nia--8.

NAYS--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, New York, and Iowa--12.

So the amendment failed.

The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman
from Maryland.

Mr. JOHNSON:--I trust that I shall not trespass upon the time of the
Conference, but the subject now before it is one of great importance,
and it involves the consideration of many important questions. The
amendment which I offer is for the purpose of making the proposition
of the committee clear and plain. I was aware that a construction
might be placed upon it different from that which the committee
intended; and it is due to the frankness which is manifested here,
that the purposes of the committee should be made plain. There ought
to be no ambiguity in a constitutional provision. Some of the most
important constitutional questions decided by the Supreme Court have
been questions of construction. Lawyers would differ about the
construction to be given the committee's proposition. I think the
Supreme Court has placed a construction upon the terms used here,
which would be conclusive. A similar question arose in the Dred Scott
case. There the question was upon that article in the Constitution
which confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and to make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the _territories_ or other
property belonging to the United States." The Court in that case
decided that the provision had no bearing on the controversy in that
case, because the power given by that provision, whatever it might be,
was confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which,
upon the adoption of the Constitution, belonged to or was claimed by
the United States, and was within their boundaries, as settled by the
treaty with Great Britain. With this clause in the Constitution,
therefore, it could have no influence upon the territory afterward
acquired from a foreign government. I think this decision conclusive,
and that the proposition, if incorporated into the Constitution, would
refer only to the territory now owned by the United States.

It was the wish of the representatives of some States in the committee
that the word "future" should be inserted in the report. I was opposed
to it: it was so odious to me to put words into the Constitution, or
to propose to do so, which should go forth to the world as an
indication