MR. DICKINSON moved to postpone this, in order to reconsider Article 4, Section 4, and to limit the number of Representatives to be allowed to the large States.  Unless this were done, the small States would be reduced to entire insignificance, and encouragement given to the importation of slaves.

MR. SHERMAN would agree to such a reconsideration; but did not see the necessity of postponing the section before the House.  MR. DICKINSON withdrew his motion.

Article 7, Section 3, was then agreed to,—­ten ayes; Delaware alone, no.—­p. 1379.

Article 7, Section 4, was then taken up.

MR. LANGDON.  By this section the States are left at liberty to tax exports.  This could not be admitted.  It seems to be feared that the Northern States will oppress the trade of the Southern.  This may be guarded against, by requiring the concurrence of two-thirds, or three-fourths of the Legislature, in such cases.—­p. 1382-3.

MR. MADISON.  As to the fear of disproportionate burthens on the more exporting States, it might be remarked that it was agreed, on all hands, that the revenue would principally be drawn from trade.—­p. 1385.

COL.  MASON—­A majority, when interested, will oppress the minority.

If we compare the States in this point of view, the eight Northern States have an interest different from the five Southern States; and have, in one branch of the Legislature, thirty-six votes, against twenty-nine, and in the other in the proportion of eight against five.  The Southern States had therefore ground for their suspicions.  The case of exports was not the same with that of imports.—­pp. 1386-7.

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.

Mr. ELLSWORTH was for leaving the clause as it stands.  Let every State import what it pleases.  The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves.  What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interest.  The Old Confederation had not meddled with this point; and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one.