Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/443

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

I, sir, shall not repeat them. Indeed, to me, there is nothing more dry and uninteresting, than discussions to explain the meaning of single words. In the present case, I will only refer to the authority of Mr. Madison and Judge Wilson, who were both members of the Convention, and who gave their construction to these words, long before this question was agitated. Mr. Madison observes, that, to say this clause was intended to prevent emigration does not deserve an answer. And Judge Wilson says, expressly, it was intended to place the new States under the control of Congress, as to the introduction of slaves. The opinion of this latter gentleman is entitled to peculiar weight. After the Convention had labored for weeks on the subject of representation and direct taxes—when those great men were like to separate without obtaining their object, Judge Wilson submitted the provision on this subject, which now stands as a part of your Constitution. Sir, there is no man, from any part of the nation, who understood the system of our Government better than him; not even excepting Virginia, from whence the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Walker) tells us we have all our great men.


ⅭⅭⅭⅩⅩⅩⅤ. James Madison to President Monroe.[1]

Monpr. Feby. 10. 1820.

I have been truly astonished at some of the doctrines and declarations to which the Missouri question has led; and particularly so at the interpretation put on the terms “migration or importation &c”. Judging from my own impressions I shd. deem it impossible that the memory of any one who was a member of the Genl. Convention, could favor an opinion that the terms did not exclusively refer to migration & importation, into the U. S. Had they been understood in that Body in the sense now put on them, it is easy to conceive the alienation they would have there created in certain States: and no one can decide better than yourself the effect they would had in the State conventions, if such a meaning had been avowed by the advocates of the Constitution. If a suspicion had existed of such a construction, it wd. at least have made a conspicuous figure among the amendments proposed to the Instrument.


ⅭⅭⅭⅩⅩⅩⅥ. Charles Pinckney in the House of Representatives.[2]

February 14, 1820.

Among the reasons which have induced me to rise, one is to ex-

  1. Documentary History of the Constitution, Ⅴ, 307.
  2. Annals of Congress, Sixteenth Congress, First Session Ⅱ, 1311–1318.