Such is the indubitable origin of a clause latterly declared a compromise of the Constitution and a corner-stone of the Republic. That a clause for the hunting of slaves was recognized at the time as compromise or corner-stone is an absurdity disowned alike by history and by reason. That the clause was adopted, _nem. con._, with the idea, that, _according to any received rules of interpretation_, it could authorize the hunting of slaves, it is difficult to believe. The very statement that it was adopted _nem. con._ shows that it must have been regarded, _according to received rules of interpretation_, as having no “positive” character; for there were eminent members of the Convention whose declared opinions must have prevented them from consenting to any such proposition, if it were supposed for a moment to turn the Republic which they were then organizing into a mighty Slave-Hunter. There sat Gouverneur Morris, who only a short time before exclaimed in the Convention: “_He never would concur in upholding domestic Slavery._ It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the States where it prevailed.”[337] There sat Oliver Ellsworth, afterwards Chief Justice, who said, in words which strike at all support of Slavery by the National Government: “The morality or wisdom of Slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves.”[338] There sat Elbridge Gerry, afterwards Vice-President, who openly declared 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_.”[339] There sat Roger Sherman, who avowed that he was “opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, _because it implied they were property_.”[340] And, greatest of all, there sat Benjamin Franklin, who, by character and conviction, in every fibre of his moral and intellectual being, was pledged against any sanction of Slavery. Who can suppose that these wise and illustrious patriarchs of Liberty all consented, _nem. con._, not only to sanction Slavery and to recognize property in man, but to put a kennel of bloodhounds into the Constitution, ready to hunt the flying bondman? They did no such thing; or, if it is insisted, _contrary to received rules of interpretation_, that such must be the signification of their language, clearly they did not understand it so. Doubtless there were members of the Convention who, in passion for Slavery, cheered themselves with the delusion that they had adequately described, in “positive” terms, the pretension they hoped to embody in the Constitution; but the _legal meaning_ of this provision must be determined, not by the passion of such members, but by the actual language employed, according to received rules of interpretation, from which there is no appeal. Other rules may be set aside as inapplicable; but the rule, which, in presence of any doubtful phrase, any indirect language, or any word capable of a double sense,