be harassed by the representative of Lord Fairfax. If he has no right this cannot be done. If he has this right and comes to Virginia, what laws will this claim be determined by? By the laws of Virginia. By what tribunals will the claim be determined? By our own tribunals. After replying to some incidental objections which had been urged by Mason and Henry, Marshall concluded his speech, and was followed in a few words by Randolph, when the committee rose, and the House adjourned.

On Saturday, the twenty-first of June, the House resolved itself into a committee, Wythe in the chair, the first and second sections of the third articles still under consideration. Grayson rose and reviewed the structure and the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary at great length, and denounced its defects in a splendid oration, and was followed by Randolph at equal length in reply. At the close of Randolph's speech the House adjourned.

On Monday, the twenty-third of June, the House again went into committee, Harrison in the chair, and the same sections still under consideration. Nicholas rose to suggest that the committee now pass on to the next clause of the Constitution, but he was opposed by Henry, who made a handsome acknowledgment of the fairness and ability of Marshall, and replied to some of his arguments. He was succeeded by a member far advanced in life, who had not as yet spoken in the committee, and who was not only held in high repute by his contemporaries, but deserves the favorable regard of posterity. For nearly the third of a century last past he had been engaged in the military service of his country. He was one of the oldest and most prominent military men in the Commonwealth. In the Indian wars from 1755

to nearly the beginning of the Revolution he had borne a conspicuous part, and was often in command of the Virginia troops raised for the defence of the frontier. His large stature and great muscular strength, added to his experience in war, made him the terror of the Indians. On one occasion he was sent to South Carolina with the Virginia companies to aid in beating back the Indians. As early as 1756, when Washington went to Boston to consult General Shirley on a point of military etiquette, Colonel Adam Stephen was left in command of the military forces of the colony until his return. In 1763 the Governor of

Virginia, when Stephen was in command of a levy of five hundred men to defend the frontiers against the Indians, spoke highly of his military capacity and courage. In 1776 he commanded the Fourth battalion of Virginia troops at Portsmouth, when he was appointed a brigadier-general in the army of the United States. On retiring from his command in Portsmouth, a valedictory letter was addressed to him by his officers, who speak of him as the polite gentleman and the accomplished soldier; and in his answer he mentioned the fact that "the present was his twelfth campaign.' In February, 1777, he was elected a majorgeneral by Congress. In the battle of Brandywine he distinguished himself by his valor, as on other important occasions. He had probably been a member of the House of Burgesses, and was returned from Berkeley to the March Convention of 1775, when he sustained the resolutions of Henry for putting the Colony into military array. In the following July he was also returned to the Convention, but from some informality in the return he lost his seat. A warm admirer of the Federal Con

11226

227

226 Virginia Gazette, September 20, 1776.

227 Journal of the Convention of July, 1775, page 7. Irving, in his Life of Washington, has several allusions to Stephen, but the best source of information is Sparks's Writings of Washington, which the reader may consult by referring to the name of Stephen in the index in the last volume. In the years 1775 and 1776, of the American Archives, are letters of Stephen. A letter of his heretofore quoted may be found in the Life of R. H. Lee, by his grandson.

Stephen died in August, 1791, in Berkeley county, and lies buried on the estate owned by the Hon. Charles J. Faulkner; a rude stone marks the spot. He has left descendants, all of whom occupy respectable and honorable positions in the communities in which they reside. Letter of the Hon. C. J. Faulkner to Francis B. Jones, Esq., dated May 19, 1856. I am indebted to Mr. Jones for his great courtesy in assisting me in my inquiries concerning Stephen and other persons belonging to the history of the Valley of Virginia. It is believed that Stephen was born in what is now Berkeley county, though I think it questionable. He lived in Martinsburg in his latter days. The cause of his losing his seat in the Convention of 1775 was, that two districts of the county did not know that an election was to be held when Stephen was elected, and that Stephen, who was on election day parading the militia, marched at their head to the polls, and was elected by their votes. See Kercheval's History of the Valley, pages 244, 245; also, Burke's History of Virginia, IV, 91; and Marshall's Life of Washington, revised edition, I, 157, 158.

stitution, and as fearless on the floor as in the field, he now rose to give utterance to his feelings. Indeed, his speech is rather a fierce personal attack upon Henry than a defense of the judiciary, which was the topic in debate, or of the Constitution at large.❞ "The gentleman," says Stephen, "means to frighten us by his bugbears and hobgoblins-his sale of lands to pay taxes-Indian purchases, and other horrors, that I think I know as much about as he does. I have traveled through the greater part of the Indian countries; I know them well. I can mention a variety of resources by which the people may be enabled to pay their taxes.' (He then went into a description of the Mississippi and its waters, Cook's river, the Indian tribes residing in that country, and the variety of articles which might be obtained to advantage by trading with those people.) "I know, he said, of several rich mines of gold and silver in the western country. And will the gentleman tell me that these precious metals will not pay taxes? If the gentleman does not like this government, let him go and live among the Indians. I know of several nations that live very happy; and I can furnish him with a vocabulary of their language."

