the oppressed state of our brethren of the African race" in this
country, and to the interstate slave-trade. "Considering the present
extraordinary state of the West India Islands and of Europe," young John
Rutledge insisted "that 'sufficient for the day is the evil thereof,'
and that they ought to shut their door against any thing which had a
tendency to produce the like confusion in this country." After excited
debate and some investigation by a special committee, the petition was
ordered, in both Senate and House, to be withdrawn.

48. ~The Act of 1800.~ In the next Congress, the sixth, another petition
threw the House into paroxysms of slavery debate. Waln of Pennsylvania
presented the petition of certain free colored men of Pennsylvania
praying for a revision of the slave-trade laws and of the fugitive-slave
law, and for prospective emancipation.[38] Waln moved the reference of
this memorial to a committee already appointed on the revision of the
loosely drawn and poorly enforced Act of 1794.[39] Rutledge of South
Carolina immediately arose. He opposed the motion, saying, that these
petitions were continually coming in and stirring up discord; that it
was a good thing the Negroes were in slavery; and that already "too much
of this new-fangled French philosophy of liberty and equality" had found
its way among them. Others defended the right of petition, and declared
that none wished Congress to exceed its powers. Brown of Rhode Island, a
new figure in Congress, a man of distinguished services and from a
well-known family, boldly set forth the commercial philosophy of his
State. "We want money," said he, "we want a navy; we ought therefore to
use the means to obtain it. We ought to go farther than has yet been
proposed, and repeal the bills in question altogether, for why should we
see Great Britain getting all the slave trade to themselves; why may not
our country be enriched by that lucrative traffic? There would not be a
slave the more sold, but we should derive the benefits by importing from
Africa as well as that nation." Waln, in reply, contended that they
should look into "the slave trade, much of which was still carrying on
from Rhode Island, Boston and Pennsylvania." Hill of North Carolina
called the House back from this general discussion to the petition in
question, and, while willing to remedy any existing defect in the Act of
1794, hoped the petition would not be received. Dana of Connecticut
declared t