DECEMBER, 1806. Punishment of certain Crimes. H. OF R. the President of the United States, on the twenty-tice of the United States, or of any State or Territory fourth of April, one thousand eight hundred and possessing authority to bind to the peace and good besix, an imposition was practised upon the said havior, that any person intends to commit any misdeCommissioners in signing the names of the chiefs meanor provided against by this act, it shall be lawful of his nation, who were not present at the said for such judge, or justice, to cause such person to be treaty, whereby the Delaware tribe have been un-brought before him, and to require from such person justly deprived of their lands, and the improve-good and sufficient sureties, in such sum as shall be ments thereon; and praying that Congress will direct a survey of land to be made, including the lower town of the said tribe, on the Sandusky, with all their improvements, to be secured to the present inhabitants of their two towns, and their heirs, forever.-Referred to the Committee on Public Lands. PUNISHMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMES. On motion of Mr. DAWSON, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the bill providing for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, which was read by the Chairman, as follows: A Bill providing for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States. deemed reasonable, that he shall not, by any act to be of, commit any offence against this act, within the term of one year, or such longer term as the case may reasonably require, and, in default thereof, may commit such person during such term. done within the United States, or the territories there SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That, in every case in which any military expedition or enterprise shall be begun or set on foot contrary to the prohibitions and provisions of this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, or such other officer as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval force of the United States, or of the militia therof, as shall be judged necessary for the purpose of preventing the carrying on of such expedition or enterprise. SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That in all cases of insurrection or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the President of the Unite 1 States to call forth militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, under the and required on the employment of militia in the same same restrictions and conditions as are by law provided case. The first blank in the first section was filled with "ten;" the second with "five hundred;" the third with "ten ;" and the fourth with "one." The third section having been read, Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if any person or persons shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begin, or set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enterprise, with intent of taking possession of any fort, arsenal, magazine, dock, navy yard, or any public vessel of the United States, or of invading, or occupying with an armed force, any part of the United States, or the territories thereof, or with intent, in any other manner, of levying war against the United States, or of adhering to the enemies of the said States; or who, with intent, as aforesaid, shall combine or conspire together, or shall counsel, advise, or attempt to set on foot, provide, or prepare the means for any such military expedition or enterprise, or to procure any insurrection, unlawful assembly, or com- section gave most extraordinary powers to the Mr. J. CLAY said, it appeared to him that this bination, for such purpose, although such expedition or enterprise shall not be carried into effect, and whether justices of the peace. In the State which he rep such conspiracy, counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have sented, a justice of the peace was authorized to the proposed effect or not; every such person or per- bind over an individual until a superior judge or sons so offending, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged court should have an opportunity of investigating guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall suffer fine and the case. But, according to the provisions of this imprisonment, at the discretion of the court in which section, an ignorant justice of the peace might the conviction shall be had, so as that such fine shall not bind over an individual, or imprison him for a thousand dollars, or be less than - dol-year, or longer, if he could not find sureties for his lars, nor the term of imprisonment be more than good behaviour. He would also inquire what years, or less than years; and further, at the dis- evidence was required of the intention of the accretion of the court, be holden to find sureties for his, cused to commit the acts recited in the bill? The or their good behaviour, in such sum, and for such expression was, "whenever it shall appear to the term, as the said court may direct: Provided always, satisfaction" of any judge or justice of the peace. That nothing herein contained shall be construed so as No evidence was required of an overt act. It apto prevent the trial and punishment of any person or peared to him that this provision was extremely persons guilty of treason, murder, or any other offence dangerous. He, therefore, moved to strike out punishable by any law or laws of the United States. exceed - SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the trial of the abovementioned offences may be had in any of the districts or territories where any of the acts constituting the offence shall have been committed, and all the acts constituting the offence may be brought in evidence on such trial, in whatever part of the United States, or the territories thereof, they may have been committed. the section. In reply, it was said by Messrs. R. NELSON and DAWSON, that the object of this section was to give to justices of the peace, with regard to the