DECEMBER, 1806.

Importation of Slaves.

H. OF R.

that part of the bill to which it was offered as an the amendment prevailed, the bill on the table amendment; whether there was not an absurdity in would be good for nothing. The amendment saying the description of persons referred to should proposes that the slaves imported shall be forfeitbe forfeited, and sold by the United States as pro-ed and become free. Thus all inducement to vided for in the sixth section, and yet that they should be free; whether the two things could exist together?

give information of their importation would be taken away. You cannot, said Mr. A., prevent them from being slaves when they are once brought into the United States; the only way is to prevent the importation. In the State which I have the honor of representing, this mode had been practised; the importation of slaves had for ten or twelve years been prohibited under a penalty of 200 pounds. This had completely prevented any importation by water, in which way not a single slave had been imported. Some, it was true, had been introduced from adjoining States. The amendment might have another effect. What was there to prevent this description of persons, although made free, from binding themselves out for a term of years, or for life?

Mr. SLOAN said he would just observe that the simile drawn by his friend from Georgia did not apply in the present instance. He had never considered the act prohibiting the importation of brandy in demijohns, as intended to prohibit the importation of brandy, but merely the particular

versal wish of every member in the Committee to put an entire stop to this inhuman traffic. He would then ask for information, (he would not say that he was perfectly able to explain the Constitution on this point,) whether it was not in the power of the House as completely to prohibit this trade as the Parliament of Great Britain? If he was rightly informed, as soon as a slave put his foot into that country, he became free. If this was among the Constitutional powers of the Government, he hoped it would be exercised; and if this amendment should be rejected, he trusted some other, calculated to be more efficacious, would be adopted.

Mr. SLOAN said, he would ask whether it was not the understanding of every member of the committee, that it ought to be the object of this bill totally to prohlbit the importation of slaves into, or the selling them in the United States. He would not pretend to say his amendment would effectually answer this purpose; it might require alteration, and he acknowledged there was an apparent contradiction between it and the proVisions of the bill. But it was the principle which it contained, that he was anxious to see adopted. Mr. EARLY said there was no doubt but that the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey would have the effect of trying the sense of the House on a very important principle contained in the bill; on the question whether they would or would not agree to pass a bill on this subject, which would be efficacious. For myself, said Mr. E.. I have always believed that on the decision of this question would turn another, whether this Gov-mode of importing it. It appeared to be the uniernment ever would prohibit the slave trade or not? It is true, if we pass the bill as it stands, that persons imported will not only be forfeited, but will likewise be sold as slaves, and be afterwards kept as such. This is a melancholy truth; melancholy, because, without such a provision, we can pass no law on the subject that will be effectual. What can we do with this description of persons in case they are brought into the country in contravention of this act? I repeat the question-what can we do with them? If any gentleman can devise a plan, on which they can be disposed of, without proving extremely injurious to the country where the disposition shall be made, less exceptionable than the plan contained in this bill, he shall have my thanks, and what is of more consequence, he shall have my vote. I believe, however, that the plan contained in the bill will be the most effectual that can be devised. The gentleman inquires whether the bill is not intended to prevent the importation of this description of people into the United States, and to prevent their being sold here as slaves? I answer that it is; and I ask, if the law prohibiting the importation of brandy in demijohns was not intended to prevent its being brought into the United States in that way; and yet, do the United States, instead of selling it as a forfeited article, scatter it about the streets when thus introduced in contravention of the laws? I repeat it on the decision of this question will depend the efficacy of the bill. We, who live in that part of the United States, where the evil referred to principally exists, know from experience that this is the only effectual plan that can be pursued. I will conclude my remarks by again declaring, that if any gentleman will devise another practicable plan, he shall have

my vote.

Mr. ALSTON was decidedly of opinion that if

Mr. SMILIE was not prepared at present to say what was the best to be done; but he would never give his assent to the last section of the bill. Shall we, said he, while we are attempting to put a stop to this traffic, take upon ourselves the odium of becoming slave traders? This would be the fact, in case the bill were agreed to. We will not suffer others to bring them to our shores with the view of selling them, but we agree to become their proprietors, and to sell them ourselves. I hope in God the House will never agree to this. I have no objection to be at the expense of sending them back to their own country, if this shall be deemed proper, or to pursuing any other mode which may be deemed advisable.

Mr. EARLY said it was time enough, when the last section was under consideration, to examine any plan or reasons which might be offered in support of it, for altering the provisions in that section. At present, the fourth section only was under consideration, and there appeared to him a peculiar impropriety in adopting the proposed amendment, as applicable to that section, for sev eral reasons. That section does not operate on vessels fitting out for the slave trade, or on ves

H. OF R.

Importation of Slaves.

