Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v4.djvu/423

1790.] not have given so much countenance to a request so improper in itself. He was sorry that the society had discovered so little prudence in their memorial, as to wish that Congress should intermeddle in the internal regulations of the particular states. He hoped the petition would not be committed, as it would operate directly against the interest of those it was designed to benefit. This is a business that may be attended with the most serious consequences; it may end in a subversion of the government, being a direct attack on the rights and property of the Southern States. He then inquired what satisfaction was to be made to the proprietors of slaves. He believed it was not in the power of the states to make indemnification for the loss that would attend emancipation. He reprobated the interposition of the society, and denied that they possessed any more humanity than other denominations.

Mr. GERRY replied to Mr. Tucker, and desired the gentleman to point out any part of the memorial which proposed that the legislature should infringe on the Constitution. For his part, he heard nothing read that had such a tendency. Its only object was, that Congress should exert their constitutional authority to abate the horrors of slavery so far as they could. He hoped the petition would be committed. Indeed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of commitment was at an end, as the house had essentially determined that it should be committed.

Mr. BURKE reprobated the commitment, as subversive of the Constitution, as sounding an alarm, and blowing the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States. He should oppose the business totally; and if chosen on the committee, he should decline serving.

Mr. SCOTT was in favor of the commitment.

Mr. JACKSON was opposed to it, and painted in strong colors the alarming consequences to be apprehended from taking up the business,—revolt, insurrection, and devastation,—and concluded by an observation similar to Mr. Burke's.

Mr. SHERMAN could see no difficulty in committing the memorial; the committee may bring in such a report as may prove satisfactory to gentlemen on all sides.

Mr. BALDWIN referred to the principles of accommodation which prevailed at the time of forming the government. Those mutual concessions which then took place gave us a Constitution which was to insure the peace and the equal rights and properties of the various states; and to prevent all infraction of the rights in this particular instance, they precluded themselves, by an express stipulation, from all interposition in the slave trade. Congress are not called upon to declare their sentiments upon this occasion; they cannot constitutionally interfere in the business. He deprecated the consequences of such a measure in very forcible terms, and hoped the house would proceed no farther in the investigation of the subject.

Mr. SMITH, (of South Carolina,) recurring to the memorial, observed, that Congress could not constitutionally interfere in the business, upon the prayer of the memorialists, as that went to an entire abolition of slavery; it could not, therefore, with propriety, be referred to a committee.

In the Southern States, difficulties on this account had arisen in respect to the ratification of the Constitution; and, except their apprehensions on this head had been dissipated by their property being secured and guarantied to them by the Constitution itself, they never could have adopted it.