would inform on their associates, the morality of the smuggling region would be improved.
To show how the new law differed from that of 1807, it may be said that the old provided (see sec. 2) that "every such ship"? engaged in importing slaves "shall be forfeited to the United States." The law of 1818 [sec. 1] provided "forfeiture, in any district in which it may be found; one-half thereof to the use of the United States, and the other half to him or them who shall prosecute the same to effect.But while the act was ineffective, as a whole, one section (8) is of interest because it clearly shows a tendency in Congress at that time to extirpate the trade. Therein it was provided that in "all prosecutions under this act the defendant or defendants shall be holden to prove" that the slave "which he or they shall be charged with having brought into the United States, or with purchasing, selling, or otherwise disposing of the same," was brought into the United States at least five years previous to the commencement of such prosecution, or was not brought in, holden, or purchased, or otherwise disposed of contrary to the provisions of this act." To throw the burden of proof on the accused was a novelty in American legislation.
The next year Congress acknowledged this law to be inefficient by passing the act of March 3, 1819. While this was in the House of Representatives, Nelson, of Virginia, had a clause inserted providing the death penalty for engaging in the traffic. This penalty was struck out in the Senate. Du Bois notes here that Congress was already beginning to divide on party as well as geographical lines when slavery
