Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/314

282 Importation of slaves. Navigation laws. [ITS? the country would be helped or hindered by importation ; and this question ought to be left to the national government, not to the States particularly interested. He could not believe that any State would refuse to federate on that basis. Most of the leading members from the northern and New Eng- land States, unwilling to give cause for any State in the South to refuse to come into the Union, actively favoured the provision; but, finally, owing to the differences above indicated, it was thought best to recommit the clause, together with the rest of the section to which it belonged, and also section 6, in regard to navigation laws, for ad- justment. A committee of eleven, one from each State then represented, was chosen accordingly, and hit upon a compromise, reported three days later, August 24. The report proposed "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"; that a tax or duty might be imposed on such migration or importation not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports ; and that the sixth section should be struck out. On the next day General Pinckney moved to extend the limit of time for migration and importation to the year 1808. Gorham seconded, and Madison opposed, the motion ; the latter declaring that it would be more dishonourable to America to extend the time so far than to say nothing in the Constitution about the matter. The motion was carried; seven States, those of New England among them, voting for it, and four against it. The four were New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia. The whole clause as amended was now adopted by the same vote; and then the clause concerning taxation was amended so as to give to Congress the power to impose a tax or duty on the importation of negroes of ten dollars for each person, and in that form was adopted. Five days later, August 29, the report of the committee in favour of striking out the section requiring a two-thirds vote to pass any navigation Act, was taken up. Objections were still raised by the South, notwithstanding the compromise agreed upon by the committee of eleven. Charles Pinckney enumerated the different interests of the States, and urged that these would be a source of oppressive navigation laws if a bare majority were to be sufficient to pass them. The power of regulating commerce at all was a pure concession on the part of the southern States; they did not need the protection of the northern States at present. General Pinckney also said that it was for the interest of the southern States to have no regulation of commerce by the general government; but he was willing to yield the point in view of the loss of commerce brought upon the New England States by the Revolution, of their liberal conduct towards South Carolina (referring