State, his feelings might give him different impressions from that which they ought to do, although he was not sensible that this was the case. But it always seemed to him that this measure was nothing more nor less than arraigning the conduct of a State Legislature, a Legislature that was nearly equally divided, as pointing at them the finger of reprobation of the whole nation. If they had sinned, was it not better and more christian-like to forgive them? On this subject he never had but one opinion, and that was, that such a law ought not to pass. Should it pass, it might perhaps prevent the importation of a few persons. The CHAIRMAN here reminded the honorable Speaker that the question was on the amendment and not on the resolution, to the former of which the debate must be confined. Mr. MACON, after vindicating himself from a violation of order, said the subject had been considered in different points of view by the Government. Congress had heretofore felt a difficulty and delicacy in acting upon this subject; so also had the convention that formed the Constitution. In laying on imported goods an ad valorem duty, no duty had been laid on the importation of slaves; it seemed that on this subject Congress and all the Executive officers thought the same way. Congress had, however, passed another law, prohibiting the citizens of the United States from carrying on the trade from one port to another. There was another question which he believed had not yet been settled, with regard to which he did not profess to be jurist enough to decide the effect of the law. If we lay this duty, could a vessel having slaves on board enter the ports of a State which otherwise she would be prohibited from entering? Suppose such a vessel brought to the port of Wilmington, in North Carolina, which he merely mentioned because nearest to the State of South Carolina. If, in consequence of this tax, she could be entered there, it would be a stronger reason against the measure than had been urged; because it could not be denied that there are some people in North Carolina. who, if these persons could be smuggled in, would purchase them. In the State which he in part represented. there was a portion of this species of property. No one regretted the evil more than he did; but what to do with it was the question. He believed that it was an evil for which the wisest man in the nation could not satisfy himself with a cure. It was an evil which our forefathers had felt, and to which we must submit until an adequate cure was found. It was evident at this time, that the sentiment. he might add, the passion of the nation was against it: the nation had set their faces against it; he was afraid in their decision the House would be governed by this passion. If their only object were to evince their disapprobation of the conduct of South Carolina, iustead of imposing a tax. they might pass a resolution expressive of their dissatisfaction, or propose an amendment to the Con stitution. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. SLOAN, which was lost-yeas 21. Mr. NELSON said he hoped the amendment of H. OF R. the gentleman from Connecticut would not be adopted; in verity, he could not see any good reason for it; as the object of the amendment was entirely different from the object of the original resolution, which was merely to impose a tax on the importation of slaves. With the honorable Speaker he concurred in regretting that this subject had been agitated; but as it had been brought forward, he should vote for the resolution, provided it were unamended. If the amendment were adopted, he should vote against it. What do gentlemen who urge the amendment want? Are they about to exclude from the United States the emigration of those unfortunate men who, from poverty or distress, are unable to pay their passage across the Atlantic? Will they add to their misfortunes by burdening them with a new tax? Mr. N. said, that he had heard but one remark which bore the semblance of argument, but which on examination would be found not to be correct. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. ALSTON) says, in the Southern States, they are apprehensive of the admission of persons from the West Indies, and that this resolution does not inhibit their introduction. But if they really apprehend danger from this quarter, may they not avert it by prohibiting the importation themselves? Is not the State of South Carolina and every other State competent to this act? Then what occasion is there for the amendment? The original resolution stands as it should do-all the arguments urged go to the main question. Nor are we, said Mr. N., as gentlemen allege, pointing the finger of scorn or disapprobation at any particular State. On the contrary, the object is general. But, say gentlemen, none but South Carolina admits slaves; but does this prove that no other Stite may not, or will not admit them? And if this should be the case, would not this tax bring us a considerable sum? As to revenue, it is true, it is no great object; though I recollect to have heard a Scotchman