DECEMBER, 1806.

sels in the waters of the United States having the easy subjects of imposition. Slaves, liberated persons of this description on board. It operates under existing circumstances from servitude, are only on the individual cases of buying and sell-equally liable to be overreached. ing, between man and man, after the persons have been brought into the territory of the United States. It operated, therefore, on persons so far as related to a property in them, on which only the State laws can operate. Mr. E. begged leave to read the section:

Another objection is, that the amendment is repugnant to the principle of the bill, inasmuch as the preceding clause declares that this description of persons shall be forfeited, and their being made free is considered as incompatible with their forfeiture. I do not, however, view the case in "SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That, if any that light. What is this forfeiture but a cessation negro, mulatto, or person of color, the importation or of the interest of the former owner in the thing bringing of whom is by this act prohibited, shall, after forfeited, and its transfer to the United States? the thirty-first day of December aforesaid, be found And, cannot the United States, instead of selling, within the United States, or the territories thereof, manumit them? The operation, therefore, of the every such negro, mulatto, or person of color, shall be amendment will be, that the property of the Uniforfeited. And, if any person or persons shall be con- ted States in them will determine, and that no cerned in buying or selling such negro, mulatto, or person will have a property in them, but that they person of color, every person so concerned shall for-will be free; or, in other words, that instead of feit and pay $ for each negro, mulatto, or person property, as the bill now stands, being vested in of color, so bought or sold." the United States, it will be renounced. The He would ask the gentleman, whether the United States will not take the property themHouse, or the Government of the United States, selves, or pass it over to any other person. They were Constitutionally competent to declare what will say the property shall entirely terminate. Is should, or should not, be property within the sey-there anything in this, repugnant to the Constitueral States? They were not competent to this, after the article, considered as property, was brought within the limits of the United States.

tion? The gentleman from Georgia says this Government has not a right to interfere with State rights or State property. But, would it be Mr. BARKER. It appears to me, either that the any interference with State rights to say, that, in gentleman from Georgia does not understand the case a particular article should become the propspirit of this section, or that I do not. If any de-erty of the United States, they would not take it? scription of persons are imported and forfeited, to whom are they forfeited? Not to the particular States where they are landed, but to the Uni ted States, whose property they become, and who have, therefore, a right to say they shall be free; and in order to effect this purpose, they may say that they shall be sent back to the country from whence they came. Certainly, they have as great a right to make them free as to sell them.

Mr. SLOAN declared his concurrence in opinion with his friend from Massachusetts, (Mr. BARKER.) Mr. BIDWELL.-Gentlemen from all quarters appear to agree in the end they have in view. The only difference of opinion is, with respect to the most proper means to be used. The gentleman from Georgia thinks that, if the amendment be adopted, the bill will be ineffectual; while the gentleman from New Jersey is of the opinion that, without it, it will be ineffectual. The amend ment undoubtedly embraces a most important principle. Without it, the gentleman from Georgia admits, that the description of persons referred to will be transferred from their individual owners to the United States, as property, and be by them sold as slaves, and be held afterwards in slavery. This is admitted to be the effect of the bill. It is objected to for several reasons. The first reason assigned is, that if the amendment takes place, and if by virtue of it these people should be entitled to their freedom, instead of being protected in their freedom, they will enter into indentures with their holders, and their condition be the same as though they were in slavery. But, the very idea of indentures implies freedom, and this objection is applicable to every other description of persons whose ignorance renders them

As to the previous owner's giving the slaves their freedom, would it not operate exactly in the same way as forfeiting them? If, then, there would be no interference with State rights in the one case, there would not in the other. The only difference would consist in the transfer of the property, the operation of the amendment being to make a donation, or whatever else gentlemen may please to call it, to the persons, of their freedom.

If it shall be said, that the provision contained in the amendment will operate inconveniently, by turning these persons loose upon society, a remedy may be applied. A sufficient authority on this head exists in the State governments. If paupers, vagabonds, or any other troublesome description of persons be introduced among them, every State has a right to impose penalties on the persons introducing them. So, in the present case, the State authorities may be enforced, in addition to such punishments as the United States may see fit to inflict for the purposes of general welfare. I am, for these reasons, of opinion, that the amendment, so far from rendering the bill less efficient, will make it more so.

Mr. MACON, (Speaker.)—I believe that on this subject there is but one opinion, which is, effectually to prohibit the importation of slaves into the United States. This sentiment, I believe, pervades the breast of every member of the community. In adopting our measures on this subject, we must pass such a law as can be executed; such an one as every part of the Union shall deem itself interested in carrying into effect. If we insert in it a clause, in the execution of which every part of the Union does not consider itself

DECEMBER, 1806.

Importation of Slaves.

