right, which are not given up, remains with the States;" or, as he in another place adds, that, as the security of these rights in the Confederation remained with the States under the Constitution, they would remain with the people. As the 10th

article of the amendments embraces the idea as expressed by Mr. Spencer, we do not perceive how the conclusion can be avoided, that these inalienable rights, of which the Declaration of Independence speaks, are fairly and properly secured to the people. We have, therefore, only to suppose the negro a man, and one of the people, and in what other light can he be considered? — and the conclusion is inevitable: he is a freeman, and the Constitution guarantees to him his freedom.

-

This 10th article of the amendments to the Constitution has a great deal of meaning to it, more, we suspect, than usually meets the eye. It was one of those amendments brought forward in the Massachusetts convention, to answer the objections made by different members of that convention, that, in adoption of the Constitution, that they might not be made to consent to bar ter away the rights of the State or the individual rights of any man. Such being the fact, are not all laws that have been made by congress or the States if any have been made having in view the personal subjection of one man to another, without the consent of that other against not only the spirit, but the very letter, of the Constitution? A higher tribunal than oursself must decide.

Mr. Iredell observed, "The honorable gentleman said it was very extraordinary that the convention should not have taken the trouble to make an addition of five or six lines, to secure the trial by jury in civil cases. Sir, if, by the addition, not only of five or six lines, but of five or six hundred lines, this invaluable object could have been secured, I should have thought the convention criminal in omitting it; and, instead of meriting the thanks of their country, as I think they now do, they might justly have met with resentment and indignation. I am persuaded the omission arose from the real difficulties of the case."1

He thought the gentleman could not point out how it could have been done under the circumstances. Different States had different laws. "Union was absolutely necessary. Every thing could be agreed upon, except the regulation of trial by jury in civil cases. They were all anxious to establish it on the best footing, but found they could fix upon no permanent rule that was not liable to great objections and difficulties. As the convention could not agree among themselves, they concluded the States would not." therefore left the subject for legislation, supposing it would be safe in the hands of the representatives of the people. But they had secured a trial by jury in criminal cases; this being so, is it possible a man can be punished in the United States without crime? and, if he commits a crime, must he not have a jury trial before punishment? Those who make an assertion in the affirmative are bound

Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 148.

They

to show that, under this article in the Constitution, it can be done.

Mr. Bloodworth observed, "The answer of the gentleman did not convince him. He saw no reason why they did not secure a jury trial in civil cases as well as in criminal; and there being different laws in different States did not produce in his mind any satisfactory reasons; that there were as different laws in one case as in the other." "If it has been possible to secure it in criminal cases, notwithstanding the diversity concerning it, why has it not been possible to secure it in civil cases? I wish this to be cleared up. By its not being provided for, it is expressly provided against. I still see a necessity for a bill of rights."

cases

Mr. Iredell answered these objections by saying that, in different States, "admiralty and equity were decided without jury, and it was thought these States would not agree to alter their course; that the great means for tyranny was by criminal prosecutions, and therefore congress had guarded this point, and he thought there could be no danger.

Mr. Iredell, speaking of the last clause of the 4th section, said,

"He begged leave to explain this clause. In some of the Northern States, they had emancipated their slaves. If any of our slaves go there, and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States; and, to prevent it, this clause is in2 Idem, vol. iii. p. 152.

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 150.

serted in the Constitution. Though the word slave is not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples upon the subject of slavery, did not choose the word slave to be mentioned." 1

It is to be remarked here, although this clause is so curiously worded, no further remarks were made by any gentleman in this convention: the whole article, saving these few observations by Mr. Iredell, were passed over (so says the reporter) without any other comments.

It will be observed, by the comments of the same gentleman, it was South Carolina and Georgia alone that prevented the slave-trade from being totally abolished at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Not one in the convention of North Carolina seem to have said one word in favor of slavery or the trade; an ominous silence was preserved.

It was also supposed by Mr. Iredell the time had not arrived when a discussion could be had without too much irritation. Has greater "coolness" settled on the American people since that time, in regard to this subject? We think not; but, on the contrary, the difficulties that surround it increases with our increase, and strengthens with our strength. So far from being any more prepared for relinquishing our hold on the slave, we are going backward; a portion of our people are less inclined than ever to give up their claim. Can we, however, afford to wait any longer be

1 Elliot's_Reports, vol. iii. p. 157.

fore something should be done? Our own opinion is, the American people must settle the question now, whether they will make slavery one of the settled institutions of the land, and alter all their ideas as to the beneficial effects of slavery, and now determine to call it a good, and have it extended throughout the country; so that our laborious farmers, our mechanics, and the persons who work in our factories must consent not only to be called slaves, but be so in fact, or else these persons must arouse themselves from their stupor, and stoutly determine no slavery shall exist at the South. There is no alternative. One or the other must be done. A general. consent, on the part of the working classes, to become slaves, or a general determination on their part to expel the accursed system from the land. It should be well for all parties to understand-though this should make no difference slavery in the United States is not now confined to the colored population, although it may be confined to the descendants, in part, of the colored race; but slavery itself is not confined to the black skin, and the question now is, whether slavery shall be extended over the North as well as over the South? Will the American people answer this question in the affirmative? for this truly is now the question. Let it be determined that slavery is a blessing, and to be continued in any part of the country, and there is no reason it should not be universally diffused. Why not extend the blessing? why not bring it to the North, if it really be a blessing?