Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/332

 the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the U. States under this constitution, as under the confederation.” He affirmed that it was meant there should be no change with respect to claims by this political alteration; and that the public would stand, with respect to their creditors, as before. He thought that the validity of claims ought not to diminish by the adoption of the constitution. But however, it could not increase the demands on the public.

… Governor Randolph.—Mr. Chairman—This clause in spite of the invective of the gentleman, is a great favourite of mine; … He says, this clause will be injurious, and that no scale can be made, because there is a prohibition on congress of passing ex post facto laws.… Ex post facto laws, if taken technically, relate solely to criminal cases; and my honorable colleague tells you that it was so interpreted in convention. What greater security can we have against arbitrary proceedings in criminal jurisprudence than this? In addition to the interpretation of the convention, let me shew him still greater authority. The same clause provides, that no bill of attainder shall be passed. It shews that the attention of the convention was drawn to criminal matters alone. …

Governor Randolph could not coincide with the construction put by the honorable gentleman on ex post facto laws. The technical meaning which confined such laws solely to criminal cases, was followed in the interpretation of treaties between nations, and was concurred in by all civilians. The prohibition of bills of attainder, he thought a sufficient proof, that ex post facto laws related to criminal cases only, and that such was the idea of the convention.

(The next clause read.)

… Mr. Madison.—Mr. Chairman — Let us take a view of the relative situation of the states. Some states export the produce of other states. Virginia exports the produce of North-Carolina; Pennsylvania those of Jersey and Delaware; and Rhode-Island those of Connecticut and Massachusetts. The exporting states wished to retain the power of laying duties on exports, to enable them to pay the expences incurred. The states whose produce is exported by other states, were extremely jealous, lest a contribution should be raised of them by the exporting states, by laying heavy duties on their commodities. If this clause be fully considered, it will be found to be more consistent with justice and equity than any other practicable mode: For if the states had the exclusive imposition of duties on exports, they might raise a heavy contribution of the other states, for their own exclusive emoluments. The