Nicholas rose to answer some arguments which had fallen from the gentlemen on the other side. He denied that the English judges were more independent than the judges of the Federal judiciary. May not a variety of pensions be granted to the judges with a view to influence their decisions? May they not be removed by a vote of both Houses of Parliament? We are told that quit-rents are to be sued for. To satisfy gentlemen, I beg leave to refer them to an Act of Assembly, passed in the year 1782, before the peace, which absolutely abolishes the quitrents, and discharges the holders of lands in the Northern Neck. from any claim of that kind. As to the claims of certain companies which purchased lands of the Indians, they were determined prior to the opening of the land office by the Virginia Assembly; and it is not to be supposed that they will be again. disposed to renew their claim. But, said Nicholas, there are gentlemen who have come by large possessions that it is not easily to account for. Here Herry interfered, and hoped the gentleman meant nothing personal. Nicholas answered: "I mean what I say, sir." He then alluded to the Blue Laws of Massachusetts, of which he said he had never heard till yester

day, and said he thought those laws should have as little weight in the present discussion as an argument which he had heard out of doors, to the effect that as New England men wore black stockings and plush breeches, there could be no union with. them. He said the ground had been so much traveled over, he thought it unnecessary to trouble the committee any farther on the subject.

Henry rose and said that if the gentleman means personal insinuations, or wishes to wound my private reputation, I think this an improper place to do so. If, on the other hand, he means to go on in the discussion of the subject, he ought not to apply arguments which might tend to obstruct the discussion. As to land matters, I can tell how I came by what I have; but I think that gentleman (Nicholas) has no right to make that inquiry of me. I mean not to offend any one-I have not the most distant idea of injuring any gentleman. My object was to obtain information. If I have offended in private life, or wounded the feelings of any man, I did not intend it. I hold what I hold in a right and just manner. I beg pardon for having obtruded thus far. Nicholas then observed that he meant no personality in what he said, nor did he mean any resentment. If such conduct meets the contempt of that gentleman, I can only assure him, said. Nicholas, it meets with an equal degree of contempt from me.

The President hoped gentlemen would not be personal, and that they would proceed to investigate the subject in a calm and peaceable manner. Nicholas again rose and said that he did not mean the honorable gentleman (Henry), but he meant those who had taken up large tracts of land in the western country. The reason he could not explain himself before was that he thought some observations had dropped from the honorable gentleman as ought not to have come from one gentleman to another.228

228 Nicholas was the brother-in-law of Randolph, and was, it is believed, deeply interested in western lands, and in fact removed to Kentucky in a short time after the adjournment of the Convention. The account of the quarrel, as reported in the debates, I have given, but there does not seem to be any excuse for the prompt refusal of Nicholas to make an explanation. The explanation may, perhaps, be found in the high state of excitement which prevailed as the final voting was coming on; in the tone in which Henry made his inquiry, and not a little, perhaps, in the feeling with which Henry was regarded by the

An animated conversation in respect of the powers of the judiciary now sprang up between Monroe, Madison, Grayson, Henry and Mason, when the sections under consideration were passed over, and the first section of the fourth article was read. 229

Mason observed that how far Congress shall declare the degree of faith to which public records were entitled to was proper, he could not clearly see. Madison answered that the clause was absolutely necessary, and that he had not employed a thought on the subject.

230

The second section of the fourth article was then read." Mason said that on a former occasion gentlemen were pleased to make some observations on the security of property coming within this section. It was then said, and he now said, that there is no security, nor have gentlemen convinced him that there was. 231

leading friends of the Constitution, who laid the whole burden of opposition at his door. There were repeated attempts to wound his feelings, but he treated most of them with silence.

229Full 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 passed, and the effect thereof."

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

"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."

No person held to service or labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regu lation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

291 More than sixty years after this remark was made by Mason, one · of his grandsons in the Senate of the United States drew up an act to carry this clause of the Constitution into effect.

If it had been objected to the first clause of this section, that a Southern gentleman could not travel with his servants through another State without having them forcibly taken from him, or in transitu to some other State, the friends of the Constitution would have answered that from their own experience no such result would ever follow.