"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes. * * Without this indulgence no union could possibly have been formed." In Virginia, Mr. Madison said: "Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At present, if any Slave elopes to any of those States where Slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, 'no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service, or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This _clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of Slaves to reclaim them_. This is a better security than any that now exists." Gen. Pinkney in the South Carolina convention, observed: "We have obtained a right to recover our Slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before." But the great question after all, is not what the Constitution says in words, but what use is made of it? If it is a suitable one for a free nation, it could not be capable of such an awful perversion as has been made of it by the legislation of the country ever since its adoption, Mr. Spooner's idea being correct. If it is Anti-Slavery, it is the first Anti-Slavery document, and the only one, Calhoun &. Co. were ever known to cherish and swear by. How remarkably keen-sighted must these wily southerners be, not to detect the Anti-Slavery spirit of the Constitution; and be hugging an abolition monster, when they fancy they are pressing to their bosoms their own bill of rights to hold Slaves. The southerners are not generally duped this way, and it is strange they should be so much so, in this case. For our own part, the very fact that the Constitution is valued so highly by the South, casts a shadow of suspicion over it, and induces us to reject it as an Anti-Slavery instrument. The South excludes even Sunday school books, tainted with Anti-Slavery, and poems alluding to freedom, are hardly allowed a circulation there; how strange then, that this great _magna charta_ of human liberty should be so eulogised by them. The fact is, it suits them well. They never have complained of its not being pro-slavery enough, but have always rested satisfied with it, as their supporter and guide; and yet northern Anti-Slavery men will talk of its being an Anti-Slavery instrument. As well might the robber press to his bosom the precepts of Jesus Christ, or the gambler and drunkard, works on morality, as the slave-holder the Constitution, if he believed it Anti-Slavery.