Mr. JAMES GALLOWAY said, that he did not object to the representation of negroes, so much as he did to the fewness of the number of representatives.  He was surprised how we came to have but five, including those intended to represent negroes.  That in his humble opinion North Carolina was entitled to that number independent of the negroes.

First clause of the 9th section read.

Mr. J. M’DOWALL wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.

Mr. SPAIGHT answered that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States—­that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely.  That South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands:  That in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied:  That the trade would be abolished then, and that in the mean time some tax or duty might be laid on.

Mr. M’DOWALL replied, that the explanation was just such as he expected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon it as a very objectionable part of the system.

Mr. IREDELL.  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to those of the gentleman from Craven.  For my part, were it practicable to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give me the greatest pleasure, for it certainly is a trade utterly inconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great cruelties have been exercised.  When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for things which are not attainable.  It was the wish of a great majority of the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately, but the States of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it.  Consider then what would be the difference between our present situation in this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will be if we do agree to it.  If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the evil?  No, sir, we do not; for if the Constitution be not adopted, it will be in the power of every State to continue it forever.  They may or may not abolish it at their discretion.  But if we adopt the Constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if Congress declare so, whether particular States please so or not:  surely, then, we gain by it.  This was the utmost that could be obtained.  I heartily wish more could have been done.  But as it is, this government is nobly distinguished above others by that very provision.  Where is there another country in which such a restriction prevails?  We, therefore, sir, set an example of humanity by providing for the abolition of this inhuman traffic, though at a distant period.  I hope, therefore, that this part of the Constitution will not be condemned, because it has not stipulated for what it was impracticable to obtain.