There are but few original holders who have transferred, that can be

found; of consequence, you would throw the major part of the debt into

an intricate labyrinth. The present possessor would be shifting back the

certificate to the original holder, as far as a latitude is given. Many

persons who were bare trustees, would be reaping advantages, and drawing

money from the Public Treasury, to which they are not entitled; oaths

would be multiplied on oaths; perjuries on perjuries; fraud upon fraud;

and every species of speculation would ensue; deception would be a

strong trait in the character of the times, and the whole of the United

States would be in motion, each endeavoring to prey upon the other. The

consequences of a second inundation of this nature are to be dreaded,

and ought to be carefully avoided.

Mr. MOORE observed, that it was agreed on all hands, and proposed in the

report of the Secretary, that some discrimination ought to take place.

It was, therefore, incumbent on the House to inquire how this might be

effected with the greatest degree of equity. He supposed the result

would be, that we are at liberty to pay the most meritorious first. Who

constituted this class of citizens? He trusted the late army had an

incontrovertible title to it. He could never believe that the men who

stripped the soldiers of their hard earnings, by allowing them a tenth

of their claim, would have the temerity to pretend that they had

acquired the title of merit with their money, and that the soldier

relinquished, with his certificate, the honor of his corps.

Had the present question been agitated in the hour of distress, when an

army was essential to our defence, the arguments of justice and equity

would have had their weight. Perhaps it is the soldier's misfortune,

that the question arises at a time when the object for which he was

employed is secured. But notwithstanding all that has been said, I am

fully convinced that his claim is insuperable in equity. The soldier did

not engage to fight your battles to be compensated with a certificate,

acknowledging you were indebted to him; it was specie you promised, and

specie he had a right to expect, or something equal to it in reality.

The public faith was actually pledged to him for a compensation for his

services; but will any one say the public faith was inviolably kept with

him, when a certificate, worth but two shillings in the pound was forced

upon him as specie? The poor soldier, thus situated, was followed by

gangs of speculators, who endeavored to impose on his judgment by the

relation of artful and insidious opinions of the public capacity and

integrity in the discharge of these acknowledgments. The soldier,

incapable of detecting the specious falsehood, swallows the bait, and

becomes the easy prey of designing men. The people felt and resented the

injuries thus perpetrated on those they esteemed; and I am much mistaken

if the citizens of America do not still retain favorable impressions of

the soldiers' services.

A great deal has been said, with respect to public opinion on this

question. It is impossible, perhaps, to ascertain the public mind with

precision; but there is but one way in our power, that is, to suffer the

subject to be suspended for the present session, and on our return, or

the election of our successors, the public sentiment in this respect

will be evinced; but if we are to determine the public mind from our own

observation, I should not hesitate to say that nine out of ten would be

in favor of a discrimination. The people would, on this principle, I

conceive, submit cheerfully to the payment of those taxes which are

requisite to discharge the public engagements; but if they are to flow

into the large cities, or into the hands of foreigners, who have

speculated upon the misfortunes of the most meritorious class of our

citizens, they will bear the burthen with murmurs and complaints.

Can any principle of justice demand the payment of the present possessor

of a certificate, that does not apply more forcibly as it respects

original holders? Will gentlemen, then, comply with the one, and neglect

the other? Or rather, as my colleague has proposed, if they are

incapable to pay both, will they not prefer a composition?

Mr. WADSWORTH.--It appears to me that we have mistaken this business

from the beginning, for we are proceeding as if it was taken for granted

that all those who had alienated their certificates, have been compelled

to it by necessity; there is nothing further from the truth. So far as

it respects the army debt it may be just; and at this moment, were a

soldiery to be paid in certificates, they would part with them at as

great a discount as ever. There is a disposition in soldiers generally

to despise pecuniary considerations; if they want money, they will

dispose of their property at an inconsiderate value to obtain it. But

this remark does not extend to the industrious part of the public

creditors, because they have carefully retained the evidences of their

debt, and now will receive its value. But even of the army, it is not

true that they will suffer the loss of the discount at which their

certificates have been sold. Having an opportunity of being well

acquainted with the circumstances of the army, I know that many of the

officers lived upon their friends, who supported them from time to time,

with such sums as they had occasion for, and when they retired from the

army, they repaid their friends with the certificates which they had

received. The best way for gentlemen to ascertain the amount of the

public debt which has been transferred from necessity, is to mix in the

world, and try, from the circle of their acquaintance, to learn what the

actual transfers have been. I have done this, and am conscious within

myself, that seven-eighths of all the alienated debt has not been

disposed of by the original holder from necessity.

When the requisitions of Congress were rejected by the State Assemblies,

some of the most wealthy persons of the community, and those most

violently opposed to Continental measures, seemed to concur in the

opinion, that the States would never raise a revenue for the purpose of

paying the domestic debt. The people finding this a prevailing opinion,

were impressed with a dread of its consequences, and sold this species

of negotiable property at a rate dictated by their apprehensions. I

should conceive it as a great evil, if the Government were now to

restore to such persons what they lost for want of confidence. I think

this circumstance will operate considerably against the gentleman's

principle of equity; now, as to the practicability of the measure, those

gentlemen who are acquainted with the history of the manner in which the

public debt was contracted, will readily agree with me, that it is an

insuperable objection. In the years 1776 and 1777, very few advances

were made to those who procured supplies to the public; they purchased

what they got generally upon credit, and they were obliged, before their

accounts could be settled, and they could get their money from the

Public Treasury, to get receipts for all the articles they had

furnished, and then they received orders upon the loan-officers, who,

not having money, paid them in certificates, which these people, in

return, paid over to those who furnished them with supplies. So that the

agent appears a creditor to a very considerable amount, when his

personal claim is very trifling, and those who risked their property,

without pay of any kind, and who are undoubtedly deserving of some

credit, appeared to be no other than speculators in public securities. I

cannot see, in this case, any possible mode of discrimination. There are

a variety of other official transactions which would demonstrate the

impracticability, if it was necessary to oppose the proposition on that

ground.

WEDNESDAY, February 17.

_Public Credit._

The House again went into a committee on the report of the Secretary of

the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. PAGE.--I do not wish to trouble the committee with a formal argument

in favor of the motion offered by my colleague; but I wish to inquire of

the gentlemen in opposition, whether they conceive the principles upon

which it is grounded to be unjust? I observed, that their replies have

generally gone against the practicability of the measure; but that does

not prove to me that it is inequitable. If there is justice in the case,

we must not consider the difficulty of the attempt. I trust, if it shall

be found to stand on the foundation of immutable justice, that its

practicability will be demonstrated. However, I shall not enter on that

ground, but leave it to my colleague, who has so ably supported it on

the other.

I would, however, beg gentlemen to answer these questions, and show to

my mind the injustice of the United States complying with their

engagements made to the first holders of certificates, as far as the

case, and their abilities, will permit. Or where is the justice of doing

more for the assignee than he, or his assignor, expected could or would

be done? Where is the breach of faith in Government, if it pays its

whole debt, with a justice, blended with mercy, resembling that of

Heaven itself, making impartial retribution among the children of men,

on the great day of accounts? Where is the propriety of branding a

measure of this nature with epithets of infamy? or using such harsh

expressions as have issued like a torrent from a gentleman on the other

side of the House? So far am I from viewing the propositions through

such a discolored medium, that I am induced to believe, if Congress

adopt it, they may submit its rectitude, and stand the decision, of not

only a superior order of beings, but of the Great Judge of the Universe,

who is immutable truth itself.

What will the assignee lose by the measure? He will lose nothing, but

the sanguine expectation lately raised in his mind.

Where is the interference in contracts, when the proposition is to

comply sacredly, as far as the case will admit, with the contract

between the State and its creditors? Is not the assignment of the

certificates confirmed by the nation? Does it not give to the assignee

the very thing stipulated between the assignor and assignee, that is,

whatever sum the Government shall be pleased to pay for the certificate?

And is not the sum now proposed, more than either the first or last

assignee ever contemplated, till within a few days past, would ever be

paid him?

The time is now arrived when justice ought to be done; it is looked for,

with anxious expectation, by all classes of our fellow citizens; it will

not avail us to say, it is impracticable, until experience has

demonstrated it to be so. But the measure we contend for is termed an

_ex post facto_ law, and as such, is declared to be unconstitutional.

Gentlemen torture every thing, in order to produce evidence against an

act of justice. How can it be such an _ex post facto_ law as is

prescribed by the constitution, when that expression is conjunctive with

a bill of attainder? It relates to that only, and can have no reference

to the subject of the proposition before us. The same idea, which

prevents us from an interference on the present occasion, will prevent

us, as was observed by the gentleman from Georgia, from making a statute

of limitation, or from correcting any frauds, which have been

perpetrated on the unsuspicious soldiery. We must not contemplate the

restoration of the starving soldier, with his humble wife and numerous

and naked offspring, to a more eligible situation; we must not restore

confidence to the man of honor who is buried in abject poverty, because

it is addressing a language to the heart, which the haughtiness of the

head disdains to hear; but, in doubtful cases of justice, the heart is

the best director on this subject; happy will it be for us, if, as I

think, they both concur to give their approbation to the present

measure.

THURSDAY, February 18.

_Public Credit._

The House again went into a committee on the Secretary of the Treasury's

report, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. STONE.--I shall not attempt to show the importance of the subject

before us, as it relates to public credit; or as it will affect our

character as a nation, at home and abroad. These have been explained;

but it is proper for us to consider how far the amendment may operate to

establish a precedent of Continental and State Legislation, the

influence it may have on society, and the rules of civil conduct between

man and man. Every community must experience that the conduct of the

Government will influence the opinions of the individuals; and the

spirit of the individual will transfuse itself into the Government. This

action and reaction operates more powerfully in a Republican Government,

founded on representation, than on any other.

Our situation is made more important, on the present occasion, by a

disagreement on principles which ought to be fixed and plain; to me it

seems that we differ on the principle of public justice. This may be

unfortunate--let us endeavor to be reconciled. If the true distinction

between natural and civil justice be accurately drawn, we may annihilate

the point in contest. Agreeably to the principle of natural justice, no

contract is perfect unless there be an equivalent; and that which we

call a valuable consideration, on which to ground a contract, is founded

on the idea of an equivalent, and presupposes it. And, I believe the

idea of such a consideration being an equivalent, is the foundation of

the validity of a contract, even in the English law; and is always

carried into effect, wherever the execution is safe and certain; because

I think, whenever it appears in any court of justice, that the

consideration was not an equivalent, that then the contract is not

carried into execution. The execution of the principle of natural

justice then is safe; for instance, £99 19_s._ 11_d._ is not a

consideration for £100, but a small sum may be a consideration for a

valuable property; this does not arise from an infraction of the

principle; but because the property may not have a determinate value in

the society; and it would make judges arbitrary, legal proceedings

extremely expensive, and contracts uncertain, if an extensive discretion

as to the value was admitted. But whenever the consideration is so small

and inadequate, as to appear so plainly and satisfactorily that the

judge cannot be mistaken in determining it not to be an equivalent,

there the contract is not valid.