say, many mickles make a muckle. I am for the resolution, because I think the people of this country should hold up their hands in disapprobation of the conduct of South Carolina-I am against the amendment, because it would prevent the emigration of a useful and oppressed class of men, and thereby operate cruelly towards them. Mr. SOUTHARD said, the object of the resolution was to lay a tax of ten dollars on slaves imported into the United States. The amendment did not correspond with the spirit of the Constitution; for it would not be contended that the convention ever meant to place free white persons wishing to emigrate to the United States under the same embarrassment as slaves. The importation of the latter had been considered as a great injury; but he would ask if the emigration of oppressed Europeans was an injury? We have only to look over the United States to see the large number, as well as the respectability of those who have been obliged to pay their passage by binding themselves out for a term of years. It was only necessary for gendeinen to view this subject dispassionately for a moment, to reject the amendment. He would ask, if the amendment carried, whether one member H.OF R. Importation of Slaves. JANUARY, 1806. would vote for the resolution? He believed not, a measure, which will irritate and wound the feelas it would be a greater evil to prevent the emi-ings of a respectable member of the Confederacy? gration of whites than the importation of slaves; Forty or fifty thousand dollars is a petty sum to as the importation of the latter would be limited this Government; but it is not so to a State; it is to the year 1808, when he had no doubt it would not so to South Carolina. Let gentlemen, if they be prohibited by the unanimous vote of Congress. please, attempt to get round the question, by saying Mr. DANA. If I understand the gentleman from that this resolution is not exclusively confined to New Jersey right, he imagines the amendment is South Carolina-the evasion is unworthy of them. not in compliance with the spirit of the Constitu- The whole nation knows, South Carolina knows, tion, inasmuch as he is of opinion that the ninth and we know, what is intended by t; and it is section of the first article ought to be restricted in the same as if South Carolina was on the face of it. fair meaning to slaves. It is in the following The sum, though trifling to the United States, is words. [Mr. DANA here read the section.] It is not so to South Carolina. The revenue intended said he, indeed difficult for me to understand, how by this resolution to be drawn from South Caroan amendment in the very words of the Consti-lina, will equal, if it does not exceed, the whole tution, without the change of a single term, can expense of her government. What, then, will violate its spirit. Because the same words are be the situation of the people of that State, in used, is it to be inferred it is contrary to the spirit case this resolution is adopted? It will be the of the Constitution? I am sensible the amend- situation of a people who pay a double tax. They ment changes the complexion of the resolution; will pay a tax for the support of their own Gov but while it embraces others, it includes likewise ernment; revenue will be drawn from them for those persons in the resolution. Perhaps it may national purposes, as from the other parts of the include some persons who ought to be excluded; Union; and they will be burdened with an adbut it should be observed that this is only a reso-ditional tax, equal to the whole expense of their lution for settling the principle, and that the sub- State Government. I will ask now, whether the ordinate details may be settled in a bill. Gentle-evils attending such an imposition, and the reflecmen will not contend that the importation of all descriptions of white persons is beneficial. I recollect one State into which a cargo of convicts was imported, which a law was passed to prohibit. The amendment then merely involves the question, whether the resolution shall be confined to slaves, or be extended to others. The question was then taken on Mr. DANA's amendment to substitute persons in the room of slaves, and passed in the negative, only 32 members rising in favor of it. tions arising from it, will not necessarily irritate, wound, and offend the feelings of the people of that State? Whether, then, we consider it as a measure to evince the disapprobation of the nation, or as a source of revenue, it flows from a policy equally questionable. The people, sir, of South Carolina cannot avoid the reflection, that the finger of scorn is pointed at them; that a double tax is imposed on them. What will be the consequence? That which every gentleman must foresee. It is not difficult to foresee it, because it is a natural conse→ Mr. EARLY. I wish for the attention of the quence, such as must follow whenever the common Committee while I submit a very few observa- feelings of human nature are entertained. The contions on the resolution under consideration, which sequence will be, an alienation of attachment to