should help bear the loss, if any there should be; — while, we say, there is this class of persons, there are others who deny that any remuneration should be given any one for acting honestly, and doing that which is just and equal; and who say the slaveholder has already received more than his just remuneration; and, as the slave has so long worked for him, it is no more than right the master should pay the debt by working for the slave in turn. There are others, again, who say there is no real property in slaves at all; that the planter would be richer without than with them; that only as they are bought and sold, and capable of being transferred, or are let out for hire, are they of any pecuniary value; that the man is more. willing to work without shackles than with them; that he is more ready to exert his inventive genius, and is really of more value, as a freeman than as a slave. Not, however, on the principle lately promulgated, because more can be wrung out of the freeman by any peculiar oppression exercised towards the employed by the employer, but because the man feels he is a freeman, and that what he does is, at least in a measure, his own choice; or that, by exerting his best powers, it may enable him to raise himself from penury and from want; whereas the slave has no such stimulus, and consequently neglects to do what he might with convenience. Having the doors for promotion nów shut against him, he has no object before him, and therefore will not work more than he can help; consequently, all that would be given - the master would be a gratuity; and, from this cause alone, the master should receive no compensation. And, further, slaveholding is a sin, both against God and man, and should at once be repented of and relinquished; and a man should no more be guilty of it than he would be guilty of theft, robbery, or murder. But, if we are correct in the position we have assumed in this work, it matters not what may be the views now held on the subject of remuneration, as our fathers have settled it in the Constitution, by giving to every man an opportunity to obtain his freedom by civil process, and without compensation, his freedom being his inalienable right. But to return to our quotations: "Mr. Tucker said he considered the memorial to be so glaring an interference with the Constitution, that he had hoped the house would not have given so much countenance to a request so improper in itself. He was sorry the society had discovered so little prudence in their memorial as to wish that congress would 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 would be attended with the most serious consequences: it may end in the 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 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 the legislature should infringe on the Constitution. For his part, he had heard nothing read that had such a tendency. Its only object was, that congress would exert their constitutional authority to abate the horrors of slavery, so far as they could. He hoped the petition would 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 its 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 on all sides." "Mr. Baldwin referred to the principles of accommodation, which prevailed at the time of forming the government. Those mutual concessions that then took place gave us a constitution which was to secure the peace and the equal rights and properties of the several States; and, to prevent all infractions of 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 consequence of such a measure in very forcible terms, and hoped the house would proceed no further in the investigation of the subject." "Mr. Smith, (S. C.) recurring to the memorial, observed that congress could not constitutionally interfere in the business, upon the prayer of the memorialist, as that went to the 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 to them and guaranteed to them by the Constitution itself, they never could have adopted it. He then depicted the miseries that would result from the interference of congress in the southern governments. He asserted, as his opinion, that, if there were no slaves in the Southern States, they would be entirely depopulated: from the nature of the country, it could not be cultivated without them. Their proprietors are persons of as much humanity as the inhabitants of any part of the continent: they are as conspicuous for their morals as any of their neighbors. "He then asserted that the Quakers are a society not known to our laws; that they stand in exactly the same situation with other religious societies: their memorial relates to a matter in which they are no more interested than any sect whatever; and it therefore must be considered in the light of advice: and is it customary to refer a piece of advice to a committee? He then contrasted this memorial with one that might be presented from the sect called Shaking Quakers, whose principles and practices are represented in a very exceptionable point of light, and asked whether congress would pay any attention to such a memorial. He hoped the memorial would not be committed." If Mr. Smith really thought that the interference of congress on the subject of slavery was unconstitutional, when so good an opportunity was offered, why did he not dwell upon this point, the strongest point he could have urged? and, if he could have shown it was not in their power to interfere, there would have been an end to the subject. But, instead of stopping on what he undoubtedly knew was an untenable point, he talks about the humanity of the slaveholder, and about the practices of the Shaking Quakers. He "Mr. Page was in favor of the commitment. hoped that the benevolent designs of the respectable memorialists would not be frustrated at the threshold, so far as to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of their memorial. He said, they do not apply for a total abolition of slavery. They only request that such measures may be taken, consistent with the Constitution, as may finally issue in the total abolition of the slave-trade. He could not conceive that the apprehensions entertained by the gentlemen from Georgia and South Carolina were well founded, as they respected the proposed interference of congress." "Mr. Madison observed it was his opinion, yesterday, that the best way to proceed in the business was to commit the memorial, without debate on the subject. From what has taken place, he was more convinced of the propriety of the idea. But, as the business has engaged the attention of many members, and much has been said by gentlemen, he would offer a few observations for the consideration of the house. He then went into a critical review of the circumstances respecting the adoption of the Constitution, the ideas upon the limitation of the powers of congress to interfere in the regulation of com |