ex post facto law, shall be passed," the words, "nor any ex post facto law." He thought it not sufficiently clear that the prohibition meant by this phrase was limited to cases of a criminal nature; and no Legislature ever did or can altogether avoid them in civil

cases.

Mr. GERRY seconded the motion; but with a view to extend the prohibition to "civil cases," which he thought ought to be done.

On the question, all the States were, no.

Mr. PINCKNEY and Mr. GERRY moved to insert a declaration, "that the liberty of the press should be inviolably observed."

Mr. SHERMAN. It is unnecessary. Congress does not extend to the press.

The power of

On the question, it passed in the negative,

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

Article 1, Section 9. "No capitation tax shall be laid, unless," &c.

Mr. READ moved to insert, after "capitation," the words," or other direct tax." He was afraid that some liberty might otherwise be taken to saddle the States with a readjustment, by this rule, of past requisitions of Congress; and that his amendment, by giving another cast to the meaning, would take away the pretext.

Mr. WILLIAMSON seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

* In the printed Journal, New Hampshire, aye.

On motion of Col. MASON, the words "or enumeration," were inserted after, as explanatory of census," Connecticut and South Carolina, only,

no.

At the end of the clause, "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State," was added the following amendment, conformably to a vote on the 31st of August, (p. 1477,) viz: "no preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties, in another."

Col. MASON moved a clause requiring, "that an account of the public expenditures should be annually published."

Mr. GERRY Seconded the motion.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS urged that this would be impossible, in many cases.

Mr. KING remarked, that the term expenditures went to every minute shilling. This would be impracticable. Congress might indeed make a monthly publication, but it would be in such general statements as would afford no satisfactory information.

Mr. MADISON proposed to strike out "annually" from the motion, and insert "from time to time," which would enjoin the duty of frequent publications, and leave enough to the discretion of the Legislature. Require too much and the difficulty will beget a habit of doing nothing. The articles of Confederation require half-yearly publications on this subject. A punctual compliance being often impossible, the practice has ceased altogether.

Mr. WILSON Seconded and supported the motion.

Many operations of finance cannot be properly published at certain times.

Mr. PINCKNEY was in favor of the motion.

Mr. FITZSIMONS. It is absolutely impossible to publish expenditures in the full extent of the term. Mr. SHERMAN thought "from time to time," the best rule to be given. "Annually" was struck out, and those words inserted, nem. con.

The motion of Col. MASON, so amended, was then agreed to, nem. con., and added after "appropriations by law," as follows: "and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

The first clause of Article 1, Sect. 10, was altered so as to read, "no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

Mr. GERRY entered into observations inculcating the importance of public faith, and the propriety of the restraint put on the States from impairing the obligation of contracts; alleging that Congress ought to be laid under the like prohibitions. He made a motion to that effect. He was not seconded.

Adjourned.

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,