slave-trade “could not be established.”  Rutledge opposed the new bill as defective and impracticable:  the former act, he said, was enough; the States had stopped the trade, and in addition the United States had sought to placate philanthropists by stopping the use of our ships in the trade.  “This was going very far indeed.”  New England first began the trade, and why not let them enjoy its profits now as well as the English?  The trade could not be stopped.

The bill was eventually recommitted and reported again.[41] “On the question for its passing, a long and warm debate ensued,” and several attempts to postpone it were made; it finally passed, however, only Brown of Rhode Island, Dent of Maryland, Rutledge and Huger of South Carolina, and Dickson of North Carolina voting against it, and 67 voting for it.[42] This Act of May 10, 1800,[43] greatly strengthened the Act of 1794.  The earlier act had prohibited citizens from equipping slavers for the foreign trade; but this went so far as to forbid them having any interest, direct or indirect, in such voyages, or serving on board slave-ships in any capacity.  Imprisonment for two years was added to the former fine of $2000, and United States commissioned ships were directed to capture such slavers as prizes.  The slaves though forfeited by the owner, were not to go to the captor; and the act omitted to say what disposition should be made of them.

49. The Act of 1803. The Haytian revolt, having been among the main causes of two laws, soon was the direct instigation to a third.  The frightened feeling in the South, when freedmen from the West Indies began to arrive in various ports, may well be imagined.  On January 17, 1803, the town of Wilmington, North Carolina, hastily memorialized Congress, stating the arrival of certain freed Negroes from Guadeloupe, and apprehending “much danger to the peace and safety of the people of the Southern States of the Union” from the “admission of persons of that description into the United States."[44] The House committee which considered this petition hastened to agree “That the system of policy stated in the said memorial to exist, and to be now pursued in the French colonial government, of the West Indies, is fraught with danger to the peace and safety of the United States.  That the fact stated to have occurred in the prosecution of that system of policy, demands the prompt interference of the Government of the United States, as well Legislative as Executive."[45] The result was a bill providing for the forfeiture of any ship which should bring into States prohibiting the same “any negro, mulatto, or other person of color;” the captain of the ship was also to be punished.  After some opposition[46] the bill became a law, February 28, 1803.[47]