H. of R.

interested, we shall prevent the law from going into full operation. The proposed amendment goes to make this description of persons, that shall be imported, free. What will be its effect? What is to become of the cargoes of those persons, when thus turned loose in any State? By what means are they, understanding nothing about the country, that it has excited the deepest sensibility in try, to be supported? Not even speaking the language of the country, what is to become of them? Are they to be maintained by the public or by individuals? This question is deserving of some consideration. It is a subject, I confess, on which there is some difficulty. For my part, I wish the law to be made so strong as to prevent any vessel from bringing them into the United States. But, I believe the amendment contains a provision that some of the States will not like. In some of the States, there is a legal provision that an owner of a slave may give him his freedom, on going into court, and giving security that the slave that is liberated shall not be a charge upon the county. Those persons who deal in this nefarious traffic will never carry their cargoes into a part of the Union where there are no slaves. They will go to the States where slavery exists, and there smuggle them; and, if we pass this amendment, the situation of these States will be most deplorable.

It does not appear to me necessary to insert this amendment in the bill, in order to carry it into execution. The great object is, to prevent the importation; and, so far as relates to this end, the amendment will weaken the bill. Perhaps I may be under the influence of local prejudice, but there is no State in the Union more opposed to the importation of slaves than the State which I have the honor to represent. It was proposed by her, ten years ago, so to amend the Constitution as to give Congress the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves. I believe the proposition passed by an unanimous vote. Certain I am, it had my hearty approbation. But it seems to me if you give these people their freedom, and turn them loose, they must perish. As, therefore, the amendment is not essential to the law being carried into execution, I am opposed to it, not wishing to pass a law that will be disagreeable to any part of the Union.

Mr. EARLY.-It is not my intention to trespass on the patience of the House, or to press on gentlemen a greater attention to this important bill than they seem willing to give. I believe it is the view of every member of the Committee, and all parts of the nation, to put an end to this traffic; and I am persuaded I shall be believed by the Committee, when I assure them that, in framing this bill, I had my eye on those provisions which I thought would be best calculated to effect this desirable object. For the present, I barely mean to improve a little on the ideas thrown out by the honorable SPEAKER, which, in my opinion, admit of several most important views.

It is a principle in legislation, as correct as any which has ever prevailed, that to give effect to laws, you must not make them repugnant to the passions and wishes of the people among whom

they are to operate. How then, in this instance, stands the fact? Do not gentlemen from every quarter of the Union prove, on the discussion of every question that has ever arisen in the House, having the most remote bearing on the giving freedom to the Africans in the bosom of our counthe breasts of those where slavery exists? And why is this so? It is, because those who, from experience, know the extent of the evil, believe that the most formidable aspect in which it can present itself, is by making these people free among them. Yes, sir, though slavery is an evil, regretted by every man in the country, to have among us in any considerable quantity persons of this description, is an evil far greater than slavery itself. Does any gentleman want proof of this. I answer that all proof is useless; no fact can be more notorious. With this belief on the minds of the people where slavery exists, and where the importation will take place, if at all, we are about to turn loose in a state of freedom all persons brought in after the passage of this law. I ask gentlemen to reflect and say whether such a law, opposed to the ideas, the passions, the views, and the affections of the people of the Southern States, can be executed? I tell them, no; it is impossible-why? Because no man will inform-why? Because to inform will be to lead to an evil which will be deemed greater than the offence of which information is given, because it will be opposed to the principle of self-preservation, and to the love of family. No, no man will be disposed to jeopard his life, and the lives of his countrymen. And if no one dare inform, the whole authority of the Government cannot carry the law into effect. The whole people will rise up against it. Why? Because to enforce it would be to turn loose, in the bosom of the country, firebrands that would consume them; for the best and strongest of all reasons, because men love their own preservation too well to take the steps most fitted to endanger it. This Committee need not now be told, that wherever people of color are found in a state of freedom-I mean in the States where they are found in considerable numbers-they are considered as the instruments of murder, theft, and conflagration. Suppose the power of the General Government able for a while to enforce such a provision, and to turn loose a few, or even a single cargo of persons of color, what do gentlemen suppose would become of them? Do they suppose the people of those States would permit them to live among them? They are mistaken. We are told it is cruel and disgraceful to keep them in slavery. There is no doubt of it. But would it not be more cruel to place them in a situation where we must in self-defence-gentlemen will understand me-get rid of them in some way. We must either get rid of them, or they of us; there is no alternative, and I leave it to gentlemen to determine which course would be pursued. There can be no doubt on this head. I will speak out; it is not my practice to be mealy-mouthed on a subject of importance. Not one of them would be left alive in a year. But I am not dis

H. OF R.

Importation of Slaves.

