To this Committee were referred also the two clauses above mentioned of the fourth and fifth Sections of Article 7.—­pp. 1390 to 1397.

Friday, August 24, 1787

In Convention,—­Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven, to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section, and the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in the following Report: 

“Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the Committee, and insert, ’The migration or importation of such persons as the several States, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.

“The fifth Section to remain as in the Report.  The sixth Section to be stricken out.”—­p. 1415.

SATURDAY, August 25, 1787.

The Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth), being taken up,—­

Gen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words, “the year eighteen hundred,” as the year limiting the importation of slaves; and to insert the words, “the year eighteen hundred and eight.”

Mr. GORHAM seconded the motion.

Mr. MADISON.  Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves.  So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

On the motion, which passed in the affirmative,—­New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—­7; New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no—­4.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, “the importation of slaves in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited, &c.”  This he said, would be most fair, and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated.  He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States.  If the change of language, however, should be objected to, by the members from those States, he should not urge it.

Col.  MASON was not against using the term “slaves,” but against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some people.

Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. SHERMAN.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that both in opinion and practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union.