In strict harmony with these are the many utterances in the Convention which framed the Constitution: of Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, who announced that “_he never would concur in upholding Domestic Slavery_; it was a nefarious institution”;[131] of Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, who said that “we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to slaves, _but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it_”;[132] of Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, who all concurred with Mr. Gerry;[133] and especially of Mr. Madison, of Virginia, who, in a phrase which cannot be quoted too often, “THOUGHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT IN THE CONSTITUTION THE IDEA THAT THERE COULD BE PROPERTY IN MEN.”[134] And, lastly, as if to complete the elaborate work of Freedom, and to embody all these utterances, the word “servitude,” which had been allowed in the clause on the apportionment of Representatives, was struck out, and the word “service” substituted. This final and total exclusion from the Constitution of the idea of property in man was on the motion of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia; and the reason assigned for the substitution, according to Mr. Madison, in his authentic report of the debate, was, that “the former was thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter _the obligations of free persons_.”[135] Thus, at every point, by great national declarations, by frank utterances in the Convention, and by positive act in adjusting the text of the Constitution, was the idea of property in man unequivocally rejected. This pretension, which may be dismissed as utterly baseless, becomes absurd, when it is considered to what result it necessarily conducts. If the Barbarism of Slavery, in all its fivefold wrong, is really embodied in the Constitution, so as to be beyond reach of prohibition, either Congressional or local, in the Territories, then, for the same reason, it must be beyond reach of prohibition, even by local authority, in the States themselves, and, just so long as the Constitution continues unchanged, Territories and States alike must be exposed to all its blasting influences. Do we not witness this result in open attempts now made by Slave-Masters to travel with their slaves in the Free States? Calling the slave-roll in the shadow of Bunker Hill, according to well-known menace, will be the triumph of this consummation. And yet this pretension, which in natural consequences overturns State Rights, is announced by Senators who profess to be special guardians of State Rights.