The question was precipitated by a clause in the report of the committee of detail, presented by John Rutledge, of South Carolina, Article 7, Section 4. “No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on articles exported from any State nor on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit, nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited.”[5] In the light of what followed, of the existing legislation upon that subject in the State of South Carolina, and the history of the province and State, the introduction of the concluding clause of this section by her most distinguished representative was unfortunate. It gave rise to declarations concerning the State which not only do not seem to have been absolutely borne out by the facts; but which the actions and votes of her deputies themselves, to some extent stultified; yet the State was nevertheless stamped with an unenviable precedence in a matter in which she cast but one of the seven votes, in a total of eleven, by which the final decision was arrived at. In the discussion which immediately arose upon the introduction of the report, four views with regard to this clause found expression. Luther Martin, of Maryland, a Representative from a State, which, as will subsequently be shown, could have then been described as the most complete slave State of the thirteen, had nevertheless the discernment to realize the dangers of such a condition, and proposed to alter the section, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. He presented three grounds of objection to the denial of such: “1. As five slaves are to be counted as three free-men in the apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement of the traffic. 2. Slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was, therefore, unreasonable. 3. It was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such features in the Constitution.” In defending the clause Mr. Rutledge was not conciliatory. He “did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily exempt the other States from their obligations to protect the Southern States against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest they will not oppose the increase of slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the consumers.”