are intended to go to a single point which has and respect for this Government. I ask gentlebeen but slightly noticed by the honorable Speaker, men to put the question home to themselves, but which may be placed in some points of view whether the revenue they expect is worth the sacthat are important. I mean to consider the sub-rifice? This is a question which ought never to jeet as a matter of feeling, in relation to the State on which it is about to bear. To her it is not unimportant. The object of the resolution certainly is either to point the disapprobation of this nation at the practice in question, or to raise a revenue from that practice. It is either one, or antives of the nation, I will undertake to give my union of both these ends. If the object be to point the disapprobation of the nation against South Carolina, I pray gentlemen to pause and reflect on the consequences of such a policy; and I beg all to recollect that they are interested as well as South Carolina with regard to such policy. Those who regard either the feelings of one State, or the peace and harmony of the whole nation, will do well to reflect before they adopt a policy bottomed on such a principle. As it may be, that the measure is entertained as a source of revenue, if this is the object, I will ask one question. Is the price they are to get worth the evil they create? Is the petty sum of $10,000 or $50,000 of so much moment. Is it a sufficient object to this Government to induce them to adopt be stirred in our national councils. Though older opinion of it. Sir, I have always understood that us with the resolution under consideration, to make free all persons born of a mother in the Territory of Columbia, after a certain period. All will recollect the height to which the feelings of men were wrought on those occasions. It is because the agitation of this subject always had and always will have the same effect, that I think it ought never to be introduced into this House. There is another idea on this subject, of no small importance. We constantly hear from different quarters of the Union, complaints relative to the unprotected state of trade Memorials to this effeet are every day heaping themselves upon us. I submit then, the question, whether if we legalize this trade, so far as the imposition of tax can legalize it, we shall not become bound to protect it as completely as we are bound to protect any other species of traffic? And whether we shall not receive crowds of memorials to this effect, from negro merchants? I believe we shall; and if, by collecting a revenue, we legalize the traffic, they will have the same rights as other traders. H. OF R. House whenever it came before it. If this be any argument at all, it is in favor of bringing the discussion to a close, by extinguishing the cause which produces it; for, until this shall be the case, there will always be found men in this House to offer a similar resolution, the result of which may be a like agitation. The question is not now whether this resolution shall be introduced, but, as it is introduced, whether it shall not be put to sleep forever, by exercising at once our Constitu tional powers. It is contended by the gentleman from North Carolina, (Mr. ALSTON.) that this measure is not Constitutional, because it operates partially. Mr. ALSTON rose to explain. If he had said that he did not consider the resolution as Constitutional, he had expressed what he did not mean to say. He had meant to say, and he believed he had said, it would operate partially and unjustly. Mr. BROOM.-I am glad the gentleman has saved the time of the House, and me the trouble, of confuting the argument which I had conceived I have another objection. I consider it as open-him to have urged. But as, on this point, much ing an objectionable source of revenue. I consid- honest fear may prevail, I must be permitted to er it objectionable to draw revenue from such a premise, notwithstanding the gentleman's conces traffic, Are we not told, in a loud tone, that it in-sion, that this resolution is strictly Constitutional. volves a violation of every principle of moral obligation; that it is a crying sin, which calls for the vengeance of Heaven? Are we not told, on this very floor, that it is so black a sin as ought to induce us to expect signal vengeance? Well, after these things are said and reiterated, will gentlemen contend that this is a proper source of revenue? What! Draw resources for the support of a great State from acts which are declared to be sins against Heaven? If this be correct, then may we go on with this as a precedent, and take the whole catalogue of crimes, and draw revenue from every oath that is broken, and every felony that is perpetrated! Thus, by taxing every crime, we shall support this Government by the commission of crimes. In my opinion, the adoption of a law or resolution to the effect of that on your table, will fix a stain on the records of this House, and on the character of the nation, at which our posterity will blush, and for which we, in our moments of cool reflection, will have ample