“The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year 1808,” which was disagreed to, nem. con.

The first part of the report was then agreed to as follows: 

“The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808.”

* * * * *

Mr. Sherman was against the second part ["but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports"], as acknowledging men to be property by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

* * * * *

Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the like idea that there could be property in men.  The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed.

* * * * *

It was finally agreed, nem. con., to make the clause read—­

“But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each PERSON.”—­Madison Papers, Aug. 25, 1787.]

[Footnote 38:—­Compare this noble passage and that at page 18, with the twaddle of Mr. Orr (note 30), and the slang of Mr. Douglas (note 37).]

[Footnote 39:—­That demand has since been made.  Says MR. O’CONOR, counsel for the State of Virginia in the Lemon Case, page 44:  “We claim that under these various provisions of the Federal Constitution, a citizen of Virginia has an immunity against the operation of any law which the State of New York can enact, whilst he is a stranger and wayfarer, or whilst passing through our territory; and that he has absolute protection for all his domestic rights, and for all his rights of property, which under the laws of the United States, and the laws of his own State, he was entitled to, whilst in his own State.  We claim this, and neither more NOR LESS.”

Throughout the whole of that case, in which the right to pass through New York with slaves at the pleasure of the slave owners is maintained, it is nowhere contended that the statute is contrary to the Constitution of New York; but that the statute and the Constitution of the State are both contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

The State of Virginia, not content with the decision of our own courts upon the right claimed by them, is now engaged in carrying this, the Lemon case, to the Supreme Court of the United States, hoping by a decision there, in accordance with the intimations in the Dred Scott case, to overthrow the Constitution of New York.

Senator Toombs, of Georgia, has claimed, in the Senate, that laws of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, for the exclusion of slavery, conceded to be warranted by the State Constitutions, are contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and has asked for the enactment of laws by the General Government which shall override the laws of those States and the Constitutions which authorize them.]