ARTICLE IV.

SEC. 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

SEC. 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.

ART. 4. Sec. 1. It was evident that to avoid in future the causes of irritation and disquiet which had had an influence in assembling the Convention, and which must of course arise where no confidence is felt and acknowledged by one State in the doings of another, something like this Section must be adopted. But this might have been done, and more have been wanted still. It was necessary that such credit should be given that what was proved or recorded in one State according to its laws, could never be drawn in question in another. All independent nations give credit to each other's acts, when properly attested. But they are not bound or directed by them, or obliged to let them take effect in their own dominions. Leaving it here, then, would leave the States in precisely the condition, in respect of each other's legislation and judicial acts, in which independent nations are. And in order to define the proof of such acts, and the effect which those of one State shall have in another, the power named in the last clause was given to Congress. SEC. 2. "The citizens of each State," etc. A State may grant exclusive privileges to its own citizens within its own limits, but it cannot make any distinctions between the citi

To what shall full faith and credit be given in each State?
What may Congress prescribe by general laws?

What was this clause intended to avoid?

What credit was it necessary should be given?

What do all independent nations do? How are they not bound or directed? or obliged to do?

What would leaving it here do?

For what purpose was the power named in this Section given to Congress?

What privileges are secured to the citizens of each State?

What distinction may a State make? What may it not make?

A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

zens of other States. But the rule does not apply to those who are not citizens, either by birth, or due naturalization. Among such, it seems, a State may make distinctions.

This Section was called for in order to give nationality to the whole system; to avoid invidious distinctions which had existed, or might exist; and so to secure an attachment in the minds of the people to the new Government. It seemed to give satisfaction to all the Convention, the first two clauses at least did, except that some of the South Carolina delegation wished a provision which would allow slave-holders to remove into non-slaveholding States with their slaves, and keep possession of that kind of property still. This would be giving the citizens of some States, on removing into others, greater privileges and immunities than were enjoyed by those of the States into which they removed. What they wanted was that on removing to another State, they should enjoy all the privileges they had enjoyed before removal. Probably they had in view only temporary removals, with the intention to return; as excursions to the North on business or pleasure, in which they wished to go and return attended by slaves.

แ A person charged in any State," etc. The necessity of this provision is very obvious, in order to facilitate the administration of justice by preventing the criminals of one State from finding refuge or concealment in another. Independent nations sometimes give up refugees from justice to each other, on a request to do so. But they all consider themselves and each other at liberty to do as they may think proper in this matter.

To whom does the rule not apply?

For what purposes was this Section called for? satisfactory to the Convention?

How far was it

What did some of the South Carolina delegation wish? What would this be giving? What did they want? What removals had they in view?

What provision with regard to fugitive criminals? Why is this provision needed?

What do independent nations sometimes do? How do they consider themselves at liberty?

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.

"No person held to service," etc. This is the clanse under which fugitive slaves are claimed to be delivered up to their owners. Two questions here arise; first, whether this clause would be necessary, or not, provided no slavery existed in the United States; and second, whether or not it does in fact authorize the reclamation of fugitive slaves. In the first place, it seems to be necessary, just as it is, for similar reasons to those which make the immediately preceding clause necessary. It meets the case of fugitive minors, wards, apprentices, and perhaps others, who have entered into voluntary contracts of service. In the second place, the Constitution here speaks of persons. But, by slave-law, slaves are not persons. They are merely property, i. e. things. The Constitution farther speaks of the service or labor" as due to the claiming party. If it be so, then the supposed fugitive must be the indebted party. But slaves can owe nothing. They cannot, by slave-law, be indebted to any body. As well might it be said that a horse owes service to his owner. the whole, it has been maintained, and with plausible arguments, that whatever the spirit of the Constitution may do, its letter gives no authority for the seizure or surrender of a fugitive slave. But the term due is doubtless here used in a liberal sense, merely to designate what a man lawfully claims. If a motion once made had been adopted, which was to require "fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals," the case would have been very different.

What provision with regard to fugitives from service or labor?
What claims are made under this clause?

What two questions arise?

Would this clause be necessary if there was no slavery? Why?
What cases does it meet?

In the second place, what does the Constitution here speak of?
What are slaves. by slave-law?

What does the Constitution farther speak of? What then?
What objection to slaves being indebted?

What, on the whole, has been maintained?

What motion was once made?

On

SEC. 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

On this motion, Mr. Sherman, of Ct., remarked, as may be remarked on any Constitutional provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, that he "saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering of a slave or servant than of a horse."

SEC. 3. "New States may be admitted," etc. Some difficulty arose on this Section. Vermont had already formed a government for herself, though within the asserted limits of New York. The charters of Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, extended indefinitely west, and some were for maintaining their jurisdiction to the Mississippi river. It was therefore liable to be disputed whether or not the United States had any lands not included in the limits of any State. As they might, however, have such lands, by the cession of particular States, or otherwise; and as most were desirous that Vermont should come into the confederacy; provision for the admission of new States seemed to be required. The large States were cautious of giving Congress the power to erect new States out of the great western valley, claimed by themselves; while the small States were jealous lest they might be called on to guarantee the claim of the great States to jurisdiction beyond the Alleghany mountains. The Section was therefore framed as it is, in both parts of it, with a view to admit new States, Vermont at least, and others, if

What was Mr. Sherman's remark?

What are your views on this subject? Ask your teacher for his opinions.

What provision for admitting new States? What conditions for their admission?

What is said of Vermont?

What of the charters of certain States?

How far would some extend their jurisdiction?

What was liable to be disputed ?

Why did provision for new States seem necessary?

Of what were the large States cautious? and the small States jealous?

With what view was the Section framed as it is?

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

land were found to make them of. And as government is one of the most "needful" of things for all communities, the power to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States," authorizes Congress to erect territorial governments. But as a proper restriction to this power, it was understood and provided that no territory held by a bona fide claim of any State or States, could be erected into a new State without the consent of the Legislatures of each of the claiming States. Should any dispute arise between any State and the United States on a claim to lands, it was intended that the Constitution should not favor either party, but leave the question to the decision of the Supreme Court.

Much has been said about the constitutionality of the admission of new States, particularly out of territory purchased or otherwise obtained of foreign powers. Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, are examples. The Constitution gives the President and two thirds of the Senate the power to make treaties. It does not specify on what subject; it may therefore as well be on the purchase or cession of lands as on any thing else. If so, and the lands named were obtained by treaty with competent and independent powers, it is difficult to see why they may not be erected into States. The only question which can much divide opinions is with regard to Texas. But a treaty with an independent power, by which it is received into the Union, is a purchase of all its lands,— or at any rate, it is but a treaty still. If, therefore, Texas had been annexed by treaty, which it was not, its admission would have been constitutional. Besides, treaties for the

What may Congress do in the territories? What restriction to this power?

How may territorial disputes be settled?
What has much been said about?

What examples?

What power has the President and two thirds of the Senate? On what subject may treaties be well enough made? If so, what then?

What question can divide opinions? How may it be answered?