Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1856-06-26
The following is the paper by Mr.. Madison rs
ferred TO in the letter of Mr. Rives published
yesterday.

yesterday:
!liraet. Of NJ. Madisoa's LstfeT 10 Mr. Walsh, He
Constitutional questions ispoiued IN the Assouu Com
MONTPELIER November 81, 1919.
Dr.p SIN. Yonr letter of the Ith was duly receiv-
cd and should have given il a less tardy answer but
for succession of particular demands on my atten
ton aud wish 10 assist my recocctions by con-
euting bot. manuscript and printed sources OF infor
nation on the subjects of your inquiry. OF these,
how ever have not been able 10 aVaH niyself but
very partially.
As to the intention of the trainers Of the Consti-
tuition in the clause relating 10 the migration and
importation OF persons &c, the best Key may per-
haps be found in the which produced II. The
African trade in slaves had long been odous to most
of the States and the importation into them had been
prohibited Particular States, however, continued
the importation, and were extremely averse to any
restriction their power to do so In the Conven-
ton the former States were ANXIOUS IN framing new
Constitution to insert provision for an immediate
aud absolute stop to the trade The latter were not
only nverse to any interference on the subject, but
soemnly declared that their constituents would never
accede to Constitution containing such an article
Dat of this conflict grew the middle measure, pro-
yiding that Congress should not interfere until the
year 1903 with an implication that after that date
they might prohibit the importation Of slaves into the
States then existing and previous thereto into the
States not then existing. Such was the tone OF OPP
position in the States of South Carolina and Georgia,
and such the desire to gain their acqniescencc IN
pruhbitory power, that question between the
cpochs of 1900 and 1908, the States of New flamp-
shire Massachusetts, and Connecticut tall the Eastern
States in Convenon) joined in the vote for the lat
tcr--infuenced however by the collateral motive of
rcconcing those particular States to the power over
commerce and navigation against which they felt, AS
did some other States, very strong repuguance.-
The earnestness of South Carolina and Georgia was
further manifested by their insisting on the security
in the fifth article against any amendment to the
Constitution affecting the right reserved to them, and
their uniting with the small States. who insisted
like security for their equality in the Senate.
But of the States not only anxious for
constitutional provision against the introduction of
slaves they had scruplcs against admitting the term
slaves into the instrument, Hence the descriptive
phrase, " migration importation of personsj the
term migration allowing those who were scrupulous
OF acknowledging expressly property IN human be-
ings to view imported persons species of emf
grants while others might apply the term to foreign
malefactors sent or coming into the country II is
possible, though not reeolleeted, that some might
hare had eye to the of freed blacks well ms
indicators.
But, whatever may have been intended by the term
migration or The term "persons, it is most certain
that they referred exclusively to migration or npor-
tatOm from other countries into the United States,
and not 10 a removal voluntarily or involuntarily, of
slaves frecmen from one 10 another part OF the
United States. Nothing appears or is rceolleced that
warrants this latter intention Nothing in the pro-
cccdings of the State Conventions indicates such fl
construction there Had such been the construction
II is easy to imagine the figure it would have made in
many of the States among the objections to the Con-
stitution and among the numerous amendments to it
proposed bv the State Conventions not one of which
amendments refers TO the clause in question. Neither
is there any indication that Congress have heretofore
considered themselves deriving from this clause
power over the migration or removal of individuals,
whether reemen slaves, from one State to another
If the power given at all it has been in fore
eleven years all the States existing in 1903 and
ut all times over the States not then existing. Every
indication is against such construction by Congress
of their constitutional powers Their alacrity in ex-
ercisng their powers relating to slaves is proof that
they did not claim what they did not exercise. They
puuctually and unanimously exercised the power ac-
cfunR in 1908 against the further importation OF
slaves from abroad. They had previously directed
their power American vessels on the high seas
against the African trade They lost time in APP
plying the prohibitory powerto Louisiana which hav-
ing maritime ports might be an inlet for slaves from
abroad, But they forbore to extend the prohibition
to the introduction of slaves from other parts of the
Union, They had even prohibited the importation
of slaves into the Mississippi Territory from without
the limits of the United States in the year 1898, with
ont extending the prohibition TO the introduction OF
slaves from within those limits although at the time
the ports of Georgia and South Carolina were open
for the importation of slaves from abroad and in
crcasng the of slavery within the United States.
If these views of the subject be just, power in
Congress 10 control the interior migration or remov
al OF persons must be derived from some other source
than section g. article l. either from the clause giving
power "to make all necdtul rules and regulations res
pectng the territory other property belonging to
the United States, from that providing for the ad-
mission ofnew States into the Union,
The terms in which the first of these powers is ex-
pressed though of ductile character cannot well be
extended beyond power the territory MS prop
a Ia ms kp IA really ID
tul or necessary for the government of settlers until
ripe for admission states into the Union. 1t may
be inferred that congress did not regard the nterdct
of slavery among the needful regulations contcmpa-
ted by the Constitution, since in none OF the Terrific
rial Governments created by them is such inter
dict found. The power, howeyerb its import what II
may, is obviously limited to Territory while remain
in that character, distinct from that of State.
As to the power of admitting new States into the
Federal compact the questions offering themselves
are; Whether Congress can attach conditions or the
state concur in conditions which, after admission
| would abridge enlarge the constitutional rights
OF legislation common to other States; whether Con-
| gross can, by a compact with new member, take
| power to or from itself, place the new member
above or below the equal rank audrights possessed
by the Others whether all such stipulations express
| ed or implied, would not be utilities and so pro-
| nonnced when brought 10 practical test2 1t falls
within the scope of your inquiry to state the fact that
there was proposition in the Convention to discrn-
| mate between the old and new States by an article
in the Constitution declaring that the aggregate num-
Der OF Representatives from the States thereafter To
be admitted should never exceed that of States orgi-
nally adopting the Constitution. The proposition hap
| PLY was rejected. The effect OF such a discrimination
is sufficiently evident
With respect to what has taken place in the North
west Territory it may be observed that the ordinance
giving its distinctive character the subject of slave
holding proceeded from the Old Congress, acting
with the best intentions. but under charter which
contains no shadow of the authority exercised and II
remains to be decided how far the States formed on,
OF tha Territory and admitted into the Union are
on different footing from its other members as IL