ry well that when the
9th section of the Constitution was under consideration in the
Convention, the delegates from some of the Southern States
insisted that the prohibition of the introduction of slaves
should be left to the State Governments; it was found expedient
to make this provision in the Constitution; there was an
objection to the use of the word slaves, as Congress by none of
their acts had ever acknowledged the existence of such a
condition. It was at length settled on the words as they now
stand, "that the migration or importation of such persons as the
several States shall think proper to admit, should not be
prohibited till the year 1808." It was observed by some
gentlemen present that this expression would extend to other
persons besides slaves, which was not denied, but this did not
produce any alteration of it....

Mr. Dayton (the Speaker) commenced his observations with
declaring that he should not have risen on this occasion, if no
allusion had been made to the proceedings in the Federal
Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, or
if the representation which was given of what passed in that
body, had been a perfectly correct and candid one. He expressed
his surprise at what had fallen from the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Baldwin) relatively to that part of the Constitution, which
had been selected as the text of opposition to the bill under
consideration, viz: "The migration or importation of such persons
as any of the States now existing 'shall think proper to admit,
shall not be prohibited by Congress, 'prior to the year 1808." He
could only ascribe either to absolute forgetfulness, or to
willful misrepresentation, the assertion of the member from
Georgia, that it was understood and intended by the General
Convention that the article in question should extend to the
importation or introduction of citizens from foreign countries.
As that gentleman and himself were the only two members of the
House of Representatives who had the honor of a seat in that
body, he deemed it his indispensable duty to correct the
misstatement that had thus been made. He did not therefore,
hesitate to say, in direct contradiction to this novel
construction of the article (made as it would seem to suit the
particul