acts against the peace of the United States made punishable by the bill, the same authority they possessed in the case of crimes committed against a foreign Power. SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever In the progress of the discussion, it was further it shall appear to the satisfaction of any judge or jus-remarked by Mr. J. CLAY, that this section went to punish persons on mere suspicion. This appeared from comparing the provisions of the first section with those of this section. The former provided for the punishment of persons who should, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begin, or set on foot, or provide or prepare the means for any military expedition or enter'prise, with intent of taking possession of any fort, arsenal, magazine, dock, navy yard, or any public vessel of the United States; or of invading or occupying, with an armed force, any part of the United States, or the territories thereof, 'or with intent, in any other manner, of levying war against the United States, or of adhering to 'the enemies of the said States; or who, with in'tent as aforesaid, shall combine or conspire to'gether, or shall counsel, advise, or attempt to set on foot, provide or prepare the means for any 'such military expedition, or enterprise, or to pro'cure any insurrection, unlawful assembly, or ' combination for such purpose, although such ex'pedition or enterprise shall not be carried into effect, and whether such conspiracy, counsel, ad'vice, or attempt, shall have the proposed effect or not." On examining the third section, it would be seen that this extraordinary power was given to any justice of the peace to whose satisfaction it .shall appear that any person intends to commit any such misdemeanor. Mr. C. said he wished to know how it was to be ascertained when a person meant to intend to advise the setting on foot a military expedition, or what degree of criminalty would attach to a person intending to advise the making of such preparations. He trusted the section would be stricken out, and that the Committee would rise, in which case he would then move to recommit the bill. DECEMBER, 1806. By the former gentlemen the principle embraced by the section was pronounced unconsti tutional, unprecedented, and dangerously invasive of the most sacred rights of the citizen. By the latter, the necessity of a modification conformable to that suggested by Mr. NELSON, was admitted. As there was no substantial difference of opinion avowed, it is deemed altogether superfluous to enter into a wider detail of the arguments adduced. The motion to strike out the section was carried by a large majority, eighty members rising in the affirmative. The Committee then rose, and asked leave to sit again, which was refused by the House; when, on motion of Mr. J. CLAY, the bill was recommitted to Messrs. DAWSON, SMILIE. ELY, SLOAN, T. W. THOMPSON, NELSON, and DANA. MONDAY, December 29. Several other members, to wit: from Massachusetts, PHANUEL BISHOP; from New York, GURDON S. MUMFORD and NATHAN WILLIAMS; from New Jersey, WILLIAM HELMS; from Kentucky, JOHN FOWLER; and the Delegate from the Indiana Territory, BENJAMIN PARKE; appeared, and took their seats in the House. An engrossed bill making appropriations for the support of the Navy of the United States, during the year one thousand eight hundred and seven, was read the third time, and passed. next. IMPORTATION OF SLAVES. On motion of Mr. EARLY, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the bill for the prohibition of the slave trade. Mr. J. RANDOLPH, from the Committee of Ways and Means, presented a bill supplementary to the act, entitled "An act making provision for the redemption of the whole of the public debt of the Mr. R. NELSON acknowledged the section to be United States;" which was read twice, and comsusceptible of the meaning given it by the gentle-mitted to a Committee of the Whole on Friday man from Pennsylvania, which, however, he said had not been intended by the select committee who reported the bill. But he hoped that the section, instead of being stricken out, would be amended. It appeared to him that it might be so amended as to remove every objection that had been urged to it. By requiring evidence to be given on oath before the judge or justice, they were empowered either to recognise or commit the accused; and by limiting the recognisance or confinement until the next term of the court, and by striking out the words "intends to commit," he thought the section would be rendered unexceptionable. If the motion to strike out should be rejected, Mr. N. said he would offer an amendment to this effect, to strike out the exceptionable part of the section, and provide that any person who shall commit a misdemeanor against the act may be bound over by a justice or judge, to his good behaviour, to the next term, or be committed in case he fails to find sureties. A debate of considerable length ensued on Mr. J. CLAY'S motion to strike out the section, in which Messrs. J. CLAY, ELY, DANA, HOLLAND, FISK, QUINCY, KELLY, DWIGHT, and HASTINGS, supported, and Messrs. R. NELSON, SOUTHARD, SLOAN, COOK, and ALSTON, opposed it. The discussion of the amendment, which was offered on a former day by Mr. BIDWELL, to strike out of the third section so much as declares a forfeiture of the slaves, was resumed by the Committee. Mr. FINDLEY was in favor of the amendment. He hoped that the slaves would not be forfeited, but bound out for a limited period as apprentices. Mr. BIDWELL. It appears to me that all the objections, which have been urged against the amendment under consideration, may be reduced to two. 1. That a forfeiture is necessary to deprive the importers of every motive to introduce any slaves into the country, and thus render the prohibition completely effectual. 