The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-02-03

Vi euucdtiou Oh any African heretofore Returned,
or hereafter to be returned, to their native coul-
try, under the provisions of said act of Sd
March, 1919, after the same shall have been
discharged into the hands of the agent or agents
appointed to receive them from the Government
of the United States
The question being taken, the proviso was
rejected.
MIR. Crawford, of Georgia, moved that the
appropriation for this purpose be reduced to
$4,000. He could not support the bill as re-
ported from the Committee OF Ways and Means,
for the reason that 100000 Of the appropriation
was TO be used for the support and maintenance
of the Africans after they had been returned to
Liberia, and placed in the hands of the Colon-
zation Society.
Mr.. Moore, of Alabama, admitted that there
had been precedents to Justify the action of the
President, but he was opposed to this whole
colonization scheme at Liberia, which had
proved by experiment to be a failure and an
abortion.
Mr.. Millson, Of Virginia, was surprised at the
sensitiveness of some gentlemen in relation to
this subject. They felt an inde6nable appre
hension that in that section was associated
some condemnation Of the slave trade, and
therefore of Slavery. He thought gentlemen
did not appreciate the strength of their position.
10 condemn the slave trade was to reproach
Slavery to uphold the slave trade was to sur
render the defence of Slavery, and abandon all
the arguments upon which justification of the
system of Slavery now existing in the several
States was founded.
Mr.. Case, of Indiana, then moved that the
whole section, which reads as follows should
be stricken out:
To enable the President of the United
States to carry into effect the act of Congress
of third Of March 1919, and any subsequent
acts now in force for the suppression Of the
slave trade, $4,000; Prorided, That so much
OF said appropriation may be required to pay
expenses already incurred may be used from
and after the passage of this act"
Mr.. Case said he agreed entirely with the
gentleman, who contended that the President
should not have made contract with the Col
onization Society for the support and education
OF these Africans. Such course was entirely
inconsistent with the sentiments of the age.
Mr.. kett, of South Carolina, contended that
tho issue alluded to by the gentleman from
Virginia Mr. Millson had not been made di-
rectly or indirectly. They had only protested
against this Government, fully mounted on the
Anti Slayery sentiment, riding down all restric-
tons of law.
The question being on the amendment ofMr.
Crawford
Mr.. Whitley, of Delaware, moved to strike
out the enacting clause of the bill, with view
Of terminating the debate which motion did
not prevail.
The pending amendment was then agreed
to-yeas &c, nays 38.
The question recurring upon the motion that
the whole clause be stricken out
Mr. Seward, of Georgia, moved to add pro-
viso, that all the laws heretofore passed prohib-
iting the slave trade be repealed; and that the
policy of restricting the foreign slave trade be
left to the several States.
Mr. Burnett, of Kentucky, raised point of
order, that the proposed amendment was not
germane to the bill.
The Chairman decided the point Of order to
be well taken.
The question recurring upon the motion to
strike ont the whole section
Mr.. Bonham, Of South Carolina, moved to
strike out the words, 81 acts now in force" So
far as he was aware, there was no other act
that contained the words " for the suppression
of the slave trade than the act of 1919
Mr.. Seward looked upon the laws passed by
the Congress Of the United States for the sup
preston of the slave trade rs mischevious and
wrong. They were opposed to the Constitution.
These acts subjected the property of citizens to
forfeiture, and yet they were appropriating
money to carry them out, thereby visiting the
sins Of the fathers upon the children.
The pending amendment was rejected.
Mr., Barksdale Of Mississippi, endorsed the
speech of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr.
| SEWARD but regarded the whole discussion as
iltimed and out of place.
| Mr.. Burnett, of Kentucky, regarded the de-
bate upon the subject of reopening the slave
trade unfortunate to the section from which
he came, and useless. He held that the Presi
| tbo do inc bo Il
done, When the time came for solving that
problem, he would be ready TO meet the ques
ton; but now there was no proposition to re.
| peal the laws in relation to the slave trade
Mr.. Singleton contended that the question
had been presented by the President in calling
upon them to confirm his construction Of the
act of 1919.
Mr. Groesbeck of Ohio, inquired what the
| gentleman would have the President do with the
negroes.
Mr.. Singleton replied he would have them
taken where they came from, and they would be
no worse off than when they were taken. II
this law were construed in accordance with the
section under consideration, and Black Re
publican President were elected, with Black
Republican House ready to carry out his ends
the rights of the South you'd be Invaded. They
were minority in the Republic, and mpst in
l.
/ ton OF the United States-must stand up for
their constitutional rights.
Mr.. Hughes, of Indiana defended the action
of the President. Should the President return
these negroes to Africa, and leave them there
in starving and dying condition?
Mr.. Gartrel, of Georgia, appealed to gentle
men on all sides TO take a vote and dispose OF
the bill.
Mr. John Cochrane, of New York, thought
the issue should be fairly made, and not upon
collateral debate raised upon phraseology and
paragraphs attached TO an appropriation bill.
The question now vas, ( Shah inc expense of
executing the laws be defrayed?"
Mr.. Groesbeck did not care to postpone the
issue, but was ready to meet it now. 1t was
much more likely laws would be passed for the
faithful execution than for the repeal of those
on the statute books He approved of every act
of the President.
Mr.. Hughes said the Democratic party never
was sectional party but whenever that party,
or any considerable pGriicI Of Il, ly direction
or indrection, adopted proposition to foster
or encourage the slave trade, then it could no
longer exist. He did not wish to see the issue
postponed, but was ready to meet it at once.
Mr.. Singleton stated that the gentleman was
mistaken in sNF,pqsing that ttey we've adyoea-
| ting the reopening of this trade. He had only
opposed the. establishing of the precedent that
returned negroes should be educated.
Mr.. Burnett yielded to no man in advocating
the rights of the States, but would go as far as
the farthesE. ne believed, aoNe.el .hsr they
would be placed in false position, growing cut
of the discussion Of this question. He was for
enforcing the laws, and opposed to this higher
law, whether in the North or South.
| Mr.. Smith, of Virginia, tn en- moved that the
enacting clause be stricten out; which motion
was not agreed to.