wise. The subject was, however, intricate, and he distrusted his present judgment on it.

Mr. KING. This amendment results from the vote defining treason generally, by striking out "against the United States," which excludes any treason against particular states. These may, however, punish offences, as high misdemeanors.

On the question for inserting the word "sole," it passed in the negative.

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, ay, 5; Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, no, 6. Mr. WILSON. The clause is ambiguous now. "Sole" ought either to have been inserted, or "against the United States" to be reinstated.

Mr. KING. No line can be drawn between levying war and adhering to the enemy against the United States and against an individual state. Treason against the latter must be so against the former.

Mr. SHERMAN. Resistance against the laws of the United States, as distinguished from resistance against the laws of a particular state, forms the line.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. The United States are sovereign on one side of the line dividing the jurisdictions the states on the other. Each ought to have power to defend their respective sovereignties.

Mr. DICKINSON. War or insurrection against a member of the Union must be so against the whole body; but the Constitution should be made clear on this point.

The clause was reconsidered, nem. con.; and then Mr. WILSON and Mr. ELLSWORTH moved to reinstate "against the United States," " after "treason; " on which question,

Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no, 5.

Mr. MADISON was not satisfied with the footing on which the clause now stood. As treason against the United States involves treason against particular states, and vice versa, the same act may be twice tried, and punished by the different authorities.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS viewed the matter in the same light.

It was moved and seconded to amend the sentence to read, "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies;

which was agreed to.

Col. MASON moved to insert the words "giving them aid and comfort," as restrictive of "adhering to their enemies," &c. The latter, he thought, would be otherwise too indefinite. This motion was agreed to,Connecticut, Delaware, and Georgia only being in the negative.

Mr. L. MARTIN moved to insert, after conviction, &c., "or on

confession in open court; " and on the question, (the negative states thinking the words superfluous,) it was agreed to.

New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland Virginia, ay, 7; Massachusetts, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 3; North Carolina, divided.

Article 7, sect. 2, as amended, was then agreed to, ncm. con.221

Article 7, sect. 3, was taken up. The words "white and others" were struck out, nem. con., as superfluous.

Mr. ELLSWORTH moved to require the first census to be taken within "three," instead of "six," years from the first meeting of the legislature; and on the question,—

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, ay, 9; South Carolina, Georgia, no, 2.

Mr. KING asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation. No one answered.

Mr. GERRY moved to add to article 7, sect. 3, the following clause :

"That, from the first meeting of the legislature of the United States until a census shall be taken, all moneys for supplying the public treasury by direct taxation shall be raised from the several states, according to the number of their representatives respectively in the first branch."

Mr. LANGDON. This would bear unreasonably hard on New Hampshire, and he must be against it.

Mr. CARROLL opposed it. The number of representatives did not admit of a proportion exact enough for a rule of taxation. Before any question, the House adjourned.

TUESDAY, August 21.

In Convention. Gov. Livingston, from the committee of eleven, to whom were referred the propositions respecting the debts of the several states, and also the militia, entered on the eighteenth instant, delivered the following report:

"The legislature of the United States shall have power to fulfil the engagements which have been entered into by Congress, and to discharge, as well the debts of the United States, as the debts incurred by the several states, during the late war, for the common defence and general welfare.

"To make laws for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by the United States."

Mr. GERRY considered giving the power only, without adopting the obligation, as destroying the security now enjoyed by the public creditors of the United States. He enlarged on the merit of this class of citizens, and the solemn faith which had been pledged under the existing Confederation. If their situation should be changed, as here proposed, great opposition would be excited against the plan. He urged, also, that as the states had made different degrees of exertion to sink their respective debts, those who had done most would be alarmed, if they were now to be saddled with a share of the debts of states which had done least.

Mr. SHERMAN.

It means neither more nor less than the Con

federation, as it relates to this subject.

Mr. ELLSWORTH moved that the report delivered in by Gov. Livingston should lie on the table; which was agreed to, nem. con. Article 7, sect. 3, was then resumed.

Mr. DICKINSON moved to postpone this, in order to reconsider article 4, sect. 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, sect. 3, was then agreed to, alone no.

ten ayes; Delaware

Mr. SHERMAN moved to add to section 3 the following clause:

"And all accounts of supplies furnished, services performed, and moneys advanced, by the several states to the United States, or by the United States to the several states, shall be adjusted by the same rule."

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconds the motion.

Mr. GORHAM thought it wrong to insert this in the Constitution. The legislature will no doubt do what is right. The present Congress have such a power, and are now exercising it.

Mr. SHERMAN. Unless some rule be expressly given, none will exist under the new system.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. Though the contracts of Congress will be binding, there will be no rule for executing them on the states; and one ought to be provided.

Mr. SHERMAN withdrew his motion, to make way for one of Mr. WILLIAMSON, to add to section 3,

"By this rule the several quotas of the states shall be determined, in settling the expenses of the late war."

Mr. CARROLL brought into view the difficulty that might arise on this subject from the establishment of the Constitution as intended, without the unanimous consent of the states.