Now, if we have received services from the soldier, and have given him

paper, the question will be, whether that was an equivalent, and the

paper a proper payment; or whether it is only an evidence of the debt? I

take it to be a granted point that it was not a payment, but an

obligation to pay whenever the United States should be able. It appears

to me, then, that it was the duty of the person who received the paper,

to wait a reasonable time; and the duty of the nation to make actual

payment as speedily as possible. If the person who had received this

paper had wantonly parted with it for nothing, I agree we should have

been under no more obligation to pay him the expressed sum, than if we

had paid him money, and he had flung it away or wasted it; but if, on

the contrary, there was a delay in the execution of the contract, on the

part of the Government, which compelled him to part with it, a

compensation is equitable.

The same rule will apply between the original holder, or person who

rendered the service, and present possessor or assignee; for shortness

we will distinguish them by the names of soldier and speculator. The

speculator, when he dealt with the soldier, must, from the nature of the

thing, have induced him to believe that he gave him an equivalent for

his purchase; and it might have been an inducement to the soldier to

sell, to think he had something more than an equivalent; the speculator

thought he had more than an equivalent, throwing necessity on the one

side, and fraud on the other, out of the question. Then the confidence

was equal, perhaps not a penny between them: I can hardly conceive the

exchange took place on any other terms. You never can allow the

confidence of the speculator to be estimated very highly, perhaps at not

more than one for ten. For if it is admitted, that the speculator had

entire confidence, he was guilty of a palpable fraud, and a violation of

the first principle of justice; it amounted to this, that he gave £10 in

money for £100 bond, which he was certain would be paid. I believe, if

the case stood exactly in this form, no man would hesitate in deciding

its illegality. If a man takes £100 for £10, it is illegal; but suppose

there was a risk, and this risk was considered by the speculator as

little less than ten for one, has he not discovered his own mistake when

he sees he gets an interest of sixty per cent. on his capital; and that

capital tenfold? This contract then ought to be void on the principle of

a mistake; and here you place the speculator between Scylla and

Charybdis. If he really thought the certificates only worth one for ten,

you can give him no credit for his confidence; and you will admit that

he ought to be satisfied with a reasonable advance on his purchase. But

if you give him entire credit for his confidence in Government, you must

give him no credit for his honesty. If both parties had known of this

event, the contract would never have taken place. If you pay the whole

sum, the speculator ought to take no more than what he gave a fair

equivalent for. Gentlemen who seem afraid of giving to the soldier a

part of his original claim, lest they affront his nobleness of soul,

make no scruple to offer the speculator ten times the sum he is entitled

to, on the principle of natural justice, without any apprehension that

his honor will receive a wound. If the claim of the soldier was

extinguished by receiving two shillings in the pound of the speculator,

upon what principle is it contended that the latter should receive more

than distributive justice? Arguments, proving that the justice due to

the first has been satisfied by what has been done, apply with greater

force to the latter.

It has been doubted, and a question has been agitated, whether we shall

exercise the power of reconsidering these contracts, and whether a

modification is constitutionally in our power? I will not go into this

subject, or any other which ought to be taken for granted. I shall take

it, that we are authorized, and do mean to interfere; you must act. Do

you mean to pay the principal and interest now due? I believe not. Will

you shelter yourself under the plea of necessity? That is impossible. I

dare say, if the United States were sold, they would at least be worth

six hundred millions of dollars; and we have but eighty millions to

provide for. Having, then, the means and power, I trust you mean to

exercise them; and as you exercise them, you ought to exercise them as

justly as possible; then, to do this, you will, it is said, personify

the three parties concerned--the United States, the original holder, and

the speculator. I do not clearly comprehend the idea of a personified

State; perhaps it arises from my dulness of apprehension. Man, in his

natural capacity, is sometimes obliged to do what is considered unjust;

but a State, when it has power, is not obliged to do what is unjust. The

State, then, in this respect, is doing what an honest man would do, if

he had the power of conducting this business as he thought proper.

The speculator comes to you with his bond, and tells you it is due. The

soldier tells you that he has done services to a considerable amount,

for which he never has been paid; and that those evidences of the demand

which you gave to him, were obtained from him, for one-tenth part of

what they were declared to be worth. The State says to the speculator,

you have made a great deal, and out of a man who has risked his life,

and borne every burthen which human nature could bear, with the greatest

fortitude which the most virtuous heart is capable of exerting, let him

have a part back. The speculator answers no; here is your bond. Consider

again, replies the State, that the veteran's services, at the expense of

his health and property, at the risk of his life, has saved you and

yours; and not only that, but he is obliged to pay of your demand, more

than he has ever received. What is now his answer? Here is the bond, pay

me my bond. Under these circumstances, supposing the State an

individual, he might, without much infamy to his character, exercise the

power which he has over his own bond, in order to do justice between the

parties. He might say to the speculator, you had the soldier in your

power; you did him injustice; we have you now in our power, we will do

you complete justice, but no more. A private man could never be injured

in his reputation by such conduct: indeed, according to the result of

these circumstances, the hardships of war, and the breach of contract,

have unfortunately inflicted upon the man, the most meritorious in this

community, or perhaps in any other community, sufferings and miseries--a

punishment sufficient to atone for the guilt of the greatest crimes.

This, in the event, appears to be the situation of the saviors of

America.

Mr. _Madison_ said that the opponents of his proposition had imposed on

its friends not only a heavy task, by the number of their objections,

but a delicate one by the nature of some of them. It had been arranged

as an embarrassing measure which ought to be facilitated, and producing

discussions which might end in disagreeable consequences. However

painful it might be to contradict the wishes of gentlemen whom he

respected, he could promise nothing more, in the present case, than his

endeavors to disappoint their apprehensions. When his judgment could not

yield to the propositions of others, the right to make and support his

own, was a right which he could never suffer to be contested. In

exercising it, he should study to maintain that moderation and

liberality which were due to the greatness of the subject before the

committee. He felt pleasure in acknowledging, that the like spirit had,

in general, directed the arguments on the other side. Free discussions

thus conducted are not only favorable to a right decision, but to a

cheerful acquiescence of the mistaken opponents of it. They might have

the further advantage of recommending the result to the public, by fully

explaining the grounds of it. If the pretensions of a numerous and

meritorious class of citizens be not well founded, or cannot be complied

with, let them see that this is the case, and be soothed, under their

disappointment, with the proof that they have not been overlooked by

their country.

He would proceed now to review the grounds on which the proposition had

been combated; which he should do without either following those who had

wandered from the field of fair argument, or avoiding those who had kept

within its limits.

It could not have escaped the committee, that the gentlemen to whom he

was opposed, had reasoned on this momentous question as on an ordinary

case in a court of law; that they had equally strained all the maxims

that could favor the purchasing, or be adverse to the original holder;

and that they dwelt with equal pleasure on every circumstance which

could brighten the pretensions of the former, or discredit those of the

latter. He had not himself attempted, nor did he mean to undervalue the

pretensions of the actual holders. In stating them, he had even used as

strong terms as they themselves could have dictated; but beyond a

certain point he could not go. He must renounce every sentiment which he

had hitherto cherished, before his complaisance could admit that America

ought to erect the monuments of her gratitude, not to those who saved

her liberties, but to those who had enriched themselves in her funds.

All that he wished was, that the claims of the original holders, not

less than those of the actual holders, should be fairly examined and

justly decided. They had been invalidated by nothing yet urged. A debt

was fairly contracted; according to justice and good faith, it ought to

have been paid in gold or silver; a piece of paper only was substituted.

Was this paper equal in value to gold or silver? No. It was worth, in

the market, which the argument for the purchasing holders makes the

criterion, no more than one-eighth or one-seventh of that value. Was

this depreciated paper freely accepted? No. The Government offered that

or nothing. The relation of the individual to the Government, and the

circumstances of the offer, rendered the acceptance a forced, not a free

one. The same degree of constraint would vitiate a transaction between

man and man, before any Court of Equity on the face of the earth. There

are even cases where consent cannot be pretended; where the property of

the planter or farmer had been taken at the point of the bayonet, and a

certificate presented in the same manner. But why did the creditors part

with their acknowledgment of the debt? In some instances, from

necessity; in others, from a well-founded distrust of the public.

Whether from the one, or the other, they had been injured; they had

suffered loss, through the default of the debtor; and the debtor cannot,

in justice or honor, take advantage of the default.

Here, then, was a debt acknowledged to have been once due, and which

was never discharged; because the payment was forced and defective. The

balance, consequently, is still due, and is of as sacred a nature as the

claims of the purchasing holder can be; and if both are not to be paid

in the whole, is equally entitled to payment in part.

He begged gentlemen would not yield too readily to the artificial

niceties of forensic reasoning; that they would consider not the form,

but the substance--not the letter, but the equity--not the bark, but the

pith of the business. It was a great and an extraordinary case; it ought

to be decided on the great and fundamental principles of justice. He had

been animadverted upon, for appealing to the heart as well as the head;

he would be bold, nevertheless, to repeat, that, in great and unusual

questions of morality, the heart is the best judge.

It had been said, by a member from Massachusetts, that the proposition

was founded on a new principle in Congress. If the present Congress be

meant, that is not strange, for Congress itself is new; if the former

Congress be meant, it is not true, for the principle is found in an act

which had been already cited. After the pay of the army had, during the

war, been nominally and legally discharged in depreciated paper, the

loss was made up to the sufferers.

It had been said, by a member from New York, that this case was not

parallel, there being no third party like the present holders of

certificates. This objection could not be valid. The Government paid ten

dollars' worth in fact, but only one to the soldier. The soldier was

then the original holder. The soldier assigned it to the citizen; the

citizen then became the actual holder. What was the event? The loss of

the original holder was repaired, after the actual holder had been

settled with, according to the highest market value of his paper.

He did not mean, however, to decide on the whole merits of this last

transaction; or to contend for a similitude, in all respects, between

the two kinds of paper. One material difference was, that the bills of

credit, by more frequent transfers, and by dividing the change of value

among a greater number of hands, rendered the effect of less consequence

to individuals, and less sensible to the public mind. But this

difference, whatever force it might give to the claims of the purchasing

holder of certificates, could diminish nothing from the claims of the

original holders who assigned them.

It had been said, by another member from Massachusetts, that the old

Government did every thing in its power. It made requisitions, used

exhortations, and in every respect discharged its duty; but it was to be

remembered, that the debt was not due from the Government, but the

United States. An attorney, with full powers to form, without the means

to fulfil engagements, could never, by his ineffectual, though honest

efforts, exonerate his principal.

He had been repeatedly reminded of the address of Congress in 1783,

which rejected a discrimination between original and purchasing holders.

