FOR THE PARISHES OF ST. PHILIP AND ST. MICHAEL, CHARLESTON.— - Ayes: Edward Rutledge, Dr. David Ramsay, William Johnson, C. C. Pinckney, Edward Darrell, Thomas Jones, Isaac Motte, John Mathews, Daniel Cannon, Daniel Stevens, John Blake, Anthony Toomer, John F. Grimke, Thomas Heywood, Jun., Richard Lushington, Francis Kinloch, Jacob Read, Edward Blake, John Budd, Rawlins Lowndes, Michael Kalteisen, Thomas Bee, Adanus Burke, Hugh Rutledge, Edward Lightwood.-Nays: none. CHRIST CHURCH.-Ayes: Charles Pinckney, Plowden Weston, Joseph Manigault, John Hatter.- Nays: none. ST. JOHN'S, BERKLEY COUNTY. -Ayes: Peter Fassoux, Theodore Gourdine, Thomas Simons.- Nays: Robert M'Kelvey, Gideon Kirke. ST. ANDREW'S. - Ayes: John Rivers, Glen Drayton, Thomas Farr, James Ladson, Charles Drayton. - Nay: William Scott. ST. GEORGE'S, DORCHESTER. — Ayes: John Glaze, Walter Izard, William Postell, John Bell. Nays: none. ST. JAMES'S, GOOSE CREEK.-Ayes: Ralph Izard, Gabriel Manigault, William Smith, John Parker, Jun.- Nays: none. ST. THOMAS, AND ST. DENNIS.-Ayes: Thomas Screven, Robert Daniel, Thomas Shrubrick. Nays: none. ST. PAUL'S.-Ayes: George Haig, William Washington, Paul Hamilton. — Nays · none. ST. BARTHOLOMEW's. — Ayes: William Furguson, Peter Youngblood, William C. Snipes, John North. - Nays: none. ST. HELENA.Ayes: William Haxard Wigg, John Joyner, John Jenkins, Robert Barnwell, Benjamin Reynolds, Bernard Elliott. Nays: none. ST. JAMES'S, SANTEE.-Ayes: Thomas Horry, Jacob Bond, I'On, William Douxsaint, Lewis Miles. -Nays: none. PRINCE GEORGE'S, WINYAW.-Ayes: Thomas Waties, Matthew Irvine. — Nays James Withers, Thomas Dunbar. ALL SAINTS.-Ayes: Robert Herriot, Daniel Morral. - Nays: none. jamin Porter, James Pettigrew. - Nays: John T. Green, John Dicky, Ben ST. JOHN'S, COLLETON COUNTY. - Ayes: Isaac Jenkins, William Smelie.-Nays: none. ST. PETER'S. Ayes: none. Nays: James Thompson, John Chisholm, John Fenwick, Samuel Maner. PRINCE WILLIAM's. - Ayes: Pierce Butler, John Lightwood, John A. Cuthbert. — Nays: Stephen Bull, William Murray. ST. STEPHEN'S. Ayes: none. — Cordes. Nays: Thomas Palmer, John Coutuier, T DISTRICT TO THE EASTWARD OF WATEREE.-Ayes: none.. - Nays: Isaac Alexander, Thomas Sumter, Andrew Baskins, Joseph Lee, Thomas M'Faddin, George Cooper, Benjamin Cudworth, Samuel Dunlap, Hugh White. DISTRICT OF NINETY-SIX. Ayes: Patrick Calhoun, John Purvis.-Nays: Arthur Simpkins, James Lincoln, Adam Crain Jones, William Butler. DISTRICT OF SAXE-GOTHA. Ayes none. Nays: Joseph Culpeper, Henry Pendleton, John Threewits, Llewellen Threewits. LOWER DISTRICTS, BETWEEN BROAD AND SALUDA RIVERS.-Ayes: none. Nays: Philemon Waters, George Ruff, John Lindsay, William Wadlington. LITTLE RIVER DISTRICT. Levi Casey, James Mason. -Ayes: none.-Nays: John Hunter, Angus Campbel, Ayes: none. UPPER, OR SPARTAN DISTRICT. Nays: Thomas Brandon, S. M'Junkin Winn, James Craig, John Gray, James Knox, John Turner, Aromanus Lyles, John Cook, James Pedian. DISTRICT CALLED THE NEW ACQUISITION. -Ayes: none. - Nays: Andrew Love, James Powell, William Fergus, William Bratton, Robert Patton, James Ramsay, John Drennan, James Martin, Joseph Palmer, Alexander Moore. ST. MATTHEW's.-Ayes: none. — -Nays: Thomas Sabb, J. Frierson, Paul Warley. ORANGE PARISH. - Åyes: none. -Nays: William Robinson, Lewis Lesterjette. ST. DAVID'S. - Ayes: none. —. -Nays: Calvin Spencer, Robert Baxwill, A. Hunter. DISTRICT BETWEEN SAVANNAH RIVER AND THE NORTH FORK OF EDISTO.Ayes none. :.. Nays: William Davis, Isaac Cush, James Fair, Daniel Greene. DEBATES IN CONVENTION. MONDAY, May 12, 1788. This day being appointed for the meeting of the state Convention, (Mr. Thomas Bee, in the chair, pro tem.,) the returns were read, and there not being a majority, adjourned until Tuesday, the 13th. TUESDAY, May 13, 1788. On this day the Convention met, and the names being called over, there appeared to be present one hundred and seventy-three members; upon which they proceeded to ballot, when His excellency, Governor THOMAS PINCKNEY, was elected President. Colonel JOHN SANDFORD DART was elected Secretary. Mr. Atmore, Messenger. Mr. Athwell, Door-keeper. Mr. John Bounetheau, Bar-keeper. Mr. Stevens, Cashier. Colonel Lushington, Assistant-Cashier. WEDNESDAY, May 14, 1788. Speech of Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY, (one of the delegates of the Federal Convention.) Mr. President, after so much has been said with respect to the powers possessed by the late Convention to form and propose a new system after so many observations have been made on its leading principles, as well in the House of Representatives as in the conventions of other states, whose proceedings have been published it will be as unnecessary for me again minutely to examine a subject which has been so thoroughly investigated, as it would be difficult to carry you into a field that has not been sufficiently explored. Having, however, had the honor of being associated in the delegation from this state, and presuming upon the indulgence of the house, I shall proceed to make some observations which appear to me necessary to a full and candid discussion of the system now before us. It seems to be generally confessed that, of all sciences, that of government, or politics, is the most difficult. In the old world, as far as the lights of history extend, from the earliest ages to our own, we find nations in the constant exercise of all the forms with which the world is at present furnished. We have seen among the ancients, as well as the moderns, monarchies, limited and absolute, aristocracies, republics of a single state, and federal unions. But notwithstanding all their experience, how confined and imperfect is their knowledge of government! how little is the true doctrine of representation understood! how few states enjoy what we call freedom! how few governments answer those great ends of public happiness which we seem to expect from our own! In reviewing such of the European states as we are best acquainted with, we may with truth assert that there is but one among the most important which confirms to its citizens their civil liberties, or provides for the security of private rights. But as if it had been fated that we should be the first perfectly free people the world had ever seen, even the government I have alluded to withholds from a part of its subjects the equal enjoyment of their religious liberties. How many thousands of the subjects of Great Britain at this moment labor under civil disabilities, merely on account of their religious persuasions! To the liberal and enlightened mind, the rest of Europe affords a melancholy picture of the depravity of human nature, and of the total subversion of those rights, without which we should suppose no people could be happy or content. We have been taught here to believe that all power of right belongs to the people; that it flows immediately from them, and is delegated to their officers for the public good; that our rulers are the servants of the people, amenable to their will, and created for their use. How different are the governments of Europe! There the people are the servants and subjects of their rulers; there merit and talents have little or no influence; but all the honors and offices of government are swallowed up by birth, by fortune, or by rank. From the European world are no precedents to be drawn for a people who think they are capable of governing themselves. Instead of receiving instruction from them, we may, with pride, affirm that, new as this country is in point of settlement, inexperienced as she must be upon questions of government, she still has read more useful lessons to the old world, she has made them more acquainted with their own rights, than they had been otherwise for centuries. It is with pride I repeat that, old and experienced as they are, they are indebted to us for light and refinement upon points of all others the most interesting. Had the American revolution not happened, would Ireland enjoy her present rights of commerce and legislation? Would the subjects of the emperor in the Netherlands have presumed to contend for, and ultimately to secure, the privileges they demanded? Would the parliaments of France have resisted the edicts of their monarch, and justified in a language that will do honor to the freest people? Nay, I may add, would a becoming sense of liberty, and of the rights of mankind, have so generally pervaded that kingdom, had not their knowledge of America led them to the investigation? Undoubtedly