240 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, opposing the 

 amendment, said : " I take it for granted every 

 body will admit that however the opinions of 

 individual senators may he upon the subject, 

 there is nothing in the Constitution of the 

 United States which prohibits slaves from being 

 transported in vessels from one port of the 



, United States to another port. If I am right, 

 that is to say, that the courts hold that the act 

 is not unconstitutional, the honorable member 

 proposes to repeal the eighth and ninth sec- 

 tions of that act, and I inquire of him whether 

 he has looked, with the acuteness which he 

 always brings to the consideration of questions 

 of that character, to the effect of his amend- 

 ment. If the Constitution of the United States 

 of itself would authorize a slave to be carried 

 from one port of the United States to another 

 port of the United States, then they may be 

 carried, except so far as Congress under the 

 commercial power may think proper to restrain 

 it, and the object of the two sections he pro- 

 poses to repeal is to restrain it. The eighth 

 section prohibits their being carried in vessels 

 of a less tonnage than forty tons. That he 

 proposes to repeal. Then if I am right and I 

 am sure I am right in the judgment of the 

 courts they may be carried in vessels of a less 

 amount of tonnage than that. The ninth sec- 

 tion, the other one Avhich he proposes to re- 

 peal, provides for the manner in which they 

 may be carried in vessels of forty tons or more 

 than forty tons ; and for the purpose of pro- 

 tecting one who is claimed to be a slave, but 

 who may be free against being sold into cap- 

 tivity in a State where lie may not be able to 

 establish his freedom by evidence, certain regu- 

 lations are prescribed by Congress for the pro- 

 tection of the freeman, Avho, because he is 

 black, when he gets into a State where slavery 

 exists, may be sold and may be held in slavery 

 forever thereafter. 



" If the honorable member repeals that sec- 

 tion, what is the result ? The result is, that in 

 all vessels of any amount of tonnage slaves 

 may be carried, no matter at what hazard to 

 the slave, no matter at what hazard of life or 

 liberty, provided I am right, and I repeat I 



- know that I am, and the courts will hold, that 

 under the Constitution of the United States 

 there is nothing to prohibit it except in the 

 power which it confers upon Congress to regu- 

 late commerce between the States and foreign 

 nations, and consequently, in the absence of 

 such regulation, these people may be carried. 

 If I wanted to accomplish the object which the 

 honorable member supposes southern men in 

 the past, at any rate, were anxious to accom- 

 plish, to open this trade entirely, to permit the 

 slaves to be carried from one port to another 

 without restraint, I would join hands with him 

 and repea. these two sections of the act of 

 March, 1807. Nothing is clearer in my judg- 

 ment than that they may be carried in a vessel 

 of any amount of tonnage, and they may be 

 tarried in any manner in which the master of 



that vessel and the master of the slave thini 

 proper to have them carried, if those two sec- 

 tions are repealed. Instead, therefore, by this 

 particular measure, of accomplishing the pur- 

 pose which the honorable member says he al- 

 ways has in his mind's eye, of striking at the 

 institution of slavery wherever it exists, he 

 will grant a larger license to the institution 

 than our ancestors granted, and a license which 

 they intended to restrain by the very sections 

 which the honorable member proposes to re- 

 peal." 



Mr. Sumner : " Of course I differ radically 

 from the senator from Maryland (Mr. John- 

 son) on the merits of this proposition. He is 

 always willing to interpret the Constitution for 

 slavery. I interpret it for freedom. And yet 

 he is anxious lest the repeal of the two ob- 

 noxious sections regulating the coastwise slave 

 trade should leave it open to unrestrained prac- 

 tice. I do not share his anxiety. 



" Where will the slaves come from ? Not from 

 the rebel States, for emancipation is the des- 

 tined law there. Not from his own State, for 

 emancipation will soon be the law there. But 

 even should slaves be found for this traffic 

 (which, thank God, cannot be the case) I am 

 unwilling that Congress should continue to 

 regulate the ignoble business. Our statute- 

 book should not be defiled by any such license. 

 Remove this license and the Constitution, 

 rightly interpreted, will do the rest. 



" It is here that the difference arises between 

 the Senator and myself. He proceeds as if 

 those old days still continued when slavery was 

 installed supreme over the Supreme Court, giv- 

 ing immunity to slavery everywhere. The 

 times have changed, and the Supreme Court 

 will yet testify to the change. To me it seems 

 clear that, under the Constitution of the United 

 States, no person can be held as a slave on 

 shipboard within the national jurisdiction, and 

 that the national flag cannot cover a slave. 

 The Senator thinks differently, and relies upon 

 the Supreme Court ; but I cannot doubt that 

 this regenerated tribunal will yet speak for 

 freedom as in times past it has spoken for sla- 

 very. And I trust, should my life be spared, 

 to see the Senator from Maryland, who bows 

 always to the decisions of that tribunal, recog- 

 nize gladly the law of freedom thus authorita- 

 tively pronounced. Perhaps he will be as- 

 tonished that he was ever able to interpret the 

 Constitution for slavery. If he is not, others 

 will be. 



" But my special purpose now has been to re- 

 move odioias provisions, and I have contented 

 myself with words of repeal, in the hope of 

 presenting the proposition in such a form as 

 to unite the largest number of votes. My own 

 disposition has been to go further, and to add 

 words of positive prohibition. But, at the pres- 

 ent moment, I am willing to waive this addi- 

 tion, and content myself with the simple re- 

 peal, that our statute-book may no longer be 

 degraded, trusting that the Constitution right- 