DECEMBER, 1806.

posed on this occasion to stir up those sensibilities culty. They must either adopt the amendment which are, on almost every question touching offered by the gentleman from New Jersey, or this subject, so apt to be excited. I feel it, how- some one like it, or they would not avoid the odiever, my duty candidly to state my views on the um of becoming themselves slave traders. He subject; and if I have done it in plain language, hoped, therefore, when the Committee rose, the I hope I shall be excused. People in any situa- House would agree to recommit the bill. Mr. tion will be governed by the principle of self- S. said, he did not wish, by any means, to increase preservation; and I beg gentlemen seriously to an evil which was too great already. He perconsider before they take measures which will ceived one advantage that would attend the amendplace us and the people of color in a situation in ment. If the opinion of the Southern people was which we must determine between our own lives such as the gentleman from Georgia had repand theirs. resented it to be, they would not admit the imMr. J. CLAY.-I shall vote against this amend-portation of a single slave. He hoped, however, ment because I think it goes to destroy the effi- that the bill would be recommitted, and some cacy of the bill. I have uniformly wished that effectual provision introduced. At present, he Congress had possessed and exercised at a much was inclined to think that the best remedy would earlier period the power of preventing the import-be to send these people back to the country from ation of slaves. But the effect of turning loose which they came. this species of property will be peculiarly dangerous. And whether the apprehension entertained be real or chimerical, the consequences will be precisely the same. If such be the opinion entertained of turning them loose, to set at large two or three hundred of those persons, ignorant and unacquainted with our language or habits, will. in fact, be turning loose so many depredators of the worst kind. Holding no communion with the whites, the morals of their associates will be corrupted, and ideas of freedom, however just in the abstract, will be inculcated, and may probably excite insurrections. Under this view of the subject, I ask whether any person in the Southern country will turn informer? I think not. So far as to the effects of this provision on the Southern country. Let us now come nearer home. Suppose there should be an information. The laws in several of the Southern States prevent the liberation of a slave, but on condition of his leaving the State. They will consequently migrate to the States where free persons of color are permit- Mr. MACON, (Speaker.)-The gentleman from ted to reside. Now I will ask my colleague, and Pennsylvania, if he attends to the subject, will the gentlemen from the Eastern States, whether, perceive that the recommitment of the bill will with this species of population, they would wish be of no use, until the principle under discussion to increase their numbers? But whatever may shall be first settled. For my own part, I wish to be my final opinion on the bill, I believe the Com-frame such a law as shall prevent a single slave mittee are not at present prepared to act upon it. I therefore move that they rise.

Mr. SLOAN begged to explain in a few words. He had not been understood. He had listened attentively to the gentleman from Georgia, and he was at a loss to know what had dropped from him calculated to excite his warmth; he appealed to the Committee if he had not expressed himself in the most conciliatory terms. He had stated the provision under consideration in such a way as to give no offence, and the gentleman would recollect that he had intimated that a further provision might be incorporated in the bill, to send back those persons of color that might be imported in contravention of law.

Mr. SMILIE was in favor of the Committee rising, as he was confident the bill would not anwer in its present shape. He did not, however, pretend to say, that the amendment was the best that could be devised. He doubted whether it was. As the bill stood, they were involved in this diffi

Mr. QUINCY regretted that a motion had been made for the Committee to rise, as he considered it proper, previous to a recommitment of the bill, to ascertain the sense of the House on so important a principle as that contained in the amendment. Believing that they ought to do nothing contrary to the safety and 'the true interest of any part of the Union, and that this provision would have this effect, he was hostile to it, under the impression that it would be altogether ineffectual. He believed there would be found little difficulty in defeating it. What was to prevent the Legislature of Georgia, after Congress have declared these people shall be free, considering them as vagabonds, and selling them for a term of years, or for life, to the highest bidder. Mr. Q. concluded by saying, he wished the question to be taken on the amendment, that, after its rejection, the committee, to whom the bill should be referred, might direct their minds to a more effectual provision.

from being imported. It is objected to this bill, that it provides for these persons being sold, and for the United States receiving the proceeds. But let us examine this objection. Do not gentlemen recollect that, in case a judgment is obtained by the United States against an inhabitant of the Southern country possessed of slaves, they are liable to sale, and the money derived from them to be brought into the Treasury? To rise, without settling this point, will be useless; the committee, to whom the bill may be referred, will still remain in the dark, as to the sense of the House; they will be without any decision to guide them. Let this question then he first decided, and the bill be afterwards recommitted, if any new details are requisite.

I think one of the amendments suggested a good one, if there is any probability of its being executed. But what spirit is it that brings this description of people among us? Not the spirit of philanthropy, but the spirit of interest. And if