"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the committee, and insert '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 or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.'
"The fifth section to remain as in the report.
"The sixth section to be stricken out."
Mr. BUTLER, according to notice, moved that the first clause of article 7, sect. 1, as to the discharge of debts, be reconsidered tomorrow. He dwelt on the division of opinion concerning the domestic debts, and the different pretensions of the different classes of holders.
Gen. PINCKNEY seconded him.
Mr. RANDOLPH wished for a reconsideration, in order to better the expression, and to provide for the case of the state debts as is done by Congress.
On the question for reconsidering,—
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; New Hampshire, Maryland, no, 2; Pennsylvania, North Carolina, absent.
And to-morrow assigned for the reconsideration.
The second and third sections of article 9, being taken up,—
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, this provision for deciding controversies between the states was necessary under the Confederation, but will be rendered unnecessary by the national judiciary now to be established; and moved to strike it out.
Dr. JOHNSON seconded the motion.
Mr. SHERMAN concurred. So did Mr. DAYTON.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was for postponing instead of striking out, in order to consider whether this might not be a good provision, in cases where the judiciary were interested, or too closely connected with, the parties.
Mr. GORHAM had doubts as to striking out. The judges might be connected with the states being parties. He was inclined to think the mode proposed in the clause would be more satisfactory than to refer such cases to the judiciary.
On the question for postponing the second and third sections, it passed in the negative,—
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Georgia, ay, 3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, no, 7; Pennsylvania, absent.
Mr. WILSON urged the striking out, the judiciary being a better provision.
On the question for striking out the second and third sections of article 9,—
New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, ay, 8; North Carolina, Georgia, no, 2; Pennsylvania, absent.231
Article 10, sect. 1.