2. That if the slaves are emancipated and turned loose in the Southern States, they will be a destructive nuisance to the people of those States. Neither of these objections is, in my apprehension, well founded. If the motion to strike out prevails, another amendment may be made, declaring that H. OF R. the importer has no right to the slaves, which he disgraceful to the United States to admit such introduces. This will be a declaration conform- an implication. The importer has no right. He able to the state of things and in exact accord- 'could acquire none. These persons are free by ance with the laws of nature and of nations. It'the law of nature-as free as any of us. The is not in order to offer an amendment now, but if the present motion prevails, I design to propose an amendment to this effect. This will answer the purpose completely, and remove from the importer every temptation to engage in this traffic. The idea of forfeiture proceeds wholly on a false principle. It implies that the importer has a right to the slaves. But an amendment like that which I have suggested will declare the fact as is it; it will be conformable to truth. But if the section passes as it now is, with the clause of forfeiture retained, we recognise in our statute book a false principle, which neither the Constitution, nor the laws of the United States, have ever authorized, to wit: that a property may be had in human beings. The Constitution and laws have always left the disposition of slaves to the States, and hitherto have never recognised the principle of slavery. African Prince who sold them was a usurper. The purchasers in Africa were trespassers against the law of nature. They cannot acquire any right of property in these persons, and it is shameful for the United States, by forfeiture, to admit it." Sir, the conclusions of the gentleman are perfectly correct-his principles are solid. No man in this House denies either. Refer this question between the African Prince and his subjects, and between the African and his importer, to five hundred juries in New England, and five hundred times a verdict would coincide with the principles and reasonings of my colleague. But the misfortune is, that, notwithstanding all these true and unquestionable principles, the African Prince, at this day, does, and, after our law passes, will sell his subjects. To all practical purposes, a title is acquired in them, and they are passed, like other property, from one to another, in their native But if we do not forfeit the negroes, the ques-country. But this is, not the worst. A title in tion is asked again and again, with an air of triumph, what is to be done with them? For my part I had rather strike out the section, and do nothing at all than retain the forfeiture. If we do nothing we shall not increase the evil. They will then be left to the States to dispose of, according to the State laws. This will not increase the evil. 1 am, however, willing to agree to any practicable mode of disposing of them. But at any rate, I am for striking out the forfeiture, and opposed to disgracing our statute book with a recognition of the principle of slavery. Mr. QUINCY.-Since there is so general an agreement as to the end, I wish it were possible we could unite more perfectly as to the means. Those in favor of forfeiture are anxious for noth ing so much as to prohibit totally the importation of slaves. Indeed, it is for this very reason they are in favor of it, because they assert, and to my mind on unquestionable ground, that this is your only effectual means of prohibition. They are also anxious that if they are brought they should not be made slaves in their part of the country. As to their being made free in the Southern States, that is out of the question. The policy of those States, the first duty of self-preservation, forbid it. On the other hand, those against forfeiture not only wish to prohibit their importation, but, if imported, they declare they do not desire they should be made slaves, or even set free, within those States where this class of persons in such great numbers exist. Now is it not possible for us, who agree in so many particulars. to approach unanimity, at least on this point? This, it seems to me, would be effected, if the honorable mover, (Mr. BIDWELL.) and the gentleman from Vermont, (Mr. FISK.) would descend from their high abstract ground to the level of things in their actual state-such as have, do, and will exist, after your laws, and in spite of them. The argument of my colleague is, "forfeiture 'implies a right, vested in importers. Now it is this description of persons is not only allowed in Africa, but is, and must be, after your law passes, in a large section of your own country. The gentlemen from that part of the United States tell you that they cannot be allowed to be free among them. The first law, self-preservation, forbids it. Now this is that real, practical state of things to which I invite gentlemen to look, and on which they ought to legislate. I ask concerning it, how ought we to reason? What is our duty? First. Do all you can to prohibit. Next, if you fail in this-if, in spite of your laws and their penalties, this description of persons be brought into the United States, then place yourselves in such a situation as may enable you best to meliorate the condition of this unhappy class of men, consistent with self-preservation, and with the deep stake which an important section of the country has in the policy which you adopt. On both accounts forfeit. First, because it is the best means of prohibition. The gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. EARLY.) declares it is the only means by which you can do it effectually. The argument he used on this point, on a former day, is to my mind conclusive. From the situation of the Southern States, particularly Georgia, you can only prevent the traffic by taking away the inducement to purchase. And this can only be done by making the right of every purchaser be forfeited as a penalty. Next, if contrary to your laws they be imported, they are thrown on the humanity of the United States. They are brought here by our citizens, and it is the duty of the National Government to reserve the control of them, so as to be certain that the best is done for