Mr. Williamson's motion was postponed, nem. con.

Article 6, sect. 12, which had been postponed on the 15th of August, was now called for by Col. MASON, who wished to know how the proposed amendment, as to money bills, would be decided, before he agreed to any further points.

Mr. GERRY'S motion of yesterday, "that, previous to a census, direct taxation be proportioned on the states according to the number of representatives," was taken up. He observed, that the principal acts of government would probably take place within that period; and it was but reasonable that the states should pay in proportion to their share in them.

Mr. ELLSWORTH thought such a rule unjust. There was a

great difference between the number of representatives and the number of inhabitants, as a rule in this case. Even if the former were proportioned as nearly as possible to the latter, it would be a very inaccurate rule. A state might have one representative only, that had inhabitants enough for one and a half, or more, if fractions could be applied, and so forth. He proposed to amend the motion by adding the words "subject to a final liquidation by the foregoing rule, when a census shall have been taken."

Mr. MADISON. The last appointment of Congress, on which the number of representatives was founded, was conjectural, and meant only as a temporary rule, till a census should be established.

Mr. READ. The requisitions of Congress had been accommodated to the impoverishment produced by the war, and to other local and temporary circumstances.

Mr. WILLIAMSON opposed Mr. Gerry's motion.

Mr. LANGDON was not here when New Hampshire was allowed three members. It was more than her share; he did not wish for

them.

Mr. BUTLER contended warmly for Mr. Gerry's motion, as founded in reason and equity.

Mr. Ellsworth's proviso to Mr. Gerry's motion was agreed to,

nem. con.

Mr. KING thought the power of taxation given to the legislature rendered the motion of Mr. Gerry altogether unnecessary.

On Mr. Gerry's motion, as amended,

Massachusetts, South Carolina, ay, 2; New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, no, 8; North Carolina, divided.

On the question, "Shall article 6, sect. 12, with the amendment to it, proposed and entered on the 15th inst., as called for by Col. Mason, be now taken up?" it passed in the negative.

New Hampshire, Connecticut, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, ay, 5; Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6. Mr. L. MARTIN. The power of taxation is most likely to be criticised by the public. Direct taxation should not be used but in cases of absolute necessity; and then the states will be the best judges of the mode. He therefore moved the following addition to article 7, sect. 3:

3

"And whenever the legislature of the United States shall find it necessary that revenue should be raised by direct taxation, having apportioned the same according to the above rule on the several states, requisitions shall be made of the respective states to pay into the Continental treasury their respective quotas, within a time in the said requisitions specified; and in case of any of the states failing to comply with such requisitions, then, and then only, to devise and pass acts directing the mode, and authorizing the collection of the same."

Mr. M'HENRY seconded the motion. There was no debate; and, on the question,

New Jersey, ay, 1; New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 8; Maryland, divided, (Jenifer and Carroll, no.) 222

Article 7, sect. 4, was then taken up.

Mr. LANGDON. By this section, the states are left at liberty to tax exports. New Hampshire, therefore, with other non-exporting states, will be subject to be taxed by the states exporting its produce. 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.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. It is best as it stands. The power of regulating trade between the states will protect them against each other. Should this not be the case, the attempts of one to tax the produce of another, passing through its hands, will force a direct exportation and defeat themselves. There are solid reasons against Congress taxing exports. First, it will discourage industry, as taxes on imports discourage luxury. Secondly, the produce of different states is such as to prevent uniformity in such taxes. There are indeed but a few articles that could be taxed at all, as tobacco, rice, and indigo; and a tax on these alone would be partial and unjust. Thirdly, the taxing of exports would engender incurable jealousies.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Though North Carolina has been taxed by Virginia, by a duty on twelve thousand hogsheads of her tobacco through Virginia, yet he would never agree to this power. Should it take place, it would destroy the last hope of the adoption of the plan. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. These local considerations ought not to impede the general interest. There is great weight in the argument, that the exporting states will tax the produce of their uncommercial neighbors. The power of regulating the trade between Pennsylvania and New Jersey will never prevent the former from taxing the latter. Nor will such a tax force a direct exportation from New Jersey. The advantages possessed by a large trading city outweigh the disadvantage of a moderate duty, and will retain the trade in that channel. If no tax can be laid on exports, an embargo cannot be laid, though in time of war such a measure may be of critical importance. Tobacco, lumber, and live stock, are three objects belonging to different states, of which great advantage might be made by a power to tax exports. To these may be added ginseng and masts for ships, by which a tax might be thrown on other nations. The idea of supplying the West Indies with lumber from Nova Scotia is one of the many follies of Lord Sheffield's pamphlet. The state of the country, also, will change, and render duties on exports—as skins, beaver, and other peculiar raw materials - politic in the view of encouraging American manufactures.

Mr. BUTLER was strenuously opposed to a power over exports, as unjust and alarming to the staple states.

Mr. LANGDON suggested a prohibition on the states from taxing the produce of other states exported from their harbors.

Mr. DICKINSON. The power of taxing exports may be inconvenient at present; but it must be of dangerous consequence to pro