At that period, the certificates to the army, and citizens at large, had

not been issued. The transfers were confined to loan-office

certificates, were not numerous, and had been, in great part, made with

little loss to the original creditor. At present, the transfers extend

to a vast proportion of the whole debt, and the loss to the original

holders has been immense. The injustice which has taken place has been

enormous and flagrant, and makes redress a great national object. This

change of circumstances destroys the argument from the act of Congress

referred to; but if implicit regard is to be paid to the doctrines of

that act, any modification of the interest of the debt will be as

inadmissible as a modification of the principal.

It had been said, that if the losses of the original creditors are

entitled to reparation, Congress ought to repair those suffered from

paper money--from the ravages of the war, and from the act of barring

claims not produced within a limited time. As to the paper money, either

the case is applicable, or it is not: if not applicable, the argument

fails; if applicable, either the depreciated certificates ought to be

liquidated by a like scale, as was applied to the depreciated money; or

the money, even if the whole mass of it was still in circulation, ought

to be literally redeemed, like the certificates. Leaving the gentleman

to make his own choice of these dilemmas, he would only add, himself,

that if there were no other difference between the cases, the manifest

impossibility of redressing the one, and the practicability of

redressing the other, was a sufficient answer to the objection. With

respect to the towns burnt, and other devastations of war, it was

taught, by the writers on the law of nations, that they were to be

numbered among the inevitable calamities of mankind. Still, however, a

Government owed them every alleviation which it could conveniently

afford; but no authority could be found that puts on the same footing

with those calamities, such as proceed from a failure to fulfil the

direct and express obligations of the public. The just claims barred by

the act of limitation, were, in his opinion, clearly entitled to

redress. That act was highly objectionable. The public, which was

interested in shortening the term, undertook to decide, that no claim,

however just, should be admitted, if not presented within nine months.

The act made none of the exceptions usual in such acts, not even in

favor of the most distant parts of the Union. In many instances, it had

been absolutely impossible for the persons injured to know of the

regulation. Some of these instances were within his own knowledge. To

limit the duration of a law to a period, within which it could not

possibly be promulged, and then take advantage of the impossibility,

would be imitating the Roman tyrant, who posted up his edicts so high

that they could not be read, and then punished the people for not

obeying them.

It has been said, that if the purchased certificates were funded at the

rate proposed, they would fall in the market, and the holders be

injured. It was pretty certain, that the greater part, at least, would

be gainers. He believed that the highest market price, especially with

the arrears of interest incorporated, well funded at six per cent, would

prevent every loss that could justify complaint.

But foreigners had become purchasers, and ought to be particularly

respected. Foreigners, he remarked, had themselves made a difference

between the value of the foreign and domestic debt; they would,

therefore, the less complain of a difference made by Government here. It

was his opinion that the term stated in the proposition would yield a

greater profit to the foreign purchasers than they could have got for

their money if advanced by them in any of the funds of Europe.

The proposition had been charged with robbing one set of men to pay

another. If there were robbery in the case, it had been committed on the

original creditors. But, to speak more accurately, as well as more

moderately, the proposition would do no more than withhold a part from

each of two creditors, where both were not to be paid the whole.

A member from New York has asked whether an original creditor, who had

assigned his certificate, could, in conscience, accept a reimbursement

in the manner proposed? He would not deny that assignments might have

been made with such explanations, or under such circumstances, as would

have that effect; but, in general, the assignments have been made with

reference merely to the market value, and the uncertainty of the steps

that might be taken by the Government. The bulk of the creditors had

assigned under circumstances from which no scruples could arise. In all

cases where a scruple existed, the benefit of the provision might be

renounced. He would, in turn, ask the gentleman, whether there was not

more room to apprehend that the present holder, who had got his

certificate of a distressed and meritorious fellow-citizen for

one-eighth or one-tenth its ultimate value, might not feel some remorse

in retaining so unconscionable an advantage?

Similar propositions, it was said, had been made and rejected in the

State Legislatures. This was not a fact. The propositions made in the

State Legislatures were not intended to do justice to the injured, but

to seize a profit to the public.

But no petitions for redress had come from the sufferers. Was merit,

then, to be the less regarded, because it was modest? Perhaps, however,

another explanation ought to be given. Many of the sufferers were poor

and uninformed. Those of another description were so dispersed, that

their interests and efforts could not be brought forward. The case of

the purchasing holders was very different.

The constitutionality of the proposition had been drawn into question.

He asked whether words could be devised that would place the new

Government more precisely in the same relation to the real creditors

with the old? The power was the same; the obligation was the same. The

means only were varied.

An objection had been drawn from the article prohibiting _ex post facto_

laws. But as _ex post facto_ laws relate to criminal, not civil cases,

the constitution itself requires this definition, by adding to a like

restriction on the States an express one against retrospective laws of a

civil nature.

It had been said, that foreigners had been led to purchase, by their

faith in the article of the constitution relating to the public debts.

He would answer this objection by a single fact: Foreigners had shown,

by the market price in Europe, that they trusted the nature of foreign

debt more under the old Government, than the nature of the domestic debt

under the new Government.

Objections to the measure had been drawn from its supposed tendency to

impede public credit. He thought it, on the contrary, perfectly

consistent with the establishment of public credit. It was in vain to

say, that Government ought never to revise measures once decided. Great

caution on this head ought, no doubt, to be observed; but there were

situations in which, without some legislative interposition, the first

principles of justice, and the very ends of civil society, would be

frustrated. The gentlemen themselves had been compelled to make

exceptions to the general doctrine; they would probably make more before

the business was at an end.

It had been urged, that if Government should interpose in the present

case, as interposition would be authorized in any case whatever where

the stock might fluctuate, the principle would apply as well to a fall

of sixty or seventy per cent. as to a fall of six hundred or seven

hundred per cent. He could not admit this inference. A distinction was

essential between an extreme case, and a case short of it. The line was

difficult to be drawn; but it was no more incumbent on him than on his

opponents to draw it. They themselves could not deny that a certain

extremity of the evil would have justified the interposition. Suppose

that the distress of the alienating creditors had been ten times as

great as it was; that instead of two, three, and four shillings in the

pound, they had received a farthing only in the pound; and that the

certificates lay now in the hands of the purchasers in that state, or

even at a less value, was there a member who would rise up and say, that

the purchasers ought to be paid the entire nominal sum, and the original

sufferer be entitled to no indemnification whatever?

Gentlemen had triumphed in the want of a precedent to the measure. No

government, it was said, had interposed to redress fluctuations in its

public paper. But where was the government that had funded its debts

under the circumstances of the American debt? If no government had done

so, there could be no precedent either for or against the measure,

because the occasion itself was unprecedented. And if no similar

occasion had before existed in any country, the precedent to be set

would at least be harmless, because no similar occasion would be likely

to happen in this.

If gentlemen persisted, however, in demanding precedents, he was happy

in being able to gratify them with two, which, though not exactly

parallel, were, on that account, of the greater force, since the

interposition of Government had taken place where the emergency could

less require them.

The first was the case of the Canada bills. During the war which ended

in 1763, and which was attended with a revolution of the Government in

Canada, the supplies obtained for the French army in that province were

paid for in bills of exchange and certificates. This paper depreciated,

and was bought up chiefly by British merchants. The sum and the

depreciation were so considerable as to become a subject of negotiation

between France and Great Britain at the peace. The negotiations produced

a particular article, by which it was agreed by France that the paper

ought to be redeemed, and admitted by Great Britain that it should be

redeemed at a liquidated value. In the year 1766 this article was

accordingly carried into effect by ministers from the two courts, which

reduced the paper in the hands of the British holders, in some

instances, as much as seventy-five per cent. below its nominal value. It

was stated, indeed, by the reporter of the case, that the holders of the

paper had themselves concurred in the liquidation; but it was not

probable that the concurrence was voluntary. If it was voluntary, it

shows that they themselves were sensible of the equity of the sacrifice.

The other case was of still greater weight, as it had no relation to war

or treaty, and took place in the nation which has been held up as a

model with respect to public credit. In the year 1713, the civil list of

Great Britain had fallen into arrears to the amount of £500,000. The

creditors who had furnished supplies to the Government had, instead of

money, received debentures only from the respective officers. These had

depreciated. In that state, they were assigned in some instances; in

others, covenanted to be assigned. When the Parliament appropriated

funds for satisfying these arrears, they inserted an express provision

in the act, that the creditors who had been obliged, by the default of

Government, to dispose of their paper at a loss, might redeem it from

the assignees by repaying the actual price, with an interest of six per

cent., and that all agreements and covenants to assign should be

absolutely void. Here then was an interposition on the very principle,

that a Government ought to redress the wrongs sustained by its default,

and on an occasion trivial when compared to that under consideration;

yet it does not appear that the public credit of the nation was injured

by it.

The best source of confidence in Government was the apparent honesty of

its views. The proposition could not possibly be ascribed to any other

motive than this, because the public was not to gain a farthing by it.

The next source was an experienced punctuality in the payments due from

the Government. For this support to public credit, he relied on what had

been experienced by a part of the foreign creditors; on the provision to

be made for the residue; and on the punctuality which, he flattered

himself, would be observed in all future payments of the domestic

creditors. He was more apprehensive of injury to public credit from such

modifications of the interest of the public debt as some gentlemen

seemed to have in view. In these the public would be the gainer, and the

plea of inability the more alarming, because it was so easy to set up,

so difficult to be disproved, and for which, consequently, the

temptations would be so alluring.

Mr. SENEY rose and observed, that it was with reluctance he attempted to

express to the committee his ideas upon a question which had been so

fully and ably discussed. However, as it had been expected that

gentlemen would not, in a case of such magnitude, be content with merely

a silent vote, he rose to declare the reasons upon which his decision

was founded. In doing this, he hoped that he should not use epithets

which might be deemed harsh, or language which would be offensive; that

although the sentiments of other members should differ from his, he

wished so far to respect those sentiments as to treat them with decency.

He considered the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.

MADISON) was designed to effect two purposes: the one, a compensation to

the original creditors, who, during the late war, in times of distress,

had loaned money, furnished supplies, and rendered military services;

and who had only received satisfaction therefor in paper of

inconsiderable value, forced on them by the public, and depreciated by

their acts. This class of citizens, he conceived, had a just and

equitable claim for the full difference in value between that paper,

when paid, and specie. The other object of the proposition alluded to,

was, he said, to compensate those creditors who now hold alienated

certificates. Each description of those creditors had, in his opinion,

claims on the public. The first was founded on an original contract

between them and the Government, part of which only had been complied

with, and the residue still remained undischarged. The other was

grounded on having possession of the paper which contained the promise

to pay.

It has been contended that the United States have not ability to pay

both. In this case a question arises: What is, upon the whole, most just

and expedient? Some gentlemen contend, that it is incumbent on us to

make full provision for those who hold the assigned certificates,

without any for the original creditors who have alienated them. Others

think, that the misfortune of Government, in this respect, should not be

felt by either class solely, but be borne by both. That it is more just

to adopt a mode of composition, by which those creditors should mutually

share in this misfortune, and be mutually benefited by a provision

within our power to make; with those his sentiments accorded. He could

not be impressed with the justice or reason of a measure calculated to

make a total sacrifice of one class of creditors, and full payment to

the other class. Such a step could not, in his opinion, be justified in

any distinction or precedence which existed in their claims. When it was

considered that the original creditors furnished money and supplies, and

rendered services essential to the preservation of their country, and at

a time when its liberties were invaded, and every thing which can be

dear to freemen was in jeopardy and at stake, he could not apprehend

that their claims would be deemed inferior to those of their rivals. In

his opinion, these circumstances entitled them to superior notice.

