Mr. Spaight further explained the clause.  That the limitation of this trade to the term of twenty years, was a compromise between the Eastern States and the Southern States.  South Carolina and Georgia wished to extend the term.  The Eastern States insisted on the entire abolition of the trade.  That the State of North Carolina had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.

Mr. Iredell added to what he had said before, that the States of Georgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during the war, and that they wished to supply the loss.

Mr. Galloway.  Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does not satisfy my mind.  I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to.  But in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable traffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the importation extended to all persons whatsoever.  Our situation is different from the people to the North.  We want citizens; they do not.  Instead of laying a tax, we ought to give a bounty, to encourage foreigners to come among us.  With respect to the abolition of slavery, it requires the utmost consideration.  The property of the Southern States consists principally of slaves.  If they mean to do away slavery altogether, this property will be destroyed.  I apprehend it means to bring forward manumission.  If we must manumit our slaves, what country shall we send them to?  It is impossible for us to be happy if, after manumission, they are to stay among us.

Mr. Iredell.  Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has misunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words:  “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”

Now, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished slavery, did not approve of the expression slaves; they therefore used another that answered the same purpose.  The committee will observe the distinction between the two words migration and importation.  The first part of the clause will extend to persons who come into the country as free people, or are brought as slaves, but the last part extends to slaves only.  The word migration refers to free persons; but the word importation refers to slaves, because free people cannot be said to be imported.  The tax, therefore, is only to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who migrate.  I further beg leave to say, that this gentleman is mistaken in another thing.  He seems to say that this extends to the abolition of slavery.  Is there anything in this constitution which says that Congress shall