HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 12, 1790
MR. SCOTT.—I cannot entertain a doubt but the memorial is strictly agreeable to the Constitution; it respects a part of the duty particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and I hope we may be inclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, lay our hands upon a small duty of ten dollars; I would take this, and if it is all we can do we must be content; but I am sorry that the framers of the Constitution did not go further and enable us to interdict the traffic entirely; for I look upon the slave trade to be one of the most abominable things on earth; and, if there was neither God nor devil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and the law of nature. The petitioners view the subject in a religious light, but I do not stand in need of religious motives to induce me to reprobate the traffic in human flesh; other considerations weigh with me to support the commitment of the memorial, and to support every constitutional measure likely to bring about its total abolition. Perhaps, in our legislative capacity, 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. (from Great Debates in American History, by United States Congress, Great Britain Parliament, Marion Mills Miller, published 1913, Current Literature Publishing Company)
