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.

    For transporting Negroes, a fine of $5000 and forfeiture of the
    ship and Negroes.

    For transporting and selling Negroes, a fine of $1000 to
    $10,000, imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and forfeiture of the
    ship and Negroes.

    For knowingly buying illegally imported Negroes, a fine of $800
    for each Negro, and forfeiture.

58. The Third Question:  How shall the Interstate Coastwise Slave-Trade be protected? The first proposition was to prohibit the coastwise slave-trade altogether,[49] but an amendment reported to the House allowed it “in any vessel or species of craft whatever.”  It is probable that the first proposition would have prevailed, had it not been for the vehement opposition of Randolph and Early.[50] They probably foresaw the value which Virginia would derive from this trade in the future, and consequently Randolph violently declared that if the amendment did not prevail, “the Southern people would set the law at defiance.  He would begin the example.”  He maintained that by the first proposition “the proprietor of sacred and chartered rights is prevented the Constitutional use of his property."[51] The Conference Committee finally arranged a compromise, forbidding the coastwise trade for purposes of sale in vessels under forty tons.[52] This did not suit Early, who declared that the law with this provision “would not prevent the introduction of a single slave."[53] Randolph, too, would “rather lose the bill, he had rather lose all the bills of the session, he had rather lose every bill passed since the establishment of the Government, than agree to the provision contained in this slave bill."[54] He predicted the severance of the slave and the free States, if disunion should ever come.  Congress was, however, weary with the dragging of the bill, and it passed both Houses with the compromise provision.  Randolph was so dissatisfied that he had a committee appointed the next day, and introduced an amendatory bill.  Both this bill and another similar one, introduced at the next session, failed of consideration.[55]