Mr. WILSON. The answer to these objections is, that retrospective interferences only are to be prohibited.

Mr. MADISON. Is not that already done by the prohibition of ex post facto laws, which will oblige the Judges to declare such interferences null and void, 340

Mr. RUTLEDGE moved, instead of Mr. KING'S motion, to insert, "nor pass bills of attainder, nor retrospective laws."

On which motion,-New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye-7; Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, no-3.

Mr. MADISON moved to insert, after the word "reprisal," (Article 12,) the words, "nor lay embargoes." He urged that such acts by the States would be unnecessary, impolitic, and unjust.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the States ought to retain this power, in order to prevent suffering and injury to their poor.

Col. MASON thought the amendment would be not only improper but dangerous, as the General Legislature would not sit constantly, and therefore could not interpose at the necessary moments. He enforced his objection by appealing to the necessity of sudden embargoes, during the war, to prevent exports, particularly in the case of a blockade.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS considered the provision as unnecessary; the power of regulating trade be

* In the printed Journal, "ex post facto."

tween State and State, already vested in the General Legislature, being sufficient.

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

Mr. MADISON moved, that the words, "nor lay imposts or duties on imports," be transferred from Article 13, where the consent of the General Legislature may license the act, into Article 12, which will make the prohibition on the States absolute. He observed, that as the States interested in this power, by which they could tax the imports of their neighbours passing through their markets, were a majority, they could give the consent of the Legislature to the injury of New Jersey, North Carolina, &c.

Mr. WILLIAMSON seconded the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the power might safely be left to the Legislature of the United States.

Col. MASON observed, that particular States might wish to encourage, by impost duties, certain manufactures, for which they enjoyed natural advantages, as Virginia, the manufacture of hemp, &c."

Mr. MADISON. The encouragement of manufactures in that mode requires duties, not only on imports directly from foreign countries, but from the other States in the Union, which would revive all the mischiefs experienced from the want of a general Government over commerce.

On the question,—

New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, North

Carolina, aye-4; Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, no-7.

Article 12, as amended, was then agreed to, nem.

con:

Article 13, was then taken up.

Mr. KING moved to insert, after the word "imports," the words, "or exports;" so as to prohibit the States from taxing either; and on this question, it passed in the affirmative,

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

Mr. SHERMAN moved to add, after the word "exports," the words, "nor with such consent, but for the use of the United States;" so as to carry the proceeds of all State duties on imports or exports, into the common treasury.

Mr. MADISON liked the motion, as preventing all State imposts; but lamented the complexity we were giving to the commercial system.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS thought the regulation necessary, to prevent the Atlantic States from endeavouring to tax the Western States, and promote their interest by opposing the navigation of the Mississippi, which would drive the Western people into the arms of Great Britain.

Mr. CLYMER thought the encouragement of the Western country was suicide on the part of the old States. If the States have such different interests that they cannot be left to regulate their own manufactures, without encountering the interests of

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.

up,

Article 15, being then taken 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.

con.

Adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29TH.

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