the amelioration of their condition that our own safety permits. On this account, forfeit. It is only as a commercial regulation that the National Government can get this control. If we do not take that title in these persons into the United States, which the laws of some States re H. OF R. Importation of Slaves. DECEMBER, 1806. cognise, in those States they are slaves-they | Really, sir, I fear it will happen to the honorable must be slaves. Those States can never permit mover of the amendment (Mr. BIDWELL) as it them to be anything else. This can only be done happened to another celebrated asserter of Afriby forfeiture. The character of your policy will can rights-I mean the renowned Knight of La depend upon what you do with them after the Mancha. We all recollect that while that worthy forfeiture. Gentlemen reason as if those persons Knight was, with all the real honesty in the were inevitably to be sold under the hammer. world, descanting on the moral fitness of things Certainly this is not the necessary consequence. on the eternal, unalienable, imprescriptible rights Are they not after forfeiture at your control? of man!-that during all that time he was exerMay you not do with them what is best for hu- cising himself and instructing others on these man beings in that condition in which these mise-themes-the very persons he had undertaken to rable creatures are, when they first arrive in this deliver-the great African Princess Micomicona, country, naked, helpless, ignorant of our language, Queen of the great African Kingdom Micomicon, our climate, our laws, our character, and our with her father, her mother, her brothers, her sis manners? Are you afraid to trust the National ters, in short her whole family, were left in absoGovernment, and yet, by refusing to forfeit, will lute and irretrievable slavery; their fetters not you throw them under the control of the States, knocked off, nor their shackles lightened, nor one all of whom may, and some of them will, and ray of light thrown in upon their prison. And must, make them slaves? yet the good Knight, with all possible self-comBut the great objection to forfeiture is, "it ad-placency, astride of his theories, was couching his mits a title." I answer, first, this does not neces-lance, scouring the plain, the mirror of philansarily follow. All the effect of forfeiture is, that thropic chivalry, the very cream of the milk of whatever title can be acquired in the cargo shall human kindness! be vested in the United States. If the argument Now, I say, sir, a little more practicable good, of the gentleman be correct, and the species of and a little less theoretic impulse. Reason and cargo be such as that, from the nature of the legislate according to the actual state of this dething, no title can be acquired in it, then nothing scription of persons. Place yourselves so as to can vest in the United States; and the only ope- do the best possible for their good. They are ration of forfeiture is to divest the importer's color thrown on your mercy. Do not trust to others. You of title by the appropriate commercial term-can be most certain this power will not be abused perhaps the only term we can use effectual to this in your own hands. Forfeit-because this is the purpose, and which does not interfere with the technical word for getting the control of them, rights of the States. Grant that these persons and the only certain way of making them secure have all the rights of man; will not these rights of your humanity. But what shall be done with be as valid against the United States as against them? That is a subsequent consideration. It is the importer; and by taking all color of title out enough for me to know that this House can never of the importer, do we not place the United States do anything with them which humanity and selfin the best possible situation to give efficiency to preservation do not dictate. Gentlemen will not the rights of man, in respect to the persons so im- pretend that these Africans have more rights by ported? But, next, let us agree that forfeiture does nature than our children. And yet, in every admit a species of title, lost on one side and ac- parish, poor children are bound out, without their quired on the other; such as we cannot prevent consent, until they are of age, and of capacity to being recognised in those States where these im- take care of themselves. These Africans are as portations will most frequently take place: I ask, helpless, ignorant, and incompetent as such chilwhich is best, and which most humane? Admit a dren, and the wisdom of the National Legislature title, gain it for the United States, and then make certainly can, and I have no doubt will, devise these miserable creatures free, under such circum- means to make them useful members of society, stances, and in such time, as their condition into without any infringement of the rights of man. which they are forced permits, or deny the possibility of acquiring a title, and leave them to be slaves? But my colleague (Mr. BIDWELL) has a sovereign specific for this. He says, we do not make them slaves, we only leave them to the laws of the respective States." But I ask, if the laws of all the States may, and those of some of the States do, and necessarily will make them slaves, "by leaving them to the operation of the laws of these States," do we not as absolutely make them slaves as though we voted them to be such in this House? To my mind, when we have the power, if we fail to secure to ourselves the means of giving them their freedom, under Mr. FISK was for striking out. He thought the proper modifications, we have an agency in mak-term forfeiture implied that the importer had a ing them slaves. To me it seems that the amend-right till divested by statute. If the gentlemen ment proposed, striking out the forfeiture, will de- against the amendment are sincere in their enfeat the very end its advocates have in view.deavors to prohibit the trade, they will vote for Mr. BARKER deemed the forfeiture necessary to render the prohibition