Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.

Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and for that purpose moved to amend the clause, so as to read:  “The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year 1808;” which was disagreed to, nem. con.[4]

[Footnote 4:  In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and Georgia, voted in the affirmative.]

The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows:  “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 1808,”—­

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—­7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no—­4.

Mr. BALDWIN, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, “the average duty,” moved to strike out of the second part the words, “average of the duties laid on imports,” and insert “common impost on articles not enumerated;” which was agreed to, nem. con.

Mr. SHERMAN was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

Mr. KING and Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the first part.  Gen. PINCKNEY admitted that it was so.  Col.  MASON.  Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on, the importation of slaves.

Mr. GORHAM thought that Mr. SHERMAN should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

Mr. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. GORHAM, observed, that the smallness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.

Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.  The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandize consumed, &c.

Col.  MASON, in answer to Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.  The provision, as it stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent the introduction of them.

It was finally agreed, nem. con., to make the clause read:  “but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person;” and then the second part, as amended, was agreed to.—­pp. 1427 to 30.

TUESDAY, August 28, 1787.

Article 14, was then taken up.[5]

[Footnote 5:  Article 14 was,—­The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.—­EDITOR.]

General PINCKNEY was not satisfied with it.  He seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.