ized to the states by the Constitution. The true question was, whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation; and this question ought to be left to the national government, not to the states particularly interested. If England and France permit slavery, slaves are, at the same time, excluded from both those kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the general government.

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 Constitution, 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, 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 Constitution. 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, ay, 7; New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, no, 3; Massachusetts. 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 Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 9; Connecticut, New Jersey, no, 2.

The committee appointed were Messrs. Langdon, King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, Dickinson, L. Martin, Madison, Williamson, C. C. Pinckney, and Baldwin.

To this committee were referred also the two clauses, above mentioned, of the 4th and 5th sections of article 7.224

Mr. RUTLEDGE, from the committee to whom were referred, on the 18th and 20th instant, the propositions of Mr. Madison and Mr. Pinckney, made the report following:

"The committee report, that, in their opinion, the following additions should be made to the report now before the Convention, namely:

"At the end of the first clause of the first section of the seventh article, add, 'for payment of the debts and necessary expenses of the United States; provided that no law for raising any branch of revenue, except what may be specially appropriated for the payment of interest on debts or loans, shall continue in force for more than years.'

"At the end of the second clause, second section, seventh article, add, and with Indians, within the limits of any state, not subject to the laws thereof.'

"At the end of the sixteenth clause of the second section, seventh article, add, and to provide, as may become necessary from time to time, for the well managing and securing the common property and general interests and welfare of the United States in such manner as shall not interfere with the government of individual states, in matters which respect only their internal police, or for which their individual authority may be competent.'

"At the end of the first section, tenth article, add, he shall be of the age of thirty-five years, and a citizen of the United States, and shall have been an inhabitant thereof for twenty-one years.'

"After the second section, of the tenth article, insert the following as a third section: The President of the United States shall have a privy council, which shall consist of the president of the Senate, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and the principal officer in the respective departments of foreign affairs, domestic affairs, war, marine, and finance, as such departments of office shall from time to time be established; whose duty it shall be to advise him in matters, respecting the execution of his office, which he shall think proper to lay before them; but their advice shall not conclude him, nor affect his responsibility for the measures which he shall adopt.'

"At the end of the second section of the eleventh article, add, the judges of the Supreme Court shall be triable by the Senate, on impeachment by the House of Representatives.'

"Between the fourth and fifth lines of the third section of the eleventh article, after the word 'controversies,' insert, 'between the United States and an individual state, or the United States and an individual person.'”

A motion to rescind the order of the House, respecting the hours of meeting and adjourning, was negatived.

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, ay, 4; New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 7.

Mr. GERRY and Mr. M'HENRY moved to insert, after the second section, article 7, the clause following, to wit:

"The legislature shall pass no bill of attainder, nor any ex post facto law.” * Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of this prohibition, which, he said, was greater in the national than the state legislature; because, the number of members in the former being fewer, they were on that account the more to be feared.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS thought the precaution as to ex post facto laws unnecessary, but essential as to bills of attainder.

Mr. ELLSWORTH contended, that there was no lawyer, no civilian, who would not say that ex post facto laws were void of themselves. It cannot, then, be necessary to prohibit them.

* The proceedings on this motion, involving the two questions on attainders and ex post facto laws, are not so fully stated in the printed Journal.

Mr. WILSON was against inserting any thing in the Constitution as to ex post facto laws. It will bring reflections on the Constitution, and proclaim that we are ignorant of the first principles of legislation, or are constituting a government that will be so.

The question being divided, the first part of the motion, relating to bills of attainder, was agreed to, nem. con.

On the second part, relating to ex post facto laws,

Mr. CARROLL remarked, that experience overruled all other calculations. It had proved that, in whatever light they might be viewed by civilians or others, the state legislatures had passed them, and they had taken effect.

Mr. WILSON. If these prohibitions in the state constitutions have no effect, it will be useless to insert them in this Constitution. Besides, both sides will agree to the principle, but will differ as to its application.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Such a prohibitory clause is in the constitution of North Carolina; and, though it has been violated, it has done good there, and may do good here, because the judges can take hold of it.

Dr. JOHNSON thought the clause unnecessary, and implying an improper suspicion of the national legislature.

Mr. RUTLEDGE was in favor of the clause.

On the question for inserting the prohibition of ex post facto laws,

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, no, 3; North Carolina, divided.225

The report of the committee of five, made by Mr. Rutledge, was taken up, and then postponed, that each member might furnish himself with a copy.

The report of the committee of eleven, delivered in and entered on the Journal of the 21st instant, was then taken up; and the first clause, containing the words,

"The legislature of the United States shall have power to fulfil the engagements which have been entered into by Congress,"

being under consideration,-226

Mr. ELLSWORTH argued, that they were unnecessary. The United States heretofore entered into engagements by Congress, who were their agents. They will hereafter be bound to fulfil them by their new agents.

Mr. RANDOLPH thought such a provision necessary: for, though the United States will be bound, the new government will have no authority in the case, unless it be given to them.

Mr. MADISON thought it necessary to give the authority, in order to prevent misconstruction. He mentioned the attempt made by the debtors to British subjects, to show that contracts under the old government were dissolved by the revolution, which destroyed the political identity of the society.

Mr. GERRY thought it essential that some explicit provision should be made on this subject; so that no pretext might remain for getting rid of the public engagements.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved, by way of amendment, to substitute,

"The legislature shall discharge the debts, and fulfil the engagements, of the United States."

It was moved to vary the amendment, by striking out "discharge the debts," and to insert "liquidate the claims;" which being negatived, the amendment moved by Mr. Gouverneur Morris was agreed to, all the states being in the affirmative.227

It was moved and seconded to strike the following words out of the second clause of the report:

"and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the United States."

Before a question was taken, the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, August 23.

In Convention. The report of the committee of eleven, made the 21st of August, being taken up, and the following clause being under consideration, to wit:

"To make laws for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed,”.

Mr. SHERMAN moved to strike out the last member, "and authority of training," &c. He thought it unnecessary. The states will have this authority, of course, if not given up.

sentence.

Mr. ELLSWORTH doubted the propriety of striking out the The reason assigned applies as well to the other reservation, of the appointment to offices. He remarked, at the same time, that the term " discipline," was of vast extent, and might be so expounded as to include all power on the subject.

Mr. KING, by way of explanation, said, that by organizing, the committee meant, proportioning the officers and men by arming, specifying the kind, size, and calibre of arms—and by disciplining, prescribing the manual exercise, evolutions, &c.

Mr. SHERMAN withdrew his motion.

Mr. GERRY. This power in the United States, as explained, is making the states drill-sergeants. He had as lief let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed, as to take the command from the states, and subject them to the general legislature. It would be regarded as a system of despotism.

Mr. MADISON observed, that "arming," as explained, did not extend to furnishing arms; nor the term "disciplining," to penalties, and courts martial for enforcing them.

Mr. KING added to his former explanation, that arming meant not only to provide for uniformity of arms, but included the authority to regulate the modes of furnishing, either by the militia themselves,