"[41] Finally, if
the Southerners would refuse to execute so severe a law because they did
not consider the offence great, they would probably refuse to execute
any law at all for the same reason.[42]
The opposition answered that the death penalty was more than
proportionate to the crime, and therefore "immoral."[43] "I cannot
believe," said Stanton of Rhode Island, "that a man ought to be hung for
only stealing a negro."[44] It was argued that the trade was after all
but a "transfer from one master to another;"[45] that slavery was worse
than the slave-trade, and the South did not consider slavery a crime:
how could it then punish the trade so severely and not reflect on the
institution?[46] Severity, it was said, was also inexpedient: severity
often increases crime; if the punishment is too great, people will
sympathize with offenders and will not inform against them. Said Mr.
Mosely: "When the penalty is excessive or disproportioned to the
offence, it will naturally create a repugnance to the law, and render
its execution odious."[47] John Randolph argued against even fine and
imprisonment, "on the ground that such an excessive penalty could not,
in such case, be constitutionally imposed by a Government possessed of
the limited powers of the Government of the United States."[48]
The bill as passed punished infractions as follows:--
For equipping a slaver, a fine of $20,000 and forfeiture of the
ship.
Pages:
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174