that persons held to labor in one state, escaping into another, shall be delivered up. This only meant that runaway slaves should not be protected in other States. As to the exclusion of ex post facto laws, it could not be said to create any security in this case; for laying a tax on slaves would not be ex post facto.

Mr. Madison replied, that even the Southern States, which were most affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no danger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him that the general government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty years, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten dollars; and that, after the expiration of that period, they might prohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the Constitution was intended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the community.

No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and excises uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive of the principles of equality; for it was not possible to select any article which would be easy for one State but what would be heavy for another; that the proportion of each State being ascertained, it would be raised by the general government in the most convenient manner for the people, and not by the selection of any one particular object; that there must be some degree of confidence put in agents, or else we must reject a state of civil society altogether.

Another great security to this property, which he mentioned, was, that five States were greatly interested in that species of property, and there were other States which had some slaves, and had made no attempt, or taken any step, to take them from the people.

There were a few slaves in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut; these States would, probably, oppose any attempts to annihilate this species of property.

He concluded by observing that he should be glad to leave the decision of this to the committee.

Mr. Henry. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the States have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South.

In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow-beings were emancipated.

As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellowmen in bondage.

But is it practicable, by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we inherited them from our ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country.

But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of their unhappy fate. I know, that in a variety of particular instances, the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject.

I will only add, that this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put in the bands of those who have no similarity of situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.

Gov. Randolph. Mr. Chairman: Once more, sir, I address you, and perhaps it will be the last time I shall speak

concerning this Constitution, unless I be urged by the observations of some gentlemen.

Although this is not the first time that my mind has been brought to contemplate this awful period, yet I acknowledge it is not rendered less awful by familiarity with it.

Did I persuade myself that those fair days were present which the honorable gentlemen described-could I bring my mind to believe that there were peace and tranquillity in this land, and that there was no storm gathering which would burst, and that previous amendments could be retained-I would concur with the honorable gentleman; for nothing but the fear of inevitable destruction would lead me to vote for the Constitution in spite of the objections I have to it.

But, sir, what have I heard to-day? I sympathized most warmly with what other gentlemen said yesterday, that, let the contest be what it may, the minority should submit to the majority. With satisfaction and joy I heard what he then said that he would submit, and that there should be peace if his power could preserve it.

What a sad reverse to-day! Are we not told, by way of counterpart to language that did him honor, that he would secede ? I hope he will pardon, and correct me if I misrecite him; but if not corrected, my interpretation is, that secession by him will be the consequence of adoption without previous amendments.

[Here Mr. Henry explained himself, and denied having said any thing of secession; but that he said, he would have no hand in subsequent amendments; that he would remain and vote, and afterward he would have no business here.]

I see, continued His Excellency, that I am not mistaken in my thoughts.

The honorable gentleman says, he will remain and vote on the question, but after that he has no business here, and

that he will go home. I beg to make a few remarks on the subject of secession.

If there be in this house members who have in contemplation to secede from the majority, let me conjure them, by all the ties of honor and duty, to consider what they are about to do.

Some of them have more property than I have, and all of them are equal to me in personal rights. Such an idea of refusing to submit to the decision of the majority is destructive of every republican principle.

It will kindle a civil war, and reduce every thing to anarchy and confusion. To avoid a calamity so lamentable, I would submit to it, if it contained greater evils than it does.

What are they to say to their constituents when they go home? "We come here to tell you that liberty is in danger, and, though the majority is in favor of it, you ought not to submit." Can any man consider, without shuddering with horror, the awful consequences of such desperate conduct? I entreat men to consider and ponder what good citizenship requires of them.

I conjure them to contemplate the consequences as to themselves as well as others. They themselves will be overwhelmed in the general disorder.

I did not think that the proposition of the honorable gentleman near me (Mr. White) could have met with the treatment it has. The honorable gentleman says there are only three rights stipulated in it. I thought this error might have been accounted for at first; but after he read it, the continuance of the mistake has astonished me.

[Here he read Mr. paper do you dis

He has wandered from the point. White's proposition.] Where in this cover that the people of Virginia are tenacious of three rights only? It declares that all power comes from the people, and whatever is not granted by them remains with

them; that among other things remaining with them are liberty of the press, right of conscience, and some other essential rights. Could you devise any express form of words by which the rights contained in the bill of rights of Virginia could be better secured or more fully comprehended? What is the paper which he offers in the form of a bill of rights? Will that better secure our rights than a declaration like this? All rights are therein declared to be completely vested in the people, unless expressly given away. Can there be a more pointed or positive reservation?

That honorable gentleman, and some others, have insisted that the abolition of slavery will result from it, and at the same time have complained that it encourages its continuation.

The inconsistency proves, in some degree, the futility of their arguments.

But if it be not conclusive, to satisfy the committee that there is no danger of enfranchisement taking place, I beg leave to refer them to the paper itself.

I hope that there is none here who, considering the subject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection dishonorable to Virginia-that, at the moment they are securing the the rights of their citizens, an objection is started that there is a spark of hope that those unfortunate men now held in bondage may, by the operation of the general government, be made free. But if any gentleman be terrified by this apprehension, let him read the system.

I ask, and I will ask again and again, till I be answered (not by declamation), Where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition of slavery? Is it the clause which says that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808"?