Mr. REID:--It strikes me that the question is this: My proposition is to add the words "and future," but Mr. JOHNSON'S amendment is to add the word "present." Can this be treated as an amendment to his motion? I must say that my duty to my country and State will prevent my voting for the proposition as he proposes to limit it. Mr. COALTER:--I think the committee ought to be permitted to amend and complete their report. Let us, by general consent, agree to have the word "present" inserted. Mr. REID:--I object to that all the time. Mr. TURNER:--I move that the report be recommitted for amendment. Mr. COALTER:--Shall we adjourn over simply for this? That will use up another day. Mr. GUTHRIE:--I hope it will not be recommitted. We can settle the question here in a moment. The PRESIDENT:--The vote will now be taken. Mr. McCURDY:--I call for the individual names of members voting. The PRESIDENT:--The call is not in order. The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. REID, and resulted as follows: AYES--New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Missouri, and Virginia--8. NAYS--Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and Iowa--12. So the amendment failed. The PRESIDENT:--The question now recurs on the motion of the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. JOHNSON:--I trust that I shall not trespass upon the time of the Conference, but the subject now before it is one of great importance, and it involves the consideration of many important questions. The amendment which I offer is for the purpose of making the proposition of the committee clear and plain. I was aware that a construction might be placed upon it different from that which the committee intended; and it is due to the frankness which is manifested here, that the purposes of the committee should be made plain. There ought to be no ambiguity in a constitutional provision. Some of the most important constitutional questions decided by the Supreme Court have been questions of construction. Lawyers would differ about the construction to be given the committee's proposition. I think the Supreme Court has placed a construction upon the terms used here, which would be conclusive. A similar question arose in the Dred Scott case. There the question was upon that article in the Constitution which confers on Congress the power "to dispose of and to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the _territories_ or other property belonging to the United States." The Court in that case decided that the provision had no bearing on the controversy in that case, because the power given by that provision, whatever it might be, was confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which, upon the adoption of the Constitution, belonged to or was claimed by the United States, and was within their boundaries, as settled by the treaty with Great Britain.