Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

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 inte

rest in their labor, they did as little as possible, and omitted every exertion of thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; that if the exports of the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in agriculture, not in manufactures; and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the others.

On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. FLOYD, aye;) New Jersey, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no.

SATURDAY, MARCH 29th.

The objections urged against the motion of Mr. LEE, on the Journal, calling for a specific report of the Superintendent of Finance as to moneys passing through his hands, were, that the information demanded from the Office of Finance had, during a great part of the period, been laid before Congress, and was then actually on the table; that the term application of money was too indefinite, no two friends of the motion agreeing in the meaning of it; and that if it meant no more than immediate payments, under the warrants of the Superintendent, to those who were to expend the money, it was unnecessary, the Superintendent being already impressed with his duty on that subject; that if it meant the ultimate payment for articles or services for the public, it imposed a task that would be impracticable to VOL. I.-27*

the Superintendent, and useless to Congress, who could no otherwise examine them than through the department of accounts, and the committees appointed half-yearly for inquiring into the whole proceedings; and that, if the motion were free from those objections, it ought to be so varied as to oblige the Office of Finance to report the information periodically; since it would otherwise depend on the memory or vigilance of members, and would, moreover, have the aspect of suspicion towards the officer called upon.

N. B. As the motion was made at first, the word "immediately" was used; which was changed for the words "as soon as may be," at the instance of Mr. HOLTEN.

The object of the motion of Mr. MADISON was to define and comprehend every information practicable and necessary for Congress to know, and to enable them to judge of the fidelity of their Minister, and to make it a permanent part of his duty to afford it. The clause respecting copies of receipts was found, on discussion, not to accord with the mode of conducting business, and to be too voluminous a task; but the question was taken without a convenient opportunity of correcting it. The motion was negatived.62

MONDAY, MARCH 31ST.

A letter was received from the Governor of Rhode Island, with resolutions of the Legislature of that State, justifying the conduct of Mr. HOWELL."

63

« ZurückWeiter »