SATURDAY, January 26.—­[The debate on the 9th section still continued desultory—­and consisted of similar objections, and answers thereto, as had before been used.  Both sides deprecated the slave trade in the most pointed terms; on one side it was pathetically lamented, by Mr. NASON, Major LUSK, Mr. NEAL, and others, that this Constitution provided for the continuation of the slave trade for 20 years.  On the other, the honorable Judge DANA, Mr. ADAMS and others, rejoiced that a door was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious, abhorrent practice, in a certain time.]

Gen. HEATH.  Mr. President,—­By my indisposition and absence, I have lost several important opportunities:  I have lost the opportunity of expressing my sentiments with a candid freedom, on some of the paragraphs of the system, which have lain heavy on my mind.  I have lost the opportunity of expressing my warm approbation on some of the paragraphs.  I have lost the opportunity of hearing those judicious, enlightening and convincing arguments, which have been advanced during the investigation of the system.  This is my misfortune, and I must bear it.  The paragraph respecting the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, &c., is one of those considered during my absence, and I have heard nothing on the subject, save what has been mentioned this morning; but I think the gentlemen who have spoken, have carried the matter rather too far on both sides.  I apprehend that it is not in our power to do any thing for or against those who are in slavery in the southern States.  No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery more than I do:  it is generally detested by the people of this Commonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come, when our brethren in the southern States will view it as we do, and put a stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them.  Two questions naturally arise:  if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do any thing by our act to hold the blacks in slavery—­or shall we become the partakers of other men’s sins?  I think neither of them.  Each State is sovereign and independent to a certain degree, and they have a right, and will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears proper; and shall we refuse to eat, or to drink, or to be united, with those who do not think, or act, just as we do? surely not.  We are not in this case partakers of other men’s sins, for in nothing do we voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow-men; a restriction is laid on the Federal Government, which could not be avoided, and a union take place.  The Federal Convention went as far as they could; the migration or importation, &c., is confined to the States, now existing only, new States cannot claim it.  Congress, by their ordinance for erecting new States, some time since, declared that the new States shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in them.  But whether those in slavery in the southern States will be emancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine:  I rather doubt it.