ar purposes of the opponents of the Alien bill) that the
proposition itself was originally drawn up and moved in the
Convention, by the deputies from South Carolina, for the express
purpose of preventing Congress from interfering with the
introduction of slaves into the United States, within the time
specified. He recollected also, that in the discussion of its
merits no question arose, or was agitated respecting the
admission of foreigners but, on the contrary, that it was
confined simply to slaves, and was first voted upon and carried
with that word expressed in it, which was afterwards upon
reconsideration changed for '_such persons_,' as it now stands,
upon the suggestion of one of the Deputies from Connecticut. The
sole reason assigned for changing it was, that it would be better
not to stain the Constitutional code with such a term, since it
could be avoided by the introduction of other equally
intelligible words, as had been done in the former part of the
same instrument, where the same sense was conveyed by the
circuitous expression of 'three fifths of all other persons.'
Mr. Dayton said that at that time he was far from believing, and
that indeed until the present debate arose, he had never heard,
that any one member supposed that the simple change of the term
would enlarge the construction of this prohibitory provision, as
it was now contended for. If it could have been conceived to be
really liable to such interpretation, he was convinced that it
would not have been adopted, for it would then carry with it a
strong injunction upon Congress to prohibit the introduction of
foreigners into newly erected States immediately, and into the
then existing States after the year 1808, as it undoubtedly does,
that of slaves after that period....

Mr. Baldwin ... observed that he was yesterday obliged to leave
the House a little before adjournment, and he had understood
that, in his absence, the remarks which he had made on that point
a few days ago, in Committee of the Whole, had been controverted,
and that it had been done with some degree of harshness and
personal disrespect. What he had before asserted was, that the
clause respecting migration and importation was not considered at
the time when it passed in the Convention as confined entirel