That the “bargain” was soon made is proven by the fact that the committee reported the very next day, Friday, August 24, and that on Saturday the report was taken up.  It was as follows:  “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."[14]

35. The Appeal to the Convention. The ensuing debate,[15] which lasted only a part of the day, was evidently a sort of appeal to the House on the decisions of the committee.  It throws light on the points of disagreement.  General Pinckney first proposed to extend the slave-trading limit to 1808, and Gorham of Massachusetts seconded the motion.  This brought a spirited protest from 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."[16] There was, however, evidently another “bargain” here; for, without farther debate, the South and the East voted the extension, 7 to 4, only New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia objecting.  The ambiguous phraseology of the whole slave-trade section as reported did not pass without comment; Gouverneur Morris would have it read:  “The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited,” etc.[17] This emendation was, however, too painfully truthful for the doctrinaires, and was, amid a score of objections, withdrawn.  The taxation clause also was manifestly too vague for practical use, and Baldwin of Georgia wished to amend it by inserting “common impost on articles not enumerated,” in lieu of the “average” duty.[18] This minor point gave rise to considerable argument:  Sherman and Madison deprecated any such recognition of property in man as taxing would imply; Mason and Gorham argued that the tax restrained the trade; while King, Langdon, and General Pinckney contented themselves with the remark that this clause was “the price of the first part.”  Finally, it was unanimously agreed to make the duty “not exceeding ten dollars for each person."[19]

Southern interests now being safe, some Southern members attempted, a few days later, to annul the “bargain” by restoring the requirement of a two-thirds vote in navigation acts.  Charles Pinckney made the motion, in an elaborate speech designed to show the conflicting commercial interests of the States; he declared that “The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of the Southern States."[20] Martin and Williamson of North Carolina, Butler of