not. Let it be therefore our boast that we have already taught some of the oldest and wisest nations to explore their rights as men; and let it be our prayer that the effects of the revolution may never cease to operate until they have unshackled all the nations that have firmness to resist the fetters of despotism. Without a precedent, and with the experience of but a few years, were the Convention called upon to form a system for a people differing from all others we are acquainted with. The first knowledge necessary for us to acquire, was a knowledge of the people for whom this system was to be formed; for unless we were acquainted with their situation, their habits, opinions, and resources, it would be impossible to form a government upon adequate or practicable principles. If we examine the reasons which have given rise to the distinctions of rank that at present prevail in Europe, we shall find that none of them do, or in all probability ever will, exist in the Union. The only distinction that may take place is that of wealth. Riches, no doubt, will ever have their influence; and where they are suffered to increase to large amounts in a few hands, there they may become dangerous to the public - particularly when, from the cheapness of labor and the scarcity of money, a great proportion of the people are poor. These, however, are dangers that I think we have very little to apprehend, for these reasons: One is from the destruction of the right of primogeniture; by which means, the estates of intestates are equally to be divided among all their children a provision no less consonant to the principles of a republican government, than it is to those of general equity and parental affection. To endeavor to raise a name by accumulating property in one branch of a family, at the expense of others equally related and deserving, is a vanity no less unjust and cruel than dangerous to the interests of liberty: it is a practice no wise state will ever encourage or tolerate. In the Northern and Eastern States, such distinctions among children are seldom heard of. Laws have been long since passed in all of them, destroying the right of primogeniture; and as laws never fail to have a powerful influence upon the manners of a people, we may suppose that, in future, an equal division of property among children will, in general, take place in all the states, and one means of amassing inordinate wealth in the hands of individuals be, as it ought, forever removed. Another reason is that, in the Eastern and Northern States, the landed property is nearly equally divided: very few have large bodies, and there are few that have not small tracts. The greater part of the people are employed in cultivating their own lands; the rest in handicraft and commerce. They are frugal in their manner of living. Plain tables, clothing, and furniture, prevail in their houses, and expensive appear ances are avoided. Among the landed interest, it may be truly said there are few of them rich, and few of them very poor; nor, while the states are capable of supporting so many more inhabitants than they contain at present-while so vast a territory on our frontier remains uncultivated and unexplored -while the means of subsistence are so much within every man's power-are those dangerous distinctions of fortune to be expected which at present prevail in other countries. The people of the Union may be classed as follows: Commercial men, who will be of consequence or not, in the political scale, as commerce may be made an object of the attention of government. As far as I am able to judge, and presuming that proper sentiments will ultimately prevail upon this subject, it does not appear to me that the commercial line will ever have much influence in the politics of the Union. Foreign trade is one of the enemies against which we must be extremely guarded-more so than against any other, as none will ever have a more unfavorable operation, I consider it as the root of our present public distress - as the plentiful source from which our future national calamities will flow, unless great care is taken to prevent it. Divided as we are from the old world, we should have nothing to do with their politics, and as little as possible with their com |