Believing, however, that the amendment under consideration would, upon

the whole, effect more substantial justice than any other practicable

scheme that had been proposed to the committee, or which he had heard

of, his assent would, therefore, be given to it.

TUESDAY, February 19.

_Public Credit._

The House again went into a committee on the report of the Secretary of

the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. LIVERMORE said he was against any discrimination between the soldier

and other public creditor, who held a public security, made payable to

bearer, and consequently transferable, with intent that they might be

sold, if convenience or necessity should require it. This had been

understood by all parties, as well in America as in foreign countries,

and they had been sold accordingly. The advocates for discrimination

have not denied this; they have only alleged that the low rate at which

the poor soldier or other public creditor had sold his securities was a

sufficient reason for Congress to interfere and set aside the sale. In

opposition to this, he observed, that persons had a right to buy and

sell at such prices as they could mutually agree upon, provided there

was no fraud.

A diamond, a horse, or a lot of ground, might be sold too cheap, or too

dear, and so might any other property; but Government could not

interfere without destroying the general system of law and justice. Esau

had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and heaven and earth had

confirmed the sale. The distresses of the army, both officers and

soldiers, at the time they received and sold their securities, had been

painted in too strong colors. They were not so emaciated by sickness and

famine as had been represented. They were crowned with victory, and

received with applause by their fellow-citizens; and although they had

been paid in paper, their loss had been made up by large bounties, and

in other emoluments; so that, in point of property, they were equal to

their fellow-citizens who had borne the burden of taxes under which many

are laboring to this day. Let them be called brave soldiers, patriotic

soldiers, but not poor soldiers. They ought to be governed by the same

system of justice that governs others; but their contracts ought not to

be set aside out of partiality to them. The case quoted from the statute

of Queen Anne is not applicable to this case, inasmuch as Government had

not originally made the debentures therein mentioned transferable.

Neither did the case of the Canada bills apply; for, as he understood,

those bills were paid to British merchants and to others who had

purchased them.

Mr. MADISON.--If paper, or the honor of statues or medals can discharge

the debts of justice, payable in gold or silver, we can not only

exonerate ourselves from those due to the original holders, but from

those of the assignees. So far as paper goes, the latter have received

the compensation. If honor can discharge the debt, they have received

civil honors; look around to the officers of every Government in the

Union, and you find them sharing equal honors with those bestowed on the

original creditors. But, sir, the debt due in gold and silver is not

payable either in honor, appointments, or in paper.

Gentlemen say it will work injustice; but are we not as much bound to

repair the injustice done by the United States? Yet I do not believe the

assertion has been established by any thing that has been urged in its

support. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. STONE) acknowledges that there

is a moral obligation to compensate the original holders; how will they

get what he admits is their due? He is willing to make an effort, by

applying the resources of the country to that purpose; but if we are to

judge by the sentiments of other gentlemen who have spoken on this

occasion, we have little to expect from that quarter. Suppose the debt

had depreciated to a mere trifle, and suppose the sale of the Western

Territory had extinguished the certificates, let me ask, whether, if the

United States had thus exonerated themselves from the obligation to the

assignee, whether the claim of the original holder would not still

remain in its full force in a moral view? But believing the point of

justice to be exhausted, I will just add one remark upon the

practicability. The transferred certificates, generally, will show the

names of the original holders, and here there is no difficulty. With

respect to those granted to the heads of either of the five great

departments, the books of the Treasurer of Loans, as well as the

accounts of those departments now in the Treasury, will designate, with

a great degree of accuracy, and this may be followed up by the usual

mode of obtaining evidence; and I believe every security may be provided

against fraud in this case that was provided in the case of the

commissioners who were sent into the respective States for ascertaining

and liquidating the claims of individuals. That there will be some

difficulty I admit, but it is enough for me that it is not insuperable;

and I trust, with the assistance which the cause of equity and justice

will ever obtain from the members of the National Legislature, they will

easily be surmounted.

MONDAY, February 22.

_Public Credit._

The House then resolved itself into a committee on the Report of the

Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.

Mr. MADISON's proposition still under consideration.

Mr. PAGE.--As the worthy and eloquent member who replied to me did not

answer the questions I put to the committee, I suppose, he either did

not hear them, did not understand me, or could not answer them. I hope,

before the committee decide, they will attempt at least to resolve them.

I asked, where is the injustice of the State's complying with its

engagements made to the first holders of certificates as far as the case

admits? Where is the justice of doing more for the assignee than he or

his assignor expected could or would be done? Where is the breach of

faith in Government, if it paid its whole debt with justice, blended

with mercy? Where is the interference in contracts, when the proposition

is to comply sacredly, as far as the case will admit, with the contracts

between a State and its creditors? I asked, is not the assignment of

certificates confirmed by the motion? Does it not give to the assignee

the very thing stipulated to be given, that is, whatever sum Government

shall be pleased to pay for the certificates, for that was the condition

of the assignment? And is not the sum now proposed more than either the

first or last holder, till within these few days, supposed would be paid

him? I asked also, ought not an honest assignee to be pleased that

Government intends to do that justice to his assignor which he ought to

do himself, were the whole payment made to him? I asked, of what is the

assignee deprived but of his late sanguine expectations? I asked,

whether the proposition before us does not rather establish confidence

in Government than the contrary? For, sir, to make use of the comparison

which has been often made here between the State and an obligor on a

bond, what could give more credit to any man's bonds than to find that,

though they had depreciated to half a crown in the pound, he paid the

whole twenty shillings; ten shillings to the assignee, who had given but

two shillings and sixpence, and ten to the obligee who had sold at so

great a loss?

It is true Congress may, consistently with the rules of common law

courts, pay the bearer and take no notice of the creditors; but were a

Court of Equity instituted to decide on the case of certain speculators,

how would they decide? Government, in the most solemn manner, pledged

itself to make compensation to the soldiers, have they done it? Instead

of doing this, certain persons, who took advantage of their ignorance

and their poverty, bought up the evidence of their debt at one-eighth of

the nominal value; and in some States these very men had drawn what

constituted the principal of the purchase with six per cent. interest in

three years.

In what does the case differ between the depreciated paper and the

certificates? Paper money was redeemed at forty for one, as well to the

last as the first holder; the same principle would lead to give the last

holder of the certificate the depreciated value at which he bought it.

But we propose to work no injustice, we give the first holder, if he is

the holder still, the full value stipulated. It would not be injustice

to consider the assignee, as having paid what he advanced, in

consequence of his confidence in Government, on account of that

Government; and that the Government ought to repay him what he so

advanced; having repaid that sum, the balance ought to go to the credit

of the assignee. I am willing, on this consideration, to call the

speculator the friend and supporter of the Government, who kindly lent

us when in need, two shillings and sixpence in every pound, to advance

to the poor soldier. If certificates are the evidence of the debt, it

proves, sir, that the balance is due to him in whose name it issued.

This is the day of payment, and we must pay accordingly; and here permit

me to remark, in reply to the observation of the gentleman from New

Hampshire, (Mr. LIVERMORE,) that _Jacob_ was punished for his fraud, but

for his faith enjoyed the promise; even so let us regard those who had

so much confidence in us as to advance two shillings and sixpence to the

distressed soldier.

Mr. HEISTER was in hopes this question would be postponed for the

present, in order to go into a consideration of the ways and means:

when, if it appeared that the United States were incapable of making

full provision, it might be considered, whether one deviation would not

authorize the other? If any gentleman would make a motion to that

effect, he would second him.

The question was now taken on Mr. MADISON's proposition for a

composition, and it passed in the negative; yeas 13, nays 36.[35]

WEDNESDAY, March 17.

_On Slavery._

The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the

Report of the committee, to whom was referred the memorial of the people

called Quakers, &c., Mr. BENSON in the chair.

The question of order was put, when it was determined that Mr. TUCKER's

last amendment was not in order.

The report was then taken up by paragraphs. The first proposition being

read,

Mr. WHITE moved that it be struck out. He did this, he said, because he

was against entering into a consideration at this time of the powers of

Congress. He thought it would be time enough for this when the powers

are called in question. He then read the next, which he said was

entirely unnecessary, as it contains nothing more than what is contained

in express terms in the constitution. He passed on to the third, which

he said was equally unnecessary; and to the fourth, which was provided

for by the constitution. He said, that he should agree to the fifth and

sixth, with certain modifications. Agreeable to this idea, he offered

those two in a different form. He disagreed to the seventh proposition,

as unnecessary and improper. He concluded by observing, that his wish

was to promote the happiness of mankind--and among the rest those who

are the objects of the present consideration--but this he wished to do

in conformity to the principles of justice and with a due regard to the

peace and happiness of others; he would contribute all in his power to

their comfort and well-being while in a state of slavery; but he was

fully of opinion that Congress has no right to interfere in the

business, any further than he proposed by the two propositions as

modified. He did not, however, anticipate the difficulties from a total

prohibition which some gentlemen seem to apprehend--and if Congress had

it in their power to interdict this business at the present moment, he

did not think the essential interests of the Southern States would

suffer. Twenty years ago, he supposed the idea he now suggested would

have caused universal alarm. Virginia, however, about twelve years

since, prohibited the importation of negroes from Africa, and the

consequences apprehended never were realized; on the contrary, the

agriculture of that State was never in a more flourishing situation.

Mr. HARTLEY.--I have the honor to be one of the committee on the

memorials, and will, with the leave of this committee, mention some

particulars which took place in the course of the investigation of the

business. He premised that he was sorry that the question of right had

been brought forward yesterday--and was not a little surprised to hear

the cause of slavery advocated in that House, and language held towards

the petitioners which his experience had never shown to be

Parliamentary--he read some memorandums taken in committee, and had

particular reference to a law passed in Grenada, which he applauded for

its humanity, and truly benevolent spirit. He reprobated the illiberal

treatment which the memorialists had received, and asserted that they

were friends to the constitution, and that on the present occasion they

came forward from the most laudable motives, from a wish to promote the

happiness of mankind; that their conduct, so far from meriting censure,

deserved, and would receive, the applause of the civilized world.

Mr. BROWN, in a considerable speech, advocated the motion of Mr. WHITE.

He enlarged on the pernicious consequences that may be expected to flow

from the interference of Congress; he pointed out the effects which had

resulted from the interposition of the Quakers, by which the prospects

of the Southern States in slaves had been rendered very precarious--and

if Congress should adopt the report as it stands, the consequences would

be pernicious in the highest degree. The negro property will be

annihilated. The emancipation of slaves will be effected in time, it

ought to be a gradual business; but he hoped that Congress would not, to

gratify people who never had been friendly to the independence of

America, precipitate the business to the great injury of the Southern

States.

