people free among them.  Yes, sir, though slavery is an evil, regretted by every man in the country, to have among us in any considerable quantity persons of this description, is an evil far greater than slavery itself.  Does any gentleman want proof of this?  I answer that all proof is useless; no fact can be more notorious.  With this belief on the minds of the people where slavery exists, and where the importation will take place, if at all, we are about to turn loose in a state of freedom all persons brought in after the passage of this law.  I ask gentlemen to reflect and say whether such a law, opposed to the ideas, the passions, the views, and the affections of the people of the Southern States, can be executed?  I tell them, no; it is impossible—­why?  Because no man will inform—­why?  Because to inform will be to lead to an evil which will be deemed greater than the offence of which information is given, because it will be opposed to the principle of self-preservation, and to the love of family.  No, no man will be disposed to jeopard his life, and the lives of his countrymen.  And if no one dare inform, the whole authority of the Government cannot carry the law into effect.  The whole people will rise up against it.  Why?  Because to enforce it would be to turn loose, in the bosom of the country, firebrands that would consume them."[11]

This was the more tragic form of the argument; it also had a mercenary side, which was presented with equal emphasis.  It was repeatedly said that the only way to enforce the law was to play off individual interests against each other.  The profit from the sale of illegally imported Negroes was declared to be the only sufficient “inducement to give information of their importation."[12] “Give up the idea of forfeiture, and I challenge the gentleman to invent fines, penalties, or punishments of any sort, sufficient to restrain the slave trade."[13] If such Negroes be freed, “I tell you that slaves will continue to be imported as heretofore....  You cannot get hold of the ships employed in this traffic.  Besides, slaves will be brought into Georgia from East Florida.  They will be brought into the Mississippi Territory from the bay of Mobile.  You cannot inflict any other penalty, or devise any other adequate means of prevention, than a forfeiture of the Africans in whose possession they may be found after importation."[14] Then, too, when foreigners smuggled in Negroes, “who then ... could be operated on, but the purchasers?  There was the rub—­it was their interest alone which, by being operated on, would produce a check.  Snap their purse-strings, break open their strong box, deprive them of their slaves, and by destroying the temptation to buy, you put an end to the trade, ... nothing short of a forfeiture of the slave would afford an effectual remedy."[15] Again, it was argued that it was impossible to prevent imported Negroes from becoming slaves, or, what was just as bad, from being sold as vagabonds or indentured for life.[16] Even our own laws, it was said, recognize the title of the African slave factor in the transported Negroes; and if the importer have no title, why do we legislate?  Why not let the African immigrant alone to get on as he may, just as we do the Irish immigrant?[17] If he should be returned to Africa, his home could not be found, and he would in all probability be sold into slavery again.[18]