"The 9th was adopted without any alterations.

6

"In the 10th, on motion of Mr. Benson, after the words ' and effects' these words were inserted: against unreasonable searches and seizures.'

"The 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th were agreed to in their original form. The committee then rose.

"Mr. Gerry introduced a motion on the subject of the amendments, to this purport: That such amendments to the Constitution of the United States as have been proposed by the different States, which are not in the report of the select committee, be referred to the committee of the whole house, and that those, with the amendments proposed by that committee, be included in the one report.

"This motion was seconded by Mr. Sumpter. After a long debate it was decided in the negative."

"August 19th, Mr. Sherman brought forward a motion for adding the amendments, by way of supplement, to the Constitution, which was agreed to by more than three fourths of the members present.

"The 1st amendment being taken up, on the question to agree to the same it was negatived.

"The 2d amendment was laid on the table for further consideration.

"The 3d amendment was agreed to.

"The 4th amendment, on motion of Mr. Ames, was altered so as to read, 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the right of conscience.'

"The 5th amendment was agreed to.

"Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the 6th amendment, No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.' He said if this becomes part of the Constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent: it is attended with fur

ther difficulties, for you can never depend upon your

militia.

"Mr. Boudinot said that the provision, or something like it, appeared to be necessary. What dependence can be placed in men who are conscientious in this respect? or what justice can there be in compelling men to bear arms, when, if they are honest men, they would rather die than use them? . . . . I wish, in establishing this government, we may be careful to let every person know that we will not interfere with their particular professions. If we strike out this clause, we shall lead such persons to conclude that we mean to compel them to bear arms. The words in person' were added after the word arms, and the amendment was adopted.

"The 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th amendments, without any material alterations, were agreed to, as in the committee of the whole.

"The 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th were agreed to without any essential alterations.

"The 2d amendment was then modified as it now stands.

"Messrs. Benson, Sherman, and Sedgwick were appointed a committee to arrange the amendments, and report to the house, when they were to be submitted to the State legislatures."

A correspondent of the Centinel remarks,

"The business of the amendments has been managed with great candor and address by those who were friends of the Constitution, and such as were indifferent to any amendments. To those the sticklers for alterations are principally indebted; for it evidently appears that nothing short of such modification of the Constitution as would have extracted its essence and energy, would have satisfied the rigid anti-federalist: it appeared to

every dispassionate person, that the object of some was so to hack and mutilate the original system as to leave no conspicuous feature remaining; hence we should have lost a Constitution framed by our wisest and best characters, and which a majority of the people have adopted, and had a plan palmed upon us by men who were not, and never would have been, chosen by the people for the purpose of making a constitution. But the principal part of the advocates for the amendments appear pretty well contented with the report.

"The plan of incorporating the amendments being given up, the identity of the system remains; and if the amendments, in any future time, should be found to be unnecessary, superfluous, or absurd, they may be lopped off as a useless branch of the tree."

At the present day we do not find them useless, unnecessary, or superfluous.

A correspondent of August 26th, says,

"Nothing can be more ridiculous and inconsistent, than a motion to have laid before congress ALL the amendments suggested by the several State legislatures, when it is considered that many of them are entirely contradictory to others, (especially those about the slavetrade,) some in favor of tender laws, &c. some local, some incomprehensible. Besides, it is hard to conceive how they can be admitted, especially in the senate, when it is recollected that a majority of the ratifying States did not wish a single amendment. Some were recommended as conciliatory, and in the hope,—as beautifully expressed by the president of the United States, to a late answer to an address, when speaking of the Constitution as it now stands, - that its mild, and yet efficient operation, would tend to remove every remaining apprehension of those with whose opinions it may not

entirely coincide, as well as to confirm the hopes of its numerous friends."

The amendments proposed by this congress, as it will be perceived, were adopted by the States, and now constitute a portion of the Constitution. We will therefore ask, if Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia adopted them, after all that had been said upon the subject of slavery, and after the attempt to incorporate it on the Constitution by the amendments proposed by them had so signally failed, can it be that slavery is guaranteed, or even acknowledged? Or is it not rather here made evident it is destroyed, if the Constitution should be carried into effect, and that it is not even in the power of congress to establish it? and, if it is not in the power of congress to do it, can it be possible that a State, or the individuals of a State, can do it, without violating those inalienable rights, and that liberty for which the preamble to the Constitution was adopted to secure, as it expressly says to maintain these was the object for which the whole instrument was formed, and which its several articles go to confirm? Can a neighbor of mine have a greater command over my liberty than the acknowledged government of the country? The idea, it seems to us, is preposterous; and we cannot perceive, in any of the foregoing proceedings, the government of the country have deputized such power to any one, or have given the liberty of any class of its citizens in charge to any other, or that they even have the power of doing it; but, on the contrary, they are bound to preserve to each individual his liberty so far as in their power.

January 8th, 1796, Gen. Washington, in his inaugural address delivered before congress, among other things, observes,

"Nor am I less persuaded you will agree with me in opinion, that there is nothing that can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge, in every country, is the surest basis of public happiness." "Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aid to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients, will be well worthy a place in the deliberations of the legislature."

If the legislature could build seminaries for the general benefit, could they not break up slavery for the general benefit? is there any difference in principle? we see none. In fact, if "knowledge is the surest basis of public happiness," and as it is universally acknowledged that the slave must be kept in a state of ignorance in order to keep him as a slave, we cannot but perceive that, if the government of the United States is to preserve the "public happiness," its first duty would be to see that the slave is instructed, if the States will not do it.

Hon. James Dana, judge of the District Court of the district of New York, in his first charge to the first grand inquest convened for that district, Feb. 5th, 1790, while speaking of the operation of the new Constitution, observed, "Happy that we may confidently trust it will answer the inestimable purpose expressed in its preamble, 'That it will form a more perfect