Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

other States, it is a proof that they are not fit to compose one nation.

Mr. King was afraid that the regulation moved by Mr. SHERMAN would too much interfere with the policy of States respecting their manufactures, which may be necessary. Revenue, he reminded the House, was the object of the General Legislature.

On Mr. SHERMAN's motion,

New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—9; Massachusetts, Maryland, no—2.

Article 13, was then agreed to, as amended.
Article 14, was then taken up.

General PINCKNEY was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.

On the question on Article 14,

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye—9; South Carolina, no~1; Georgia, divided.

Article 15, being then taken up, the words, “high misdemeanour,” were struck out, and the words, “other crime,” inserted, in order to comprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether “high misdemeanour” had not a technical meaning too limited.

Mr. BUTLER and Mr. PINCKNEY moved to require fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered

up

like criminals.”

Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at the public expense.

Mr. SHERMAN saw no more propriety in the public

seizing and surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.

Mr. BUTLER withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision might be made, apart from this article.

Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, nem.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

In Convention, -Article 16, being taken up,

Mr. WillIAMSON moved to substitute, in place of it, the words of the Articles of Confederation on the same subject. He did not understand precisely the meaning of the article. 341

Mr. Wilson and Doctor JOHNSON supposed the meaning to be, that judgments in one State should be the ground of actions in other States; and that acts of the Legislatures should be included, for the sake of acts of insolvency, &c.

Mr. PINCKNEY moved to commit Article 16, with the following proposition: “To establish uniform laws upon the subject of bankruptcies, and respecting the damages arising on the protest of foreign bills of exchange."

Mr. GORHAM was for agreeing to the article, and committing the proposition.

Mr. MADISON was for committing both. He wished the Legislature might be authorized to provide for the execution of judgments in other States, under such regulations as might be expedient. He thought

that this might be safely done, and was justified by the nature of the Union.

Mr. RANDOLPH said there was no instance of one nation executing judgments of the courts of another pation. He moved the following proposition :

“Whenever the act of any State, whether legislative, executive, or judiciary, shall be attested and exemplified under the seal thereof, such attestation and exemplification shall be deemed in other States as full proof of the existence of that act; and its operation shall be binding in every other State, in all cases to which it may relate, and which are within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the State wherein the said act was done."

On the question for committing Article 16, with Mr. PINCKNEY's motion.

Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-9; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, no-2.

The motion of Mr. RANDOLPH was also committed, nem. con.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to commit also the following proposition on the same subject :

"Full faith ought to be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings, of every other State; and the Legislature shall, by general laws, determine the proof and effect of such acts, records, and proceedings;" and it was committed, nem. con.

The Committee appointed for these references were, Mr. RUTLEDGE, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. GORHAM, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. JOHNSON. 342

Mr. DICKINSON mentioned to the House, that on examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found that the term “ ex post factorelated to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases; and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.

Article 7, Section 6, by the Committee of eleven reported to be struck out (see the twenty-fourth inst.) being now taken up, —

Mr. PINCKNEY moved to postpone the Report, in favor of the following proposition : “That no act of the Legislature for the purpose of regulating the commerce of the United States with foreign powers, among the several States, shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House.” He remarked that there were five distinct commercial interests. 1. The fisheries and West India trade, which belonged to the New England States. 2. The interest of New York lay in a free trade. 3. Wheat and flour the staples of the two Middle States (New Jersey and Pennsylvania). 4. Tobacco, the staple of Maryland and Virginia, and partly of North Carolina. 5. Rice and indigo, the staples of South Carolina and Georgia. These different interests would be a source of oppressive regulations, if no check to a bare majority should be provided. States pursue their interests with less scruple than individuals. The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of the Southern States. They did not need the protection of the Northern States at present.

Mr. MARTIN seconded the motion.

General PINCKNEY said it was the true interest of the Southern States to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents, though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to this liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever.

Mr. CLYMER. The diversity of commercial interests, of necessity, creates difficulties which ought not to be increased by unnecessary restrictions. The Northern and Middle States will be ruined, if not enabled to defend themselves against foreign regulations.

Mr. SHERMAN, alluding to Mr. PINCKNEY's enumeration of particular interests, as requiring a security against abuse of the power, observed, that the diversity was of itself a security; adding, that to require more than a majority to decide a question was always embarrassing, as had been experienced in cases requiring the votes of nine States in Congress.

* He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the two subjects of navigation and slavery, had taken place between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and others.

« ZurückWeiter »