they were not accustomed to.  Do these men expect a general emancipation of slaves by law?  This would never be submitted to by the Southern States without a civil war.  Do they mean to purchase their freedom?  He believed their money would fall short of the price.  But how is it they are more concerned in this business than others?  Are they the only persons who possess religion and morality?  If the people are not so exemplary, certainly they will admit the clergy are; why then do we not find them uniting in a body, praying us to adopt measures for the promotion of religion and piety, or any moral object?  They know it would be an improper interference; and to say the best of this memorial, it is an act of imprudence, which he hoped would receive no countenance from the house.

Mr. SENEY (of Md.) denied that there was anything unconstitutional in the memorial, at least, if there was, it had escaped his attention, and he should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out.  Its only object was, that congress should exercise their constitutional authority, to abate the horrors of slavery, as far as they could:  Indeed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of commitment was at an end, as the house had impliedly determined yesterday that it should be committed.

Mr. BURKE (of S.C.) saw the disposition of the house, and he feared it would be referred to a committee, maugre all their opposition; but he must insist that it prayed for an unconstitutional measure.  Did it not desire congress to interfere and abolish the slave trade, while the constitution expressly stipulated that congress should exercise no such power?  He was certain the commitment would sound an alarm, and blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States.  He was sorry to see the petitioners paid more attention to than the constitution; however, he would do his duty, and oppose the business totally; and if it was referred to a committee, as mentioned yesterday, consisting of a member from each State, and he was appointed, he would decline serving.

Mr. SCOTT, (of Penn.) I can’t entertain a doubt but the memorial is strictly agreeable to the constitution:  it respects a part of the duty particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may, be inclined to take it into consideration.  We can, at present, lay our hands upon a small duty of ten dollars.  I would take this, and if it is all we can do, we must be content.  But I am sorry that the framers of the constitution did not go farther and enable us to interdict it for good and all; for I look upon the slave-trade to be one of the most abominable things on earth; and if there was neither God nor devil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law of nature.  I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person can be said to acquire a property in another; is it by virtue of conquest?  What are the rights of conquest?  Some have dared to advance this monstrous principle, that the conqueror