of defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of having their votes in the National Government increased in proportion; and are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service.  Let it not be said, that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation.  It is idle to suppose that the General Government can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a country.  They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports and excises.  For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made?  He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

Mr. Dayton seconded the motion.  He did it, he said, that his sentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of the amendment.

Mr. Sherman did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections.  It was the freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are only included in the estimate of the taxes.  This was his idea of the matter.

Mr. Pinckney considered the fisheries, and the western frontier, as more burthensome to the United States than the slaves.  He thought this could be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one.

Mr. Wilson thought the motion premature.  An agreement to the clause would be no bar to the object of it.

On the question, on the motion to insert “free” before “inhabitants,” New-Jersey, aye—­1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no—­10. pp. 1261-2-3-4-5-6.

TUESDAY, August 21, 1787.

Mr. L. Martin proposed to vary Article 7, Section 4, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves.  In the first place, as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen, in the apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement to this traffic.  In the second place, slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable.  And in the third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution.

Mr. Rutledge did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section.  He was not apprehensive of insurrections, and would readily exempt the other states from the obligation to protect the Southern against them.  Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question.  Interest alone is the governing principle with nations.  The true question at present is, whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union.  If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.