Volume III Part 86 (1/2)

John F. Mercer, Aug. 6.

Luther Martin, June 9.

Virginia, 28 G. Was.h.i.+ngton, May 25.

_Patrick Henry_, (declined.) Edmund Randolph, ” 25.

29 John Blair, ” 25.

30 Jas. Madison, Jr. ” 25.

George Mason, ” 25.

George Wythe, ” 25.

James McClurg, (in room P. Henry) ” 25.

North Carolina, _Rich'd Caswell_ (resigned).

Alex'r Martin, May 25.

Wm. R. Davie, ” 25.

31 Wm. Blount (in room of R. Caswell), June 20.

_Willie Jones_ (declined).

32 R. D. Spaight, May 25.

33 Hugh Williamson, (in room of W. Jones,) May 25.

South Carolina, 34 John Rutledge, ” 25.

35 Chas. C. Pinckney, ” 25.

36 Chas. Pinckney, ” 25.

37 Peirce Butler, ” 25.

Georgia, 38 William Few, ” 25.

39 Abr'm Baldwin, June 11.

William Pierce, May 31.

_George Walton_.

Wm. Houston, June 1.

_Nath'l Pendleton_.

Those with numbers before their names signed the Const.i.tution. 39 Those in italics never attended. 10 Members who attended, but did not sign the Const.i.tution, 16 -- 65

Extract from a Speech of Luther Martin, (delivered before the Legislature of Maryland,) one of the delegates from Maryland to the Convention that formed the Const.i.tution of the United States.

With respect to that part of the _second_ section of the _first_ Article, which relates to the apportionment of representation and direct taxation, there were considerable objections made to it, besides the great objection of inequality--It was urged, that no principle could justify taking _slaves_ into computation in apportioning the number of _representatives_ a state should have in the government--That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a state in making laws for _free men_ in proportion as that State violated the rights of freedom--That it might be proper to take slaves into consideration, when _taxes_ were to be apportioned, because it had a tendency to _discourage slavery_; but to take them into account in giving representation tended to _encourage_ the _slave trade_, and to make it the _interest_ of the states to _continue_ that _infamous traffic_--That slaves could not be taken into account as _men_, or _citizens_, because they were not admitted to the _rights of citizens_, in the states which adopted or continued slavery--If they were to be taken into account as _property_, it was asked, what peculiar circ.u.mstance should render this property (of all others the most odious in its nature) ent.i.tled to the high privilege of conferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors, rather than _any other_ property: and why _slaves_ should, as property, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or any other species; and it was observed by an honorable member from Ma.s.sachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating to enter into compact with the _slaves_ of the _southern states_, as it would with the _horses_ and _mules_ of the _eastern_.

By the ninth section of this Article, the importation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word ”national,” and not admit the word ”stamps,” influenced them here to guard against the word ”_slaves_.”

They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those _things_ which the expression signified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to authorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant to extend to the importation of slaves.