The very next day, however, the laid ghost walked again in the shape of another petition from the “Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery,” signed by its venerable president, Benjamin Franklin.  This petition asked Congress to “step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men."[25] Hartley of Pennsylvania called up the memorial of the preceding day, and it was read a second time and a motion for commitment made.  Plain words now came from Tucker of South Carolina.  “The petition,” he said, “contained an unconstitutional request.”  The commitment would alarm the South.  These petitions were “mischievous” attempts to imbue the slaves with false hopes.  The South would not submit to a general emancipation without “civil war.”  The commitment would “blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States,” echoed his colleague, Burke.  The Pennsylvania men spoke just as boldly.  Scott declared the petition constitutional, and was sorry that the Constitution did not interdict this “most abominable” traffic.  “Perhaps, in our Legislative capacity,” he said, “we can go no further than to impose a duty of ten dollars, but I do not know how far I might go if I was one of the Judges of the United States, and those people were to come before me and claim their emancipation; but I am sure I would go as far as I could.”  Jackson of Georgia rejoined in true Southern spirit, boldly defending slavery in the light of religion and history, and asking if it was “good policy to bring forward a business at this moment likely to light up the flame of civil discord; for the people of the Southern States will resist one tyranny as soon as another.  The other parts of the Continent may bear them down by force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to be divested of their property without a struggle.  The gentleman says, if he was a Federal Judge, he does not know to what length he would go in emancipating these people; but I believe his judgment would be of short duration in Georgia, perhaps even the existence of such a Judge might be in danger.”  Baldwin, his New-England-born colleague, urged moderation by reciting the difficulty with which the constitutional compromise was reached, and declaring, “the moment we go to jostle on that ground, I fear we shall feel it tremble under our feet.”  Lawrence of New York wanted to commit the memorials, in order to see how far Congress might constitutionally interfere.  Smith of South Carolina, in a long speech, said that his constituents entered the Union “from political, not from moral motives,” and that “we look upon this measure as an attack upon the palladium of the property of our country.”  Page of Virginia, although a slave owner, urged commitment, and Madison again maintained the appropriateness of the request, and suggested that “regulations might be made in relation to the introduction of them [i.e., slaves] into the new States to be formed out of the Western Territory.”  Even conservative Gerry of Massachusetts declared, with regard to the whole trade, that the fact that “we have a right to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any rights whatever.”