them; that Massachusetts had her influence; and, as they did away many objections that had been made, they would be annexed to the ratification; and, if they would not be immediately adopted by the influence of her delegation, they might ultimately be."

We will stop here to remark how pointed and distinct is this language: that the amendments proposed, that should have a bearing upon the condition of the slave, were not done in' a sly and clandestine manner, as had been insinuated; that they were not made for deception, or that it was intended to blind the eyes of any; but they were so plain all would understand them, and that they meant them to apply to the slave in Georgia as well as to the freeman in Maine; and it must be presumed the South so understood it. It could not be supposed their intellectual vision would be so abtuse as not to see their bearings; and, consequently, if they should be adopted, the slave would be secure in his personal rights, and could not be punished but after a conviction of a crime by a jury, and then not to receive any "cruel or unusual punishment;" and, as the amendments that were finally adopted by congress not only included these, with few alterations, but others more definite and distinct than the ones passed by this convention, such, for instance, in the latter clauses of the 1st article of the amendments, where the freedom of speech and of the press," and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition government for redress of

แ

'Elliot's Reports, vol. i. p. 156.

grievances;" also the 4th article, where "the right of the people to be secure," &c. is asserted; also a portion of the 5th, 6th, and 7th articles, where the rights of the people are guaranteed to them, the people of Massachusetts felt somewhat satisfied that justice would at length be done to the negro, and that she ceased for a time pressing his claim. For we think it will be perceived every slaveholder has, and does, make himself liable, under these amendments, to be prosecuted before our courts of law every time he presumes to whip or punish a slave without a "process of law," stating wherein his fellow-man has injured him ; and then he should not take the law into his own hands; for this, we think, was the intention and meaning of the amendments passed by the convention of Massachusetts.

“Mr. Ames said the amendments appeared satisfactory, and he approved the Constitution with the amendments. One gentleman, who was distinguished for his zealous opposition, has declared he would uphold both hands if they could be adopted." "1

6

"The only question which seems to labor, is this: the amendments are not a part of the Constitution, and there is nothing better than a probability they will be adopted. The nature of the debate is totally shifted, and the inquiry now is, not what the Constitution is, but what degree of probability there is that the amendments will be incorporated into it."

He then went on to consider the objections that had been made.

Mr. Burrill, of York, spoke in favor of the Consti

'Elliot's Reports, vol. i. p. 157.

tution only as the prospect was that the amendments, from the representation of the delegates, would be adopted; otherwise he had strong objections from the fear of its destroying the liberties of the country.'

"Mr. Parsons demonstrated the impossibility of forming a bill of rights in a national constitution for securing individual rights, and showed the inutility of the measure, from the idea no power was given to congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the people by this Constitution; and, should they attempt it, without constitutional authority, this act would be a nullity, and could not be ENFORCED." 2

We will here ask if congress, that power which was made the supreme, could not infringe upon any of the natural rights of the people, and all such acts, if attempted, would be at once a "nullity," could it be, or can it be, in the power of the States to do it? Can the States have a greater control over the individual, the lesser power, than congress, the greater? We must certainly answer in the negative. The States cannot have a greater control over the individual than congress; perhaps, with certain modifications, they may exercise a control, but it must be in conformity to the principles of the Constitution; and if congress cannot interfere with the natural rights of the individual, neither can the State, nor the individual of a State. The individual has never given these rights away, and, as the Declaration of Independence says, never can; they are inalienable. How can the individual but be secure under our

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. i.

p.

161.

2 Idem, vol. i. p. 164.

Constitution if its provisions be properly carried into effect? As Judge Parsons may be considered good authority in this case, we must suppose the individual, wherever situated, and of whatever complexion, has these natural rights, of which he cannot by any laws be deprived; and if they are taken away it cannot be considered lawful; and, consequently, any claim over these rights must be a "nullity," being in opposition to natural justice and our Constitution.

"Mr. Stillman was in favor of the Constitution without the amendments, only as he thought it sufficiently guaranteed the liberties of the people."

Hon. Mr. Turner made an excellent speech in favor of the Constitution with the amendments.1

Mr. Symms, who had opposed the Constitution as it was, but who was desirous one should be adopted, observed,

"When his excellency the president came forward, as became his high office, in the character of a mediator, a ray of hope shot in upon the gloom that overspread his heart,― of hope that we should still be united in the grand decision! Speaking of the amendments, he said, - Our committee, sir, are pretty well agreed as to the amendments necessary to be made; and, in their report, it appears that these amendments are equally beneficial to ALL of the citizens of America. There is nothing local in them. Shall we then totally reject the Constitution because we are only morally certain they will be adopted? Shall we choose certain misery in one way, when we have the best human prospect of enjoying our most sanguine wishes in another? God forbid! "2

'Elliot's Reports, vol. i. p. 171.

2 Idem, vol. i. p. 173.

He concluded his speech by saying,

"He withdrew his opposition from the consciousness that the amendments would be adopted. That from the known influence that Massachusetts held in the nation, and that they would be the standing instructions of the delegates in congress to urge their adoption, he conIcluded there would be no doubt of their ultimate success; and, consequently, by withdrawing his opposition, and conceiving the utmost need there was for a constitution for the country, he felt himself acquitted by his own conscience; he hoped and trusted he should be by his constituents, and [laying his hand on his breast] I know I shall before God."

The time having arrived for taking the question, as to the adoption of the Constitution, the president made a short address. Among other things, he said,

"I should consider it one of the most distressing misfortunes of my life to be deprived of giving my aid and support to a system which, if amended (and I feel assured it will be) according to your proposals, cannot fail to give the people of the United States a greater degree of political freedom, and, eventually, as much national dignity, as falls to the lot of any nation on earth."

After the vote had been taken, 187 yeas, 168 nays, most of those gentlemen who had opposed its adoption stated they should not continue their opposition, but should, as they had been fairly beaten, give in their adhesion, hoping it might prove the blessing that its advocates thought it would produce.