cause to condemn ourselves. There are other points which might be noticed; but as they are such as already have been dwelt on. or are familar to the minds of the members, I will not detain the Committee by any remarks on them, but I will conclude by observing, that so far as respects myself, I will give this resolution a more hearty negative that I have ever before given in my life. [At the request of Mr. SMILIE, the act of Congress passed in the year 1800, was read by the Clerk.] Mr. BROOM-I agree with the gentleman from Georgia in expressing the wish that this resolution had never been brought forward, inasmuch as I wish that the State of South Carilina, in imitation of her sister States, had never given occasion for it. It is said that this is a question which has always produced agitation in this The spirit of the Constitution, if there were no express provision, would embrace the power; and one of the first laws of the Government would have been in consonance with this spirit, to prohibit a trade so repugnant to the uniform tenor of the Constitution, and to its very preamble. The first object of a body, established to guarantee the rights of a free people, but for this provision, would have been at least a prohibition of the extension of slavery. But, say gentlemen, there is part of the Constitution which declares that all duties shall be uniform; and because this tax will operate on South Carolina alone, it is unconstitutional. I do not know, however, that Congress are bound to say that each State shall pay an exact proportion of the duties; for, in so extensive an union, it would be impossible for any duty to be laid which would affect equally all parts of it. Do you impose a duty on distilled spirits, you raise one part of the Union in arms; do you tax the fisheries, another part of the Union is in ferment; and so with respect to the imposition of a tax upon other articles consumed unequally in different parts of the Union. No tax can, from the nature of things, operate equally on all the States. By uniformity, can only be meant an uniform operation on all the subjects of tax in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It cannot, therefore, be said that this tax is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution. It has the very uniformity required by the Constitution, for no part of the Union will be exempted by any act of the Union from its operation. There can be, therefore, no objection to the resolution on this ground. But we have not to resort to general principles to justify a tax expressly provided for by the words of the Constitution. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper H. OF R. Importation of Slaves. to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Here there is an express provision that this tax may be imposed. Will gentlemen say that it was the intention of the Convention to give a power which was never to be carried into effect? This power so given implied, on the part of the Union, an agreement to limit the amount of the tax. and on the part of the States a recognition of and an assent to it. It is said this measure will be harsh, oppressive, unjust. Why? Because it will operate on South Carolina alone. But I will ask, if such be the characteristics of this power, how this clause became ingrafted on the Constitution? Was there not in the Convention, on this subject, concession on both sides? Did not the Union concede to the Southern States, that prior to the year 1808, there should be no prohibition of the importation of slaves? But did not the States, interested in this traffic, concede to the United States the power of laying a tax of ten dollars upon every imported slave? Gentlemen then bind us to our concession; they say it is harsh, unjust; that it tends to wound, irritate, and harrow up their feelings. If this logic be applied to the private transactions of life, how will it sound? I sell a man a horse; he takes it, and I call upon him for the price he promised to give. Instead of giving me the money, he says it is hard and unjust, and that it tends to wound, irritate, and harrow up his feelings to demand it of him. Why did South Carolina submit to the Constitution, and thereby pledge herself to pay this tax, if she is now unwilling to submit to it? JANUARY, 1806. and the other moiety to the use of such person or persons who shall sue for and prosecute the 'same." By this act all citizens are prohibited from fitting out vessels for carrying on this trade, and not only the ship is forfeited, but a penalty is likewise imposed of two hundred dollars. In the year 1800, another act was passed by Congress, which has been read by the Clerk. In this act, Congress have manifested their sense of the inhumanity of this trade, and they have imposed penalties on carrying on a trade in slaves even from one foreign port to another. I ask if this is not exhibiting, in the strongest terms, the disapprobation of Congress against this traffic? When, not contented with prohibiting transactions relative to it, which occur under our own eyes, they inflict severe penalties