through what agency slavery had been lost. He thought there was no occasion to use language that might be offensive. Moreover, it was possible that the condition of slav-' ery might be re-established as a punishment for crime; and he would not leave the purpose of the Convention with regard to this matter in any doubt.

Judge Frost thought it ought to be understood by this time that South Carolina was not omnipotent; and that there were some things she could not do,- one of these being to re-establish slavery.

Colonel Rion said he did all he could for the South while the war lasted, and was now thoroughly whipped; yet he was not afraid to declare the historical fact that slavery had been destroyed by the Federal government.

Mr. Melton declared that he would oppose all amendments that claimed to recite the historical fact, for the Constitution is not intended as a text-book on history.

Chancellor Inglis would also vote against such amendments, because a Constitution should simply enunciate general principles: history was n't at all likely to lose or forget the facts.

General McGowan asked if there were ten men in the Convention who would favor the abolition of slavery as an independent proposition aside from the events of the last four years.

Mr. Dudley responded that there was need to remind the Convention that they were suppliants for mercy, though he believed that proper self-respect, aside from all other considerations, demanded that they should abstain from the use of needless words.

General McGowan retorted that he would not vote for the proposition at all, unless it recited the truth and the whole truth.

Rev. Dr. Boyce said it seemed to him that the Convention should have respect for the dignity of the work it was doing

and the document it was making; the historical fact would appear in a thousand other places.

The Convention was determined, however, to have the socalled "historical fact," and finally, by a vote of 59 to 43, agreed upon the following language:

"The slaves in South Carolina having been emancipated by the action of the United States authorities, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall ever be re-established in this State."

The occasion - the abolition of slavery in South Carolina - had lost its superficial interest, because of the senseless wrangle over a form of words. The fine audience of the early part of the day had wearied and gone away. Only the delegates and a few spectators whom nothing could disgust into forgetfulness of the import of the work in hand remained. The dull equinoctial afternoon was fading into a dark and dreary evening.

Finally the vote on the main question

the passage of this clause as Sect. 11 of Article IX. in the new Constitution was called. In all parts of the church men kept tally of those who voted "Nay." They were Messrs. A. P. Aldrich and J. M. Whetstone, of Barnwell District; R. G. M. Dunovant, of Edgefield District; T. J. Goodwyn, of St. Matthew's Parish; J. H. Morgan, of Orange District; Edward Porter, of Williamsburg District; H. S. Sheridan, of St. Bartholomew's Parish; and L. F. Youmans, of St. Luke's Parish. The vote stood 98 Yeas and 8 Nays.

So the fact was accomplished beyond all cavil, and so South Carolina stepped into the ranks alongside Massachusetts, joining hands with her to bear aloft the banner of freedom, bowing to the logic of events rather than that of free speech, convinced by cannon-balls rather than by arguments; yet, under the circumstances, turning from the things of slavery to the things of liberty with commendable

grace.

At the gateway of the church, as I came out, I met an old negro woman, neat, prim, deferential. “Well, Auntie,” said I," the Convention has just said there shall be no more slavery in South Carolina." "How's dat ar?" I repeated the idea in more familiar terms.

“Is dat ar true, Massa?

"True as the Bible, Auntie." "Wall now tank de Lord fur dat ar. I's dun gone pray fur dat dese yer forty years. I's hope he come in my time; but 'pears like he idle by de way. Now he come, and I's ready fur my ole man in de hebens. Tank de Lord, tank de Lord!"

WE

VIII.

THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION.

COLUMBIA, September 21, 1865.

HAT is the true basis of representation in a republican form of government? This is the profound question over which the Convention has to-day spent a session of about seven hours. Everybody expected a struggle when this matter was reached, for the first day's resolutions showed a very prevalent desire to at least discuss the subject in all its bearings. Yet that the negro could be brought into that discussion seemed never to enter the minds of even some of the oldest and ablest delegates; and his introduction into the assembly this afternoon was followed by scenes both ludicrous and humiliating.

The basis of representation in the Legislature of this State has always been unusual, not to say complex. In the House it was property and population, taxation and white inhabitants, half the members being apportioned on the basis of white population, and the other half on the value of all property, slaves included. In the Senate it was geographi

cal area and territorial extent, modified by the parish system, under which the area occupied by the major part of the slave population received not less than three times as great a representation as the same area mainly occupied by white population.

The committee to which the legislative article of the Constitution was referred reported in favor of retaining the old basis of representation in the House, and of abolishing the parish system of representation in the Senate.

The debate to-day was upon that section fixing the basis of representation in the House; but such range was given it that it embraced, as I have already indicated, the whole question of the true basis of republican representation. The adoption this morning, by a vote of 73 to 36, of a rule limiting each delegate to fifteen minutes in speaking, gave the debate a fragmentary character, and doubtless killed half a dozen lengthy speeches.

Mr. James L. Orr advocated this basis of representation, -white population in the House, and white population and taxation in the Senate, - and moved to so amend the article under debate, fixing white population as the basis for the House. The proposition was pretty closely debated on its merits, and the scheme was rejected-by Yeas 24, Nays 83.

Mr. Cadwallader Jones, of York, wanted the basis of representation in the Senate to be property, and in the House white population, and submitted a series of amendments to carry out his view. This question was also debated on its merits, with some reference to its advantages for the different sections of the State, and finally rejected-by Yeas 20, Nays 85.

Mr. Robert Dozier, of Georgetown, proposed that the basis for representation in the House should be property, and all the inhabitants, white and black.

This proposition dragged the poor negro right in by the

ears.

His appearance was either very alarming or very dis

tasteful, for the Rev. Dr. Boyce sprang to his feet, and, with indignant haste, moved to lay the amendment on the table, saying he believed every man was ready for instant action. Much to his surprise, apparently, several of the oldest and strongest delegates protested in warm terms against this gag movement, and the Reverend Doctor was forced to withdraw his motion. He renewed it three times during the afternoon, but was obliged to three times more withdraw it; and the discussion upon the right and expediency of admitting the negro into the body politic as an element of representation ran through five long hours. It was no proposition to allow him to vote, or even to allow any one to vote in his name, or for him; but simply a proposition, to allow ten thousand whites living in a district where there are twenty-five thousand negroes, to send as many representatives to the General Assembly as are sent by twenty-five thousand whites living in a district with only ten thousand negroes.

There was during the day a great deal of frothy talk, through which it was found that the proposition stood upon three principal legs, and had several side-supports.

Its effect in State affairs was the medium through which a majority of the speakers saw it. The discovery was soon made that it would ultimately give the control of the House to the low-country. Sectional feeling was, therefore, at once enlisted for or against it; and some of the up-country members made furious speeches against it, while some of the Charleston delegation endeavored to win votes by appealing to the magnanimity of up-country friends who had broken their power in the Senate by the overthrow of the parish system.

The bearings of the amendment upon the question of Congressional representation were also of much interest to various gentlemen. Mr. Dozier himself appeared to be chiefly concerned in this regard. He argued that as negroes are an element in the Congressional representation, it would be