Mr. BURKE entered into a very extensive consideration of the subject. He

gave an account of the humane treatment which the slaves of the Southern

States received, their habitations, families, children, privileges, &c.

He then showed that their emancipation would tend to make them wretched

in the highest degree. He animadverted with great freedom on the past

and present conduct of the Quakers. He denied that they were the friends

of freedom; he said, that during the late war, they were for bringing

this country under a foreign yoke; they descended to the character of

spies; they supplied the enemy with provisions; they were guides and

conductors to their armies; and whenever the American army came into

their neighborhood, they found themselves in an enemy's country. Mr.

BURKE was proceeding in this strain, when he was interrupted by being

called to order. A warm altercation ensued, and in the midst of it, a

motion was made that the committee rise. This motion was negatived, and

Mr. BURKE added a few more observations on the injustice of the measure

of interference, as it respected the property of the Southern States.

Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina) said he lamented much that this subject

had been brought before the House; that he had deprecated it from the

beginning, because he foresaw that it would produce a very unpleasant

discussion; that it was a subject of a nature to excite the alarms of

the Southern members, who could not view, without anxiety, any

interference in it on the part of Congress. He remarked, that as they

were resolved into a Committee of the Whole on the powers of Congress

respecting slavery and the slave trade, in consequence of certain

memorials from the people called Quakers and the Pennsylvania Society

for the abolition of slavery, the whole subject, as well as the contents

of these memorials, was under consideration. He should therefore enter

into the business at large, and offer some comments on the contents of

the memorial.

The memorial from the Quakers contained, in his opinion, a very indecent

attack on the character of those States which possess slaves. It

reprobates slavery as bringing down reproach on the Southern States, and

expatiates on the detestation due to the licentious wickedness of the

African trade, and the inhuman tyranny and bloodguiltiness inseparable

from it. He could not but consider it as calculated to fix a stigma of

the blackest nature on the State he had the honor to represent, and to

hold its citizens up to public view as men divested of every principle

of honor and humanity. Considering it in that light, he felt it

incumbent on him not only to refute those atrocious calumnies, but to

resent the improper language made use of by the memorialists. Before he

entered into the discussion, he begged to observe, that when any class

of men deviated from their own religious principles, and officiously

came forward in a business with which they had no concern, and attempted

to dictate to Congress, he could not ascribe their conduct to any other

cause but to an intolerant spirit of persecution. This application came

with the worst grace possible from the Quakers, who professed never to

intermeddle in politics, but to submit quietly to the laws of the

country.

He had met with a publication which came out in the year 1775, (at a

period when the affairs of America were in a very desponding situation,)

entitled "The ancient Testimony and Principles of the Quakers." It set

forth that their religious principles restrained them from having any

hand or connivance in setting up and putting down kings and governments;

that this was God's peculiar prerogative for causes best known to

himself; that it was not their business to be busybodies above their

stations, but only to pray for the King and safety of their nation, that

they might live a quiet and peaceable life, under the Government which

God was pleased to set over them. If these were really their

sentiments, why did they not abide by them? Why did they not leave that,

which they call God's work, to be managed by himself? Those principles

should instruct them to wait with patience and humility for the event of

all public measures, and to receive that event as the Divine will. Their

conduct on this occasion proved that they did not believe what they

professed, or that they had not virtue enough to practise what they

believed. Did they mean to rob the Almighty of what they call his

prerogative? And were they not partial ministers of their own

acknowledged principles? It was difficult to credit their pretended

scruples; because, while they were exclaiming against the Mammon of this

world, they are hunting after it with a step steady as time, and an

appetite keen as the grave.

The memorial from the Pennsylvania Society applied, in express terms,

for an emancipation of slaves, and the report of the committee appeared

to hold out the idea that Congress might exercise the power of

emancipating after the year 1808; for it is said that Congress could not

emancipate slaves prior to that period. He remarked, that either the

power of manumission still remained with the several States, or it was

exclusively vested in Congress; for no one would contend that such a

power would be concurrent in the several States and the United States.

He then showed that the State Governments clearly retained all the

rights of sovereignty which they had before the establishment of the

constitution, unless they were exclusively delegated to the United

States; and this could only exist where the Constitution granted, in

express terms, an exclusive authority to the Union, or where it granted

in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the

States from exercising the like authority, or where it granted an

authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would

be repugnant.

He applied these principles to the case in question; and asked, whether

the constitution had, in express terms, vested the Congress with the

power of manumission? Or whether it restrained the States from

exercising that power? Or whether there was any authority given to the

Union, with which the exercise of this right by any State would be

inconsistent? If these questions were answered in the negative, it

followed that Congress had not an exclusive right to the power of

manumission. Had it a concurrent right with the States? No gentleman

would assert it, because the absurdity was obvious. For a State

regulation on the subject might differ from a Federal regulation; in

which case one or the other must give way. As the laws of the United

States were paramount to those of the individual States, the Federal

regulations would abrogate those of the States, consequently the States

would thus be divested of a power which it was evident they now had, and

might exercise whenever they thought proper. But admitting that

Congress had authority to manumit the slaves in America, and were

disposed to exercise it, would the Southern States acquiesce in such a

measure without a struggle? Would the citizens of that country tamely

suffer their property to be torn from them? Would even the citizens of

the other States, which did not possess this property, desire to have

all the slaves let loose upon them? Would not such a step be injurious

even to the slaves themselves? It was well known that they were an

indolent people, improvident, averse to labor: when emancipated, they

would either starve or plunder. Nothing was a stronger proof of the

absurdity of emancipation than the fanciful schemes which the friends to

the measure had suggested; one was, to ship them out of the country, and

colonize them in some foreign region. This plan admitted that it would

be dangerous to retain them within the United States after they were

manumitted: but surely it would be inconsistent with humanity to banish

these people to a remote country, and to expel them from their native

soil, and from places to which they had a local attachment. It would be

no less repugnant to the principles of freedom, not to allow them to

remain here, if they desired it. How could they be called freemen, if

they were, against their consent, to be expelled from the country? Thus

did the advocates for emancipation acknowledge that the blacks, when

liberated, ought not to remain here to stain the blood of the whites by

a mixture of the races.

Another plan was to liberate all those who should be born after a

certain limited period. Such a scheme would produce this very

extraordinary phenomenon, that the mother would be a slave and her child

would be free. These young emancipated negroes, by associating with

their enslaved parents, would participate in all the debasements which

slavery is said to occasion. But allowing that a practicable scheme of

general emancipation could be devised, there can be no doubt that the

two races would still remain distinct. It is known, from experience,

that the whites had such an idea of their superiority over the blacks,

that they never even associated with them; even the warmest friends to

the blacks kept them at a distance, and rejected all intercourse with

them. Could any instance be quoted of their intermarrying; the Quakers

asserted that nature made all men equal, and that the difference of

color should not place negroes on a worse footing in society than the

whites; but had any of them ever married a negro, or would any of them

suffer their children to mix their blood with that of a black? They

would view with abhorrence such an alliance.

Mr. S. then read some extracts from Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia,

proving that negroes were by nature an inferior race of beings; and that

the whites would always feel a repugnance at mixing their blood with

that of the blacks. Thus, he proceeded, that respectable author, who was

desirous of countenancing emancipation, was, on a consideration of the

subject, induced candidly to avow that the difficulties appeared

insurmountable. The friends to manumission had said, that by prohibiting

the further importation of slaves, and by liberating those born after a

certain period, a gradual emancipation might take place, and that in

process of time the very color would be extinct, and there would be none

but whites. He was at a loss to learn how that consequence would result.

If the blacks did not intermarry with the whites, they would remain

black to the end of time; for it was not contended that liberating them

would whitewash them; if they would intermarry with the whites, then the

white race would be extinct, and the American people would be all of the

mulatto breed. In whatever light, therefore, the subject was viewed, the

folly of emancipation was manifest. He trusted these considerations

would prevent any further application to Congress on this point, and

would so far have weight with the committee as to reject the clause

altogether, or at least to declare, in plain terms, that Congress has no

right whatever to manumit the slaves of this country.

Various objections, said he, had at different times been alleged against

the abominable practice, as it had been called, of one man exercising

dominion over another; but slavery was no new thing in the world. The

Romans, the Greeks, and other nations of antiquity, held slaves at the

time Christianity first dawned on society, and the professors of its

mild doctrines never preached against it. [Here Mr. S. read a quotation

from the Roman and Grecian History, and from some accounts of the

government and manners of the people of Africa, before they had any

knowledge of the African traders, from which it appeared that slavery

was not disapproved of by the Apostles when they went about diffusing

the principles of Christianity; and that it was not owing to the African

trade, as had been alleged, that the people of Africa made war on each

other.]

Another objection against slavery was, that the number of slaves in the

Southern States weakened that part of the Union, and in case of invasion

would require a greater force to protect it. Negroes, it was said, would

not fight; but he would ask whether it was owing to their being black or

to their being slaves? if to their being black, then unquestionably

emancipating them would not remedy the evil, for they would still remain

black; if it was owing to their being slaves, he denied the position:

for it was an undeniable truth, that in many countries slaves made

excellent soldiers. In Russia, Hungary, Poland, peasants were slaves,

and yet were brave troops. In Scotland, not many years ago, the Highland

peasants were absolute slaves to their lairds, and they were renowned

for their bravery. The Turks were as much enslaved as the negroes--their

property and lives were at the absolute disposal of the Sultan, yet they

fought with undaunted courage. Many other instances might be quoted,

but those would suffice to refute the fact. Had experience proved that

the negroes would not make good soldiers? He did not assert that they

would, but they had never been tried; discipline was every thing; white

militia made but indifferent soldiers before they were disciplined. It

was well known that according to the present art of war, a soldier was a

mere machine, and he did not see why a black machine was not as good as

a white one; in one respect the black troops would have the advantage in

appearing more horrible in the eyes of the enemy. But admitting that

they would not fight, to what would the argument lead? Undoubtedly to

show that the Quakers, Moravians, and all the non-resisting and

non-fighting sects, constitute the weakness of the country. Did they

contribute to strengthen the country against invasion by staying at home

and joining the invader as soon as he was successful? But they furnished

money, he should be told, and paid substitutes; and did not the slaves,

by increasing the agriculture of the country, add to its wealth, and

thereby increase its strength? Did they not moreover perform many

laborious services in the camp and in the field, assist in transporting

baggage, conveying artillery, throwing up fortifications, and thus

increase the numbers in the ranks by supplying their places in these

services? Nor was it necessary that every part of the empire should

furnish fighting men; one part supplied men, another money; one part was

strong in population, another in valuable exports, which added to the

opulence of the whole. Great Britain obtained no soldiers from her East

and West India settlements, were they therefore useless? She was obliged

to send troops to protect them, but their valuable trade furnished her

with means of paying those troops.

