monarchy, and to erect a throne in this country; the people and the master spirits of the land determined otherwise. They understood the question on which they were acting, the meaning of the words they were using, and their import. They consented to no proposition they did not mean to carry into effect; but every thing, so far as we can understand their determination, was distinct and plain, though all of their subsequent acts might not have been so. In that assembly, as there ever will be in all assemblies of men, there may have been some who would have gladly perverted the powers delegated to them, to subserve their own vile purposes, or who, through righteous fear of the consequences of popular government, wished to give as much power to the executive as they thought would be necessary to carry out any measure that congress might consider right, independent of the general mind,—men who, having no faith in the power of the people to take care of themselves, and who were ever anxious to provide for them suitable directors and governors, and consequently were continually proposing guards and checks for their restraint, in fact, in many things gave, both directly and impliedly, powers to congress that the people, in their conventions, did not wholly approve; and, consequently, many amendments in favor of liberty were proposed, and were in part adopted, and now make a portion of this instrument. In Virginia, and in many of the States, the opposition was very strong, because congress assumed so

much; and though in the caption it would seem as if there was nothing frightful, yet, as we shall see, the expression "we the people" produced in the breast of one man, if no more, great distrust; and, if the people ever became so corrupt as to change the meaning of terms, and call wrong right, and right wrong, as they have seemed of late willing to do, then, indeed, might such an expression be fearful, but not otherwise.

Thus we have gone over the caption of our Constitution; and, if it should have its principles carried out in good faith, there could not possibly be any danger, excepting that those who should legislate for the country might be deceived in their course of action. 'No one, however, could have any cause to complain that his individual rights. were wrested from him, as the courts would at all times be open for his protection.

We will now take up in order the different articles of the Constitution that have a bearing on our subject, and try to ascertain what may be their meaning. In article 1st, 2d section, 3d paragraph, we have this expression: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons." On this it may be supposed there was considerable debate; and, as it is the strong hold on which many here

ground their assertion that the Constitution guaranteed slavery, it may be well to dwell upon it, and consider it in its various relations. We have examined the secret proceedings of the convention which prepared the Constitution, but we cannot find in them any thing said at the time on which to make up a judgment of the intent and meaning of this clause, and consequently our remarks here will be drawn from what appears on its face. To one unacquainted with all the circumstances of the case, the language would undoubtedly be unmeaning. They would not know what was meant by the "three fifths of all other persons." They here find that taxes and representation were to be apportioned by reckoning together all free persons, and those bound to service, and three fifths of all other persons, excluding Indians not taxed. Now the term free persons might have relation, and be used in opposition, to those bound to service, or to paupers, as well as other individuals; and, unless we knew there were slaves in this country, we could not suppose, from what had before been said, it could be possible there were any; and undoubtedly our fathers were ashamed to use the term slave, as applied to the condition of any people then under their jurisdiction. They therefore avoided it; and it would seem as if some one had worded this phrase in such a manner that it would not require an alteration of the Constitution for the purpose of having representatives chosen, or taxes collected, provided the system of slavery should be done away, and were careful to have it so

worded as to exclude the idea, as much as possible, that they had any thing to do with it; and although it has been asserted that, because the Constitution recognized the system so far as to base taxation and representation upon it, (for it is maintained, and without doubt it is the case, the three fifths of all other persons meant slaves,) consequently slavery is guaranteed, does this necessarily follow ? We think not. It only says, while there are any other persons in the community besides free persons, and those bound to service for a term of years, five of all others should be considered but equal to three; but if there were no such other persons, there could be none to be so reckoned, and consequently every man would be considered as a man, enjoying all the privileges of a freeman; so that the construction of the sentence evidently looked to the time when there should be no such other persons. But, even taking it as looking to the perpetual continuance of slavery, and that taxes and representation were to be apportioned accordingly, and our fathers made the bargain with their eyes open, and that for these considerations, as has been alleged, they agreed to this section, because slaves should be taxed in proportion to their representation, and that, for this reason, we have guaranteed the preservation of this property, we maintain that, as the consideration has been taken away, the corresponding obligation is also taken away. It was then expected that this government in a great measure would be supported by direct taxes, and conse

quently the advantage given the South in the superior number of representatives in proportion to the free inhabitants would be balanced by the greater amount of taxes they would have to pay in proportion to their representation; and, if they did make such a bargain, though in morals it could not or should not stand, yet perhaps it may be said it should continue to be binding upon all future generations. But we ask what is now the case? and what brought about a different arrangement? and why are there at this present day no direct taxes for the support of government? We say, because the South, finding she had made a bad pecuniary bargain, took advantage of the reluctance which most men, and particularly the poor man, had of paying away money in a direct manner for the use of the powers that he, joined in with this reluctance, and used her persuasion to induce a majority of congress to raise their taxes by indirect means, upon the imports of the country; and, although it was done with much opposition of the North, yet the South, appealing to this popular prejudice, as well as advancing the idea, and agreeing with the northern mechanic, that such a' course would help manufactures, succeeded in gaining her object thereby, as undoubtedly she well understood, threw most of the burden of the government on the North; for they could say to themselves, and without doubt did, "As our slaves do not use much, if any, foreign goods, we shall have but little or no duty to pay for what they consume, while we shall have sixty-one votes for every hun