Yeas.—­Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwallader, Clymer,
Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, Griffin,
Grout, Hartley, Hathorne, Heister, Huntington, Lawrance, Lee, Leonard,
Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, Partridge,
Renssellaer, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sherman, Sinnickson,
Smith of Maryland, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, Wadsworth, White, and
Wynkoop—­93.

Noes.—­Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Bourke, Coles, Huger, Jackson, Mathews,
Sylvester, Smith of S.C., Stone, and Tucker—­11.

Whereupon it was determined in the affirmative; and on motion, the petition of the Society of Friends, at New York, and the memorial from the Pennsylvania Society, for the abolition of slavery, were also referred to a committee.

Debate on Committee’s Report, March 1790.

ELIOT’S DEBATES.

Mr. TUCKER moved to modify the first paragraph by striking out all the words after the word opinion, and to insert the following:  that the several memorials proposed to the consideration of this house, a subject on which its interference would be unconstitutional, and even its deliberations highly injurious to some of the States in the Union.

Mr. JACKSON rose and observed, that he had been silent on the subject of the reports coming before the committee, because he wished the principles of the resolutions to be examined fairly, and to be decided on their true grounds.  He was against the propositions generally, and would examine the policy, the justice and the use of them, and he hoped, if he could make them appear in the same light to others as they did to him by fair argument, that the gentlemen in opposition were not so determined in their opinions as not to give up their present sentiments.

With respect to the policy of the measure, the situation of the slaves here, their situation in their native States, and the disposal of them in case of emancipation, should be considered.  That slavery was an evil habit, he did not mean to controvert; but that habit was already established, and there were peculiar situations in countries which rendered that habit necessary.  Such situations the States of South Carolina and Georgia were in—­large tracts of the most fertile lands on the continent remained uncultivated for the want of population.  It was frequently advanced on the floor of Congress, how unhealthy those climates were, and how impossible it was for northern constitutions to exist there.  What, he asked, is to be done with this uncultivated territory?  Is it to remain a waste?  Is the rice trade to be banished from our coasts?  Are Congress willing to deprive themselves of the revenue arising from that trade, and which is daily increasing, and to throw this great advantage into the hands of other countries?