adoption of the rules recommended by the Committee? If so, I would move that the Hon. Judge 1 George W. Miller be requested to administer the oaths. The Chair said that by adopting the report of the Committee, the Convention had agreed to the rules recommended therein. Mr. WATKINS. I am not aware that it has been the practice of Conventions of this kind to take an oath of this sort. It strikes me as a little singular that we should be called upon to swear to support a Constitution which we may be called upon to alter as we please. I think no such action was taken in the Convention of 1845. I would inquire of the Chairman of the Committee whether he is aware that such an oath was taken by that Convention. Mr. ROWLAND-I am not certain about whether they swore to support the Constitution of Missouri or not; but I suppose, when we act under the Constitution, we have the right to declare our allegiance to it. Mr. BROADHEAD-I was a member of the Convention, and I will state also that I am one of three members present who were members of the Convention of 1845-46. I am aware the journals of that Convention show that the members of that body were qualified and took their seats, but nothing appears on the journals to show exactly what that qualification was. My recollection is that they took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri. I know the question was discussed in that Convention as to whether that was an extra constitutional body convened within the purview of the Constitution, and we came to the conclusion, I believe, and it was the generally admitted opinion at that time, that that Convention, which proposed to change the Constitution, and actually undertook to change the law of the land, and to make a Constitution, which was submitted to the people, was within the purview of the Constitution, and that we had a right to make such alterations as we thought proper. It is true it did not come within the special provisions of the Constitution itself, but within the bill of rights which authorizes the people to change their form of government from time to time, as the emergencies of the case may require. We took the ground that it was within the purview of the bill of rights, and that until after the new Constitution was framed, we were still bound by the Constitution of the State of Missouri, and the United States, which every officer had sworn to support. That was the view taken by the Convention, and my recollection is, that the oath was taken to support both Constitutions. If Governor Stewart is present he can give his recollection; I may not be cor rect. Mr. STEWART. My recollection is, we took an oath to support both Constitutions. I recollect I had doubts at the time whether it was necessary, and I have those doubts to a certain extent yet, for it occurs to me that, if this body can, or has the power to, amend the Constitution, although done in a constitutional manner, yet it is not necessary to take an oath to support the Constitution which it is desired to alter or amend. But I think the object of this Convention was not only to amend the Constitution, but to disrupt our whole connection with the several States of the Union and with the General Government. My opinion is, that we did take that oath, and I believe I opposed it at the time, and I can see no reason for it, yet I don't see how we can upset the Constitution and support it at the same time. [Applause in the galleries.] Mr. BIRCH-I have made up my mind, and am as ready to take the oath as any man, but as the question has been raised, I concur entirely with the gentleman who has signified his reasons for believing that that act which called us together contemplated no oath. I supposed from the wording of that act that it was anticipated that we might pass an ordinance of secession that would be extra constitutional, and in derogation of the Constitution of the Union. I therefore think the Convention will conform to the legislative enactment if they decline to swear at all. Such would comport with my taste, but I have no doubt my conscientiousness will be the same in each case. I don't believe the oath was ever contemplated, and I think would be criticised and liable to great. criticism if we took an oath. The Chair. There is no proposition before the Convention. The discussion has been made in reference to the resolution which has been adopted. Mr. POMEROY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted. Mr. W. P. HALL. I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. Mr. SAYER. I call the ayes and nays. The Chair. I believe there are no rules for that purpose. Mr WELCH. The Convention has adopted certain rules which require the roll to be called. Mr. WATKINS. I suggest if every member has not the right to demand the ayes and nays. Mr. WELCH. The 34th rule which has been adopted, declares any member shall have the right to call the ayes and noes on any question. The Chair. Not having read the rules, was not aware of that fact. Mr. STEWART. Is it proper to make a remark before the roll is called? If so, I wish to say I was called upon for an explanation in reference to my opinion concerning that Convention. I stated that I believed we were compelled to swear to support the Constitution of the United States and of Missouri. I