Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) thought the memorialists did not deserve to be aspersed for their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity, they solicited the Legislature of the Union to repel, as far as in their power, the increase of a licentious traffic.  Nor do they merit censure, because their behavior has the appearance of more morality than other people’s.  But it is not for Congress to refuse to hear the applications of their fellow-citizens, while those applications contain nothing unconstitutional or offensive.  What is the object of the address before us?  It is intended to bring before this House a subject of great importance to the cause of humanity; there are certain facts to be enquired into, and the memorialists are ready to give all the information in their power; they are waiting, at a great distance from their homes, and wish to return; if, then, it will be proper to commit the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper to-day, for it is conformable to our practice, beside, it will tend to their conveniency.

Mr. Lawrance, (of N.Y.) The Gentleman from South Carolina says, the petitioners are of a society not known in the laws or Constitution.  Sir, in all our acts, as well as in the Constitution, we have noticed this Society; or why is it that we admit them to affirm, in cases where others are called upon to swear?  If we pay this attention to them, in one instance, what good reason is there for condemning them in another?  I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone,) carries his apprehensions too far, when he fears that negro-property will fall in value, by the suppression of the slave-trade:  not that I suppose it immediately in the power of Congress to abolish a traffic which is a disgrace to human nature; but it appears to me, that, if the importation was crushed, the value of a slave would be increased instead of diminished; however, considerations of this kind have nothing to do with the present question; gentlemen may acquiesce in the commitment of the memorial, without pledging themselves to support its object.

Mr. Jackson, (of Ga.) I differ much in opinion with the gentleman last up.  I apprehend if, through the interference of the general government, the slave-trade was abolished, it would evince to the people a disposition toward a total emancipation, and they would hold their property in jeopardy.  Any extraordinary attention of Congress to this petition may have, in some degree, a similar effect.  I would beg to ask those, then, who are so desirous of freeing the negroes, if they have funds sufficient to pay for them?  If they have, they may come forward on that business with some propriety; but, if they have not, they should keep themselves quiet, and not interfere with a business in which they are not interested.  They may as well come forward, and solicit Congress to interdict the West-India trade, because it is injurious to the morals of mankind; from thence we import rum, which has a debasing influence upon the consumer.  But,