (Mr. Ellett,) proposes to lay a tax upon all property at its value, whether that property consists in land or negroes. The amendment of the gentleman from Carroll, (Mr. George,) increases the tax upon all taxable property fifty per cent., except negroes, and upon them fixes an additional specific tax of one dollar and twenty five cents.

It is urged by the friends of this ordinance that we should not disturb the principle of taxation fixed by the Legislature, but only increase it so as to meet the present exigencies of the State. If this argument is worth anything, it establishes too much. It was proposed that the Legislature should have taken the whole subject of revenue under consideration, as it is the ordinary law-making power of the State. It would have had full and ample power, after a few constitutional restrictions and limitations were removed by the Convention in relation to the mode of pledging the faith of the State. The Convention, however, thought proper to enter into the general subject of legislation in raising the necessary revenue. This policy having been adopted, we should not be trammeled by any precedents or rules established by the Legislature further than they have the approbation of our judgments, as to the proper policy of the State. We act for ourselves, and not for the Legislature, and it would be no apology for our violation of a correct principle of legislation, that the Legislature had established the precedent. Their policy of legislation has been that of class of legislation, which is wrong in principle, and fruitful of innumerable ills in practice. Laws should be few, simple and general.

What is the effect of the class legislation adopted by the Legislature? Under its operation, capital invested in a slave worth fifteen hundred dollars only pays seventy-five cents tax, while the same amount of capital invested in land pays triple that sum. Is there any reason why capital invested in slaves should pay less to the support of the government than the same amount invested in lands? The office and purpose of government is to protect life, liberty and property, and if any sufficient reason can be given why any class of property should not contribute its due proportion for the protection afforded it, I will withdraw my objections to the principle of this bill.

The principle we have ever maintained is, that slaves are property: and if so, why should we legislate differently in relation to this species of property, except to protect their persons? I favor no agrarian system of legislation, but one that operates equally upon every property holder, whether the property may consist of slaves, lands, money or stocks. This theory of taxation, if properly established, is a barrier to all class legislation and agrarianism, and does equal justice to all.

Many gentlemen have spoken of what are the views of their constituency on this subject, and manifest a desire to conform legislation to those views. I have no definite information upon this subject from those I in part represent, but my opinions as to the right and equitable mode of levying taxes, are firmly and unalterably fixed, and I hope they may be satisfactory to my constituents. Whatever may be their views does not affect the correctness of the principle.

My objection to the amendment of the gentleman from Carroll is, that it fixes all arbitrary value on negroes, when in fact their value is constantly fluctuating. It is obnoxious to the objection that it specifies the fixed tax on slaves, instead of placing them upon the same footing of taxation as other property. If, however, the amendment that establishes the ad valorum system of taxation on all property does not prevail, then I shall vote for his amendment, which approximates to this principle.

Mr. Dyer said that the resolution offered by him proposed that the State should issue bonds, or certificates of deposit, bearing eight per cent. interest, per annum, and that the interest and one-tenth of the principal should be paid annually, by the State, and to that extent should be receivable in taxes. These bonds were proposed to be sold to our citizens, at par, to raise means for the defence of the State.

A hostile collision with the North must be reasonably expected, and prompt and ample preparations should be made to meet it. To carry on a war, money will be needed. Heavy expenditures must be made. Our own people will have to furnish the means. In the midst of revolution and the difficulties incident to it, it is idle to expect to borrow money from foreign governments or foreign bankers, but we must look to and rely upon our own citizens. How, then, shall the necessary money be obtained from them? Shall it be raised by immediate taxation? That would be too onerous: No people have ever attempted to carry on war by immediate taxation. At such a time, monetary and commercial affairs are deranged, industry is to a great extent paralyzed, and taxes are then more oppressive than at any other period. We must, therefore, not rely solely upon taxation, but must, as other people have, under similar circumstances, resort to our credit. We must appeal to the patriotism of the people. This movement originated with them, and they will see that it does not languish for the want of means. An appeal to them will receive a favorable response. In his own county he believed fifty thousand dollars of the bonds could be disposed of; other counties would, no doubt, be equally as liberal and patriotic. But aside from patriotism, he thought that the investment would be a good one. The security will be ample, and the interest is sufficiently high to induce capitalists to purchase the bonds. The planter, who has large annual taxes to pay, might safely buy, because he could discharge his tax with the interest and that portion of the principal which would be yearly payable, and having in his own hands the means of indemnity, he certainly would be willing to advance liberally to the State, to aid in so glorious a cause as its defence against a ruthless invader.

