-

included? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections, and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes, in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views, with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. He would add, that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States, for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence against those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports, both of which will fall heavier on them than on the southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack and the difficulty of defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of having their votes in the national government increased in proportion; and are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the general government can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a country. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports, and excises. For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

Mr. DAYTON seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his sentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of the amendment.

Mr. SHERMAN did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio of representation as liable to such insuperable objections. It was the freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are only included in the estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the

matter.

Mr. PINCKNEY considered the fisheries, and the western frontier,

as more burdensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this could be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper

one.

Mr. WILSON thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause would be no bar to the object of it.

On the question, on the motion to insert "free" before" inhabitants,"

New Jersey, ay, 1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 10.

On the suggestion of Mr. DICKINSON, the words, "provided that each state shall have one representative, at least," were added,

nem. con.

Article 4, sect. 4, as amended, was agreed to, nem. con.1 196

Article 4, sect. 5, was then taken up.

Mr. PINCKNEY moved to strike out sect. 5, as giving no peculiar advantage to the House of Representatives, and as clogging the government. If the Senate can be trusted with the many great powers proposed, it surely may be trusted with that of originating money bills.

Mr. GORHAM was against allowing the Senate to originate, but was for allowing it only to amend.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. It is particularly proper that the Senate should have the right of originating money bills. They will sit constantly, will consist of a smaller number, and will be able to prepare such bills with due correctness, and so as to prevent delay of business in the other House.

He

Col. MASON was unwilling to travel over this ground again. To strike out the section was to unhinge the compromise of which it made a part. The duration of the Senate made it improper. does not object to that duration; on the contrary, he approved of it. But, joined with the smallness of the number, it was an argument against adding this to the other great powers vested in that body. His idea of an aristocracy was, that it was the government of the few over the many. An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. The pursestrings should never be put into its hands.

Mr. MERCER considered the exclusive power of originating money bills as so great an advantage, that it rendered the equality of votes in the Senate ideal, and of no consequence.

Mr. BUTLER was for adhering to the principle which had been settled.

Mr. WILSON was opposed to it on its merits, without regard to the compromise.

Mr. ELLSWORTH did not think the clause of any consequence; but as it was thought of consequence by some members from the larger states, he was willing it should stand.

Mr. MADISON was for striking it out, considering it as of no

advantage to the large states, as fettering the government, and as a source of injurious altercations between the two Houses.

On the question for striking out article 4, sect. 5,-

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, no, 4.197

Adjourned.

In Convention.

THURSDAY, August 9.

- Article 4, sect. 6, was taken up.

Mr. RANDOLPH expressed his dissatisfaction at the disagreement yesterday to sect. 5, concerning money bills, as endangering the success of the plan, and extremely objectionable in itself; and gave notice that he should move for a reconsideration of the vote.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said he had formed a like intention.

Mr. WILSON gave notice that he should move to reconsider the vote requiring seven instead of three years of citizenship, as a qualification of candidates for the House of Representatives.

Article 4, sect. 6 and 7, were agreed to, nem. con.

Article 5, sect. 1, was then taken up.

Mr. WILSON objected to vacancies in the Senate being supplied by the executives of the states. It was unnecessary, as the legislatures will meet so frequently. It removes the appointment too far from the people, the executives in most of the states being elected by the legislatures. As he had always thought the appointment of the executive by the legislative department wrong, so it was still more so that the executive should elect into the legislative department.

Mr. RANDOLPH thought it necessary, in order to prevent inconvenient chasms in the Senate. In some states the legislatures meet but once a year. As the Senate will have more power, and consist of a smaller number, than the other House, vacancies there will be of more consequence. The executives might be safely trusted, he thought, with the appointment for so short a time.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. It is only said that the executive may supply vacancies. When the legislative meeting happens to be near, the power will not be exerted. As there will be but two members from a state, vacancies may be of great moment.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Senators may resign or not accept. This provision is therefore absolutely necessary.

On the question for striking out "vacancies shall be supplied by the executives,"

Pennsylvania, ay, 1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 8; Maryland, divided.

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to insert, after "vacancies shall be supplied by the executives," the words, "unless other provision shall be made by the legislature" (of the state).

