Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/573

1787.] 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, ay, 4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6; North Carolina, absent. (In the printed journal. North Carolina, no; South Carolina, omitted.)

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.

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, ay, 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, ay, 5; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, no, 6.

On the question for allowing six to North Carolina, it passed in the negative.

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

Article 1, sect. 10, (the second paragraph,)

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay imposts or duties on imports for exports; nor with such consent, but to the use of the treasury of the United States."

In consequence of the proviso moved by Col. Mason, and agreed to on the 13th of Sept., (page 540,) this part of the section was laid aside in favor of the following substitute, viz.:—

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on