The distinguished gentleman from Coahoma (Mr. Alcorn) has proposed a different plan to raise the requisite means for our military defence. He suggests, the chartering of a Bank by this Convention, with which the State shall be connected, and from which the means shall be borrowed for the prosecution of the war. To this the objections are insuperable. Many are now living who recollect the Bank history of this State—the most disastrous known to any people. The banks demoralized the people, bankrupted the State, and inflicted upon it innumerable woes, from which it has scarcely yet recovered; and what has once happened will probably occur again. Into such institutions the breath of life should not be breathed.

Mississippi, too, is strictly an agricultural people, and Banks can alone succeed in commercial communities. They are dependent for their existence upon short credits, and short credits are of no use to planters. They receive the proceeds of their crops but once a year, and consequently want loans for a long period, and such loans are ruinous to banks; but at commercial points, discounts are made for a short time, usually to merchants who pay their debts promptly. By such debtors, Banks can be sustained, but by none other. Punctuality is the very life of a merchant, but it is of but little consequence to a planter: hence a commercial community sustains banks, and an agricultural one breaks them.

Further, it would be the interest of the Banks of Tennessee and other States, whose paper circulates here, to destroy the credit of a Bank of this State, because it would interfere with and entrench upon their business, and they would do so.

Again, Banks are the creatures of confidence, and can only exist in time of peace and quiet. To start one now in this State, with such troubles as we have in prospect, nothing but suspension and failure could be reasonably expected. Without further remarks, he would ask that the resolution be referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

We are in the midst of a great work. This movement was inaugurated to protect the institution of slavery, and to preserve it from destruction. The importance of the undertaking could not be over-estimated. The slaves of the South were about four millions in number, and about four billions of dollars in value. Their labor contributed more to the wealth, to the prosperity, the commerce and civilization of the world, than any other institution in it. And yet, by some strange solecism, the public opinion of the whole world, outside of those States and countries in which it existed, was strongly against it. Even those States which derived their chief elements of greatness from it, were loud in their condemnation of it. Was it wise or politic to do anything which would add strength to this feeling?

The North-Western States were justly jealous of any step which lorked towards any interference with the navigation of the Mississippi. If the Southern Confederation should determine to exclude all but the slave-holding States from their councils, it might lead the North-West to fear for the free navigation of that great stream. It was now the policy of the world to force open and keep open the great rivers of the earth. The policy of seclusion would not now be tolerated. For this reason our own government had forced its way into the great rivers of South America, and opened them to the entrance of commerce. For the same reason, England and France and the United States had forced India, Japan and China to abandon their exclusive policy, and to enter into the commercial spirit of the age. We should be obliged to make concessions to this feeling. We could not remain isolated. The first movement for the dissolution of the Union was made by the Western States, to obtain the free navigation of the Mississippi. It was a necessity then, it is a necessity now. That necessity would be carried out either by war, or by treaty. If by treaty, the more intimate the terms, the better. The age would not tolerate a continued state of open war. The question must therefore be settled by treaty. Now. a Constitution for the government of several independent States, is but a compact, or treaty. A treaty, it is true, of the most intimate kind, but not the less a treaty on that account.

Georgia and South Carolina are to-day sending abroad commissioners to make commercial treaties with European States, and to regulate their intercourse with them. The nations of Europe are not less hostile to the institution of slavery than the North-Western States of the former Union. Almost every European nation formerly held possessions in the West Indies, in which slavery was tolerated. They have all abolished it with the exception of Spain, in Cuba and Porto Rico. But still our neighboring sisters are seeking the most intimate terms of alliance with them. Of course they do not propose to give these nations any control in their domestic affairs—any voice in the management their slave institutions. Neither would I give any such power to any of the free States, if they should ever enter into a Constitutional compact with the South. The subject of slavery should be a prohibited subject—placed above and beyond the reach of Congressional legislation. It should be secured by the strongest guarantees and provisions which could be framed.

