expected, if the expenses incident to them should be rejected; that it was probable, if no previous assurance were given on this point, it would be made a condition by the States ceding, as the cessions of territory would be made a condition by the States most anxious to obtain them; that by these means the whole plan would be either defeated, or the part thereof in question be ultimately forced on Congress, whilst they might with a good grace yield it in the first instance; not to mention that these unliquidated and unallowed claims would produce, hereafter, such contests and heats among the States as would probably destroy the plan, even if it should be acceded to by the States without this paragraph.

Mr. DYER was in favor of the paragraph.

Mr. RUTLEDGE opposed it as letting in a flood of claims which were founded on extravagant projects of the States.

Mr. HIGGINSON and Mr. GORHAM were earnest in favor of it, remarking that the distance of Massachusetts from Congress had denied a previous sanction to the militia operations against General Burgoyne, &c. The Penobscot expedition, also, had great weight with them.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of it.

Mr. WILSON said, he had always considered this country, with respect to the war, as forming one community; and that the States which, by their remoteness from Congress, had been obliged to incur expenses for their defence without previous sanction, ought to be placed on the same footing with those which had obtained this security; but he could not agree to put them on a better, which would be the

case if their expenses should be sanctioned in the lump; he proposed, therefore, that these expenses should be limited to such as had been incurred in a necessary defence, and of which the object in each case should be approved by Congress.

Mr. MADISON agreed that the expressions in the paragraph were very loose, and that it would be proper to make them as definite as the case would admit; he supposed, however, that all operations against the enemy, within the limits assigned to the United States, might be considered as defensive, and in that view, the expedition against Penobscot might be so called. He observed, that the term necessary left a discretion in the judge, as well as the term reasonable; and that it would be best, perhaps, for Congress to determine and declare that they would constitute a tribunal of impartial persons to decide, on oath, as to the propriety of claims of States not authorized heretofore by Congress. He said this would be a better security to the States, and would be more satisfactory than the decisions of Congress, the members of which did not act on oath, and brought with them the spirit of advocates for their respective States, rather than of impartial judges between them. He moved that the clause with Mr. WILSON'S proposition be recommitted, which was agreed to without opposition.

(Eleventh and twelfth paragraphs.) Mr. BLAND, in opposition, said that the value of land was the best rule, and that, at any rate, no change should be attempted until its practicability should be tried.

Mr. MADISON thought the value of land could never be justly or satisfactorily obtained; that it would

ever be a source of contentions among the States; and that, as a repetition of the valuation would be within the course of the twenty-five years, it would, unless exchanged for a more simple rule, mar the whole plan.

Mr. GORHAM was in favor of the paragraphs. He represented, in strong terms, the inequality and clamors produced by valuations of land in the State of Massachusetts, and the probability of the evils being increased among the States themselves, which were less tied together, and more likely to be jealous of each other.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was in favor of the paragraphs.

Mr. WILSON was strenuous in their favor; said he was in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States, as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in question.

Mr. CLARK was in favor of them. He said that he was also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of land, if half their slaves only should be included; but that the Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.

It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by ages, as the report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be filled up, the clause was recommitted.

FRIDAY MARCH 28TH.

The Committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one freeman.

Mr. WOLCOTT was for rating them as four to three.

Mr. CARROLL as four to one.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said he was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an incumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes. Mr. HIGGINSON as four to three.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would be a juster proportion.

Mr. HOLTEN as four to three.

Mr. OSGOOD said he did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no.

The paragraph was then postponed, by general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it; but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be agreed to.

After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into view, Mr. MADISON said that, in order to give a proof of the sincerity

of his professions of liberality, he would propose that slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE seconded the motion. Mr. WILSON said he would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

Mr. LEE was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina,

aye.

A motion was then made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. LEE, to strike out the clause so amended, and, on the question "shall it stand," it passed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.

The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility of the others, ought to have great weight in the case; and that the exports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the other side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their