Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/451

 themselves aggrieved, it was their right and their duty to present their memorial, not three, five, or seven times only, but seventy times seven, until redress was obtained; therefore, gentlemen who wished not to be troubled again ought to be in favor of reading and reference.

Lyon, of Vermont, observed that a grievance was complained of which ought to be remedied, namely, that a certain number of black people who had been net at liberty by their masters were now held in slavery contrary to right; he thought that ought to be inquired into.

Rutledge, of South Carolina, would not oppose a reference if he were sure the committee would report as strong a censure as the memorial deserved; such a censure as a set of men ought to meet who attempt to seduce the servants of gentlemen traveling to the seat of government, and who are incessantly importuning congress to interfere in a business with which, by the constitution, they have no concern. At a time when other communities were witnesses of the most horrid and barbarous scenes, these petitioners were endeavoring to excite a certain class to the commission of like enormities here. Were he sure that this conduct would be reprobated as it deserved, he would cheerfully vote for a reference; but not believing that it would be, he was for laying the memorial on the table or under the table, that the house might have done with the business, not for to-day, but forever.

Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, by whom the memorial had been offered, maintained that it was the practice of the house, whenever a petition was presented, to have it read a first and second time, and then to commit, unless it were expressed in such indecent terms as to induce the house to reject it, or related to a subject upon which it had been recently determined by a large majority not to act. It was not best to decide under the influence of such passion as had just been exhibited, and that furnished an additional reason for a reference. He also vindicated the character of the Quakers against the aspersions in which Rutledge had very freely indulged.

Sewall, of Massachusetts, suggested a third case, applicable, as he thought, to the present memorial, in which petitions might be rejected without a commitment, and that was when they related to matters over which the house had no cognizance, especially if they were of a nature to excite disagreeable sensations in a part of the members possessed of a species of property held under circumstances in themselves sufficiently uncomfortable. The present memorial seemed to relate to topics entirely within the jurisdiction of the states.

Macon declared that there was not a man in North Carolina who did not wish that there were no blacks in the country. Negro slavery was a misfortune; he considered it a curse; but there was no means of getting rid of it. And thereupon he proceeded to inveigh against the Quakers, whom he accused not only of unconstitutional applications to congress, but of continually endeavoring to stir up in the southern states insurrection among the negroes.

Against these assaults on the petitioners, Livingston, of New York, warmly protested. There might be individuals such as had been described; but as against the body of the Quakers these charges were false and unjust.