Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/565

1787.] keeping of their produce, and be ruinous to the staple states, as he called the five Southern States, he moved as follows:—

"provided, nothing' herein contained shall be construed to restrain any state from laying duties upon exports for the sole purpose of defraying the charges of inspecting, packing, storing, and indemnifying the losses in keeping the commodities in the care of public officers, before exportation." In answer to a remark which he anticipated, to wit, that the states could provide for these expenses by a tax in some other way he stated the inconvenience of requiring the planters to pay a tax before the actual delivery for exportation.

Mr. MADISON seconded the motion. It would, at least, be harmless, and might have the good effect of restraining the states to bona fide duties for the purpose, as well as of authorizing explicitly such duties; though, perhaps, the best guard against an abuse of the power of the states on this subject was the right in the general government to regulate trade between state and state.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS saw no objection to the motion. He did not consider the dollar per hogshead laid on tobacco, in Virginia, as a duty on exportation, as no drawback would be allowed on tobacco taken out of the warehouse for internal consumption.

Mr. DAYTON was afraid the proviso would enable Pennsylvania to tax New Jersey, under the idea of inspection duties, of which Pennsylvania would judge.

Mr. GORHAM and Mr. LANGDON thought there would be no security, if the proviso should be agreed to, for the states exporting through other states, against these oppressions of the latter. How was redress to be obtained, in case duties should be laid beyond the purpose expressed?

Mr. MADISON. There will be the same security as in other cases. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court must be the source of redress. So far, only, had provision been made by the plan against injurious acts of the states. His own opinion was, that this was insufficient. A negative on the state laws alone could meet all the shapes which these could assume. But this had been overruled.

Mr. FITZSIMONS. Incidental duties on tobacco and flour never have been, and never can be, considered as duties on exports.

Mr. DICKINSON. Nothing will save the states in the situation of New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, &c., from being oppressed by their neighbors, but requiring the assent of Congress to inspection duties. He moved that this assent should accordingly be required.

Mr. BUTLER seconded the motion. Adjourned. 

, September 13.

In Convention.—Col. MASON. He had moved, without success, for a power to make sumptuary regulations. He had not yet lost sight of his object. After descanting on the extravagance of our manners, the excessive consumption of foreign superfluities, and the necessity of restricting it, as well with economical as republican 