Mr. ELLSWORTH. He was willing to trust the legislature, or the executive, of a state, but not to give the former a discretion to refer appointments for the Senate to whom they pleased.

On the question on Mr. Williamson's motion,

Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, no, 6.

Mr. MADISON, in order to prevent doubts whether resignations could be made by senators, or whether they could refuse to accept, moved to strike out the words after "vacancies," and insert the words, "happening by refusals to accept, resignations, or otherwise, may be supplied by the legislature of the state in the representation of which such vacancies shall happen, or by the executive thereof until the next meeting of the legislature."

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. This is absolutely necessary; otherwise, as members chosen into the Senate are disqualified from being appointed to any office, by sect. 9, of this article, it will be in the power of a legislature, by appointing a man a senator against his consent, to deprive the United States of his services.

The motion of Mr. Madison was agreed to, nem. con.

Mr. RANDOLPH called for a division of the section, so as to leave a distinct question on the last words, "each member shall have one vote." He wished this last sentence to be postponed until the reconsideration should have taken place on article 4, sect. 5, concerning money bills. If that section should not be reinstated, his plan would be to vary the representation in the Senate.

Mr. STRONG concurred in Mr. Randolph's ideas on this point. Mr. READ did not consider the section as to money bills of any advantage to the larger states, and had voted for striking it out as being viewed in the same light by the larger states. If it was considered by them as of any value, and as a condition of the equality of votes in the Senate, he had no objection to its being reinstated.

Mr. WILSON, Mr. ELLSWORTH, and Mr. MADISON, urged, that it was of no advantage to the larger states; and that it might be a dangerous source of contention between the two Houses. All the principal powers of the national legislature had some relation to money.

Dr. FRANKLIN considered the two clauses, the originating of money bills and the equality of votes in the Senate, as essentially connected by the compromise which had been agreed to.

Col. MASON said, this was not the time for discussing this point. When the originating of money bills shall be reconsidered, he thought it could be demonstrated that it was of essential importance to restrain the right to the House of Representatives, — the immediate choice of the people.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. The state of North Carolina had agreed to an equality in the Senate, merely in consideration that money bills should be confined to the other House; and he was surprised to see the smaller states forsaking the condition on which they had received their equality.

On the question on the first section, down to the last sentence, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,

Georgia, ay, 7; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, no, 3; South Carolina, divided. (In the printed Journal, Pennsylvania, ay.)

Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the last sentence, "each member shall have one vote," be postponed.

It was observed that this could not be necessary; as, in case the sanction as to originating money bills should not be reinstated, and a revision of the Constitution should ensue, it would still be proper that the members should vote per capita. A postponement of the preceding sentence, allowing to each state two members, would have been more proper.

He

Mr. MASON did not mean to propose a change of this mode of voting per capita, in any event. But as there might be other modes proposed, he saw no impropriety in postponing the sentence. Each state may have two members, and yet may have unequal votes. said that, unless the exclusive right of originating money bills should be restored to the House of Representatives, he should not from obstinacy, but duty and conscience - oppose throughout the equality of representation in the Senate.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Such declarations were, he supposed, addressed to the smaller states, in order to alarm them for their equality in the Senate, and induce them, against their judgments, to concur in restoring the section concerning money bills. He would declare, in his turn, that, as he saw no prospect of amending the Constitution of the Senate, and considered the section relating to money bills as intrinsically bad, he would adhere to the section establishing the equality, at all events.

Mr. WILSON. It seems to have been supposed by some, that the section concerning money bills is desirable to the large states. The fact was, that two of those states (Pennsylvania and Virginia) had uniformly voted against it, without reference to any other part of the system.

Mr. RANDOLPH urged, as Col. Mason had done, that the sentence under consideration was connected with that relating to money bills, and might possibly be affected by the result of the motion for reconsidering the latter. That the postponement was therefore not improper.

On the question for postponing, "each member shall have one vote,"

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

The words were then agreed to as part of the section.

Mr. RANDOLPH then gave notice that he should move to reconsider this whole article 5, sect. 1, as connected with article 4, sect. 5, as to which he had already given such notice.

Article 5, sect. 2, was then taken up.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to insert, after the words, "immediately after," the following: "they shall be assembled in con