Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH.

In Convention,-Mr. CARROLL reminded the House that no address to the people had yet been prepared. He considered it of great importance that such an one should accompany the Constitution. The people had been accustomed to such, on great occasions, and would expect it on this. He moved that a committee be appointed for the special purpose of

preparing an address.

Mr. Rutledge objected, on account of the delay it would produce, and the impropriety of addressing the people before it was known whether Congress would approve and support the plan. Congress, if an address be thought proper, can prepare as good a one. The members of the Convention can, also, explain the reasons of what has been done to their respective constituents.

Mr. SHERMAN concurred in the opinion that an address was both unnecessary and improper.

On the motion of Mr. CARROLL,—

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, aye -4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, * Georgia, no—6; North Carolina,* absent.

Mr. LANGDON. Some gentlemen have been very uneasy that no increase of the number of Representatives has been admitted. It has in particular been thought, that one more ought to be allowed to North Carolina. He was of opinion that an additional one was due both to that State, and to Rhode Island; and moved to reconsider for that purpose.

* In the printed Journal, North Carolina, no ; South Carolina, omitted.

Mr. SHERMAN. When the Committee of eleven reported the appointments, five Representatives were thought the proper share of North Carolina. Subsequent information, however, seemed to entitle that State to another.

On the motion to reconsider,

New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—8; Massachusetts, New Jersey, no—2; Pennsylvania, divided.

Mr. LANGDON moved to add one member to each of the representations of North Carolina and Rhode Island.

Mr. King was against any change whatever, as opening the door for delays. There had been no official proof that the numbers of North Carolina are greater than before estimated, and he never could sign the Constitution, if Rhode Island is to be allowed two members, that is, one-fourth of the number allowed to Massachusetts, which will be known to be unjust.

Mr. PINCKNEY urged the propriety of increasing the number of Representatives allowed to North Carolina.

Mr. BEDFORD contended for an increase in favor of Rhode Island, and of Delaware also.

On the question for allowing two Representatives to Rhode Island, it passed in the negative,

New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, aye—5; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, no—6.

On the question for allowing six to North Carolina, it passed in the negative,

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—5; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, no—6.

Article 1, Sect. 10, (the second paragraph)“No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay imposts or duties on imports or exports; nor with such consent, but to the use of the Treasury of the United States."

In consequence of the proviso moved by Colonel Mason, and agreed to on the 13th of Sept., (Page 1568.) this part of the Section was laid aside in favor of the following substitute, viz: “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the nett produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports or exports shall be for the use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

On the motion to strike out the last part, “and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress,” it passed in the negative,

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

The substitute was then agreed to,–Virginia alone being in the negative.

The remainder of the paragraph being under con

[graphic]

sideration, viz: “nor keep troops nor ships of war in time of peace, nor enter into any agreement or compact with another State, nor with any foreign power, nor engage in any war, unless it shall be actually invaded by enemies, or the danger of invasion be so imminent as not to admit of delay, until Congress can be consulted,"

Mr. McHenry and Mr. CARROLL moved, that “no State shall be restrained from laying duties of tonnage for the purpose of clearing harbours and erecting light-houses."

Colonel Mason, in support of this, explained and urged the situation of the Chesapeake, which peculiarly required expenses of this sort.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The States are not restrained from laying tonnage, as the Constitution now stands. The exception proposed will imply the contrary, and will put the States in a worse condition than the gentleman (Col. Mason) wishes.

Mr. MADISON. Whether the States are now restrained from laying tonnage duties, depends on the extent of the power“ to regulate commerce.” These terms are vague, but seem to exclude this

power

of the States. They may certainly be restrained by treaty. He observed that there were other objects for tonnage duties, as the support of seamen, &c. He was more and more convinced that the regulation of commerce was in its nature indivisible, and ought to be wholly under one authority.

Mr. SHERMAN. The power of the United States to regulate trade being supreme, can control interferences of the State regulations, when such inter

ferences happen ; so that there is no danger to be apprehended from a concurrent jurisdiction.

Mr. LANGDON insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation of trade, and that the States ought to have nothing to do with it.

On motion, “ that no State shall lay any duty on tonnage without the consent of Congress," –

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, aye—6; Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, no—4; Connecticut, divided.

The remainder of the paragraph was then remoulded and passed, as follows, viz: “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage

in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

Article 2, Sect. 1, (the sixth paragraph) the words, or the period for choosing another President arrive,” were changed into, “or a President shall be elected,” conformably to a vote of the seventh of September.

Mr. RUTLEDGE and Doctor FRANKLIN moved to annex to the end of the seventh paragraph of Article 2, Sect. 1, "and he (the President) shall not receive, within that period, any other emolument from the United States or any of them.”

On which question, -
New Hampshire, Massachusetts,

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia,

« ZurückWeiter »