thought it would be proper Mr. HOWELL. Then I will renew it. I am a pretty good Union man, but I do not desire to be sworn to passive obedience at the start. I am a part of the people in that district, here, and I hold myself to be a member of this Convention, with or without an oath. Suppose I refuse to take an oath, is there any means of enforcing it, of turning me out of the Convention, any means of debarring me or any other member of the Convention, from its privileges? If we should refuse to take the oath, I hold there is no law by which it can be done, and I think there is, therefore, an impropriety in adopting a rule which cannot be enforced. I therefore renew the motion to reconsider. I am as good a Union man as any in this Convention, yet at the same time a contingency may arise so that this oath would embarrass me, there being no means of enforcing it whatever. I therefore renew the motion to reconsider. Mr. WRIGHT. I shall vote against a reconsideration, sir, and I will say a word or two in regard to the value of this obligation. I will not go into the question whether it can be enforced or not, because independent of that I see some valuable results that will flow from the application of this touch-stone of patriotism to the minds of the delegates of this body. I hope no man will refuse to support the Constitution of the United States. I think this body is unlimited, save by the Constitution of the United States, and the only objection I have to that limitation is that it is not strong enough to hold every body in the Union. I was glad to see it, because I look upon it in the light of a test question. If there is an unsound secession spot in the heart of any person, this oath will be apt to feel about him and occasion some flinching when he is called upon to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I was glad the committee furnished that sort of practical test of how far men had gone out of the Union, either in imagination or intention. I am glad the opportunity has been presented for gentlemen to renew expressions of unequivocal allegianee to the Union of the States. In regard to the other portion of that oath, if I had had the framing of the rules, I should have dispensed with it entirely; but still I do not think there is any incompatibility in taking an oath to support the Constitution of this State by a body that may or might, (I do not say would,) upset the Government, and frame a new Constitution for the people of the State, because the Constitution of the State expressly recognizes that right in a plain provision of the declaration of rights, by which the people can change, alter, or modify their form of government as they may think proper, provided they take a republican form, and provided they do not hurt something more sacred stillthe Constitution of the Union. (Applause in the galleries.) I am therefore for this oath, especially for the first and larger oath, an oath that involves the widest circle of patriotism, and without which there can be no successful patriotism anywhere. Mr. GIVENS. I am in favor of a reconsideration and opposed to laying on the table, as it occurs to me from the act calling this Convention that the whole matter is thrown open. I supposed the object of this Convention was to consider the relations of this State to the General Government. I perhaps may be mistaken in regard to the matter, but I have been laboring under that impression. So long as no difficulties had arisen in the Government, of course, if we had been called here to form a new Constitution for the State of Missouri, then I grant that the oath to support the Constitution of the United States would have been proper; but when we are called to consider the relations which this State may sustain towards the General Government, relations in which, in some events at least, it was contemplated that there might be a severance of the State from the General Government, and I do not say now in advance that I would be in favor of such a project; but I say distinctly that events may arise, how long I know not, within ten days perhaps, within a month perhaps, which would make it necessary for this State to dissolve its connection with the General Government. This may be language too strong, but I make it on this preliminary motion, not that I am committed to this course of action, but that I believe a state of case may arise during the sitting of this Convention, that we may be called upon to dissolve that connection which binds the State to the General Government. Under that that impresion, I would hesitate to take an oath which no one is asked to take. There can be nothing inconsistent in the position which I occupy. I stand here as a citizen called from a remote part of the State to act the part which has been imposed upon me, and I say there ought to be no obligation in view of the circumstances which surround this occasion, there ought to be no obligation in regard to this matter. Mr. WILSON. As I look at the matter, there were two reasons which actuated those who voted for this Convention. Some voted for it for the object, as I believe, of disrupting the relations that now exist between the people of Missouri and the Government of the United States. Others, I am persuaded, aided in the calling