* * * * * May 28th, he moved the following amendment:-- “_And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall claim the service or labor for life of any other person, under the laws of any State, shall pay, on account of such person so claimed, the sum of ten dollars.” And then said:-- MR. PRESIDENT,--A tax of ten dollars on account of each slave will give $40,000,000. And in putting the tax at ten dollars I follow the precedent of the Constitution, which taxes slaves imported at ten dollars. I do not disguise that on this question I have shared the doubts of others. Of course, no tax would be tolerable which gave any sanction to property in man; and it has been feared that a tax on slaves might be interpreted into such sanction. This fear is not unnatural to persons shocked by the idea of Slavery. It was early avowed by Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, whose sensibility is recorded by Madison in his report of the debates in the Federal Convention. “He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property.”[62] Again, a few days later, when the same clause of the Constitution was under discussion, Mr. Sherman repeated his objection, and the following debate occurred, which seems to exhaust the argument on both sides. “MR. SHERMAN was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves. “COLONEL MASON. Not to tax will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves. “MR. GORHAM thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, _not as implying that slaves are property_, but as a discouragement to the importation of them. “MR. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported. “MR. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. Gorham, observed, that the smallness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation. “MR. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed, &c. “COLONEL MASON, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The provision, as it stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent the introduction of them.”[63] After this discussion, the clause as found in the Constitution, laying “a tax or duty on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person,” was adopted, _nem. con._ Thus it appears that Sherman, Morris, Franklin, and Gerry, to say nothing of Madison, all known for opposition to Slavery, and determination to give it no sanction, concurred in this proposition. They felt that a tax or duty, thus arranged, was not a sanction of Slavery.