have done everything they could towards having a representative. The fact that a rebel governor of North Carolina has issued no writs of election, and has given no certificate, is not their fault.

The governor of Tennessee issued no writs of election for the voting which was done in Tennessee on the first of August last, on which day Mr. Maynard and Mr. Clements received the votes by virtue of which they hold their seats in this House. The preliminaries were dispensed with in those cases. They had no certificates from the governor. The simple fact of the voting was proved.

I claim that in this case there is a substantial election, and all that ought to be asked of that people up to this time. There has been no expression for any one but myself; and I have come up to this city in pursuance of a duty which I felt myself invested with by the action of those constituents, citizens of the State of North Carolina, which is my adopted State, and in which I intend to reside perma nently in the future. I wish it understood that the fact of my northern birth I have always considered as a badge of honor rather than a stigma and disgrace. I have been recognized by those men there as a faithful citizen of that State, and I know I can vindicate myself to the people of that State at any time. I have never had any resi dence elsewhere since my emigration to that State, and I intend to stand by my constituents and do the best I can for them; of course. that is my bounden duty.

Question. Is there anything else you desire to submit to the committee?

Answer. I believe I have fully submitted to the committee all I desire to.

2d Session.

No. 119.

CHANGE OF LOCATION OF PORT OF ENTRY FOR PUGET SOUND COLLECTION DISTRICT FROM PORT TOWNSEND TO PORT ANGELOS.

[To accompany Senate bill No. 241.]

JUNE 16, 1862.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. WASHBURNE, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the

following

REPORT.

The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred Senate bill No. 241, changing the location of port of entry for Puget Sound collection district from Port Townsend to Port Angelos, report:

Your committee, referring to the accompanying letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, recommend the passage of the accompanying bill. They would state that the efficient delegate from Washington Territory (Colonel Wallace) appeared before your committee, and urged reasons why the change should not be made, but the committee think the public interest would be promoted by such change.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 22, 1862.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from the Committee on Commerce under date of the 17th instant, transmitting a copy of "An act to change the location of the port of entry for the Puget Sound collection district from Port Townsend to Port Angelos," and requesting my views in regard to the same.

The proposed measure has my approval, inasmuch as it appears from information on file at this department that Port Angelos is much better adapted to the purposes of a port of entry than Port Townsend, on account of its superior location, being much nearer the ocean and commanding the Straits of Fuca, and the shipping to and from Victoria, and also on account of its better harbor, there being no good and safe accommodation for vessels at Port Townsend. In my opinion, the interests of the government will be promoted by the change.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. E. B. WASHBURNE,

S. P. CHASE, Secretary of the Treasury.

Chairman Com. on Commerce, House of Reps.

EMANCIPATION OF THE SLAVES OF REBELS.

[To accompany bill H. R. No. 472.]

JUNE 17, 1862.-Ordered to be printed.

Mr. NOEL, from the committee on confiscation and emancipation of the slaves of rebels, reported the following as

THE VIEWS OF THE MINORITY.

The undersigned, from the select committee to whom was referred the House bill No. 472, for the emancipation of the slaves of rebels, with instructions to report a substitute, being unable to agree with the majority of the committee in supporting said substitute, begs leave to submit the following minority report:

The substitute treats slaves as persons owing service to certain other persons; not as property belonging to them. The theory of the substitute is that there are certain relations existing between twoclasses of persons in the States, by virtue of the local laws thereof. I do not believe that any power exists to repeal, alter, or modify, by federal legislation, such local laws so as permanently to change those relations. By virtue of the local laws, mutual obligations are created or implied between the persons who owe the service and the persons to whom the service is due. It is not in the power of Congress to impair the obligations of this express or implied contract. Confiscation seizes and condemns property as property, but does not change. the legal status of persons in a State, which legal status results from local and not from federal laws. Emancipation changes the status of persons from the condition of slavery to the condition of freedom,. thereby changing the local, political, and social organization. The question of war or peace cannot affect the power of Congress over the subject. The exigencies of war end with the war.

Prisoners may be taken in war and held during the war; but when peace is restored the prisoner must be released and remitted back to. his original condition. Why is this? It is because the exigencies of war require his capture in the first place, but do not require his detention when the war is over. So the military authority may, if necessary for military purposes, suspend the right of the master to. the service of his slave, but a return of peace removes the necessity and the slave is remitted to his original status. If we treat slaves as property, I have no doubt of our right to confiscate them as other

property. But we cannot ignore their character as property, and then alter their status as persons.

The inconsistency in such a proposition is to my mind too manifest for comment.

I object to the substitute, also, because it involves the punishment of loyal men. It is not the loss of slaves set free that does the injury. It makes but little difference with the loyal man whether he is to be submerged by his own freed slaves or those of his neighbors. 'The ruin will be wrought upon the loyal and the disloyal, the white and the black man, by the turning loose in community of these vast numbers of ignorant, improvident, and helpless people, without capacity to provide for themselves.

I also object to the substitute because of the pecuniary ruin which will fall upon the northern and western States if it is carried out. Nothing but the great skill with which our finances have been con ducted, together with the self-sacrificing patriotism of the people. have sustained us through the greatest financial trial with which any mation ever before had to contend. Shall we now rashly adopt a policy that will double our difficulties in that respect, and double the burdens of the people? If this proposition becomes a law, it is fair to suppose that one-fourth of the slaves in the south will be freed. This makes one million, at the lowest calculation. What is to be done with them? Let them stay where they are, say some.

If that be the policy, then experience has already proven that each one will cost the government at least fifty cents per day for the next ten years. But put it down to the lowest possible point-say twenty-five cents per day-to provide for them: this would make the daily expense two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, or ninety millions two hundred and fifty thousand dollars per annum. In ten years, with the accruing interest, it would run up to twelve hundred millions, on the top of our large war debt, to pay the interest on which will overdouble our annual direct tax. This vast sum would in my judgment, be much better applied in providing for our maimed and disabled soldiers and the widows and orphans of those who have fallen in battle.

I object, also, because this sudden and unnatural process of emancipation would put an end for the next twenty years to the produc tion of cotton, sugar, rice, and tobacco in the southern States: deprive us of the foreign and domestic commerce of which these articles constitute the basis, and cut off from the west and the north their great market for their products and manufactures. Northern manufacturers, having then to seek markets in foreign countries, would have to come down to the low wages systems of Europe, under which the laboring man would be ground to powder by the double operation of low wages and high taxes.

My last objection is that it would prolong the war, and change it to a war of extermination, the cruelties of which, perhaps, on both sides, would furnish an excuse for peremptory interference by for eign nations. I am not wise enough to foresee the result of such an interference. We may be able to defy the world in arms, yet

it