of this Convention, for the purpose, if possible, of settling all the difficulties that have existed and do exist between the people of Missouri, and the people of the United States and the Government thereof. But I do not regard this Convention as a revolutionary Convention. This Convention was called by the Government existing, and therefore to all intents and purposes, cannot be revolutionary. Whenever the people of the Government desire to overturn their Government, whenever in their wisdom they shall deem it expedient to upset the Government under which they live by revolutionary effort, I think in all probability they will not go to the government for the power to hold their Convention, but they will proceed without any authority from the existing government to put the machinery of the new government in operation to supersede the old government. Now I am ready to take the oath, and I hold it is not inconsistent with any duties that may arise in the discharge of my duties as a member of this Convention. I do not suppose it is contemplated by the members of this Convention to meddle with the State Constitution; but if they should determine to do so it will not be inconsistent with the oath which they are required to take by the recommendation of this committee. If they determine to frame a new Constitution and submit it to the people, that act as contemplated by the existing Constitution is not in violation, and hence it is Mr. President that I think it is eminently proper that the members on this great occasion-perhaps the greatest that ever existed in Missouri-should show the people of this State, and of the whole Union of States, that they are loyal to law and order-[applause in the galleries]-and all the precedents which has heretofore sustained our happy relations, not only with the people of Missouri, but with the people of the United States. I do not hold that, because we take this oath as members of this Convention, that we shall submit to a wrong from the General Government or from the government of the State of Missouri, or from any other quarter. We swear to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri, as they exist at present. We say nothing about the execution of the laws passed under this Constitution; we do not take into consideration the violations of this Constitution that may exist, or that may hereafter arise, but we swear simply to the fact that we will uphold the principles of the Constitution as they exist, both State and National. [Applause.] Mr. REDD. So far as I am concerned, I think a state of case may arise-I hope it will not-in which this State will be driven to one of two extremities, to surrender her institutions or a sever ance of her connection with the Northern States of this Confederacy. [Slight applause in the galleries.] I say, taking that view of it, I have no objection to taking this oath, for this plain, palpable reason, that I believe if Missouri is placed in that position and may thus elect to sever her connection with the Northern States, that she is not violating the Constitution, but that she is exercising an inherent right, a part of her original sovereignty reserved to her by that instrument. But I know there are gentlemen who are for the Union as much as myself, and ready to do anything for its preservation, but yet, when we are driven, either to a surrender of these constitutional rights, or a severance of our Union with the Confederacy, will go, like myself, for a severance of that Union. They differ with me in this. They believe the exercise of that right inconsistent with the Constitution, and in violation of it, and for the reason that they entertain that view I am in favor of this motion to reconsider and leave them to act as their constituents wish them to act, and as the safety of the institutions of the State may require them to act. I shall therefore support this motion. Mr. BIRCH. Would it be in order to renew the motion to execute the order of yesterday for a secret session. If it would be I think we have had demonstrative evidence in the hissses or applause which we have heard, to show why that order should be executed. The CHAIR. That depends upon whether the mover of the motion now pending will withdraw it. Mr. BIRCH. I ask the gentleman if he will withdraw his motion, in order that I may renew mine. I offer no vindication for so doing, except what has proceeded around us. In saying this I make no reflection upon gentlemen in the gallery. I know what human feeling is; but I think we should be removed from its influence. Mr. HOWELL. To give the gentleman an opportunity to test the sense of this Convention, I will withdraw my motion, with the understanding that I will renew it. Mr. BIRCH. Then I renew my motion for the purpose of determining whether our sessions shall be held hereafter publicly or privately. Mr. BOGY. I wish to inquire if reporters are to be excluded. The CHAIR. Every person not an officer will be excluded. Mr. BOGY. I wish to amend by including the reporters in the House. [Laughter.] A VOICE. Imove the ladies be included, also. Mr. BIRCH. I will remark that we can settle all that in secret session, whether we will exclude or admit reporters or ladies. Mr. WELCH. I wish to inquire if it is in order, pending the calling