en if adopted.

And now I wish to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SEDDON) a plain
question, and I wish to receive a frank answer. If this Conference
agrees to the amendments proposed by the majority of the committee,
will Virginia sustain the Government and maintain its integrity, while
the people are considering and acting on the new proposals of
amendment to the Constitution? If she will not do this, if this
proposition does not meet the heart of Virginia, there is no use--

Mr. SEDDON:--I can let Virginia speak for herself. She has spoken for
herself in most emphatic language. She has told you what will satisfy
her in the resolutions under which this body is convened. I have no
right whatever to suppose that she will accept less. She is solemnly
pledged to resist coercion. She will resist it to the very last
extremity. She arrived at that conclusion after grave deliberation,
and it was attended with every manifestation of concurrence on the
part of the people. I have no reason to suppose there was any
hesitation at the time, or that there has been any change since, or
that there is any hesitation in her purpose now.

Now, if the gentleman wants my private opinion, I will tell him that
whether the propositions of the majority of the committee or her own
be adopted here, or by the people, the purpose of Virginia to resist
coercion is _unchanged_ and _unchangeable_.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I rise to a point of order. It appears to me that this
discussion is very foreign to the subject before the Conference. It is
so long since that subject has been named, that many have doubtless
forgotten it. The question is upon the adoption of the resolution
limiting the debate. I think we had better keep to the question.

The PRESIDENT:--The gentleman is undoubtedly correct in his statement
of the question, but the discussion of the general subject has been
permitted to go on without objection by the Convention, and I do not
think it would be right to stop it now.

Mr. SEDDON:--I said the position of Virginia was unchanged. She
considers this a Government of love and not of force. She thinks there
should be no force or coercion used toward any sovereign State acting
in its collective capacity. She does not propose to permit such
coercion to be used.

And now, having answered the gentleman frankly, as he desired, I wish
to ask him a question, and I wish also an explicit and frank answer.
My question is this: Is it the purpose o