estion forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in fed- n 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the conven- 5 The question of federal control of slavery in the territories seems not to have been directly before the convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded 20 that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that strument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. Mn 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constiution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. 25 The bill for this act was reported by one of the " thirty-nine" Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without ayes and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous pas- 30 sage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, and James Madison. This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local 5 from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to, support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition. Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine,” was then President of the United States, and as such approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the 15 federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the federal government the country. now constituting the state of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the states of Missis20 sippi and Alabama.* In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding states that the federal government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, 25 did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it-take control of it — even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress organized the territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the territory from any place without the United States, by 30 fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the *The cession by North Carolina was accepted by Congress in 1790; that by Georgia in 1798 original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. They all probably voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. 1803 the federal government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain 'of our own states; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial 10 organization to that part of it which now constitutes the state of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the 15 Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it - take control of it—in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was: That no slave should be imported into the territory from 20 foreign parts. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. Q3. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the 25 owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. This act also was passed without ayes or nays. In the Congress which passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They 30 were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution. In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many otes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Con5 gress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine" - Rufus King and Charles Pinckneywere members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and 10 against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some suf15 ficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case. The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the “ thirtynine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. To enumerate the persons who thus acted as being four in 20 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20, there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the "thirty25 nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way. Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who framed the government under which we live,” 30 who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they understood just as well, and even better, than we do now"; and twenty-one of them a clear majority of the whole "thirtynine" – so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one 5 ed; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. Two of the twenty-three voted against congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be suffi- 15 cient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional if, at the same time, he 20 deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the federal government to control as to slavery in federal territory. 25 The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from 30 that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all. For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the |