I?ECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION 65 Saturday MADISON September The remainder of the paragraph being under considera- tion-viz--"nor keep troops nor ships of war in time of peace, nor enter into any agreement or compact with another State, nor with any foreign power. Nor engage in any war, unless it shall be actually invaded by enemies, or the danger of invasion be so imminent as not to admit of delay, until Congress can be consulted" Mr. Me. Henry & Mr. Carrol moved that "no State shall be restrained from laying duties of tonnage for the purpose of clearing harbours and erecting light-houses". Col. Mason in support of this explained and urged the situation of the Chesapeak which peculiarly required expences of this sort. Mr. Govr. Morris. The States are not restrained from lay- ing tonnage as the Constitution now Stands. The exception proposed will imply the Contrary, and will put the States in a worse condition than the gentleman (Col Mason) wishes. Mr. Madison. Whether the States are now restrained from laying tonnage duties depends on the extent of the power "to regulate commerce". These terms are vague but seem to exclude this power of the States-- The7 may certainly be restrained by Treaty. He observed that there were other objects for tonnage Duties as the support of Seamen &c. He was more & more convinced that the regulation of Commerce was in its nature indivisible and ought to be wholly under one authority. 3 Mr. Sherman. The power of the U. States to regulate trade being supreme can controul interferences of the State regu- lations {when} such interferences happen; so that there is no danger to be apprehended from a concurrent jurisdiction. Mr. Langdon insisted that the regulation of tonnage was an essential part of the regulation o� trade, and that the States ought to have nothing to do with it. On motion "that no "State shall lay any duty on tonnage without the Consent "of Congress" N. H-- ay-- Mas. ay. Ct. divd. N.J. ay. Pa. no. Del. See Appendix A, CCCLXVI.
�
