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 not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808?” This is an exception from the power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808.  Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery?  Were it right here to mention what passed in Convention on the occasion, I might tell you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself; conceived this property to be secure by these words.  I believe, whatever we may think here, that there was not a member of the Virginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery.  Go to their meaning.  Point out the clause where this formidable power of emancipation is inserted.  But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition.  The words of the clause are, “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”  Every one knows that slaves are held to service and labor.  And when authority is given to owners of slaves to vindicate their property, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it?  If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought, that after taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?

I observed that the honorable gentleman’s proposition comes in a truly questionable shape, and is still more extraordinary and unaccountable for another consideration; that although we went article by article through the Constitution, and although we did not expect a general review of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view had been taken of it before it was regularly debated,) yet we are carried back to the clause giving that dreadful power, for the general welfare.  Pardon me if I remind you of the true state of that business.  I appeal to the candor of the honorable gentleman, and if he thinks it an improper appeal, I ask the gentlemen here, whether there be a general indefinite power of providing for the general welfare?  The power is, “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare.”  So that they can only raise money by these means, in order to provide for the general welfare.  No man who reads it can say it is general as the honorable gentleman represents it.  You must violate every rule of construction and common sense, if you sever it from the power of raising money and annex it to any thing else, in order to make it that formidable power which it is represented to be.