But it is said we could not trust to any pledges or any guarantees they might give. That is putting the case too strongly. We have lived for more than seventy years under the guarantees of the present constitution, for a good part of the time in comparative tranquility. Latterly they have broken through all guarantees and all restraints, because they had been told by Seward and others they could do so with impunity. That the South was subdued and dared not to resist. If the present movement is successful, as we hope it will be, they will be undeceived. They will be convinced of the necessity of complying with their obligations, and may therefore be forced by circumstances to do it.

But this is not all. We shall be obliged to have treaties with them. We cannot live without them in peace. Whatever treaties we may have, we must rest upon their assurances to carry them out. There is no other course.

When the French owned a large portion of this continent they were fully sensible of the necessity of connecting the Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico. More than a century and a quarter ago, Bienville, then Governor and Commandant of French America, set on foot two armaments to carry out this idea. One was to move from Mobile up the Tombigbee river, the other from the neighborhood of Chicago, and they were to build forts, and establish trading posts, and to meet somewhere in the Chickasaw country. The Northwestern forces arrived on the ground first, and were defeated by the Chickasaws, always the friends of the English, at the Chickasaw old fields in what is now Pontotoc county. The other detachment was defeated near Cotton Gin, in Monroe county, and the expedition was broken up. This was the first blow which shattered the French power on this continent. The scheme, though unsuccessful, showed a far-reaching sagacity. Shall we be less wise than the French, and shut the door against any negotiation which may secure to us the advantage of this commercial connection. I would not solicit it, neither would I say in advance I would not accept it. I would leave the matter open to the future.

There is another view which renders the amendment impolitic. It may be to our interest and advantage to be united with the Pacific States. The gold mines of California may be potent auxiliaries to the cotton fields of the South. United with those States under a common government, and connected with them by a railroad, our own South would have the nearest and most direct route to the commerce of the East Indies, and of China. This would place in our grasp the richest commerce on the globe. With the great valley of the Mississippi thus united with the Pacific, we could feed the world, we could clothe the world, and if assailed, we could resist the world.

But it is said that for even all this, we should no permit any free State to have a voice in the control of our slave institutions.

I know that Europe is throwing her surplus population on our shores at the rate of some six hundred thousand a year. I believe it is necessary to deprive these foreigners of political franchises and priveleges among us. They flee from the restraints of government in their own country, and think that here they are to have unmeasured excess of liberty; that they can trample all rights of property, all law, all religion, all morality, under foot. They will have to be deprived of this power, whether we have free States in our confederation or not. This can be done by prolonging the time during which they cannot come to the ballot-box.

The danger apprehended from a confederation with any of the free States, may be still farther avoided by Constitutional provisions, which will place it beyond their power to interfere with it. If they desire a Union with us, they will concede these provisions, and will moreover comply with them. If they are unwilling to give these guarantees, then it cannot be expected that we should enter into a confederation with them, because that would be planting the seed of dissolution in the cradle of our government.

As yet we have no evidence that these States will ever desire to unite with us. In my opinion, it is unsafe to say beforehand what we will do in that event. We may best decide when the time comes.

One other view, and I have done. What are called the border slave States, it is said, are already considering the propriety of a separate Union with some of the central free States. It is certainly desirable that we should have all the slave States in the new Confederacy. I think, therefore, it is better not to make a declaration in advance which might drive some of the Southern States from consultation with us. Let us select our best men for the occasion, and leave some latitude for their wisdom and discretion.

For these reasons I shall vote against the proposed amendment.

Mr. Chalmers had objected both to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Monroe (Mr. Gholson) and to that of the gentleman from Pontotoc (Mr. Fontaine.) And therefore, in accordance with the views expressed by the chairman of the committee, whose opinions had always great weight with him, he prepared an independent and additional resolution which he proposed to insert after the 1st resolution, and which he now asked leave to read for information:

Mr. Fontaine asked if the gentleman would allow him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chalmers—with pleasure, and then he offered his resolution as an amendment to that of the gentleman from Monroe.

