John Jay, while New-York was yet a slave State, and himself in law a slaveholder, said in a letter from Spain, in 1786, “An excellent law might be made out of the Pennsylvania one, for the gradual abolition of slavery.  Were I in your legislature, I would present a bill for the purpose, drawn up with great care, and I would never cease moving it till it became a law, or I ceased to be a member.”

Daniel D. Tompkins, in a message to the Legislature of New-York, January 8, 1812, said:  “To devise the means for the gradual and ultimate extermination from amongst us of slavery, is work worthy the representatives of a polished and enlightened nation.”

The Virginia Legislature asserted this power in 1832.  At the close of a month’s debate, the following proceedings were had.  I extract from an editorial article of the Richmond Whig, of January 26, 1832.

“The report of the Select Committee, adverse to legislation on the subject of Abolition, was in these words:  Resolved, as the opinion of this Committee, that it is INEXPEDIENT FOR THE PRESENT, to make any legislative enactments for the abolition of Slavery.”  This Report Mr. Preston moved to reverse, and thus to declare that it was expedient, now to make Legislative enactments for the abolition of slavery.  This was meeting the question in its strongest form.  It demanded action, and immediate action.  On this proposition the vote was 58 to 73.  Many of the most decided friends of abolition voted against the amendment; because they thought public opinion not sufficiently prepared for it, and that it might prejudice the cause to move too rapidly.  The vote on Mr. Witcher’s motion to postpone the whole subject indefinitely, indicates the true state of opinion in the House.—­That was the test question, and was so intended and proclaimed by its mover.  That motion was negatived, 71 to 60; showing a majority of 11, who by that vote, declared their belief that “at the proper time, and in the proper mode, Virginia ought to commence a system of gradual abolition.”

8. The Congress of the United States have asserted this power.  The ordinance of ’87, declaring that there should be “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,” in the North Western territory, abolished the slavery then existing there.  The Supreme Court of Mississippi, in its decision in the case of Harvey vs. Decker, Walker’s Mi.  Reps. 36, declared that the ordinance emancipated the slaves then held there.  In this decision the question is argued ably and at great length.  The Supreme Court of Louisiana made the same decision in the case of Forsyth vs. Nash, 4 Martin’s La.  Reps 385.  The same doctrine was laid down by Judge Porter, (late United States Senator from Louisiana,) in his decision at the March term of the La.  Supreme Court, 1830, in the case of Merry vs. Chexnaider, 20 Martin’s Reps. 699.