Of the speech he says: “Alston’s speech appears to me more like an extemporaneous one, though it is said by such as are acquainted with him that he always, without exception, writes his speeches. He like Simons, used notes, but did not recur to them so often; nor did he confine himself so much to method, nor avoid so scrupulously every expression not stamped with elegance, yet his arrangement was not bad, nor his language undignified. He did not at first speak with uncommon fluency, indeed he stammered a little, but when he became once fairly engaged his words appeared to flow with great ease. His figures and allusions were eminently striking and beautiful, and his speech abounded with them. He dropped some excellent moral and political sentiments, quoted two or three texts of sublime morality from the Scriptures, and with great vehemence and apparent sincerity urged the House to consult the dictates of justice and humanity, in opposition to sordid interest. His manner of delivery was extremely good and his gestures forcible and expressive. He labored some time, and with success, to show that the increase of slaves tends to destroy that equality which is the basis of our republican institutions and insists that it is not only unjust to bring them in, but demonstrably injurious to the real interests of the State. In his argument was a fund of good sense and useful information. The utmost silence pervaded the House while he spoke thirty-five or forty minutes.”[32] The resolution was adopted, and the bill prohibiting importation was sent to the Senate by a vote of 56 to 28.[33] Later, by the same pen, we have a brief description of the last speech upon this bill of that Senator, who in opposition to it, may be said to have cast the most important vote he was ever called upon to give. Allusion has been before made to the brief reason given by Senator William Smith for his vote, for opening the ports to importation of slaves, which he declared himself not in favor of, but thought it impossible to prevent, in 1803, when he, constituting one of the majority of two to one in that branch of the General Assembly, voted to open them. Public opinion had swept away that great majority, and from the House, with just such a vote, two to one, the bill to prohibit came to the Senate. The following is Hooker’s description of the situation, and the part played by Smith: “The bill having passed the lower House, the public feeling is excited about its event here. Mr. Smith, a lawyer from York District, made a long and rather tedious speech against it. He is not fluent, nor does he use the handsomest language, but in the course of his argument gets out considerable that is to the purpose.”[34]