upon those who pursue it in foreign ports. Every State but South Carolina has passed prohibitory laws on this subject. I presume that the pecuniary interests of other States connected with it, are equal to those of South Carolina. They, however, standing aloof from this pursuit of paltry gain, and actuated by motives of humanity and justice, have entirely interdicted it. South Carolina alone, uninfluenced by the example of her sister States, has opened her doors to the introduction of slaves. If, then, their object be profit, let us, as far as we can, reduce this profit; let us throw every impediment we can in the way of it. But it has been said, and with some degree of apparent triumph, in argument, that if we pass the proposed law, we shall thereby regulate this trade, and, in doing so, be bound to protect it. Astonished, sir, I should be to see that standard, heretofore raised in the defence of liberty, now reduced to protect the slave trade. Fortunately, however, we can never be bound to protect this trade, because the United States have solemnly declared that it shall never be carried on in any of our vessels, or by any of our citizens. How, then, protect it? In French, Spanish, or English vessels? Does not the common sense of every man revolt at the idea? By the laws of the land, our own citizens cannot carry on the trade; surely, then, we cannot be called on to protect foreign vessels in practices disallowed to our own citizens. We have, therefore, no reason on earth to fear that our armed vessels will be degraded by convoying a parcel of slaves to this boasted land of liberty. The gentleman says this ought to be considered as a matter of feeling, and that we ought not thus to point the finger of scorn at the State of South Carolina. What is this but an acknowledgment that the traffic is improper, and that the finger of scorn might be directed to it? I am not saying that the proceedings of the State of South Carolina are wrong; but, if they be wrong. to smother up the transaction without exercising our Constitutional power, is to make this Government a party in the wrong. I do not wish to point the finger of scorn at any State, but are we to be prevented, by this suggestion, from prohibiting, as far as we constitutionally can, a trade disapproved of by the general voice of the country, and disapproved of by the laws of every State in the Union except one? To show the extreme abhorrence of Congress against the slave trade, we have but to turn to the law passed in the year 1794; what does it say? If any citizen or citizens of the 'United States shall, contrary to the true intent ' and meaning of this act, take on board, receive. or transport any such persons as above described in this act. for the purpose of selling them as 'slaves, as aforesaid, he or they shall forfeit and pay, for each an every person so received on เ board, transported, or sold, as aforesaid, two hun-of. dred dollars, to be recovered in any court of the United States proper to try the same; the first moiety thereof to the use of the United States, But it is said that we shall encourage the trade by drawing a revenue from it. I appeal to the correct sense of gentlemen, whether the imposition of a duty upon an article can be considered as encouraging its importation? Have duties imposed upon imported articles ordinarily this effect? No. If this effect is intended, the way is to strip them of duties; and, in the case of a favorite article, always to keep it exempt from duty. To be told, then, because we lay a duty upon the importation of slaves, we, therefore, favor their importation, is the most novel principle I ever hea.d It is said this duty will not prohibit the importation of slaves. I would be glad if it should have the effect of prohibiting their importation; but I JANUARY, 1806. Importation of Slaves. H. OF R. will acknowledge I despair of any great effect be- oppressive duties. We have laid a duty of twenty ing produced in this way. But though it may cents on every bushel of salt, and correspondent not have this effect, it may depress the great stim-duties on tea, coffee, sugar, and molasses. I ask, ulus the trader has to carry on this trade. It can then, when it is considered that these articles are only be carried on from motives of gain. Will it extensively consumed by the poor of our country, be said to be no trifling thing to impose a tax of do we not take from labor the price of its industen dollars a head on a cargo of three or four hun-try, while we omit to lay any duty on slaves. who, dred blacks? Will this be no diminution of profit? so far from being owned by the poor, are the exThis is all we can do. Let us, then, do all we clusive property of the rich ?