to one another in this respect.  But in this Constitution, “no person held to service, or labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”  This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them.  This is a better security than any that now exists.  No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States.  The taxation of this State being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes.  They cannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after that period, they can.  The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia argued in this manner:  “We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much of the property now possessed, has been purchased, or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the assistance of imported slaves.  What would be the consequence of hindering us from it?  The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets.”  I need not expatiate on this subject.  Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the Union would be worse.  If those States should disunite from the other States, for not including them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.

Mr. Tyler warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and disgracefulness of this wicked traffic.  He thought the reasons urged by gentlemen in defence of it were inconclusive, and ill founded.  It was one cause of the complaints against British tyranny, that this trade was permitted.  The Revolution had put a period to it; but now it was to be revived.  He thought nothing could justify it.  This temporary restriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the arguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up, was retained by the States; for that if this restriction had not been inserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade.  The power of prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would have had it by implication, 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.