"Personalities he wished to take leave of; they had nothing to do with the question, which was solely whether that paper was wrong or not."

66

'Mr. Nicholas replied, that negroes must be considered as persons or property. If as property, the proportion of taxes to be laid on them was fixed in the Constitution. If he apprehended a full tax on negroes, the Constitution has prevented it. For, by the census, when a white man paid ten shillings, a negro paid but six; for the exemption of two fifths of them reduced it to that proportion."

Mr. Henry, it would seem, had opposed slavery in some other place; but, for some reason or other, we know not what, he had taken different ground in the convention, and Mr. Nicholas reminded him of it, at which Mr. Henry took of fence, and did not seem desirous his inconsistency should be pointed out. The course he took in the convention on this subject will not, we think, add to his renown as a statesman or a philanthropist.

With regard to the tax spoken of, the slaveholder does not now pay even the six shillings; for not only is the burden of a direct tax thrown off, but nearly all the articles the slave uses, as we have before remarked, are manufactured or produced in this country; and consequently he pays no revenue. Here are nearly three millions of individuals, who are both willing and able to help support the government of our country, but who are not permitted; while a great portion of the whole burden of its support falls upon the North, who are now not allowed to be heard upon the

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p 338.

floor of congress! and our politicians, if they can gain a place, are willing to have it so; and our reviewers are trying to argue the North has no interest in the matter!!!

In speaking of the powers of the Supreme Court, Mr. Grayson said,

“The jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the Union is of stupendous magnitude. It is impossible for human nature to learn its extent. It is so vaguely and indefinitely expressed, that its latitude cannot be ascertained. Citizens or subjects of foreign states may sue citizens of different States in the federal courts. It is extremely impolitic to place foreigners in a better situation than our own citizens. This never was the policy of other nations. It was the policy of England to put foreigners on a secure footing."1

"This high court has not very extensive original jurisdiction. It is not material; but its appellate jurisdiction is of immense magnitude; and what has it in view, unless to subvert the State governments? The honorable gentleman who presides has introduced the high court of appeals. I wish the federal appellate court was on the same foundation. If we investigate the subject, we shall find this jurisdiction perfectly unnecessary. It is said that its object is to prevent subordinate tribunals from making unjust decisions to defraud creditors. I grant the suspicion is in some measure just. But would not an appeal to the State court of appeal, or superior tribunals, correct the decision of inferior courts? Would not this put every thing right? There then would be no interference of jurisdiction." 2.

Speaking of the State courts, and the courts of

'Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 414.

2

Idem, vol. ii. p. 416.

the United States, he says, "Both courts are to act on the same persons and things, and cannot possibly avoid interference.” 1

Mr. George Mason, in remarking on the second section, said,

"On a former part of the investigation of this subject gentlemen were pleased to make some observations on the security of property [meaning slaves] coming within this section. It was then said, and I now say, that there is no security, nor have gentlemen convinced me of this." 2

Without further debate the third section was then read.

We will here ask, is not a man's liberty of more consequence than money? and, if he is defrauded of this liberty, has not the court jurisdiction? and, if the inferior courts make a wrong decision on the subject, may not the Supreme Court have power to reverse it? We should think so; and, if these courts order a man back to slavery without there has been proved before them that the person claimed is indebted by contract, of his own making, to the person who claims his service, may not an appeal be properly made, or judgment be given, and then an appeal be made to the Supreme Court for its jurisdiction and judgment? And, agreeably to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th articles of the amendments to the Constitution, if a person called a slave is "seized in his person," or punished without a trial by jury before some public authori-.

Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 417. 2 Idem, vol. ii. p. 428.

ties, may not the so called master be brought before it for transgressing these express articles of the amendments, one of which (the 8th) was made on purpose to suit his case? We hope it will not be long before some humane people, either at the North or South, will be able to test the question, whether a master can whip or restrain a slave, on his own authority, and in pursuance of this Constitution.

Here is also the candid acknowledgment of the Hon. George Mason, that the Constitution provided no security for property in slaves: he could. see none in the Constitution, and no one in the Virginia convention could point out any to him. Massachusetts had already adopted the Constitution, recommending amendments, securing in a greater degree the individual rights of every person, "whether residing on the banks of the Savannah," or "on the margin of the Kennebec," because some of the members of that State thought these rights were not sufficiently secured in the instrument submitted for their adoption, and Mr. Mason undoubtedly knew of these amendments proposed by her. And, while no allusion is made to these amendments, neither he, nor any of the Virginia delegation, so far as the reports show, could perceive where slave property was at all secured by that instrument; saving that, as it was afterwards argued, because the so called slave could be taken up in another State, it could not be supposed that, after he was taken back, the master could be deprived of him. But, when we consider the

amendments made to this clause, we cannot suppose it was intended, by those who made these amendments, to return the runaway slave: such cannot be admitted, unless we admit their duplicity, a charge for which, for ourself, we have not sufficient evidence. If we are correct, and as Mr. Madison said there must not be two principles in that instrument, where, then, we ask, is the evidence of the guaranty, or compact, that has been so often rung as a bugbear in the ears of the North? there is none; there was none. If a few gentlemen in congress, unknown to the public, said the subject should or would not be disturbed by the North, it was done, if done at all—and we have no evidence it was done without any authority given to do it, even if they had the inclination. But we do not believe the inclination to any extent existed all seemed ready to give up the system but South Carolina and Georgia; and they, as was said, only wanted to make up a deficiency of laborers; and, as, white people could not work in those States, their only alternative, as they affirmed, was to obtain them from Africa; and, when the slave-trade ended, then ought to have ended slavery. We do not, then, improperly interfere in urging the South to fulfil her engagement to the world, to have this a free country, nor should we, by obtaining a decision of the court that no person can be held in bondage by the Constitution of our country, break any contract that we, as northerners, have made. It has continued longer than it ought to have continued, and