The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

WASHINGTON CITY. MONDAY, JANUARY 12.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THURSDAY, JAN. 8.

ABSTRACT

Of the arguments urged on the RECOMMITMENT of the bill prohibiting the importation of Slaves.

The recommitment was advocated by Messrs. Sloan, Bidwell, Findley, Quincy, Ely, Smilie, J. Clay, Gregg, Bedinger and Alexander; and opposed by Messrs. Early, Holland, and Masters.

The advocates of a recommitment observed, that the bill in its present shape was such as they could never agree to, and that if a modification of it were successfully resisted, they would be compelled, however reluctantly, to give it their negative. They flattered themselves, however, that a spirit of harmony and accommodation, of which so illustrious an example had been set by the framers of the constitution, would induce the friends of the bill to allow its modification in such a way as to reconcile its provisions to the sentiments entertained in the eastern section of the union; by which means it would go forth with the sanction either of the whole House, or of a great majority, and be thereby more likely to prove operative and effectual than if passed by a small majority.

They declared that they never could agree to that feature of the bill, which authorised the sale of persons of color introduced into the U.S. as slaves. They were ready to acquiesce in the principle of a forfeiture of the person, inasmuch as it had been sanctioned by the vote of a large majority, and as it appeared to be so strenuously insisted on by the representatives of the southern country. But while they yielded their individual opinions on this point, they expected a correspondent concession on the part of the representatives of the southern states, which was, that persons thus introduced into the U. S. should be disposed of in such a way as to prevent their conversion into slaves, and so as to save the U. S. from the humiliation and disgrace of sanctioning a principle at which the strongest feelings of humanity, as well as the plainest dictates of reason revolted.

They remarked that the bill had hitherto been in the hands of those who were devoted to its present features; & no fair opportunity had consequently been afforded those who entertained different views, on the subject to devise a plan, and exhibit the necessary details, for such a disposition of these people as would at once prevent in the highest degree their importation, and save the general government from the ignominy of sanctioning the principle of slavery. It was added that if the bill were recommitted to a committee of seventeen members, composed of a member from each state, it was probable that a plan would be devised that would be most likely, by combining the sentiments of the several states, to meet with general approbation in the legislative body, as well as throughout the whole union.

It was incidentally observed that it might, perhaps, be found a most efficient auxiliary to the bill, to allow a bounty on the conviction of every person who should infract its provisions.

With regard to the allegation that the power of Congress to act on this subject was exclusively derived from their authority to regulate trade, that doctrine was altogether denied. Such a doctrine, it was said, was of the most dangerous complexion, as it went to sanction the principle that it was lawful for Congress to deal in human beings as an article of commerce--a principle abhorrent to humanity, and at war with our fundamental institutions, for the establishment of which we had put every thing that was dear or valuable to hazard. A reference to the constitution would expose the fallacy of the ideas of gentlemen on this head. Among the powers delegated by that instrument to Congress was the power to "define and punish offences against the law of nations." It was afterwards added that "That the migration or importation of such persons as any of the state now existing shall think proper 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."

Before this act could go into effect, this last provision would in point of time expire, and the first provision would be reinstated in full efficacy, which unquestionably gave Congress a full power over the subject, independently of that derived from their right to regulate commerce.

In addition to these arguments for a recommitment it was observed that the details of the bill were radically defective. On examining the revenue laws of the U. S. in conformity to which the provisions of the bill were drafted, it would be seen that a moiety of the cargo forfeited went to the U. S. and that the other moiety went to the custom house officers in case there were no informers, and in case of an information, one half of the moiety to the informer and one half to the custom house officers; and that consequently in the last case but one fourth of the proceeds of the cargo went to the informer. In just proportion to the small