Volume III Part 101 (1/2)
Mr. WILLIAMSON stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of 5 on each slave imported from Africa; 10 on each from elsewhere; and 50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the clause should be rejected; and that it was wrong to force any thing down not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.
Mr. KING thought the subject should be considered in a political light only. If two States will not agree to the Const.i.tution, as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief, on the other, that great and equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States.
Mr. LANGDON was strenuous for giving the power to the General Government. He could not, with a good conscience, leave it with the States, who could then go on with the traffic, without being restrained by the opinions here given, that they will themselves cease to import slaves.
Gen. PINCKNEY thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves, in any short time; but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty that had been started.
Mr. RUTLEDGE. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools, as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the section, and seconded the motion of Gen. PINCKNEY for a commitment.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS wished the whole subject to be committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern States.
MR. BUTLER declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing exports.
Mr. SHERMAN said it was better to let the Southern States import slaves, than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were _property_. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General Government, that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.
Mr. READ was for the commitment, provided the clause concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.
Mr. SHERMAN observed that that clause had been agreed to, and therefore could not be committed.
Mr. Randolph was for committing, in order that some middle ground might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Const.i.tution. He dwelt on the dilemma to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.
On the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5, of Article 7,--Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Hamps.h.i.+re, Pennsylvania, Delaware, no--3; Ma.s.sachusetts absent.
Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Langdon moved to commit Section 6, as to a navigation act by two-thirds of each House.
Mr. Gorham did not see the propriety of it. Is it meant to require a greater proportion of votes? He desired it to be remembered, that the Eastern States had no motive to union but a commercial one. They were able to protect themselves. They were not afraid of external danger, and did not need the aid of the Southern States.
Mr. Wilson wished for a commitment, in order to reduce the proportion of votes required.
Mr. Ellsworth was for taking the plan as it is. This widening of opinions had a threatening aspect. If we do not agree on this middle and moderate ground, he was afraid we should lose two States, with such others as may be disposed to stand aloof; should fly into a variety of shapes and directions, and most probably into several confederations,--and not without bloodshed.
On the question for committing Section 6, as to a navigation act, to a member from each State,--New Hamps.h.i.+re, Ma.s.sachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9; Connecticut, New Jersey, no--2.
The Committee appointed were Messrs. Langdon, King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, d.i.c.kinson, L. Martin, Madison, Williamson, C.C.
Pinckney, and Baldwin.
To this Committee were referred also the two clauses above mentioned of the fourth and fifth Sections of Article 7.--pp. 1390 to 1397.
Friday, August 24, 1787
_In Convention_,--Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven, to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section, and the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in the following Report:
”Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the Committee, and insert, 'The migration or importation of such persons as the several States, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.
”The fifth Section to remain as in the Report.
The sixth Section to be stricken out.”--p. 1415.
SAt.u.r.dAY, August 25, 1787.