Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/574

548 or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress."

On the motion to strike out the last part,—

"and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress,"— it passed in the negative.

Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, ay, 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, no, 7; Pennsylvania, divided.

The substitute was then agreed to, Virginia alone being in the negative.

The remainder of the paragraph being under consideration, viz.,—

"nor keep troops nor ships of war in time of peace, nor enter into any agreement or compact with another state, nor with any foreign power, nor engage in any war, unless it shall be actually invaded by enemies, or the danger of invasion be so imminent as not to admit of delay until Congress can be consulted,"—

Mr. M'HENRY and Mr. CARROLL moved, that

"No state shall be restrained from laying duties of tonnage for the purpose of clearing harbors and erecting light-houses."

Col. MASON, in support of this, explained and urged the situation of the Chesapeake, which peculiarly required expenses of this sort.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The states are not restrained from laying tonnage, as the Constitution now stands. The exception proposed will imply the contrary, and will put the states in a worse condition than the gentleman (Col. Mason) wishes.

Mr. MADISON. Whether the states are now restrained from laying tonnage duties, depends on the extent of the power "to regulate commerce." These terms are vague, but seem to exclude this power of the states. They may certainly be restrained by treaty. He observed, that there were other objects for tonnage duties, as the support of seamen, &c. He was more and more convinced that the regulation of commerce was in its nature indivisible, and ought to be wholly under one authority.

Mr. SHERMAN. The power of the United States to regulate trade, being supreme, can control interferences of the state regulations, when such interferences happen; so that there is no danger to be apprehended from a concurrent jurisdiction.

Mr. LANGDON insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation of trade, and that the states ought to have nothing to do with it.

On motion "that no state shall lay any duty on tonnage without the consent of Congress."—

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

The remainder of the paragraph was then remoulded and passed, as follows, viz.,—

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."