Article 7, sect. 4, was then taken up.

Mr. LANGDON. By this section, the states are left at liberty to tax exports. New Hampshire, therefore, with other non-exporting states, will be subject to be taxed by the states exporting its produce. This could not be admitted. It seems to be feared that the Northern States will oppress the trade of the Southern. This may be guarded against, by requiring the concurrence of two thirds, or three fourths of the legislature, in such cases.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. It is best as it stands. The power of regulating trade between the states will protect them against each other. Should this not be the case, the attempts of one to tax the produce of another, passing through its hands, will force a direct exportation and defeat themselves. There are solid reasons against Congress taxing exports. First, it will discourage industry, as taxes on imports discourage luxury. Secondly, the produce of different states is such as to prevent uniformity in such taxes. There are indeed but a few articles that could be taxed at all, as tobacco, rice, and indigo; and a tax on these alone would be partial and unjust. Thirdly, the taxing of exports would engender incurable jealousies.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Though North Carolina has been taxed by Virginia, by a duty on twelve thousand hogsheads of her tobacco through Virginia, yet he would never agree to this power. Should it take place, it would destroy the last hope of the adoption of the plan.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. These local considerations ought not to impede the general interest. There is great weight in the argument, that the exporting states will tax the produce of their uncommercial neighbors. The power of regulating the trade between Pennsylvania and New Jersey will never prevent the former from taxing the latter. Nor will such a tax force a direct exportation from New Jersey. The advantages possessed by a large trading city outweigh the disadvantage of a moderate duty, and will retain the trade in that channel. If no tax can be laid on exports, an embargo cannot be laid, though in time of war such a measure may be of critical importance. Tobacco, lumber, and live stock, are three objects belonging to different states, of which great advantage might be made by a power to tax exports. To these may be added ginseng and masts for ships, by which a tax might be thrown on other nations. The idea of supplying the West Indies with lumber from Nova Scotia is one of the many follies of Lord Sheffield's pamphlet. The state of the country, also, will change, and render duties on exports—as skins, beaver, and other peculiar raw materials politic in the view of encouraging American manufactures.

Mr. BUTLER was strenuously opposed to a power over exports, as unjust and alarming to the staple states.

Mr. LANGDON suggested a prohibition on the states from taxing the produce of other states exported from their harbors.

Mr. DICKINSON. The power of taxing exports may be inconvenient at present; but it must be of dangerous consequence to pro

hibit it with respect to all articles, and forever.

He thought it would be better to except particular articles from the power. Mr. SHERMAN. It is best to prohibit the national legislature in all cases. The states will never give up all power over trade. An enumeration of particular articles would be difficult, invidious, and improper.

Mr. MADISON. As we ought to be governed by national and permanent views, it is a sufficient argument for giving the power over exports, that a tax, though it may not be expedient at present, may be so hereafter. A proper regulation of exports may, and probably will, be necessary hereafter, and for the same purposes as the regulation of imports, viz., for revenue, domestic manufactures, and procuring equitable regulations from other nations. An embargo may be of absolute necessity, and can alone be effectuated by the general authority. The regulation of trade between state and state cannot effect more than indirectly to hinder a state from taxing its own exports, by authorizing its citizens to carry their commodities freely into a neighboring state, which might decline taxing exports, in order to draw into its channel the trade of its neighbors. As to the fear of disproportionate burdens on the more exporting states, it might be remarked that it was agreed, on all hands, that the revenue would principally be drawn from trade, and as only a given revenue would be needed, it was not material whether all should be drawn wholly from imports, or half from those and half from exports. The imports and exports must be pretty nearly equal in every state, and, relatively, the same among the different states.

Mr. ELLSWORTH did not conceive an embargo by the Congress interdicted by this section.

Mr. M'HENRY conceived that power to be included in the power of war.

Mr. WILSON. Pennsylvania exports the produce of Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, and will, by and by, when the River Delaware is opened, export for New York. In favoring the general power over exports, therefore, he opposed the particular interest of his state. He remarked that the power had been attacked by reasoning which could only have held good in case the general government had been compelled, instead of authorized, to lay duties on exports. To deny this power is to take from the common government half the regulation of trade. It was his opinion, that a power over exports might be more effectual than that over imports in obtaining beneficial treaties of commerce.

Mr. GERRY was strenuously opposed to the power over exports. It might be made use of to compel the states to comply with the will of the general government, and to grant it any new powers which might be demanded. We have given it more power already than we know how will be exercised. It will enable the general government to oppress the states, as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.

Mr. FITZSIMONS would be against a tax on exports to be laid immediately, but was for giving a power of laying the tax when a proper time may call for it. This would certainly be the case when America should become a manufacturing country. He illustrated his argument by the duties in Great Britain on wool, &c.

Col. MASON. If he were for reducing the states to mere corporations, as seemed to be the tendency of some arguments, he should be for subjecting their exports, as well as imports, to a power of general taxation. He went on a principle often advanced, and in which he concurred, that a majority, when interested, will oppress the minority. This maxim had been verified by our own legislature [of Virginia.] If we compare the states in this point of view, the eight Northern States have an interest different from the five Southern States; and have, in one branch of the legislature, thirty-six votes. against twenty-nine, and in the other in the proportion of eight against five. The Southern States had therefore ground for their suspicions. The case of exports was not the same with that of imports. The latter were the same throughout the states; the former very different. As to tobacco, other nations do raise it, and are capable of raising it, as well as Virginia, &c. The impolicy of taxing that article had been demonstrated by the experiment of Virginia.

Mr. CLYMER remarked, that every state might reason with regard to its particular productions in the same manner as the Southern States. The Middle States may apprehend an oppression of their wheat, flour, provisions, &c.; and with more reason, as these articles were exposed to a competition in foreign markets not incident to tobacco, rice, &c. They may apprehend also combinations against them between the Eastern and Southern States, as much as the latter can apprehend them between the Eastern and Middle. He moved, as a qualification of the power of taxing exports, that it should be restrained to regulations of trade, by inserting, after the word "duty," article 7, sect. 4, the words "for the purpose of revenue.'

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, ay, 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 8.

Mr. MADISON, in order to require two thirds of each House to tax exports, as a lesser evil than a total prohibition, moved to insert the words "unless by consent of two thirds of the legislature."

Mr. WILSON seconds; and, on this question, it passed in the negative.

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, ay, 5; Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, (Col. Mason, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Blair, no; Gen. Washington, Mr. Madison, ay,) North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.

On the question on article 7, sect. 4, as far as to "no tax shall be laid on exports," it passed in the affirmative,

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, (Gen. Washington and Mr. Madison, no,) North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, no, 4.223

Mr. L. MARTIN proposed to vary article 7, sect. 4, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place, as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen, in the apportionment of representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. And, in the third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution.

Mr. RUTLEDGE did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections, and would readily exempt the other states from the obligation to protect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every state import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the states themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the states are the best judges of their particular interest. The old Confederation had not meddled with this point; and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one.

Mr. PINCKNEY. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that state has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the states be all left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done.

Adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, August 22.

In Convention. - Article 7, sect. 4, was resumed. Mr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade; yet, as the states were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed, that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete

it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of despatching its business.

Col. MASON. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell, to the commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some of our eastern brethren had, from a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the states being in possession of the right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential, in every point of view, that the general government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

Mr. ELLSWORTH, as he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the effects of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further, and free those already in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland, that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no further than is urged, we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in time, will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrections from foreign influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.

Mr. PINCKNEY. If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the