except it might be such articles as ought not to be exported. The complexity of the business in America would render an equal tax on exports impracticable. The oppression of the uncommercial states. was guarded against by the power to regulate trade between the states. As to compelling foreigners, that might be done by regulating trade in general. The government would not be trusted with such a power. Objections are most likely to be excited by considerations relating to taxes and money. A power to tax exports would shipwreck the whole. Mr. CARROLL was surprised that any objection should be made to an exception of exports from the power of taxation. It was finally agreed, that the question concerning exports should lie over for the place in which the exception stood in the report, Maryland alone voting against it. 211 Article 7, sect. 1, clause first, was then agreed to, Mr. Gerry alone answering, no. The clause for regulating commerce with foreign nations, &c., was agreed to, nem. con. The several clauses for coining money for regulating foreign coin for fixing the standard of weights and measures agreed to, nem. con. On the clause, "To establish post-offices," Mr. GERRY moved to add, "and post-roads." Mr. MERCER seconded; and, on the question, were Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, no, 5. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the United States." If the United States had credit, such bills would be unnecessary; if they had not, unjust and Iseless. Mr. BUTLER seconds the motion. Mr. MADISON. Will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views; and promissory notes, in that shape, may in some emergencies be best. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister, which will do all the good without the mischief. The moneyed interest will oppose the plan of government, if paper emissions be not prohibited. Mr. GORHAM was for striking out without inserting any prohibition. If the words stand, they may suggest and lead to the measure. Mr. MASON had doubts on the subject. Congress, he thought, would not have the power, unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet, as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed. Mr. GORHAM. The power, as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing. Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though, in the present state and temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the government, to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic, also, to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of citizens. Mr. ELLSWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new government, more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper moncy can in no case be necessary. Give the government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good. Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions that might arise. Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States, to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered; and, as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources. Mr. BUTLER remarked, that paper was a legal tender in no country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the government of such a power. Mr. MASON was still averse to tying the hands of the legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe, as just remarked, it might be observed, on the other side, that there was none in which the government was restrained on this head. Mr. READ thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the beast in Revelation. Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan, than retain the three words, "and emit bills." On the motion for striking out, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia,* North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 9; New Jersey, Maryland, no, 2. The clause for borrowing money was agreed to, nem. con. Adjourned. 212 * This vote in the affirmative by Virginia was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison, who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the government from the use of public notes, as far as they could be safe and proper; and would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts. - In Convention. Article 7, sect. 1, was resumed. On the clause, "to appoint a treasurer by ballot," Mr. GORHAM moved to insert "joint" before " ballot," as more convenient, as well as reasonable, than to require the separate concurrence of the Senate. Mr. PINCKNEY seconds the motion. Mr. SHERMAN opposed it, as favoring the larger states. Mr. READ moved to strike out the clause, leaving the appointment of a treasurer, as of other officers, to the executive. The legislature was an improper body for appointments. Those of the state legislatures were a proof of it. The executive, being responsible, would make a good choice. Mr. MERCER seconds the motion of Mr. Read. On the motion for inserting the word "joint" before “ballot,” New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, no, 3. Col. MASON, in opposition to Mr. Read's motion, desired it might be considered to whom the money would belong; if to the people, the legislature, representing the people, ought to appoint the keepers of it. - On striking out the clause, as amended, by inserting "joint," Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, ay, 4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.213 The clause," to constitute inferior tribunals," was agreed to, nem, con.; as also the clause, "to make rules as to captures on land and water." The clause," to declare the law and punishment of piracies and felonies," &c. &c., being considered, — Mr. MADISON moved to strike out "and punishment," &c., after the words "to declare the law." Mr. MASON doubts the safety of it, considering the strict rule of construction in criminal cases. He doubted also the propriety of taking the power, in all these cases, wholly from the states. