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.