-thus exempting can, and leave the rest to Providence. Let us not this article of luxury, while others of the first necall for help until we have first helped ourselves. cessity, which are consumed by the poor, , in comLet us not say the Constitution ties our hands from mon with all descriptions of citizens, are burdened doing anything. when we are stared on the very with a heavy duty. While articles allowed to be face of it, with the power to do something. We beneficial to all classes pay high duties, articles shall never be able to wipe away the disgrace of which are injurious, used by the rich to pamper encouraging the slave trade, which may be im- their luxury, remain free from duty, and all the puted to us, unless we pass, to the full extent of efforts of the nation cannot obtain the imposition our Constitutional powers, laws to prohibit it. of even a slight duty on them. How inconsistent May not the reflection be cast upon us, that, after is this with the pompous profession of relieving having achieved our liberty, our first act was to the poor, so long sounded in our ears! We have trample under foot the most sacred rights of hu- heard it triumphantly announced that the millenmanity and justice? If what we shall do will not nium has arrived, and that poor men are no longer amount to a prohibition of the trade, is all our to be oppressed with grievous taxes; and yet, when labor therefore lost? No, sir; we may draw a we propose to lay a duty, whose effect might be, revenue from it. We are told that this will be to lessen the tax on the necessaries of life, we are disgraceful; that it will be the price of infamy; told we are not to do it, because it will irritate and that an honest Government ought not to draw the rich. I would not wish to wound the feela revenue from so corrupt a source. In answerings of any man, but I do not know why we should to this suggestion, I will appeal to the sentiments trample on the poor in order to privilege the rich. of every member of this Committee. If it be in- In this country, I know of no such privileged famous, as gentlemen contend, the Constitution order, and I trust we never shall know it. Viewed has tied up our hands; the Constitution has le- in the aspect of revenue, is the duty so small as to galized the trade. If there be infamy in it, we be unworthy of notice? If the tax produce only are bound to submit to it. Under these circum- $20,000, it will enable us to take off the tax on. stances. what does common sense tell us to do? pepper; and should it produce only $10,000, we To make the most of the power we possess. There may take off the tax on medicines and a variety is evil enough, God knows, in the trade, and of other articles consumed by all classes of our citwe can only lessen this evil by extracting as izens. But it may not be as small as gentlemen much good from it as we can. Is it just to say imagine. If 10.000 slaves are imported in a year, a Government patronizes crimes because it de- it will amount to $100,000. It is possible double rives profit from the labor of her criminal con- that sum may arise from it. I affect not, on this victs? It is contrary to common sense to draw point, to speak with precision, but if we reckon on such a conclusion. Gentlemen say, if you draw what has occurred in past times, we calculate on revenue from this source, you may as well obtain improper data. As we shall in a short time posit from licensing thieves, murderers, and the per-sess the power of entirely prohibiting the trade, petrators of other crimes. But there is a great difference between the cases. In one case you have a right to punish, and, by punishing, prevent the commission of crimes. But here our hands are tied. Thus far, says the Constitution, you shall go, and no farther. We may prevent, and we do prevent, our own citizens from carrying un the slave trade, but they dare not go further. With this view of the subject, I ask whether im posing a duty can be considered as sanctioning the act? A thief we may punish; but, in this case, we cannot drag to our tribunals men who owe no allegiance to our Government, and who are sheltered under a Constitutional provision. the present moment will probably be seized as the last days in which this iniquitous trade may be. triumphantly carried on. In order to meet future demands, those engaged in it will go to the full extent of their capital-to the whole length of which importations will be made. This is a strong reason for our doing all in our power to repress this trade. I need not dwell on the great number of slaves concentred in the Southern States. At the time of taking the census they amounted to 832.000. In the State of South Carolina there were 146,000 slaves, and 199.000 whites. I need not expatiate on the greatness of this evil. Not only South We impose duties on all articles except those Carolina may suffer, but all the other neighboring we think proper to encourage. Why, then, ex-States may share the evil. Those States who empt this? Unfortunately, a slave is considered are ashamed to avow a participation in the trade, by our laws as an article of property, and comes may be indebted to her for an augmentation of within the class of property imported into the their slaves; and the evil may extend to those United States. Upon salt, sugar, and other arti-States who now believe themselves secure. cles of the first necessity, we have laid high and these people were to rise on their masters, I ask if If. |