ing them by a bill of rights from infringing our inalienable rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or included in the Constitution. But he contended for it, one way or the other. It would be justified by our own example, and that of England. His earnest desire was, it should be handed down to posterity that he had opposed this wicked clause."

We will do what we can to let the world know what opinion was entertained by Mr. Tyler on this subject; and we will express the hope his namesake entertains the same opinions.

"He then adverted to the clauses which enabled congress to legislate in the ten miles square, and other places purchased for forts, magazines, &c.; to provide for the general welfare'; to raise a standing army; and to make any law that is necessary to carry these laws into execution. From the combined operation of these unlimited powers he dreaded the most fatal consequences," &c. &c.

We trust, however, with these powers, the American citizen will yet be able to, and will, grant that justice to the colored race which is their due; and that this Constitution, as supposed by Mr. Tyler, was adopted for the general welfare of the people of the United States, and will be found wholly incompatible with slavery, and totally opposed to it; and that the best interest of this country will never be attained till that excrescence is cut from the body politic, and consigned to the tomb of the Capulets, never more to have a resur-.

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 336.

rection; that, if the courts do not decide against it, it will yet be found by congress, upon investigation, to be a stumbling-block in the way of all improvement, and a barrier to the best interest of our country; and that the restoring man to himself will be the only way of securing peace and permanent prosperity to our land; and that true liberty cannot be established throughout this extensive continent but by giving up this institution; and the sooner the better will it be for all concerned. Mr. Madison, however, said, in answer to the latter objections made by Mr, Tyler, that "the gentleman was mistaken; that the powers of congress extended to those alone that were 'enumerated; ' and, if congress attempted to exert powers not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause."

"Mr. Henry insisted that the insertion of these restrictions on congress was a plain demonstration that congress could exercise powers by implication. The gentleman had admitted it could have interdicted the African slave-trade, were it not for this restriction. If so, the power not expressly delegated must be obtained by implication. He demanded, where, then, was their doctrine of reserved rights? He wished for negative clauses, to prevent them from assuming any powers not expressly given. He asked, why was it omitted to secure us that property in slaves which we hold now? He feared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy taxes on slaves as would amount to emancipation; and then the Southern States would be the only sufferers. His opinion was confirmed by the mode of levying money. Congress, he observed, had

power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises. Imposts (or duties) and excises were to be uniform. But this uniformity did not extend to taxes. This might

compel the Southern States to liberate their negroes. He wished, therefore, this property to be guarded. He considered the clause that had been adduced by gentlemen as security of this property as no security at all. It was no more than this, that a runaway negro might be taken up in Maryland and New York. This could not prevent congress from interfering with that property, by laying a grievous and an enormous tax upon it, so as to compel owners to emancipate their slaves, rather than to pay the tax. He apprehended it would be the subject of much stock-jobbing, and that they would play into one another's hands in such a manner as that this property would be lost to the country."

He FEARS

Mr. Henry's entire speech on this occasion, while it shows his inconsistency as a man, shows also his opinions of the powers of congress. they have designedly omitted some expressions, that, if used, would have established him in his slave possessions; but, being omitted, and, as he said, he feared it was done designedly, we may suppose him correct in his fears. No one denied, so far as is reported, that Mr. Henry was incorrect in these insinuations. An explanation is given in another place by Mr. Madison, and Mr. Randolph, of which we shall leave the reader to judge.

Mr. Henry speaks as if a man was to be lost to the country by being a freeman instead of a slave ! What an idea for one of the greatest

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 337.

advocates in the country for freedom, in its most extensive sense, when his own rights were concerned! But who shall explain the inconsistency of man? A person who had kept a whole State in suspense for three or four weeks because, in some remote degree, the Constitution that was proposed for adoption was thought to contain paragraphs that might have deleterious effects upon the liber-ty of certain individuals; yet complaining it did not hold others with an iron grasp, and even because masters should be taxed for their slaves! We all know how anxious the South were to relieve themselves from the imposition of this tax; and, as we have observed before, they succeeded; and, as Mr. H. supposed, there was a good deal of stock-jobbing; but it all happened to be on the wrong side; and, instead of the negroes being freed, they have so arranged it, the master pays no tax for his negro, and the slave has been made more secure in his bondage.

"Mr. George Nicholas wondered, [and well he might,] that gentlemen who were against slavery would be opposed to this clause, as, after that period, the slave-trade would be done away. He asked if gentlemen did not see the inconsistency of their arguments? they object, says he, to the Constitution, because the slave-trade is laid open for twenty odd years; and yet tell you that, by some latent operation of it, the slaves, who are so now, will be manumitted. At the same moment it is opposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery. He contended it would be advantageous to Virginia, that it would be in the power of congress to prevent the importation of

slaves after twenty years, as it would then put a period to the evil complained of."

It would seem, from the arguments of all the gentlemen, both from the North and from the South, that the destruction of the slave-trade would put an end to slavery. Perhaps it would have so done, had there not been a home market, and a home supply. But, instead of the destruction of the foreign slave-trade decreasing the number of the slaves in this country, they have gone on constantly increasing, till their numbers. have become, if it is intended to keep them as slaves, alarmingly great.

Mr. Nicholas then spoke of the difficulty of effecting the union without this clause; that Virginia might continue the prohibition of the slave-trade; the superior advantages they possessed in not having more than two fifths of their slaves taxed instead of the whole number, and that the taxes could not be laid so high as to amount to emancipation; and, among other things, said, "I can tell the committee that the people of our country are reduced to beggary by the taxes on negroes." "Had this Constitution been adopted, it would not I have been the case. The taxes were laid on all our negroes. By this system, two fifths are exempted." He then added, "He had imagined gentlemen would not support here what they had opposed in another place."

Mr. Henry made a short answer, and said,

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 337.