This resolution avoids the difficulties presented by gentlemen upon both sides of this question. He concurred very fully with almost everything said by his friend from Marshall, (Mr. Clapp) but with all due deference to him he must say that the great Carolinian to whom he alluded, did not advocate the formation of a homogeneous government, but on the contrary, showed most conclusively in his work on government, and particularly in that portion relating to the State Constitution of South Carolina, that the best government is that which is founded on an equitable and honest compromise of conflicting interests. He believed with the gentleman from Lowndes, (Mr. Barry) that a good government can be formed by us embracing the Southern portion of the States lying north of the Ohio river; and he believed further with him that we have friends there who are sound upon the question of granting to us our rights and full protection to our property. They are the descendants of emigrants from Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and nearly every Southern State. They are now powerless. They have been overrun and trampled under foot by political demagogues and religious fanatics. They are now down. But the day of retribution must come. Want, starvation and misery must follow upon a final separation from us. They will soon feel, and our friends will soon have power to rise up and crush out the irresponsible rabble who have thus put them down, if we give them any encouragement. But if we shut the door upon them now and forever, we cut off all hope and make enemies of those who would be our friends.

They are united to us by the waters of the Mississippi and its tributaries, which percolates through the whole great vallies of the West, like the veins through the human system. A common interest binds governments together, and if once interest compels the North-Western States to adopt State laws in order to secure an union with us, it will be the entering wedge which will, in all probability lead to the establishment of slavery itself in the rich plains of Illinois, Indiana, and the valley of the Mississippi and Ohio. If the newspapers are to be believed, they are now holding large meetings in Southern Indiana, in which it has been declared that if a line is drawn between the North and the South they intend to be on the Southern side of that line. And for himself he now declared that he was willing to unite with any State which by its State laws will recognize and protect within its limits property in slaves. And if this leads to a reconstruction of the Union he was not ashamed to say that he would be willing to see the Union reconstructed on the principles which our fathers gave to it. This was all that we demanded. We would have been willing to sustain the Union if we could have secured our rights in it. And if every Northern State could now be regenerated, and public sentiment thoroughly changed, we might consent to a reconstruction of the Union. But he did not look for nor expect a reconstruction of the Union. He had no idea, no hope, and no desire that the Yankee States in the “far-off down-East” will ever be redeemed. And it is also true that no free State is now asking admission to our proposed union. But we are preparing to make a government not for the present alone, but with the hope that it may continue for years, and the time may come when the border slave States may not contain a single slave, but still they might have laws recognizing and protecting our property, and so long as this is so they may continue with us. In view of these facts he was unwilling to shut the door of admission forever against the North-Western States; but still on the other hand he was unwilling to say that we will unite with any State if she will simply secede. We propose to unite under the old Constitution, and if we say that we will unite with any State that will secede, the Northern States, if they have the sense to understand it, can secede and claim a right to come into our Convention and re-unite with us under the same Constitution and on the same footing as before. This would render our action simply ridiculous. He was therefore in favor of placing some limitation upon the right to unite, and he thought that limitation should be made now.

This debate has developed the fact that there are differences of opinion between us and between prominent gentlemen who are likely to be our delegates. They may go to Montgomery and agree to something on this subject which would not be satisfactory to us. Then when their action comes back to us for ratification, we might disapprove of it, and our work would have to be done over again. He thought it better, therefore, to settle this question now, and make our delegates represent the views of the Convention, and not their individual sentiments.

This is the fair, open and manly course, and we had better say now distinctly what we intend to do, that there may be no misunderstandings hereafter.

It had not been his purpose on this, or any other subject, to address the Convention. But, notwithstanding the sanction it had received in committee of the whole, so irreconcilable was his opposition to the amendment then under discussion, that he could not, without doing violence to his impulses and convictions, refrain from expressing his repugnance to it.

The effect of the proposition submitted was, that the members of this body should, in the election of delegates to the contemplated Southern Convention, at Montgomery, be required to choose them with special geographical reference to the former Congressional Districts in this State. A local restriction, at once, so wholly unnecessary, so inconvenient and so inappropriate, contained not a single element to commend it to his favor or respect. Had he been present at the adoption of this amendment, the day before, in committee of the whole, he would have combatted it there; And when, as it was, on that day to undergo the ordeal of another vote, cordially did he second the motion made by his friend from Claiborne, (Mr. Ellett,) that the recommendation of the Committee be disagreed to by the Convention.

