[Footnote 35:--"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, _like an ordinary article of merchandise and property_, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in every State that might desire it, for twenty years."--_Ch. J. Taney_, 19 _How. U.S.R_., p. 451. _Vide_ language of Mr. Madison, note 34, as to "_merchandise_."] [Footnote 36:--Not only was the right of property _not_ intended to be "distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution"; but the following extract from Mr. Madison demonstrates that the utmost care was taken to avoid so doing: "The clause as originally offered [respecting fugitive slaves] read, 'If any person LEGALLY bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State," etc., etc. (Vol. 3, p. 1456.) In regard to this, Mr. Madison says, "The term '_legally'_ was struck out, and the words 'under the laws thereof,' inserted after the word State, in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term 'legally' equivocal and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral point of view."--_Ib_., p. 1589.] [Footnote 37:--We subjoin a portion of the history alluded to by Mr. Lincoln. The following extract relates to the provision of the Constitution relative to the slave trade. (Article I, Sec. 9.) _25th August_, 1787.--The report of the Committee of eleven being taken up, Gen. [Charles Cotesworth] Pinckney moved to strike out the words "the year 1800," and insert the words "the year 1808." Mr. Gorham seconded the motion. Mr. Madison--Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution. * * * * * Mr. Gouverneur Morris was for making the clause read at once-- "The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited," etc. This, he said, would be most fair, and would avoid _the _ ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language, however, should be objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it. Col. Mason (of Virginia) was not against using the term "slaves," but against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States. Mr. Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress and were not pleasing to some people. Mr. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman.