University of Virginia Library

Wednesday August 29th. 1787. in Convention

Art: XVI. taken up.

Mr. Williamson moved to substitute in place of it,
the words of the Articles of Confederation on the
same subject. He did not understand precisely the
meaning of the article.

Mr. Wilson and Docr. Johnson supposed the meaning
to be that Judgments in one State should be the
ground of actions in other States, & that acts of the
Legislatures should be included, for the sake of Acts
of insolvency &c.

Mr. Pinkney moved to commit Art XVI with the
following proposition "To establish uniform laws
upon the subject of bankruptcies, and respecting the
damages arising on the protest of foreign bills of
exchange"

Mr. Ghorum was for agreeing to the article, and committing
the proposition.

Mr. Madison was for committing both. He wished
the Legislature might be authorized to provide for
the execution of Judgments in other States, under
such regulations as might be expedient. He thought
that this might be safely done, and was justified by
the nature of the Union.

Mr. Randolph said there was no instance of one

nation executing judgments of the Courts of another
nation. He moved the following proposition:

"Whenever the Act of any State, whether Legislative,
Executive or Judiciary shall be attested &
exemplified under the seal thereof, such attestation
and exemplification, shall be deemed in other States
as full proof of the existence of that act—and its
operation shall be binding in every other State, in
all cases to which it may relate, and which are
within the cognizance and jurisdiction of the State,
wherein the said act was done."

On the question for committing Art: XVI with
Mr. Pinkney's motion N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct ay.
N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. Pa.
ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

The motion of Mr. Randolph was also committed
nem: con:

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to commit also the following
proposition on the same subject.

"Full faith ought to be given in each State to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other State; and the Legislature shall by general
laws, determine the proof and effect of Such
acts, records, and proceedings" and it was committed
nem. contrad:

The Committee appointed for these references,
were Mr. Rutlidge, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Gorham, Mr.
Wilson, & Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Dickenson mentioned to the House that on
examining Blackstone's Commentaries, he found
that the term "ex post facto" related to criminal

cases only; that they would not consequently restrain
the States from retrospective laws in civil
cases, and that some further provision for this purpose
would be requisite.

Art: VII Sect. 6 by ye. Com̃ittee of eleven reported
to be struck out (see the 24 instant) being now taken
up,

Mr. Pinkney moved to postpone the Report in
favor of the following proposition—"That no act of
the Legislature for the purpose of regulating the
commerce of the U. S. with foreign powers among
the several States, shall be passed without the assent
of two thirds of the members of each House."
He remarked that there were five distinct commercial
interests. 1. the fisheries & W. India trade.
which belonged to the N. England States. 2. the
interest of N. York lay in a free trade. 3. Wheat &
flour the Staples of the two middle States (N. j.
& Penna.). 4. Tobo. the staple of Maryld. & Virginia &
partly of N. Carolina. 5. Rice & Indigo, the staples
of S. Carolina & Georgia. These different interests
would be a source of oppressive regulations if no
check to a bare majority should be provided. States
pursue their interests with less scruple than indi
viduals. The power of regulating commerce was a
pure concession on the part of the S. States. They
did not need the protection of the N. States at
present.

Mr. Martin 2ded. the motion

Genl. Pinkney said it was the true interest of the
S. States to have no regulation of commerce; but

considering the loss brought on the commerce of the
Eastern States by the revolution, their liberal conduct
towards the views [46] of South Carolina. and the
interest the weak Southn States had in being united
with the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper
that no fetters should be imposed on the power of
making commercial regulations, and that his constituents
though prejudiced against the Eastern
States, would be reconciled to this liberality. He
had himself, he said, prejudices agst. the Eastern
States before he came here, but would acknowledge
that he had found them as liberal and candid as any
men whatever.

Mr. Clymer. The diversity of commercial interests
of necessity creates difficulties, which ought not
to be increased by unnecessary restrictions. The
Northern & middle States will be ruined, if not enabled
to defend themselves against foreign regulations.

Mr. Sherman, alluding to Mr. Pinkney's enumeration
of particular interests, as requiring a security
agst. abuse of the power; observed that the diversity
was of itself a security, adding that to require more
than a majority to decide a question was always embarrassing
as had been experienced in cases requiring
the votes of nine States in Congress.

Mr. Pinkney replied that his enumeration meant

the five minute interests. It still left the two great
divisions of Northern & Southern interests.

Mr. Govr. Morris, opposed the object of the motion
as highly injurious. Preferences to american ships
will multiply them, till they can carry the Southern
produce cheaper than it is now carried.—A navy was
essential to security, particularly of the S. States,
and can only be had by a navigation act encouraging
american bottoms & seamen. In those points of
view then alone, it is the interest of the S. States that
navigation acts should be facilitated. Shipping he
said was the worst & most precarious kind of property,
and stood in need of public patronage.

Mr. Williamson was in favor of making two thirds
instead of a majority requisite, as more satisfactory
to the Southern people. No useful measure he believed
had been lost in Congress for want of nine
votes. As to the weakness of the Southern States,
he was not alarmed on that account. The sickliness
of their climate for invaders would prevent their
being made an object. He acknowledged that he
did not think the motion requiring 2/3 necessary in itself,
because if a majority of the Northern States
should push their regulations too far the S. States
would build ships for themselves; but he knew
the Southern people were apprehensive on this subject
and would be pleased with the precaution.

Mr. Spaight was against the motion. The Southern
States could at any time save themselves from oppression,
by building ships for their own use.

Mr. Butler differed from those who considered the

rejection of the motion as no concession on the part
of the S. States. He considered the interest of these
and of the Eastern States, to be as different as the
interests of Russia and Turkey. Being notwithstanding
desirous of conciliating the affections of
the East: States, he should vote agst. requiring 2/3 instead
of a majority.

Col: Mason. If the Govt. is to be lasting, it must
be founded in the confidence & affections of the
people, and must be so constructed as to obtain these.
The Majority will be governed by their interests.
The Southern States are the minority in both Houses.
Is it to be expected that they will deliver themselves
bound hand & foot to the Eastern States, and
enable them to exclaim, in the words of Cromwell on
a certain occasion—"the lord hath delivered them
into our hands.

Mr. Wilson took notice of the several objections
and remarked that if every peculiar interest was to
be secured, unanimity ought to be required. The
majority he said would be no more governed by interest
than the minority. It was surely better to
let the latter be bound hand and foot than the former.
Great inconveniences had, he contended, been experienced
in Congress from the article of confederation
requiring nine votes in certain cases.

Mr. Madison went into a pretty full view of the
subject. He observed that the disadvantage to the
S. States from a navigation act, lay chiefly in a temporary
rise of freight, attended however with an increase
of Southn. as well as Northern Shipping—with

the emigration of Northern Seamen & merchants to
the Southern States—& with a removal of the existing
& injurious retaliations among the States on each
other. The power of foreign nations to obstruct our
retaliating measures on them by a corrupt influence
would also be less if a majority shd. be made competent
than if 2/3 of each House shd. be required to
legislative acts in this case. An abuse of the power
would be qualified with all these good effects. But
he thought an abuse was rendered improbable by
the provision of 2 branches—by the independence
of the Senate, by the negative of the Executive, by
the interest of Connecticut & N. Jersey which were
agricultural, not commercial States; by the interior
interest which was also agricultural in the most commercial
States, by the accession of Western States
which wd. be altogether agricultural. He added that
the Southern States would derive an essential advantage
in the general security afforded by the increase
of our maritime strength. He stated the
vulnerable situation of them all, and of Virginia in
particular. The increase of the coasting trade, and
of seamen, would also be favorable to the S. States,
by increasing, the consumption of their produce. If
the wealth of the Eastern should in a still greater
proportion be augmented, that wealth wd. contribute
the more to the public wants, and be otherwise a
national benefit.

Mr. Rutlidge was agst. the motion of his colleague.
It did not follow from a grant of the power to regulate
trade, that it would be abused, At the worst a

navigation act could bear hard a little while only on
the S. States. As we are laying the foundation for
a great empire, we ought to take a permanent view
of the subject and not look at the present moment
only. He reminded the House of the necessity of
securing the West India trade to this country. That
was the great object, and a navigation act was necessary
for obtaining it.

Mr. Randolph said that there were features so
odious in the constitution as it now stands, that he
doubted whether he should be able to agree to it. A
rejection of the motion would compleat the deformity
of the system. He took notice of the argument in
favor of giving the power over trade to a majority,
drawn from the opportunity foreign powers would
have of obstructing retaliatory measures if two
thirds were made requisite. He did not think there
was weight in that consideration. The difference
between a majority & two thirds did not afford room
for such an opportunity. Foreign influence would
also be more likely to be exerted on the President
who could require three fourths by his negative. He
did not mean however to enter into the merits.
What he had in view was merely to pave the way for
a declaration which he might be hereafter obliged to
make if an accumulation of obnoxious ingredients
should take place, that he could not give his assent
to the plan.

Mr. Gorham. If the Government is to be so fettered
as to be unable to relieve the Eastern States what
motive can they have to join in it, and thereby tie

their own hands from measures which they could
otherwise take for themselves. The Eastern States
were not led to strengthen the Union by fear for
their own safety. He deprecated the consequences
of disunion, but if it should take place it was the
Southern part of the Continent that had most reason
to dread them. He urged the improbability of a
combination against the interest of the Southern
States, the different situations of the Northern &
Middle States being a security against it. It was
moreover certain that foreign ships would never be
altogether excluded especially those of Nations in
treaty with us.

