“SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That no human being shall be held or transported as property in any vessel on the high seas, or sailing coastwise, or on any navigable waters within the jurisdiction of the United States; and every vessel violating the provisions of this act shall be forfeited to the United States; and every master of such vessel consenting to such violation shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof subject to the penalties hereinbefore provided, one half of the fine to go to the informer; and every human being so held or transported as property shall be free. “SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That all acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith, including especially so much of an act approved March second, one thousand eight hundred and seven, as regulates the coastwise slave-trade, are hereby repealed.” Failing to obtain an opportunity for this bill in the Senate, Mr. Sumner determined to move it on an appropriation bill. June 24th, the Senate having under consideration the bill making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government, Mr. Sumner moved the following amendment:-- “_And be it further enacted_, That sections eight and nine of the Act entitled ‘An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord 1808,’ which sections undertake to regulate the coastwise slave-trade, are hereby repealed.” Mr. Sherman, who had succeeded Mr. Fessenden as Chairman of the Finance Committee, “would not oppose the amendment on an ordinary bill,” but he trusted “the Senate would keep this bill free from these disputed, extraneous, political questions.” Mr. Sumner replied:-- MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry that the Senator objects to this amendment. It is true, his objection is of form; but I venture to say that no such objection should be made to such a proposition, especially at this stage of the session. In moving it now on an appropriation bill, I follow approved precedents. There is no rule of order against it; nor is there any rule of usage. On the contrary, it is in conformity with both order and usage.