Why, he would respectfully ask, should we be called upon to re-establish the abrogated Congressional divisions of the State? If necessary for an important or salutary end that we should again trace the obliterated lines of those Districts, he would not object; but for himself, he was free to confess that he cherished no such lingering affection for the late Federal authority that he would, without another motive, be swift to reconstruct any part of its cast-off machinery. What general considerations—what reasons, founded either upon utility or principle, might exist for territorial subdivision of the State, in this Ordinance, he acknowledged himself altogether unable to discover. Were the seven delegates to Montgomery to cast seven votes? On the contrary, was it not provided in the Ordinance itself that the representatives whom we are to accredit to the Southern Convention, are to be entitled to cast but one vote in that body?—that they are to blend their opinions, and to speak, unitedly, the solemn voice of he sovereignty, “one and indivisible,” of the State of Mississippi. The number of delegates had been limited to seven, corresponding to the State's representation in both houses of Congress—in consonance, perhaps, with the example of South Carolina, to prevent the body from being unwieldy—with some reference to population, and as a kind of basis, or multuple, affording to each State a relative proportion of minds to consult together as to its separate, single vote. The numbers of delegates composing these delegations it surely was not contended had been adjusted with reference to any supposed subordinate interests within the several States. It had not been thought in South Carolina that she had sectional claims to be respected. Her statesmen, not deeming it proper to regard any interest but the great one of her paramount sovereignty, had selected her delegation to Montgomery from the State at large, and he thought we might do well to emulate the disinterested spirit displayed by the public men of that gallant State, by the adoption, on our part, of the same wise and comprehensive policy. If then, our seven delegates shall be required, as an unit, to act in the Southern Convention for the whole people of Mississippi, as one homogeneous community, would it not be instance of equal ill-taste and bad judgment for us, in the very method of their appointment, to suggest the unworthy ideas of petty sectional rivalships and internal State dissensions? It was superfluous for him to insist that it would be utterly impossible for a question to arise in the Southern Convention which could affect, however remotely, the citizens of any one Congressional District in this State, without, to exactly the same extent, affecting those of every other. Local State questions, then, being wholly inadmissable in the action of these delegates, local prejudices and partialities ought to be equally so in their selection. For himself, in such an epoch in her history as the present, he would know no North, no South, East or West, within the limits of the State—he would know nothing but the sovereign State of MISSISSIPPI, and the united destiny of her entire people. In this spirit, he would discard every sectional feeling, and select the delegates in complete forgetfulness of the accident of mere locality. In times like these, an enlarged patriotism ought to over-rule and absorb every other consideration. Let us, then, unite in the selection of the best men. Let us choose them by moral and intellectual test alone. Let them be statesmen—firm of purpose, sagacious in council, brave in resolve, and invincible in fortitude—men, the impulses of whose patriotic hearts would ensure in behalf of their country's sacred cause the highest exertion of all their highest qualities and powers. Give him but such a man for representative, who had “a name” in the State, and he cared not to enquire in what part of it he claimed his “local habitation.” Such were his sentiments on this head, that he did not hesitate to declare he would not vote for a citizen, even, of his own county, if recommended only because he happened to reside in the Second Congressional District; while, on the other hand, he would cheerfully vote for any number of these delegates from any one county in any other district in the State, if he believed them the most eminently qualified for the discharge of the momentous trust to be committed to them.

Before he proceeded farther, he begged leave to state that he was not in the hall when the gentleman from Claiborne made his motion, nor did he bear what had been said in its support. He, therefore, hoped to be excused if he repeated views which had already been more ably presented by the other gentlemen who preceded him on the same side in this debate. He also feared that, from his absence, he might fail to give due weight to the arguments used by the advocates of the Congressional Districts. He had entered the hall only in time to hear a portion of the remarks of the gentleman from Holmes, (Mr. Dyer,) who had occupied the floor immediately before himself. In his advocacy of the amendment, his friend from Holmes had alluded to a matter which he would not have been the first to mention there; but, it having been introduced by others, and he being in somewhat a peculiar position with reference to it, he at once availed himself of the occasion; and would beg the indulgence of the Convention while, for a few moments, he invited attention to this subject, of the separate “caucus” which, it was understood had been held by the delegates representing in this body several of the late Congressional Districts.