On the question to postpone in order to take up
Mr. Pinkney's motion N. H. no. Mass. no. Ct. no.
N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C
ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.

The Report of the Committee for striking out Sect.
6. requiring two thirds of each House to pass a navigation
act was then agreed to, nem: con:

Mr. Butler moved to insert after Art: XV. "If any
person bound to service or labor in any of the U.
States shall escape into another State, he or she
shall not be discharged from such service or labor,
in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the
State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up
to the person justly claiming their service or labor,"
which was agreed to nem: con:

Art: XVII being taken up, Mr. Govr. Morris moved
to strike out the two last sentences, to wit "If the
admission be consented to, the new States shall be

admitted on the same terms with the original States.
But the Legislature may make conditions with the
new States, concerning the public debt which shall
be then subsisting."—He did not wish to bind down
the Legislature to admit Western States on the
terms here stated.

Mr. Madison opposed the motion, insisting that the
Western States neither would nor ought to submit
to a union which degraded them from an equal rank
with the other States.

Col: Mason. If it were possible by just means to
prevent emigrations to the Western Country, it
might be good policy. But go the people will as
they find it for their interest, and the best policy is
to treat them with that equality which will make
them friends not enemies.

Mr. Govr. Morris did not mean to discourage the
growth of the Western Country. He knew that to
be impossible. He did not wish however to throw
the power into their hands.

Mr. Sherman, was agst. the motion & for fixing an
equality of privileges by the Constitution.

Mr. Langdon was in favor of the motion, he did not
know but circumstances might arise which would
render it inconvenient to admit new States on terms
of equality.

Mr. Williamson was for leaving the Legislature free.
The existing small States enjoy an equality now,
and for that reason are admitted to it in the Senate.
This reason is not applicable to new Western States.

On Mr. Govr. Morris's motion for striking out.

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay.
Del. ay. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo.
ay.

Mr. L. Martin & Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike
out of art XVII, "but to such admission the consent
of two thirds of the members present shall be necessary."
Before any question was taken on this
motion,

Mr. Govr. Morris moved the following proposition
as a substitute for the XVII Art:

"New States may be admitted by the Legislature
into this Union; but no new State shall be erected
within the limits of any of the present States, without
the consent of the Legislature of such State, as
well as of the Genl. Legislature."

The first part to Union inclusive was agreed to
nem; con:

Mr. L. Martin opposed the latter part. Nothing
he said would so alarm the limited States as to Make
the consent of the large States claiming the Western
lands, necessary to the establishment of new States
within their limits. It is proposed to guarantee the
States. Shall Vermont be reduced by force in
favor of the States claiming it? Frankland & the
Western county of Virginia were in a like situation.

On Mr. Govr. Morris's motion to substitute &c it
was agreed to. N. H. no. Mass. ay. Ct. no. N.
J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay.
S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

Art: XVII—before the House, as amended.

Mr. Sherman was against it. He thought it unnecessary.

The Union cannot dismember a State
without its consent.

Mr. Langdon thought there was great weight in
the argument of Mr. Luther Martin, and that the
proposition substituted by Mr. Govr. Morris would excite
a dangerous opposition to the plan.

Mr. Govr. Morris thought on the contrary that the
small States would be pleased with the regulation,
as it holds up the idea of dismembering the large
States.

Mr. Butler. If new States were to be erected without
the consent of the dismembered States, nothing
but confusion would ensue. Whenever taxes should
press on the people, demagogues would set up their
schemes of new States.

Docr. Johnson agreed in general with the ideas of
Mr. Sherman, but was afraid that as the clause stood,
Vermont would be subjected to N. York, contrary
to the faith pledged by Congress. He was of opinion
that Vermont ought to be compelled to come into
the Union.

Mr. Langdon said his objections were connected
with the case of Vermont. If they are not taken in,
& remain exempt from taxes, it would prove of great
injury to N. Hampshire and the other neighbouring
States

Mr. Dickinson hoped the article would not be
agreed to. He dwelt on the impropriety of requiring
the small States to secure the large ones in their extensive
claims of territory.

Mr. Wilson. When the majority of a State wish to

divide they can do so. The aim of those in opposition
to the article, he perceived was that the Genl.
Government should abet the minority, & by that
means divide a State against its own consent.

Mr. Govr. Morris. If the forced division of the
States is the object of the new system, and is to be
pointed agst. one or two States, he expected the Gentlemen
from these would pretty quickly leave us.

Adjourned.