Another objection was that the public opinion was against slavery. How

did that appear? Were there any petitions on the subject excepting that

from the Pennsylvania Society and a few Quakers? And were they to judge

for the whole Continent? Were the citizens of the Northern and Eastern

States to dictate to Congress on a measure in which the Southern States

were so deeply interested? There were no petitions against slavery from

the Southern States, and they were the only proper judges of what was

for their interest. The toleration of slavery in the several States was

a matter of internal regulation and policy, in which each State had a

right to do as she pleased, and no other State had any right to

intermeddle with her policy or laws. If the citizens of the Northern

States were displeased with the toleration of slavery in the Southern

States, the latter were equally disgusted with some things tolerated in

the former.

He had mentioned on a former occasion the dangerous tenets and

pernicious practices of the sect of Shaking Quakers, who preached

against matrimony, and whose doctrine and example, if they prevailed,

would either depopulate the United States, or people it with a spurious

race. However the people of South Carolina reprobated the gross and

immoral conduct of these Shakers, they had not petitioned Congress to

expel them from the Continent, though they thought such a measure would

be serviceable to the United States.

The Legislature of South Carolina had prohibited theatrical

representations, deeming them improper; but they did not trouble

Congress with an application to abolish them in New York and

Philadelphia. The Southern citizens might also consider the toleration

of Quakers as an injury to the community, because in time of war they

would not defend their country from the enemy, and in time of peace they

were interfering in the concerns of others, and doing every thing in

their power to excite the slaves in the Southern States to insurrection;

notwithstanding which, the people of those States had not required the

assistance of Congress to exterminate the Quakers.

But he could not help observing, that this squeamishness was very

extraordinary at this time. The Northern States knew that the Southern

States had slaves before they confederated with them. If they had such

an abhorrence for slavery, why, said Mr. S., did they not cast us off

and reject our alliance? The truth was, that the best informed part of

the citizens of the Northern States knew that slavery was so ingrafted

into the policy of the Southern States, that it could not be eradicated

without tearing up by the roots their happiness, tranquillity, and

prosperity; that if it were an evil, it was one for which there was no

remedy, and therefore, like wise men, they acquiesced in it. We, on the

other hand, knew that the Quaker doctrines had taken such deep root in

some of the States, that all resistance to them must be useless; we

therefore made a compromise on both sides--we took each other, with our

mutual bad habits and respective evils, for better, for worse; the

Northern States adopted us with our slaves, and we adopted them with

their Quakers. There was then an implied compact between the Northern

and Southern people that no step should be taken to injure the property

of the latter, or to disturb their tranquillity. It was therefore with

great pain that he viewed the anxiety of some of the members to pay such

uncommon respect to the memorialists, as even to set aside the common

rules of proceeding, and attempt to commit the memorials the very day

they were presented, though the Southern members had solicited one day's

delay. Such proceedings had justly raised an alarm in the minds of

himself and his Southern colleagues; and feeling that alarm, they would

have acted a dishonorable part to their constituents had they not

expressed themselves with that warmth and solicitude which some

gentlemen had disapproved.

A proper consideration of this business must convince every candid mind

that emancipation would be attended with one or other of these

consequences: either that a mixture of the races would degenerate the

whites, without improving the blacks, or that it would create two

separate classes of people in the community, involved in inveterate

hostility, which would terminate in the massacre and extirpation of one

or the other, as the Moors were expelled from Spain, and the Danes from

England. The negroes would not be benefited by it; free negroes never

improve in talents, never grow rich, and continue to associate with the

people of their own color. This is owing either to the natural aversion

the whites entertain towards them, and an opinion of the superiority of

their race, or to the natural attachment the blacks have to those of

their own color; in either case it proves that they will, after

manumission, continue a distinct people, and have separate interests.

The author already quoted has proved that they are an inferior race even

to the Indians.

After the last war, a number of negroes which had been stolen from the

Southern States, and carried to England, either quitted the persons who

had carried them there, or were abandoned by them. Unable to provide for

themselves, and rejected from the society of the common people of

England, they were begging about the streets of London in great numbers;

they supplicated captains of vessels to carry them back to their owners

in America, preferring slavery there to freedom in England. Many of them

were shipped to Africa by the humanity of the English, and were either

butchered or made slaves of by their savage countrymen, or reshipped for

sale to the plantations.

But some persons have been of opinion, that if the further importation

of slaves could be prohibited, there would be a gradual extinction of

the species. Having shown the absurdity of liberating the _postnati_

without extending it to all the slaves old and young, and the great

absurdity and even impracticability of extending it to all, I shall say

a few words with regard to the extinction. That would be impossible,

because they increase; to occasion an extinction, Congress must prohibit

all intercourse between the sexes; this would be an act of humanity they

would not thank us for, nor would they be persuaded that it was for

their own good; or Congress must, like Herod, order all the children to

be put to death as soon as born. If, then, nothing but evil would result

from emancipation, under the existing circumstances of the country, why

should Congress stir at all in the business, or give any countenance to

such dangerous applications? We have been told that the Government ought

to manifest a disposition inimical to this practice which the people

reprobate. If some citizens, from misinformation and ignorance, have

imbibed prejudices against the Southern States, if ill-intentioned

authors have related false facts, and gross misrepresentations tending

to traduce the character of a whole State, and to mislead the citizens

of other States, is that a sufficient reason why a large territory is to

be depopulated, merely to gratify the wish of some misinformed

individuals? But what have the citizens of the other States to do with

our slaves? Have they any right to interfere with our internal policy?

This is not an object of general concern, for I have already proved that

it does not weaken the Union; but admit that it did, will the abolition

of slavery strengthen South Carolina? It can only be cultivated by

slaves; the climate, the nature of the soil, ancient habits, forbid the

whites from performing the labor. Experience convinces us of the truth

of this. Great Britain made every attempt to settle Georgia by whites

alone, and failed, and was compelled at length to introduce slaves;

after which that State increased very rapidly in opulence and

importance. If the slaves are emancipated, they will not remain in that

country; remove the cultivators of the soil, and the whole of the low

country, all the fertile rice and indigo swamps will be deserted, and

become a wilderness. What, then, becomes of its strength? Will such a

scheme increase it? Instead of increasing the population of the whites,

there will be no whites at all. If the low country is deserted, where

will be the commerce, the valuable exports of that country, the large

revenue raised from its imports and from the consumption of the rich

planters? In a short time, the Northern and Eastern States will supply

us with their manufactures; if you depopulate the rich low country of

South Carolina and Georgia, you will give us a blow which will

immediately recoil on yourselves. Suppose there are one hundred and

forty thousand slaves in those States, which require annually five yards

of cloth each, making seven hundred thousand yards at half a dollar a

yard, this makes three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, besides the

articles of linen, flannel, Osnaburgh, blankets, molasses, sugar, and

rum, for the use of the negroes; now, either the Eastern and Middle

States will supply us with all these articles, or they will receive the

benefit of the impost on them if they are imported from foreign

countries. Without the rice swamps of Carolina, Charleston would decay,

so would the commerce of that city; this would injure the back country.

If you injure the Southern States, the injury would reach our Northern

and Eastern brethren; for the States are links of one chain; if we break

one, the whole must fall to pieces. Thus it is manifest, that in

proportion to the increase of our agriculture will our wealth be

increased; the increase of which will augment that of our sister States,

which will either supply us with their commodities, or raise a large

revenue upon us, or be the carriers of our produce to foreign markets.

It has been said, that the toleration of slavery brings down reproach on

America. It only brings reproach on those who tolerate it, and we are

ready to bear our share. We know that none but prejudiced and uncandid

persons, who have hastily considered the subject, and are ignorant of

the real situation of the Southern States, throw out these insinuations.

We found slavery ingrafted in the very policy of the country when we

were born, and we are persuaded of the impolicy of removing it; if it be

a moral evil, it is like many others which exist in all civilized

countries, and which the world quietly submit to. Humanity has been a

topic of declamation on this subject: that sentiment has different

operations on different individuals, and he had it in his power to show,

that humanity first gave origin to the transportation of slaves from

Africa into America. _Bartholomew de las Casas_, Bishop of Chiapa, a

Spaniard renowned for his humanity and virtues, in order to save the

Indians in South America from slavery, prevailed on his monarch to

substitute Africans, which were accordingly purchased on the coast of

Africa, and shipped to the Spanish colonies to work in the mines: this

appears in _Robertson's History of America_, which Mr. S. quoted. At

this day, the Spaniards give considerable encouragement to the

transportation of slaves into their islands. Mr. S. read the edict for

that purpose.

Another objection is, that slavery vitiates and debases the mind of the

owner of this sort of property. Where, he asked, is the proof of this

allegation? Do the citizens of the Southern States exhibit more

ferociousness in their manners, more barbarity in their dispositions,

than those of the other States? Are crimes more frequently committed

there? A proof of the absurdity of this charge may be found in the

writings of those who wish to disseminate this mischievous idea, and

yet, in their relations of facts, they themselves contradict it. They

lay down general principles, which they take upon credit from others, or

which they publish with sinister views, and when they enter into a

detail of the history of those States, they overset their own doctrines.

Thus, one writer tells us, that the Southern citizen, who is educated in

principles of superiority to the slaves which surround him, has no idea

of government, obedience, and good order, till he mingles with the hardy

and free-spirited yeomanry of the North, and that after mixing with

them, he will return home with his mind more enlarged, his views more

liberalized, and his affections rectified, and he becomes a more

generous friend to the rights of human nature. But hear what the Eastern

traveller is to learn by visiting the enslaved regions of the South. He

will see, says the same writer, immediately after, industry crowned with

affluence, independence, hospitality, liberality of manners; and,

notwithstanding the prevalence of domestic slavery, he will find the

noblest sentiments of freedom and independence to predominate; he will

extol their enterprise, art, and ingenuity, and will reflect that nature

is wise, and that Providence in the distribution of its favors is not

capricious. Take another striking instance of this contradiction from

Morse's Geography. He says, that there are more slaves than free persons

in South Carolina, and mentions the mischievous influence of slavery on

their manners, which, he observes, by exempting them from the necessity

of labor, leads to luxury, dissipation, and extravagance, and savors too

much of a haughty, supercilious behavior; that the inhabitants want that

enterprise and perseverance which are necessary for the attainment of

the arts and sciences; that they have few motives to enterprise, and too

generally rest contented with barely knowledge enough to transact the

common affairs of life. Now, for the author's proofs: they are contained

in these words:

"Many of the inhabitants spare no pains nor expense in giving the

highest polish of education to their children; literature has begun to

flourish since the peace; several flourishing academies and colleges

have been established; the ladies have an engaging softness and delicacy

in their manners; theatrical exhibitions have been prohibited by law;

gaming of all kinds is more discountenanced than in any of the Southern

States; all denominations of religion are on an equal footing; commerce

is flourishing; economy is becoming more fashionable, and science begins

to spread her salutary influence among the citizens."

