CHAPTER XIII

ON THE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONTROL OF COMMERCE, AND SLAVERY

[MINOR DEBATES IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION]

Debate on the Powers of the President-Debate on Congress's Power over Commerce, including Abolition of Slave Trade-Debate on Counting Slaves in Apportioning Representatives in Congress: in favor, Roger Sherman [Ct.], Oliver Ellsworth [Ct.], Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney [S. C.], John Rutledge, Sr. [S. C.], Pierce Butler [S. C.]; opposed, Rufus King [Mass.], Gouverneur Morris [Pa.], James Wilson [Pa.], John Dickinson [Pa.], Jonathan Dayton [N. J.], George Mason [Va.]-Resolutions Adopted Are Referred to "Committee of Detail" to Draft Constitution-This Committee's Draft Referred to "Committee on Revision"-Finished Draft Signed and Sent to Congress-Letter to Congress-Dissolution of the Convention.

ΤΗ

HE chief subjects of discussion after the settlement of the great question of the representation of the States in Congress were the nature and powers of the executive and the regulation by Congress of navigation, including the slave trade.

POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

The organization of a supreme executive presented many difficulties, arising not merely from the nature of the subject, but from the complicated system of the government. The mode of choice, and whether to consist of one or more persons, the time for which the executive should be chosen, whether reëligible, and the powers to be granted to the person or persons who should administer the government were questions of new impression, and which the members of the convention found it extremely difficult to settle in a manner satisfactory even to themselves. After much deliberation,

on the 26th of July, a majority of the States, being six against three and one divided,' agreed to the following plan:

That a national executive be instituted

To consist of a single person;

To be chosen by the national legislature;

For the term of seven years;

To be ineligible a second time;

With power to carry into execution the national laws; To appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for; To be removeable on impeachment and conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty;

To receive a fixed compensation for the devotion of his time to public service;

To be paid out of the public treasury.

This plan was referred to the committee appointed to prepare the Constitution, and was incorporated in the first draft reported by them.

This important subject remained undecided until the 31st of August, when it was referred to a committee of one from each State; and on the 4th of September the committee reported an entirely new plan, which, after some amendments, was adopted.

NATIONAL CONTROL OF COMMERCE

As the national legislature was invested with the exclusive power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and of course could pass navigation acts, a difference arose between the navigating and non-navigating States respecting the exercise of this power. The latter were jealous that the former might be disposed to secure to themselves improper advantages in the carrying trade. In the first draft of the Constitution, therefore, the power of Congress was limited in this respect by a special provision, that "no navigation acts should be passed, without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each house."

'New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were in the affirmative-Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, in the negative-and Virginia was divided. See also Hamilton's letter to Pickering on page 313.

Some of the slave-holding States also wished to secure to themselves the right of importing slaves, free from any tax or duty. A clause was therefore at first inserted, declaring that Congress should not prohibit the importation of such persons as the States might think proper to admit, nor lay any tax on the persons so imported.

The question was at last referred to a committee of one from each State. This committee, by way of compromise, reported that "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 may be imposed on such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.'

The same committee also reported against the provision requiring the assent of two-thirds of the members of each house to pass navigation acts. This report, after an amendment, extending the time of allowing such importation to 1808, and limiting the tax on each person to ten dollars, was adopted by a majority of the States, those in favor of allowing the importation of slaves until 1808 being New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia-those against it being New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia.

The adoption of this provision brought up the question of the counting of slaves when Representatives were to be assigned to the States in ratio of population. The following report of the discussion that ensued is taken from the "Madison Papers.

The chief speakers in favor of slave representation were: Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, Sr., and Pierce Butler of South Carolina, and Abraham Baldwin of Georgia; those opposed were: Rufus King of Massachusetts, Gouverneur Morris, James Wilson, and John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, and George Mason of Virginia.

DEBATE ON SLAVE REPRESENTATION

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AUGUST 8-29, 1787

In the debate of August 8 on the adoption of the report of the committee.

MR. RUFUS KING (then of Massachusetts, afterward an eminent Senator from New York) wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant to have on the succeeding part of the report concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of representation. He could not reconcile his mind to the article, if it was to prevent objections to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind, because he had hoped that this concession would have produced a readiness which had not been manifested to strengthen the general government and to make a full confidence in it. The report under consideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all his hopes. In two great points the hands of the legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the general system? First, defence against foreign invasion; second, against internal sedition. Shall all the States then be bound to defend each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the United States be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty, not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold a compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported, shall not the exports produced by their labor supply a revenue, the better to enable the general government to defend their masters? . . He never could agree to let them be imported without limitation, and then be represented in the national legislature. Indeed, he could so little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice that he was not sure that he could assent to it under any circumstances.

MR. ROGER SHERMAN (of Connecticut) regarded the slave trade as iniquitous, but the point of representation having been settled after much difficulty and deliberation he did not think himself bound to make opposition, especially as the present article, as amended, did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point in another place reported.

MR. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to insert "free" before the word "inhabitants." Much, he said, would depend on this

point. He never could concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the people, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel through the whole continent and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves that cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia or South Carolina, who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections and dooms them to the most cruel bondage shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. He would add that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the general government can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people scattered over so vast a country. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports, and excises. For what then are all the sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax, paying for all the negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

MR. DAYTON (of New Jersey) seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his sentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of the amendment.

MR. SHERMAN did not regard the admission of negroes into the ratio of representation as liable to such insuperable objections, etc., etc.

GEN. C. C. PINCKNEY (of South Carolina) considered the fisheries and the western frontier as more burdensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this could be demonstrated if the occasion were proper one.