if this restraint had not been provided.  This seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of restraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable rights.  It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or included in the Constitution.  But he contended for it one way or the other.  It would be justified by our own example, and that of England.  His earnest desire was, that it should be handed down to posterity, that he had opposed this wicked clause.

Mr. MADISON.  As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress, namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.

Mr. HENRY insisted, that the insertion of these restrictions on Congress, was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise powers by implication.  The gentleman had admitted that Congress could have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction.  If so, the power not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained by implication.  He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of reserved rights?  He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from assuming any powers but those expressly given.  He asked why it was moited to secure us that property in slaves, which we held now?  He feared its omission was done with design.  They might lay such heavy taxes on slaves, as would amount to emancipation; and then the Southern States would be the only sufferers.  His opinion was confirmed by the mode of levying money.  Congress, he observed, had power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises.  Imposts (or duties) and excises, were to be uniform.  But this uniformity did not extend to taxes.  This might compel the Southern States to liberate their negroes.  He wished this property therefore to be guarded.  He considered the clause which had been adduced by the gentleman as a security for this property, as no security at all.  It was no more than this—­that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York.  This could not prevent Congress from interfering with that property by laying a grievous and enormous tax on it, so as to compel owners to emancipate their slaves rather than pay the tax.  He apprehended it would be productive of much stockjobbing, and that they would play into one another’s hands in such a manner as that this property would be lost to the country.

Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS wondered that gentlemen who were against slavery would be opposed to this clause; as after that period the slave trade would be done away.  He asked if gentlemen did not see the inconsistency of their arguments?  They object, says he, to the Constitution, because the slave trade is laid open for twenty-odd years; and yet tell you, that by some latent operation of it, the slaves who are now, will be manumitted.  At that same moment, it is opposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery.  He contended that it was advantageous to Virginia, that it should be in the power of Congress to prevent the importation of slaves after twenty years, as it would then put a period to the evil complained of.