But was South Carolina, at the commencement of the war, with all her

slaves, backward in her resistance to Great Britain? View the conduct of

her citizens, their zeal and ardor in the cause of liberty; their labor

at Fort Sullivan. Are crimes more frequent in that country than in the

other States? Are there more executions? I believe there have been as

few as in any part of the Continent, and those which have taken place

have been generally of emigrant convicts, or fugitive wheel-barrow men;

he would be bold to assert that in no State on the Continent is there

more order, sobriety, and obedience to good government; more industry

and frugality; nor is there any trace of the influence of slavery on the

character of her citizens.

The French, so far from curbing and cramping the African trade with

needless regulations, give large premiums upon every negro landed on

their islands; in some instances as much as two hundred livres per head.

Is that nation more debased than others? Are they not a polished people,

sensible of the rights of mankind, and actuated by proper sentiments of

humanity? The Spaniards encourage slavery; they are people of the nicest

honor, proverbially so. The Romans and Greeks had slaves, and are not

their glorious achievements held up as excitements to great and

magnanimous actions? Sparta teemed with slaves at the time of her

greatest fame as a valiant Republic. The absolute power of the

Lacedæmonians over the Helotes is frequently spoken of by the ancient

writers; they were not only the slaves of the Commonwealth, but of every

individual; they could not be set at liberty, neither could they be

sold; hence arose a saying, that a free man at Sparta was most a free

man, and a slave most a slave.

The system of the Roman policy with regard to slavery was still more

severe. Slaves were not even under the protection of the laws; they were

considered as things, _inter res_. A master, merely from caprice, might

torture, dismember, and even murder his slave. If a slave did any damage

exceeding his value, he was delivered to the person injured, who did

with him what he pleased. Yet these slaves were of the same color as

their masters, and equal to them in mental faculties; many of them were

men of great learning, philosophers, poets, &c. Much had been said of

the cruel treatment of slaves in the West Indies and the Southern

States; with respect to the latter, he denied the fact from experience,

and accurate information, and believed in his conscience that the slaves

in South Carolina were a happier people than the lower order of whites

in many countries he had visited. With regard to the West Indies, _Lord

Rodney_ and _Admiral Barrington_ had both declared, that they had spent

some time in the West Indies, and that they had never heard of a negro

being cruelly treated; that they had often spoken of their happiness in

high terms, declaring that they should rejoice exceedingly if the

English day laborer was half as happy. Some have said that slavery is

unnecessary; so far from it, that several essential manufactures

depended on it. Indigo, cochineal, and various other dyeing materials,

which are the produce of the West Indies, could only be raised by

slaves; the great staple commodities of the South would be annihilated

without the labor of slaves. It is well known that when the African

slaves were brought to the coast for sale, it was customary to put to

death all those who were not sold; the abolition of the slave trade

would therefore cause the massacre of the people.

The cruel mode of transportation was another motive to this abolition;

but was it to be presumed that the merchants would so far attend to

their own interests as to preserve the lives and the health of the

slaves on the passage. All voyages must be attended with

inconveniencies, and those from Africa to America not more than others.

As to their confinement on board, it was no more than necessary; as to

the smallness of space allotted them, it was more than was allotted to

soldiers in a camp; for the measurement of cubical air breathed by the

Africans, compared with that of soldiers in a camp, was in favor of the

former as thirty to seventeen; it was full as much as was allotted in

ships of war to seamen, who, by the laws of England, were frequently on

their return to their families, after a long and dangerous voyage,

seized by violence, hurried away by a press-gang, and forced on another

voyage more tedious and perilous than the first, to a hot and sickly

climate, where several hundreds of them were stowed away in the hold of

a vessel. In cases of disobedience, the captain had a right, for slight

offences, to inflict on them corporal punishment without the

intervention of a court-martial, and in other cases they are punishable

by very severe laws, executed by martial courts, established for that

purpose. The same may be observed of the soldiers, who were frequently

flogged severely for trifling offences; instances have been known of

their being put under the care of a surgeon, after receiving a small

part of the intended flagellation, to refit them for the residue.

Having thus removed the force of the observations which have been

advanced against the toleration of slavery, by a misguided and

misinformed humanity, I shall only add, that I disapprove of the whole

of the report; because it either states some power sufficiently

expressed in the constitution, which is unnecessary, or it sets forth

some power which I am clear Congress do not possess. The concluding

paragraph is an extraordinary one. In what mode are the memorialists to

be informed of our humane dispositions? Are we to send a special

committee to inform them? Or is the Speaker to write them a letter, or

the Sergeant-at-Arms with the mace to wait on them? In short, Mr.

Chairman, the whole of this business has been wrong from beginning to

end, and as one false step generally leads to others, so has the hasty

commitment of these memorials involved us in all this confusion and

embarrassment. I hope, therefore, if any kind of report is agreed to, it

will be something like that proposed by my colleague.

The committee rose, and reported progress.

FRIDAY, March 19.

HUGH WILLIAMSON, a member from North Carolina, appeared and took his

seat.

MONDAY, March 22.

_Subject of Slavery._

Mr. BOUDINOT said, although he most heartily approved of many of the

arguments and doctrines of his friend from Pennsylvania, yet he could

not go all lengths with him. He thought with him, that our time had been

taken up, and great labor had been used in arguments that nowise related

to the merits of the question before the committee, but he could not

agree that the clause in the constitution relating to the want of power

in Congress "to prohibit the importation of such persons, as any of the

States _now existing_ shall think proper to admit, prior to the year

1808, and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation, not exceeding

ten dollars for each person," did not extend to negro slaves. Candor

required that he should acknowledge, that this was the express design of

the constitution, and, therefore, Congress could not interfere in

prohibiting the importation, or promoting the emancipation of them,

prior to that period. He said he was well informed that the tax or duty

of ten dollars was provided instead of the five per cent. _ad valorem_,

and was so expressly understood by all parties in the Convention. That

therefore it was the interest and duty of Congress to impose this tax,

or it would not be doing justice to the States, or equalizing the duties

throughout the Union. If this was not done, merchants might bring their

whole capitals into this branch of trade, and save paying any duties

whatever. Mr. B. had hoped that the great lengths to which the gentleman

from Pennsylvania had carried the argument, would have convinced

gentlemen in the opposition of the propriety, if not the necessity of

the resolutions on the table. Is it not prudent now, while the design of

the framers of the constitution is well known, and while the best

information can be obtained, for Congress to declare their sense of it,

on points which the gentlemen say, involve their great and essential

interests, especially when the gentleman from Pennsylvania gives so

different a construction to it from what the gentleman from the

Southward thinks right? Is it not advantageous to the Southern States to

have an explicit declaration calming their fears and preventing

unnecessary jealousies on this subject? Can there be any foundation for

alarm, when Congress expressly declare, that they have no power of

interference prior to the year 1808? But gentlemen say they have been

charged with impropriety of conduct, in discovering so much warmth and

earnestness, on a subject with which their dearest interests are so

intimately connected--that all men are led by interest, and they are

justified in pursuing the same line of conduct.

Mr. B. declared, for his own part, he never blamed them for standing

forth for what they conceived the true interests of their constituents;

but it was the manner in which this had been done, that he complained

of. On resolutions declaring that Congress had not power to prohibit the

importation of slaves into any State, or interfering in their

emancipation or internal government, long arguments had been used, and

much precious time had been spent, to prove the lawfulness of the

African trade in slaves; this, indeed, was an arduous task, in this day

of light and knowledge. An author, said to be of reputation, was brought

forward to prove the state of that unhappy country, but it turned out to

be in the fifteenth century; this could be of little avail. An hour was

taken up in reading the labors of a newspaper writer in the island of

Jamaica. This writer appeared wholly uninformed as to historic facts

relating to the miserable Africans, and as ignorant of the principal

arguments against the slave trade. It was necessary for him to deny the

authority of _Anthony Benezet_, who had published some pointed facts on

the subject. Mr. _Benezet_ was a man of the strictest integrity, and of

the best information--a man that was an honor to his country, and an

ornament to society. Mr. B. had been well acquainted with him, and spoke

from personal knowledge; he had examined into the facts from captains of

Guineamen, and a person who had lived twelve years in that country, and

he could say, with confidence, that _Mr. Benezet's_ account had been

generally confirmed. Not only the practice of ancient nations, and that

of all modern Europe, had been brought into view, but even the sacred

Scriptures had been quoted, to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is

true, that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred

years, and Mr. B. doubted not, but much the same arguments as had been

used on the present occasion, had been urged with great violence by the

King of Egypt, whose heart, it is expressly said, had been extremely

hardened, to show why he should not consent to let the children of

Israel go, who had now become absolutely necessary to him; but, said he,

gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed; they were

delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm, and it ought to be

remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance

is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. The New Testament has

afforded a number of texts to countenance this doctrine, in the

gentleman's opinion. One would have imagined that the uniform tenor of

the Gospel, that breathes a spirit of love and universal philanthropy to

our fellow-creatures--that commands our love to our neighbor to be

measured by our love to ourselves--that teaches us that whatsoever we

would that men should do to us to do so to them, would have prevented

this misapplication. Surely the gentleman overlooked the prophecy of St.

Peter, where he foretells, that, among other damnable heresies, "through

covetousness shall they, with feigned words, make merchandise of you."

A quotation from a modern author, of great note in the philosophical

world, has been most ungenerously made use of by the newspaper writer

before referred to--I mean from the works of the famous _Mr. Paley_,

whose treatise on Moral Philosophy does him the greatest credit--a

single sentence or two is taken from this work, without regard to the

connection, to brand him with the charge of countenancing slavery. Mr.

B. then produced the book and read the passage, wherein it appeared that

_Mr. Paley_ laid down "the obligation of slavery to arise from crimes,

captivity, and debt;" that the slave trade on the coast of Africa is not

excused by these principles; that no questions are there asked relative

to the justice of the vender's title, but this is the least crime with

which this traffic is chargeable; the natives are excited to war, with

this the wickedness begins; the slaves torn away from parents, wives,

children, from their friends and companions, their fields and flocks,

their home and country, are transported to the European settlements in

America, with no other accommodation on ship-board than what is provided

for brutes. This is the second stage of cruelty from which they are

delivered, only to be placed, and that for life, in subjection to a

dominion and system of laws the most tyrannical that ever were tolerated

upon the face of the earth. But necessity is pretended, and after all it

has never been proved that it exists. _Mr. Paley_ then refers to the

present situation of the United States. "The great revolution in the

Western World," says he, "may probably conduce (and who knows but that

it was designed) to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny; and

now it is a season for reflecting whether a Legislature, which had so

long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with

human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire the most extensive

that ever obtained in any age or quarter of the world." He then shows

that slavery was a part of the civil constitution of most countries when

Christianity appeared; and the reason that its precepts did not

expressly condemn or prohibit slavery was, because, soliciting admission

into all nations, it abstained from meddling with the civil institutions

of any. Then follows the passage quoted by the newspaper writer--"That

the discharging of slaves from all obligation to their masters, which is

the consequence of pronouncing slavery unlawful, would have no better

effect than to let loose one-half of mankind on the other. Slaves would

have been tempted to embrace a religion which asserted their right to

freedom; masters would hardly have been persuaded to consent to claims

founded on such authority; the most calamitous of all contests, a

_bellum servile_, might probably have ensued, to the reproach, if not

the extinction of the Christian name." He then asserts, that

emancipation should be gradual, and by the provisions of laws, and under

the protection of civil government. "Christianity can only operate as an

alterative. By the mild diffusion of its light and influence, the minds

of men are insensibly prepared to perceive and correct the enormities,

which folly, wickedness, or accident, have introduced into their public

establishments." Thus, proceeded Mr. B., justice is done to this worthy

philosopher and my own sentiments are more concisely and explicitly set

forth than I could have done without it.