of the ayes and noes, to withdraw a motion. The CHAIR. The Chair has not examined the rules. Mr. PRICE. It can be if there is no second to the proposition. Mr. KNOTT. As the convention resolved yesterday to go into secret session, is not that the standing order. The CHAIR. The proposition was made by the gentleman from Clinton yesterday, that the convention should adjourn until 10 o'clock, this morning, to meet in conclave for the purpose of considering certain questions that is whether the sitting of this convention shall be secret or open. One part of the proposition was that the convention should adjourn until to-day, at 10 o'clock. The Chair regarded the object stated by the gentleman from Clinton, to meet in conclave, as a suggestion made to the minds of the Convention, of the proposition that would be met on this morning at ten o'clock, and not as a direct motion, and I submitted the question to the Convention in that form, but I find that the Secretary in recording the motion, has recorded it in the language of the gentleman from Clinton, and not as understood by the Chair. The Chair is therefore in the condition of having put the motion without reference to the language employed by the mover. I ask therefore, that the Convention solve the difficulty whether the journal shall be corrected as understood by the Chair, or whether the provisions of the motion, there recorded, shall be enforced. Mr. SAYER. The question was put to me yesterday, whether we would adjourn until to-day, at 10 o'clock, and not whether we should meet in conclave. I did not vote yesterday to meet here in conclave to-day, and I think it would be more proper if that word was stricken from the journal. I do not think it constituted a part of our action yesterday. If it is competent, I move to strike out the word "conclave" in the journal. I believe we can determine in open session whether we shall meet in secret or open session. Mr. Moss. For the purpose of relieving the Chair and shortening debate, I make a point of order. I contend these motions are all out of order; I contend the motion was to adjourn to meet to-day in conclave. I raise that question. The motions that have been made are all out of order, and it was our business to meet in conclave, and it was the duty of the Chair to exclude all persons not members. Mr. WATKINS. I think it is due to the gentleman from Clay to make a statement. On yesterday evening, the gentleman from Clinton made a motion to go into secret session. At the instance of several gentlemen he withdrew the motion for the time being, to give the Committee on Credentials time to report, but said he would renew it. The drift of his proposition was to go into secret session. Afterwards he renewed his motion in a different shape, and that motion was that the Convention adjourn to ten o'clock this morning, when we would go into secret session. Mr. Moss. I merely made my motion at the suggestion of the Chair. I understood he desired an expression as to whether we had adjourned to meet privately. Mr. WILSON. It occurs to me that the motion to correct the journal will have precedence over all other motions. The CHAIR. The Convention then will regard the question before it as a motion to correct the journals, by striking out the words, "to meet in conclave." Mr. BIRCH. It is suggested to me that I state my motion. I made the original motion to adjourn until 3 o'clock, so that we could go into conclave, and determine whether we would have a secret session. Some one suggested 10 o'clock, and presently two or three others suggested that the Committee could not report at three o'clock. For that reason, the motion to adjourn to 10 o'clock, was adopted, and I know it was not the intention of the Chair to cut me, out of my motion by stating it in different language. I am willing that the question shall be taken on amending the journal, but I would suggest that those who were not here yesterday cannot vote understandingly, and that, therefore, the question will be more directly reached by some member moving to postpone the subject of holding a secret session. Mr. MOORE. it seems to me the motion I made brings this question directly up. Mr. STEWART. In order to get at the matter, I move the resolution of yesterday be postponed. I do not think it necessary that we should go into a secret session. We are met here as the representatives of the people, upon the most important question that ever has or ever will be gotten upa proposition whether we will stand by the Union, or in a contingency dissolve our connection with it. The CHAIR. The question is on amending the journal. Those who consider that the vote of yesterday was to meet in conclave will vote against the correction of the journal, and those who understood that we were to meet in open session will vote for the correction of the journal. Mr. GANTT. I suggest that those who were not here yesterday shall not be allowed to vote. Mr. SMITH. It is a matter of fact that there was no such motion put to the Convention as to meet in conclave. Now, if the gentleman had made the motion to adjourn to St. Louis, and the Chair had put the motion to simply adjourn, would we have been bound to have adjourned? All we have got to do is to vote what the action of the Convention was. The