Mr. GEORGE MASON.  Mr. Chairman, with respect to commerce and navigation, he has given it as his opinion, that their regulation, as it now stands, was a sine qua non of the Union, and that without it, the States in Convention would never concur.  I differ from him.  It never was, nor in my opinion ever will be, a sine qua non of the Union.  I will give you, to the best of my recollection, the history of that affair.  This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four months, during which time the subject of commerce and navigation was often under consideration; and I assert, that eight States out of twelve, for more than three months, voted for requiring two-thirds of the members present in each house to pass commercial and navigation laws.  True it is, that afterwards it was carried by a majority, as it stands.  If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring two-thirds of the States in this business, till a compromise took place between the Northern and Southern States; the Northern States agreeing to the temporary importation of slaves, and the Southern States conceding, in return, that navigation and commercial laws should be on the footing on which they now stand.  If I am mistaken, let me be put right.  These are my reasons for saying that this was not a sine qua non of their concurrence.  The Newfoundland fisheries will require that kind of security which we are now in want of.  The Eastern States therefore agreed at length, that treaties should require the consent of two-thirds of the members present in the senate.

Mr. Madison.  I was struck with surprise when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves.  Let me ask, if they should even attempt it, if it will not be an usurpation of power?  There is no power to warrant it, in that paper.  If there be, I know it not.  But why should it be done?  Says the honorable gentleman, for the general welfare—­it will infuse strength into our system.  Can any member of this committee suppose, that it will increase our strength?  Can any one believe, that the American councils will come into a measure which will strip them of their property, discourage and alienate the affections of five-thirteenths of the Union?  Why was nothing of this sort aimed at before?  I believe such an idea never entered into an American breast, nor do I believe it ever will, unless it will enter into the heads of those gentlemen who substitute unsupported suspicions for reasons.

Mr. Henry.  He asked me where was the power of emancipating slaves?  I say it will be implied, unless implication be prohibited.  He admits that the power of granting passports will be in the new Congress without the insertion of this restriction—­yet he can shew me nothing like such a power granted in that Constitution.  Notwithstanding he admits their right to this power by implication, he says that I am unfair and uncandid in my deduction, that they can emancipate our slaves, though the word emancipation be not mentioned in it.  They can exercise power by implication in one instance, as well as in another.  Thus, by the gentleman’s own argument, they can exercise the power though it be not delegated.