The gentleman from Holmes stated that certain nominations “IN CAUCUS” had already been made, and gravely suggested and urged the fact as a reason for the adoption of this ill-advised amendment. He differed, in toto, on this point, with his friend from Holmes. The precipitate zeal with which these caucuses had been convoked, furnished, indeed, to his mind, a cogent argument against the recognition of the Congressional Districts. He felt no inclination to comment on the famous “caucus” system. It was a political engine, sometimes, perhaps, necessary; but it had been so generally employed for mere personal and party ends, that it had never attracted his admiration or won his confidence. He had hoped, indeed, that in the new order of things just inaugurated— that, in a purified Southern Confederacy—it was destined to lose somewhat of its former misdirected power and influence. He was sorry to find it, with such alacrity, appealed to in this Convention. The amendment touching the Congressional districts had not yet been incorporated in the Ordinance. Whether it should be, or not, was the question that had to be decided. The day previous, it had received a recommendation in Committee, and before the Convention could consider it, as mentioned by the gentleman from Holmes, several district caucus nominations had been announced. To say the least of it, he felt justified in characterizing this action as premature. He did not believe that a bare majority, (consisting of only nine or ten generally,) of the delegates from any set of counties that had happened to have been once associated together in the same Congressional District, ought to be permitted to dictate to this Convention the choice of a delegate who was in the Montgomery Convention to represent the last inch of territory, and every man, woman and child in the whole State of Mississippi. Yet be did not see how this unwelcome “caucus” influence could be avoided, if we mapped off the State into Districts, from each one of which a delegate to Montgomery should be taken.

He would now beg leave to refer to the caucus of the delegates from his former Congressional District, which had been held the previous afternoon. He was urged to be present, and had reluctantly attended. After upwards of a dozen ballots, they adjourned without a nomination. At the close of the night's session of the Convention, he was solicited to attend another caucus, to be composed as before. This he declined to do, and authorized and requested a friend to apprise the meeting that he not only refused to participate in its proceedings, but respectfully gave notice that he would not be bound by any result of its action. His message had been duly delivered, and thus he, at least, stood there untrammeled by any species of dictation, however it might be with the rest of the delegates from the late Second Congressional District. It was proper that he should state that he could not claim the pleasure of even a passing personal acquaintance with the gentleman who had been honored by receiving the nomination from that District, and he desired it to be understood that he intended no disparagement to that gentleman when he declared his purpose to withhold from him his vote. Apart from the mode and source of the nomination, he objected to it, because the recipient occupied a seat in this Convention.

This objection brought him to a subject in regard to which he entertained some views that he feared might prove unacceptable— views which had not before been introduced into that hall, and which he, therefore, would present with great diffidence. But, honestly and conscientiously believing his position to be correct, and sustained, as he was, by this conviction, he would venture to say that, in his opinion, places and offices of high honor and trust ought not to be ordained by this Convention, and then be immediately filled by members of the body that created them. He would indulge in no elaborate argument on this point. He would, however, beg leave to refer to that clause of the State Constitution which declares that no member of the Legislature shall be eligible, for one year, to any office created during his term of service, nor to any office the appointment to which is to be made by either house of that Legislature of which he is a member. He did not contend that the Constitution, in this respect, fettered the action of this Convention, but he did say that the Constitution of the State, in force, was the highest known expression of the sovereign will of the people of Mississippi. Supreme as might be the power arrogated to itself by this body, (and he feared, in some quarters, too much had been claimed for it,) and although it was admitted that the principle to which be referred had no bearing whatever upon it, yet he doubted whether it might not be entitled to some slight degree of general respect from the Convention. If this principle was wholesome and conservative in regard to members of the Legislature, it must assuredly be equally so with regard to members of that Convention. The analogy was complete—the application just. But, upon general considerations of common policy and prudence, he questioned the propriety of appointing members of this Convention to offices or places for the creation of which they had voted. He was incapable of appealing to those considerations which could only influence demagogues; but yet he ventured to say that he feared nothing would be more likely to engender discontent and disaffection in the minds of the people towards this convention than the distribution among themselves, by its members, of the honors and positions which they had breathed into existence. It was very far from his intention to insinuate, for a moment, that any gentleman on that floor could be controlled in his vote on any Ordinance by a selfish greed for personal promotion. It should, however, be remembered that it was easy and common for the disaffected, the envious and uncharitable, to misjudge and malign the best motives of the truest men. Apprehensions of this character had, indeed, little enough weight with him, but still, above all personal interests, did he anxiously desire, for the sake of the cause they had espoused, that this Convention should go forth, without accusation or reproach. He knew it could not be justly impeached—that it was patriotic and pure in its purposes—but he would have it, like Cæsar's wife, to be “above suspicion.” He, therefore, regretted the disposition to select from that hall the delegates to Montgomery. He did not believe that this Convention had gathered and monopolized all the talent and patriotism of the State. Reject this needless district limitation, and he was confident that from the State at large, men—able, tried and true—outside of this body, could be found to worthily represent Mississippi in the Southern Convention. Those whom he addressed were committed—they stood upon the record on the immortal Ordinance of Secession; and he suggested if it would not be well to engage in and identify with this great movement of our day and generation, other of Mississippi's devoted sons, who would bring to it, as fresh accessions, all the moral and material sanction and aid of their names, characters and active participation.

