Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/417

1787.] On the question for "three years,"—

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

On the question for "one year,"—

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

Article 4, sect. 2, as amended in manner preceding, was agreed to, ''nem. con.''$195$

Article 4, sect. 3, was then taken up.

Gen. PINCKNEY and Mr. PINCKNEY moved that the number of representatives allotted to South Carolina be "six."

On the question,—

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

The 3d sect, of article 4 was then agreed to.

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

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to strike out, "according to the provisions hereinafter made," and to insert the words "according to the rule hereafter to be provided for direct taxation."—See article 7, sect. 3.

On the question for agreeing to Mr. Williamson's amendment,—

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

Mr. KING wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant to have on the succeeding part of the report, concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of representation. He could not reconcile his mind to the article, if it was to prevent objections to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind, and he believed would be so to a great part of the people of America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore, because he had hoped that this concession would have produced a readiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen the general government, and to mark a full confidence in it. The report under consideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes. In two great points, the hands of the legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the general system? First, defence against foreign invasion; secondly, against internal sedition. Shall all the states, then, be bound to defend each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the United States be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty, not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported, shall not the exports produced by their labor supply a revenue the better to enable the general government to defend their masters? There was so much inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that