Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/452

 Parker, of Virginia, and Blount, of North Carolina, warmly opposed the reference of the memorial. Nicholas, of Virginia, felt as much as other southern gentlemen on this subject, but as he thought the holders of slaves had nothing to fear from inquiry, he was in favor of a reference. So, also, was Smith, of Maryland. Finally, after a very warm debate, the reference was carried, and a special committee was appointed, of which Sitgreaves was chairman, Dana, Smith, of Maryland, Nicholas, and Schureman, of New Jersey, being members. This committee, after hearing the petitions, subsequently reported leave to withdraw, in which the house concurred, on the ground, as set forth in the report, that the matter complained of was exclusively of judicial cognizance, and that congress had no authority to interfere.

At the same session a bill was introduced for erecting all of that portion of the late British province of "West Florida within the jurisdiction of the United States into a government to be called the Mississippi Territory; to be constituted and regulated in all respects like the territory north-west of the Ohio, with the single exception that slavery would not be prohibited.

While this section of the act was under discussion, Thacher, of Massachusetts, having first stated that he intended to make a motion touching the rights of man, moved to strike out the exception as to slavery, so as to carry out the original project of Jefferson, as brought forward by him in the Continental Congress, of prohibiting slavery in all parts of the western territory of the United States, south as well as north of the Ohio.

Rutledge, of South Carolina, hoped that this motion would be withdrawn; not that he feared its passing, but he hoped the gentleman would not indulge himself and others in uttering philippics against a usage of most of the states merely because his and their philosophy happened to be at war with it. Surely, if his friend from Massachusetts had recollected that the most angry debate of the session had been occasioned by a motion on this very subject, he would not again have brought it forward. Such debates led to more mischief in certain parts of the Union than the gentleman was aware of, and he hoped, upon that consideration, the motion would be withdrawn. The allusion, doubtless, was to the advantage taken of these debates by the opposition to excite hostility against the federal government in those southern states in which its friends were at best but too weak.

Otis, of Massachusetts, very promptly responded to Rutledge in hoping that the motion would not be withdrawn; he wanted gentlemen from his part of the country to have an opportunity to show by their votes how little they were disposed to interfere with the southern states as to the species of property referred to.

Thacher remarked, in reply, "that he could by no means agree with his colleague (Otis.) In fact, they seldom did agree, and to-day they differed very widely indeed. The true interest of the Union would be promoted by agreeing to the amendment proposed, of which the tendency was to prevent the increase of an evil, acknowledged to be such by the very gentlemen themselves who held slaves. The gentleman from Virginia (Nicholas) had frequently told