Mr. SUMMERS:--Some days ago I introduced into the Conference, and caused to be printed, a substitute which I proposed to offer for the second section of the committee's article. I offer it now, as follows: "No territory shall be acquired by the United States without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned, be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the satisfaction of such treaty." I do not propose to occupy time in discussing it, but I ask a minute or two to explain its provisions. The second section of the article proposed by the committee, requires that a treaty under which territory or commercial or naval stations is acquired, should require four-fifths of the Senate for its ratification. This, I think, is an unnecessary restriction upon the treaty-making power. Occasion may arise when it would not be advisable to wait for the exercise of this power at all. The question of acquiring territory may arise under circumstances when delay would be fatal. Suppose our title to an island in the Arctic Ocean, or a point upon the shore, by discovery or otherwise, which might be settled by prompt action! There might be no national authority with which we could treat for its acquisition. I think it would be hazardous to provide that in no event should territory be acquired except by treaty. The case I have supposed has no relation whatever to the case of an ordinary acquisition of territory by treaty with a recognized foreign power. But the question of slavery always arises when the subject of acquiring territory is mentioned. This clause would fix the _status_, would put it in the power of either class of States to prevent the acquisition, but it would not permit a small number of States to do it. To leave it where a _majority_ of the Senators of both sections could control the subject, would seem to me the mode of settlement least objectionable. The ratification would require two-thirds of the Senate, like all treaties, and these two-thirds would include a majority of both sections. Objection will be made to this classification of the States. I do not like it myself, but there it no way to avoid it. I have adopted the language of the Ordinance of 1787. There can be no very sound objection to the use of these terms. The objection is rather sentimental than otherwise.