He wished, however, to say that he wished to confine the objections he had urged, to civil appointments; and that he would except from them the military offices to be filled by the Convention. There was no civil post or duty which, he would say, should detain a man from obeying his impulses whenever he desired to perform a soldier's service in the hour of his country's danger.

While he thought that any citizen might well be content with the honor of a seat in this body, and with the performance of its duties, without seeking any other civil position, yet, if any gentleman there proposed to descend from that floor—no, he would not say descend, but to ELEVATE himself from that floor—to seek a patriot's place upon the field of battle, he, for one, would honor the choice, bid him “God speed,” and hope the warrior the good fortune to win laurels that he might long live to wear in the sight of his grateful countrymen. But, with this peculiar exception, his opposition to members of the body receiving high appointments at the hands of this Convention, was so extreme, that rather than allow membership a rule, as it seemed, for selection, he would greatly prefer that it should be made one of total exclusion. It was proposed, in certain contingencies, to refer the action of the Montgomery Convention, so far as Mississippi might be concerned, to this Convention. He submitted if it would be proper that members of this Convention should hereafter be called upon to defend and ratify their own acts done at Montgomery? A main reason for his refusal to attend the second caucus, in his district, was, that he had observed, in the first, that nine-tenths of the ballots cast were for the members then present. He meant no reflections or disparagement when he stated his conviction that many received votes there who would not have been balloted for at all if they had not been members of this body. As to the nomination finally made at the second “caucus,” he had already declared that it would not receive his support. He was the only delegate from the late Second Congressional District who was free so to act, as others had participated in the nominating meeting; and he then, in advance, proclaimed his intention, at the proper time, to oppose to that nomination the name of some worthy citizen of the District, not a member of this Convention, in whose behalf he would earnestly invoke the aid of all those who sympathized with himself, or approved the views which he had presented. This unpleasant collision, however, he hoped might be avoided. It certainly would be prevented by ignoring the Congressional Districts in the election of the delegates to the Southern Convention; and he, therefore, trusted that the motion of the gentleman from Claiborne would prevail.

On a subsequent day, the 22d, the Ordinance being again under discussion, Mr. Jones moved to strike out from the second line of the first section the word “two,” and from the third line the words, “one from each Congressional District,” on which motion,

He said: That having, when the subject was last under debate, took occasion to express his views at considerable length, and, perhaps, with an indiscreet degree of zeal, in opposition to that clause of the Ordinance requiring the delegates to the Montgomery Convention to be selected according to the former Congressional representation of the State, it was not his present purpose to repeat or refer to any of the varied considerations and objections which he had before endeavored to impress upon the Convention. It was simply his object to examine this proposal purely as a practical measure, and he believed he would be able to demonstrate that if the design of its advocates was to distribute equally these appointments throughout the State, this District scheme would be as inefficacious in its operation as it was manifestly unwise its policy.