vote was taken and the motion to correct the journal was sustained-Ayes 48, noes 39. The vote was then taken on the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution requiring the members to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri was adopted. The motion was laid on the table; ayes 65, noes 30, as follows: AYES-Messsrs. Allen, Bass, Bogy, Breckinridge, Broadhead, Bridge, Busch, Calhoun, Cayce, Chenault, Donnell, Dunn, Eitzen, Flood, Foster, Gamble, Gantt, Gravelly, Hall of Buchanan, Hall of Randolph, Harbin, Henderson, Hendricks, Hitchcock, Holmes, How, Irwin, Isbell, Jackson, Jameson, Johnson, Kidd, Leeper, Linton, Long, Marvin, Maupin, McClurg, McCormack, McDowell, Meyer, Morrow, Moss, Noell, Norton, Orr, Philips, Price, Rankin, Ray, Ritchey, Rowland, Scott, Shackelford of St. Louis, Smith of Linn, Smith of St. Louis, Stewart, Tinkall, Turner, Welch, Wilson, Woolfolk, Wright, Van Buskirk, Zimmerman-65. NOES-Bartlett, Bast, Birch, Brown, Collier, Comingo, Crawford, Douglass, Drake, Frayser, Givens, Gorin, Hatcher, Holt, Howell, Hudgins, Knott, Marmaduke, Matson, Pipkin, Pomeroy, Redd, Ross, Sawyer, Sayer, Shackelford of Howard. Sheeley, Warren, Watkins, Woodson-30. After the vote was announced Mr. HUDGINS said, I desire to be informed if it is obligatory on members who are not willing to take the oath if they are to be sworn in. I understand this law calling a Convention, but I did not understand it as requiring an oath. I do not know but my duty as a member of the Convention may require me to give votes that might come in conflict with that oath. I know but little of the future, and if this is obligatory I should not like, at this stage of affairs, to take an oath. I desire to say that I do not want it to be understood that I am in favor of severing the relations of this State to the General Government, but I know not what may be the result. I understand this to be a People's Convention; I understand that I will have the right to ask of the General Government a change of the constitution of the United States, which we are required to be sworn to support; for the proposition for peace looks to that point, that the constitution is not sufficient, as construed by one portion of this confederacy, to make peace in this Union; to require members of the Convention to take an oath, is, as I understand it, taking the oath of a submissionist. Mr. ORR. For the information of gentlemen, we are not going to take an oath because of any law passed by the Legislature, but because of a rule that has been adopted this morning by a vote of 65 to 30. Mr. SHEELEY. I was one of those who voted against laying on the table. Twenty-five years ago, I took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, and that oath is now upon record. I consider the first oath just as binding, as though I were to take one to-day, and should the event occur to which the gentleman alludes, that war may be declared and the State of Missouri called upon to seek protection, or aid from coercion, I for one am ready to fall back on the revolutionary rights of the fathers, and afford such aid. Mr. PRICE. The gentleman inquires whether he would be bound to take an oath under the resolution. That resolution is the law of this Convention, and binding upon every member, but any member has the right to violate that law. Yet it becomes the imperative duty of the presiding officer to impose it, if not by one way to do it in another. I am surprised that the gentleman from Andrew should have any hesitation. If I recollect aright, it OCcurs to me that he is a practicing lawyer, and every lawyer in the land takes an oath to support the Constitution of the State and the United States. We are bound to obey and support that Constitution as long as it exists. I have taken an oath to support the Constitution, and that oath is binding upon me now, yet I have no compunctions of conscience about renewing it. Mr. KNOTT. I voted against laying the proposition to reconsider on the table, because I conceived the practical question involved should be first considered, and that is, suppose any delegate here refuses to take the oath, we cannot compel him to do it-are you then to disfranchise him and the disirict he represents? So far as I am concerned, I am under obligations to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and, whether under that obligation or not, I expect to support those Constitutions, and no act of mine will violate either one of them. I voted against laying on the table, because I wanted this other question settled before hand. I do not know that any gentleman will refuse, but we ought to consider what to do in case he does. of Mr. WILSON. I do not see much difculty in the whole matter. Every one these gentlemen who has a license to practice law is already under this very oath. I took it some thirty years ago, and I think it still rests upon me, but I have not the slightest hesitancy to renew that oath upon this occasion or any other occasion as the necessity may require. I see nothing inconsistent about it.— Every member of this honorable Convention is already under this oath, because I see there are a great many lawyers here. Mr. HUDGINS. If the lawyers' license spoken of binds me to support the Constitution, the ques |