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS thought it would be necessary to extend the authority farther, so as to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting in general. Bills of exchange, for example, might be forged in one state, and carried into another. It was suggested, by some other member, that foreign paper might be counterfeited by citizens, and that it might be politic to provide by national authority for the punishment of it. Mr. RANDOLPH did not conceive that expunging "the punishment" would be a constructive exclusion of the power. He doubted only the efficacy of the word "declare." Mr. WILSON was in favor of the motion. Strictness was not necessary in giving authority to enact penal laws, though necessary in enacting and expounding them. On the question for striking out "and punishment," as moved by Mr. Madison, — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, no, 3. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out " declare the law," and insert "punish" before "piracies;" and on the ques New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, no, 3. Mr. MADISON and Mr. RANDOLPH moved to insert "define and" before " punish." Mr. WILSON thought "felonies" sufficiently defined by common law. Mr. DICKINSON concurred with Mr. Wilson. Mr. MADISON. Felony at common law is vague. It is also defective. One defect is supplied by statute of Anne, as to running away with vessels, which at common law was a breach of trust only. Besides, no foreign law should be a standard, further than it is expressly adopted. If the laws of the states were to prevail on this subject, the citizens of different states would be subject to different punishments for the same offence at sea. There would be neither uniformity nor stability in the law. The proper remedy for all these difficulties was, to vest the power, proposed by the term "define," in the national legislature. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS would prefer "designate define," the latter being, as he conceived, limited to the preexisting meaning. It was said by others to be applicable to the creating of offences. also, and therefore suited the case both of felonies and piracies. The motion of Mr. Madison and Mr. Randolph was agreed to. Mr. ELLSWORTH enlarged the motion, so as to read, "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, and offences against the laws of nations," which was agreed to, nem. con. The clause," to subdue a rebellion in any state, on the application of its legislature," was next considered. Mr. PINCKNEY moved to strike out "on the application of its legislature." Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconds. Mr. L. MARTIN opposed it, as giving a dangerous and unnecessary power. The consent of the state ought to precede the introduction of any extraneous force whatever. Mr. MERCER supported the opposition of Mr. Martin. Mr. ELLSWORTH proposed to add, after "legislature," "or executive." Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The executive may possibly be at the head of the rebellion. The general government should enforce obedience in all cases where it may be necessary. Mr. ELLSWORTH. In many cases, the general government ought not to be able to interpose, unless called upon. He was willing to vary his motion, so as to read, " or without it, when the legislature cannot meet." "or Mr. GERRY was against letting loose the myrmidons of the United States on a state, without its own consent. The states will be the best judges in such cases. More blood would have been spilt in Massachusetts, in the late insurrection, if the general authority had intermeddled. Mr. LANGDON was for striking out, as moved by Mr. PINCKNEY. The apprehension of the national force will have a salutary effect in preventing insurrections. Mr. RANDOLPH. If the national legislature is to judge whether the state legislature can or cannot meet, that amendment would make the clause as objectionable as the motion of Mr. Pinckney. Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. We are acting a very strange part. We first form a strong man to protect us, and at the same time wish to tie his hands behind him. The legislature may surely be trusted with such a power, to preserve the public tranquillity. On the motion to add, "or without it, [application,] when the legislature cannot meet," it was agreed to. New Hampshire, Connecticut, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 5; Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, no, 3; Pennsylvania, North Carolina, divided. Mr. MADISON and Mr. DICKINSON moved to insert, as explanatory, after "state," "against the government thereof." There might be a rebellion against the United States. The motion was agreed to, nem. con. On the clause, as amended, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Virginia, Georgia, ay, 4; Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 4; Massachusetts, (in the printed Journal, Massachusetts, no,) Pennsylvania, absent. So it was lost.214 On the clause, "to make war," Mr. PINCKNEY opposed the vesting this power in the legislature. Its proceedings were too slow. It would meet but once a year. The House of Representatives would be too numerous for such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depository, being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most capable of proper resolutions. If the states are equally represented in the Senate, so as to give no advantage to the large states, the power will, notwithstanding, be safe, as the small have their all at stake, in such cases, as well as the large states. It would be singular for one authority to make war, and another peace. Mr. BUTLER. The objections against the legislature lie, in a great degree, against the Senate. He was for vesting the power in |