_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.
SATURDAY, August 25, 1787.
The Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth),
being taken up,--
Gen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words, "the year eighteen
hundred," as the year limiting the importation of slaves; and to
insert the words, "the year eighteen hundred and eight."
Mr. GORHAM seconded the motion.
Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be
apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be
more dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about
it in the Constitution.
On the motion, which passed in the affirmative,--New-Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, aye--7; New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no--4.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, "the
importation of slaves in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,
shall not be prohibited, &c." This he said, would be most fair, and
would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to
naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated.
He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was
a compliance with those States. If the change of language, however,
should be objected to, by the members from those States, he should not
urge it.
Col. MASON was not against using the term "slaves," but against naming
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give
offence to the people of those States.
Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which
had been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some
people.
Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. SHERMAN.
Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that both in opinion and practice he was against
slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all
circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms,
than to exclude them from the Union.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.
Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had
not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and for that
purpose moved to amend the clause, so as to read: "The importation of
slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be
prohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year
1808;" which was disagreed to, _nem. con_.[4]
[Footnote 4: In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and
Georgia, voted in the affirmative.]
The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows:
"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 1808,"--
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Virginia, no--4.
Mr. BALDWIN, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, "the
average duty," moved to strike out of the second part the words,
"average of the duties laid on imports," and insert "common impost on
articles not enumerated;" which was agreed to, _nem. con_.
Mr. SHERMAN was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be
property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.
Mr. KING and Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the first
part. Gen. PINCKNEY admitted that it was so. Col. MASON. Not to tax,
will be equivalent to a bounty on, the importation of slaves.
Mr. GORHAM thought that Mr. SHERMAN should consider the duty, not as
implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the
importation of them.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it
implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.
Mr. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. GORHAM, observed, that the smallness of
the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of
the importation.
Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea
that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not
hold, as slaves are not, like merchandize consumed, &c.
Col. MASON, in answer to Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The provision, as it
stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent
the introduction of them.
It was finally agreed, _nem. con_., to make the clause read: "but a
tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten
dollars for each person;" and then the second part, as amended, was
agreed to.--_pp_. 1427 to 30.
TUESDAY, August 28, 1787.