He begged leave, especially, to call attention to the fact that our Congressional Districts extended from the Eastern to the Western limits of the State—crossing it in zones, as it were, from the Alabama line to the banks of the Mississippi river. We might, then, choose one delegate from the South-eastern extremity of Tishomingo county, in the first district; another from the North-eastern extremity of Itawamba, in the second district—both residing in sight of each other, and also of the Alabama line. If next we select the two (Senatorial) delegates for the State at large from the same vicinage, we would have four out of the seven (a majority of the delegation, which could control its every vote,) all coming from one neighborhood in a remote corner of the State—it might be, from within less than the limits of a single township. The other three delegates might be taken from counties bordering on the State of Alabama, in each one of the Congressional Districts, respectively: and then, would we not have an entire representation from the extreme Eastern boundary of the State, while Middle and Western Mississippi would be totally ignored in the Southern Convention? On the other hand, we might choose a delegate from some county on the Mississippi river, in each one of the five Congressional Districts, and the two for the State at large, also, from the banks of that river, and then would not Middle and Eastern Mississippi be without a representative son in that Convention? He respectfully asked whether all this sectional preference and preponderence might not occur, and yet this rule, so profoundly devised for the territorial distribution of these honors, be in nowise violated?

Since he had claimed citizenship in Mississippi, never having sympathized with, or been susceptible to, such influences, he had obtained no knowledge whatever touching the geographical belts, shadowing the regions of those sectional jealousies, in the assumption of the existence of which he supposed this Congressional District scheme could only have had its origin. He hoped no such lines could be drawn; but if division or rivalry did exist in the State, he had thought it was as much the result of contrast between East and West as between North and South Mississippi. The utter futility of the District system, as to Eastern and Western partitions of the State in regard to these appointments, was palpable, although it might prevent all of the delegation being taken from the Southern or Northern end of the State alone. But he proposed to examine it a little farther. If intended to effectuate equal, or general distribution, a committee should have been appointed to divide the State into seven districts, for there are seven delegates. If this be not done, why, then, this most excellent rule could be good in its application for three-fifths, or four-fifths only, of itself. After giving one delegate to each of the five Congressional districts, the two from the State at large would have to be allotted among the same districts. If both the Senatorial delegates were taken from one district, that favored association of counties would boast the honor of furnishing three of the seven delegates; but, at best, two of the districts would necessarily have two delegate each, while three of them could only have one each.

There was another reflection that occurred to his mind. It was this: that the two (Senatorial) delegates for the State at large would inevitably appear to have received something of a higher honor than those from the districts. Would they not appropriate to themselves a superior compliment? and would it not be difficult to divest others of the idea that they had been clothed with robes of a little higher dignity? Yet, in point of fact, they would only be “equal among peers,”—constituting, together, two-sevenths of the unit by which the vote of the State would be cast. This seeming inequality and impropriety was an objection to the proposed plan. The effect of his amendment would be to strike from the Ordinance the Congressional District feature, and to leave each member unfettered in his choice of delegates to the Montgomery Convention.

I do not propose, with the signs of impatience which have been already shown in regard to the discussion of amendments to these resolutions, to enter upon that interminable field of discussion—but I desire to submit the reasons which have induced me to offer this amendment. I do not consider that our work here is one alone of destruction, but I recognize the duty of this Convention to engage in a work of construction also. I think it clearly within the province of this Convention, and was in the contemplation of my constituents when they sent me here as a delegate, that we should meet any or all of the States seceding for like reasons with ourselves, at a time and place agreed upon after consultation on that subject, for the purpose of uniting with them in the formation of a harmonious and homogeneous Union. but here our work of construction ends, and the people's work of approval begins. The constitution of the new permanent Union must be ratified by the States which it is proposed shall become parties to it, like that glorious constitution which was the result of the labors of that Convention of which Washington was President. That constitution was discussed before the people of every State that ratified it, and a convention, elected with special reference to its adoption, ratified it. The Federalist was written, to incline the States to adopt and ratify it. How else could it have been rationally and intelligibly ratified? If the principle that one people are capable of self-government is still to continue the basal idea of government, I do not see any foundation for the apprehension that a constitution framed by a convention at Montgomery is liable to an arbitrary and capricious rejection by the people of Mississippi. But if, on the other hand, we assume without authority to make Mississippi a party to a permanent new constitutional compact, croaking and disappointed demagogues will seize upon this to stir up groundless opposition to that new constitution. The amendment only recognizes the right of each distinct political community which it is proposed shall become a party to the compact, determining for itself whether it will become such party or not. This is the great centripetal force of our system of government. I therefore offer the amendment.