very strong objections against forfeiting imported Africans, and selling them at public auction like bales of goods. lie admitted the inconvenience that might arise in some of the states from setting them free; but that might be obviated by binding them out for terms of years, and appointing some proper officer to look after them. As the bill now stood, it authorized the selling of forfeited slaves even in Massachusetts, where slavery was totally prohibited. He moved to recommit the bill, and after an animated debate, that motion prevailed.
When the bill came back from the select committee to which it had been referred, some debate arose upon the punishment of death to be inflicted on those engaged in the slave-trade. This, Early said, had been introduced to gratify some of the committee, and test the sense of the house. He moved to strike it out, with a view to substitute imprisonment; and, after some debate, that motion was carried.
When the disposal of the forfeited negroes was again resumed, Findley advocated biuding them out for terms of years. Bidwell strongly opposed the forfeiture, as implicating the United States in the same crime with the traders. He hoped the statute book would never be disgraced by such a law. This verbal implication of the United States being, however, avoided, he was quite willing to leave the imported Africans to the laws of the states, whatever they might be. Quincy, of Mass., in reply, insisted on the forfeiture, not only because the southern gentlemen regarded it as the only means of enforcing the law, but because it was also the only means by which the United States could obtain a control over these unfortunate creatures, so as to be certain that the best was done for them that circumstances would admit. It did not follow that they must be sold because they were forfeited. "May you not do with them what is best for human beings in that condition — naked, helpless, ignorant of our laws, character, and manners? You are afraid to trust the national government, and yet, by refusing to forfeit, you will throw them under the control of the states, all of which may, and some of which will and must retain them in slavery. The great objection to forfeiture is that it admits a title. But this does not follow. All the effect of forfeiture is, that whatever title can be acquired in the cargo shall be vested in the United States. If the cargo be such that, from the nature of the thing, no title can be acquired in it, then nothing vests in the United States. The only operation of the forfeiture is to vest the importer's color of title by the appropriate commercial term, perhaps the only term we can effectually use, to this purpose, without interfering with the rights of the states. Grant that these persons have all the rights of man: will not those rights be as valid against the United States as against the importer? And, by taking all color of title out of the importer, do we not place the United States in the best possible situation to give efficiency to the rights of man in the case of the persons imported?
"But let us admit that forfeiture does imply a species of title lost on one side and acquired on the other, such as we can not prevent being recognized in those states into which these importations will most frequently take