effectual; otherwise the negroes would be landed on the shore, and, the vessels and captains who brought them escaping, they would be taken up and made slaves. Mr. B. was, however, unwilling to recognise the principle, that a right of property could be had in slaves. He wished that they might be taken care of by the Government, and comfortably provided for. He was against turning them loose on the people of the Southern States. Humanity, which should be extended to the whites as well as to the blacks, forbids it. H. of R. at, but which are now beginning, I hope, to be held in universal estimation. The Declaration of Independence contains this sentence: "We hold these principles to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness." Will the honorable Speaker tell us how these rights are connected with commercial principles? striking out the forfeiture. There is no need of Mr. MACON, (the Speaker.)-The gentleman: from Vermont, who has just sat down, says, if we are sincere in our endeavors to prohibit the slave trade, we shall agree to the amendment. In answer to this, I shall only observe that our sincerity must be tested by our actions, not by our words. The gentlemen from the South say, if we turn loose these Africans, they will be a terrible nuisance, and the whole inhabitants will be compelled, in self-defence, either to enslave or destroy them. I confess I cannot see the force of this argument. If this is a fair and honest account, every man in the Southern States will lend a hand to execute the law, and prevent the introduction of so dreadful a calamity. But if the forfeiture is retained, and the Southern people want slaves, the only difference under the law will be, that the United States will supply them by furnishing those forfeited negroes. I still consider this a commercial question. The laws of nations have nothing more to do with it than the laws of the Turks or the Hindoos. We derive our powers of legislation not from the laws of nations, but from the Constitution. If this is not a commercial question, I would thank the gentleman to show what part of the Constitution gives us any right to legislate on this subject.mittee long. He had hastily drawn up an amendIt is in vain to talk of turning these creatures loose to cut our throats. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BIDWELL) says that no right to the slaves vests in the importer. If this is so, why in the name of God are you legislating on the subject? Why do you not leave them to themselves, like the Irish, Germans, and other Europeans, who flock to our shores? But if the importer has no right, whence do you obtain the right to bind them out as apprentices? Mr. SLOAN said he would not detain the Com ment, which he thought would meet the mind of every gentleman. He was sensible of its imperfection, and that it would want altering in the wording to make it correct. He would, however, beg leave to read it. The amendment was to the following effect: Be it enacted, &c., That whenever any slaves shall be imported into this country after the 1st of January, 1808, if brought into a State whose laws do not permit slavery, they shall be free; if brought into a State whose laws do authorize slavery, such slaves shall be transported back to Africa, and if that is not practicable, they shall be bound out as apprentices. Suppose we leave them as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BIDWELL) has suggested, what will become of them? They will be smuggled in and made slaves. All the arguments which I have yet heard have served to confirm the opinion that a forfeiture is the only effectual mode of prohibition; and though our sincerity has been doubted with an if, yet I believe every member injection to the term forfeiture. this House is solicitous to put a complete stop to this nefarious traffic. Mr. Cook was in favor of the motion. Unless the slaves are forfeited, we can have no jurisdiction over them. It would be a new mode of legislation, and most singular law, to bind them out without their consent. Mr. C. could see no ob Mr. SMILIE.-I confess I still hold the same opinion on this subject as before. We cannot pass this bill, so long as this forfeiture is in it, and support a fair national character. The honorable Speaker has stated one idea, and that boldly, too, which I confess is to my mind very novel that we cannot take up this subject except on commercial principles. I shall make an observation or two, since we are challenged on the subject, to see if the doctrine is correct. We cannot hinder this trade till 1808, but then our power will be unlimited. Suppose an American should go to Turkey, or any other part of Europe, and kidnap the unoffending inhabitants there, will the honorable Speaker say we cannot punish him except on commercial principles ? But this question is connected with principles of a higher order than those merely commercial. I beg leave on this occasion to refer to the principles of 1776, which have indeed been since laughed 9th CoN. 2d SESS.-8 Mr. FINDLEY, in answer to the Speaker, inquired if the rights appertaining to the United States, by the laws of nations, were not vested in Congress, who would exercise them? Clearly they were not vested in the State governments; of course they were vested in the National Legislature. Congress has manifestly a right by the laws of nations to expel aliens. The section in the Constitution which forbids us to prohibit the importation of slaves till 1808, clearly implies, that were it not for the restraining clause, we should now have the right of preventing any aliens coming to this country. Otherwise, why this restraint inserted in the Constitution? It has been said that we cannot bind them out against their own consent. True, but if they are unwilling to be bound out for their own advantage, we shall be compelled to do it, or make slaves of them on principles of self-defence. Mr. SOUTHARD observed, that the subject seemed really to be exhausted, but he would assign one reason for his vote. He was opposed to striking |