But when gentlemen attempt to justify this unnatural traffic, or to

prove the lawfulness of slavery, they should advert to the genius of our

Government, and the principles of the Revolution. By the declaration of

Congress, in 1775, setting forth the causes and necessity of taking up

arms, they say: "If it was possible for men who exercise their reason,

to believe that the Divine author of our existence intended a part of

the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power

over others, marked out by His infinite goodness and wisdom, as the

objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however

severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least

require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this

dreadful authority over them had been granted to that body." And by the

Declaration of Independence, in 1776, Congress declare: "We hold these

truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are

endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among

these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

This, then, is the language of America in the day of distress. Mr.

Chairman, I would not be understood, to contend the right of Congress at

this time to prohibit the importation of slaves, whatever might have

been the principles of the Revolution or the genius of the Government;

by the present constitution we are clearly and positively restrained

till the year 1808, and I am sure that no gentleman in this committee

would have the most distant wish to wound this instrument of our

connection.

But there is a wide difference between justifying this ungenerous

traffic, and supporting a claim to property, vested at the time of the

constitution, and guarantied thereby. Besides, it would be inhumanity

itself to turn these unhappy people loose to murder each other, or to

perish for the want of the necessaries of life. I never was an advocate

for so extravagant a conduct.

Many arguments were pointed against the danger of our emancipating these

slaves, or even holding up an idea that we had a power so to do, and

much time has been taken up to disprove this right in Congress. As no

claim of this kind is contended for, and the resolutions already passed

expressly contradict it, I shall make no further observations on them.

But the characters of the signers of these memorials are called in

question, as an argument against the adoption of the resolution on the

table. One of these memorials was signed by the Society of people called

Quakers: the other by Dr. Franklin, as President of a private Society in

Philadelphia. The indiscriminate abuse that has been thrown out against

Quakers, without distinction, has not comported with the honor or

dignity of this House. Not only their characters, but their very names

have been called upon, and private anecdotes, relating to individuals,

been mentioned on the floor. Many of the Quakers I have long lived in

the habits of friendship with, and can testify to the respectability of

their characters and the regularity of their lives. Their conduct in the

late war has been arraigned, and they have been condemned in the lump. I

have known many of them during the war, and impartial justice requires

it from me, to give the committee some official information on the

subject. I had the honor of serving the United States at the

commencement of the war, as Commissary General of prisoners. Congress

not being able to afford them supplies, those unhappy men in this town

were reduced to the very depths of distress, without food or raiment,

without blankets or firing, they suffered every thing that human nature

could bear. In this situation many of the Quakers of this city exercised

such humanity towards them as did honor to human nature. The miserable

prisoner not only felt the happy effects of their exertions in his

favor, but participated in their money, their food, and clothing. Nay,

such were the jealousies created by this conduct, in the British army

here, that an armed force entered the house of one of them, seized his

books, and though a man of great property, and large commercial

dealings, on finding that he had loaned large sums of money to our

distressed prisoners, he was turned out of their lines, and with his

family was a refugee during the whole of the war afterwards, separated

from his business and property.

To whom was the care of our prisoners in Philadelphia committed? To a

Quaker: and I have been witness to the just tribute of gratitude and

thankfulness paid by great numbers of our unhappy fellow-citizens to

that gentleman for his kindness and humanity. And is this indiscriminate

charge, without the least respect to characters, a decent or a just

return for a conduct like this? Where is the denomination amongst us,

that did not furnish opposers to our glorious Revolution? Were not

hundreds of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and almost of every other

denomination, among our enemies? What denominations formed the thousands

of new levies, that endeavored to deluge our country in blood? On the

other hand, were not a Greene and a Mifflin furnished from the Society

of the Quakers?

In short, I rejoice to say, that our cause was not carried on by

fanaticism or religious zeal, but a general struggle for the rights of

human nature. Then why all this abuse of this particular sect, without

discrimination? Can any solid argument against the resolution on the

table arise from a conduct of this kind? I am at a loss to know what

other argument has been used to show the impropriety of the resolution

before you. It goes to declare the power of Congress to prohibit

foreigners from fitting out vessels in our ports, to supply foreigners

with slaves from Africa. For my part, I think it a prudent, a humane,

and a constitutional resolution. It will render further interference on

this subject, perhaps, unnecessary, when it is known that the power of

Congress extends to remedy the evil. They will hardly venture to risk a

voyage that may be ruined before its being finished.

The gentleman last up (Mr. SMITH) said, that it was now acknowledged,

that one of the memorials had asked something contrary to the

constitution. I have never acknowledged this. The language is, that

Congress would go to "the very verge of the constitution," to accomplish

the business; but there is no request to exceed it.

The character of the celebrated signer of the last memorial, Dr.

Franklin, has been touched upon. The firmness of his mind has been

suspected. An ingenious parable of his has been read to the committee,

but its application totally mistaken. If the Supreme Being has borne

with the unhappy subjects of our consideration, not for one hundred, but

for thousands of years, in their own native land; has provided them

with climate, soil, and social comforts, in which they rejoice; must we

be discontented, and suppose, by adding to their misery, we can add to

their happiness?

TUESDAY, March 23.

_Subject of Slavery._

It was then moved, that the House should take up the report of the

Committee of the Whole on the report of the committee to whom were

referred the memorials of the people called Quakers, and of the

Pennsylvania Society for promoting the abolition of slavery.

This motion was opposed by Mr. JACKSON, Mr. SMITH, Mr. BURKE, and Mr.

BLAND; they severally observed, that the discussion of the subject has

already excited a spirit of dissension among the members of the House,

and that every principle of policy and concern for the dignity of the

House, and the peace and tranquillity of the United States, concur to

show the propriety of dropping the subject, and letting it sleep where

it is. On the other hand, Mr. VINING, Mr. HARTLEY, and Mr. PAGE,

observed, that there was the same propriety in taking up the subject at

the present moment, and bringing it to a conclusion, as there was for

first taking it up; that it has been so fully discussed it cannot be

supposed gentlemen will go over the same ground again; it may soon be

determined; to pass it over will be unprecedented, and will leave the

public mind in the same state of uncertainty from which so much danger

is apprehended. The motion for taking up the report was warmly contested

in a lengthy debate, and finally passed in the affirmative, by a

majority of one. Whereupon, on motion, that the said report of the

committee, and also the report of the Committee of the whole House, of

amendments to said report, be inserted on the Journal, it was resolved

in the affirmative, 29 votes to 25. The yeas and nays were as follows:

Those who voted in the affirmative, were,

Messrs. Boudinot, Brown, Cadwalader, Contee, Floyd, Foster,

Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin, Hartley, Hathorn, Heister,

Huntington, Lawrence, Lee, Leonard, Madison, Muhlenberg,

Parker, Partridge, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Sherman,

Sylvester, Sinnickson, Vining, and Wynkoop.

Those who voted in the negative, were,

Messrs. Ames, Baldwin, Benson, Bland, Burke, Carroll,

Coles, Gale, Grout, Jackson, Livermore, Mathews, Moore,

Page, Van Rensselaer, Smith, (of Maryland,) Smith, (of

South Carolina,) Stone, Sturges, Sumter, Thatcher,

Trumbull, Tucker, White, and Williamson.

The said reports are as follow:

_Report of the Special Committee._

The committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from

the people called Quakers, and also, a memorial from the

Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of

Slavery, submit the following report:

That from the nature of the matters contained in these

memorials, they were induced to examine the powers vested

in Congress, under the present constitution, relating to

the Abolition of Slavery, and are clearly of opinion,

_First._ That the General Government is expressly

restrained from prohibiting the importation of such persons

"as any of the States now existing shall think proper to

admit, until the year one thousand eight hundred and

eight."

_Secondly._ That Congress, by a fair construction of the

constitution, are equally restrained from interfering in

the emancipation of slaves, who already are, or who may,

within the period mentioned, be imported into, or born

within, any of the said States.

_Thirdly._ That Congress have no authority to interfere in

the internal regulations of particular States, relative to

the instructions of slaves in the principles of morality

and religion; to their comfortable clothing,

accommodations, and subsistence; to the regulation of their

marriages, and the prevention of the violation of the

rights thereof, or to the separation of children from their

parents; to a comfortable provision in cases of sickness,

age, or infirmity; or to the seizure, transportation, or

sale of free negroes; but have the fullest confidence in

the wisdom and humanity of the Legislatures of the several

States, that they will revise their laws from time to time,

when necessary, and promote the objects mentioned in the

memorials, and every other measure that may tend to the

happiness of slaves.

_Fourthly._ That, nevertheless, Congress have authority, if

they shall think it necessary, to lay at any time a tax or

duty, not exceeding ten dollars for each person of any

description, the importation of whom shall be by any of the

States admitted as aforesaid.

_Fifthly._ That Congress have authority to interdict, or

(so far as it is or may be carried on by citizens of the

United States, for supplying foreigners) to regulate the

African trade, and to make provision for the humane

treatment of slaves, in all cases while on their passage to

the United States, or to foreign ports, so far as respects

the citizens of the United States.

_Sixthly._ That Congress have also authority to prohibit

foreigners from fitting out vessels in any port of the

United States, for transporting persons from Africa to any

foreign port.

_Seventhly._ That the memorialists be informed, that in all

cases to which the authority of Congress extends, they will

exercise it for the humane objects of the memorialists, so

far as they can be promoted on the principles of justice,

humanity, and good policy.

_Report of the Committee of the whole House._

The Committee of the whole House, to whom was committed the report of

the committee on memorials of the people called Quakers, and of the

Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, report the

following amendments:

Strike out the first clause, together with the recital thereto, and in

lieu thereof insert, "That the migration or importation of such persons

as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be

prohibited by Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and

eight."

Strike out the second and third clauses, and in lieu thereof insert,

"That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of

slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it

remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations

therein, which humanity and true policy may require."

Strike out the fourth and fifth clauses, and in lieu

thereof insert, "That Congress have authority to restrain

the citizens of the United States from carrying on the

African trade, for the purpose of supplying foreigners with

slaves, and of providing, by proper regulations, for the

humane treatment, during their passage, of slaves imported

by the said citizens into the States admitting such

importation."