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.
On the question on Article 14,—New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye—9; South Carolina, no—1; Georgia, divided.