Subect: The Willing Slave, Part 30
THE WILLING SLAVE, Part 30
By Pete Brown petebrownuk @ yahoo.com
Read all of Pete's stories at groups.yahoo.com/group/petebrownseroticstories
HOUSE JOURNAL, 155th CONGRESS, 1st Session, Part 2 From the U.S. Government Printing Office
SLAVERY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
The SPEAKER recognised Mr JOHNSON of Alabama.
"Mr Speaker, the house has been good enough to listen to the gentleman from Pennsylvania whilst he has read into the proceedings of this house the story with which many of us are familiar, the so-called 'Story Of Steve'. I do not understand what the reading of this material has to do with the matter under debate in this chamber, and would ask you to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to explain, or to yield the floor for further debate."
The SPEAKER recognised Mr HARLEY of Pennsylvania.
"Mr Speaker, and honourable members of this house. I submit that the 'Story of Steve' is highly relevant to our debate on this important bill. Those of us who own slaves probably do not take the time to understand what motivates them, and the 'Story Of Steve' is an important document in this regard. Throughout the past three hundred years there have been works of literature that have influenced the course of nations - the words of Charles Dickens caused such an outcry with the Victorian public that the first child labour laws were enacted by the British Parliament. Closer to home, 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' was a seminal influence at the time of this country's first venture into slavery, and was an important element in influencing the North to begin those actions that ultimately led to our most divisive war."
"As a factual document, the 'Story Of Steve' should be a more powerful influence on the decisions of this house than all these great works of fiction. In case any honourable members of this house are in doubt as to the veracity of this journal, let me remind the house of the circumstances in which the 'Story Of Steve' came to light."
"Steve was indeed made to run his owner, the veterinarian, through the streets of Scarsdale entirely nude. We can only imagine how he felt and it is possible that this humiliation influenced his judgement. However the Scarsdale Police Department, who conducted a most through investigation, could lay no blame on Steve: the transcontinental bus was running the lights when it impacted on the trap carrying the veterinarian. Both Steve and his owner were taken to the County Hospital in Scarsdale, Steve to the slave ward and the veterinarian to the emergency room. Steve's injuries were not severe and were recoverable - a broken leg and a broken arm. But the veterinarian's injuries were internal and severe, and he was taken immediately to the ICU."
"The veterinarian was in desperate need of blood, and his son, Jamie, rushed to the hospital and donated. The genetic records of both father and son were available in the hospital's systems, and there was no time to cross-match the actual donated blood, which was therefore infused directly into the veterinarian. He went immediately into anaphylactic shock, and died."
"The widow, backed by her father, of course sued the hospital for gross negligence. As the blood had come from the veterinarian's son, their lawyers argued, there must have been some mix-up between donation and infusion, some crass dereliction of the hospital's duty of care."
"Lawyers acting for the hospital were at first inclined to settle, but a relatively new and enthusiastic intern at the law firm ploughed through the hospital records, looking at the data for all blood used that day. He discovered that there were gross inconsistencies between the tests carried out at the autopsy, and the data stored in the hospital's data bank. More remarkably, he noted, there was a matching set of blood used in the hospital that day, but in the slave ward."
"The court ordered tests to be carried out on the veterinarian's remains, the slave Steve, and Jamie, and the veterinarian's deception all those years before when he had taken the slave's blood to the registration centre, was ultimately uncovered. The case against the hospital collapsed."
"All might still have passed off relatively quietly, except that the question of the disposal of the veterinarian's life insurance arose, together with the very substantial damages from the bus company's insurers. The insurers refused to pay out to his heir, who was named in his will as Jamie, on the basis that under US law a slave could not own property and thus was ineligible to inherit."
"This case became a cause celebre, as the family now needed to establish that Jamie was in fact a free man, and not a slave, even though he was fathered by a slave. It took the Supreme Court of the State Of New York to rule finally that there was only one way that a man could be a slave in this country - by being selected in the lottery. This was the sole, exclusive test of slavery, and every other man was therefore, by definition, a 'free man'. Jamie was thus eligible to collect the considerable insurance money and damages from the bus operator."
"However the sensational nature of the case, with the knowledge that a fertile slave had impregnated a free woman, was making national headlines. The widow sold the house and moved to her family's apartment in New York and estate on Long Island, but this only compounded the problem for her: Unfortunately the house was bought by a senior editor from a New York publisher, and when he moved in and was clearing out the carriage house he found the exercise books in which Steve had written his story. He recognised it as a potential best-seller, and when the widow was asked to comment, she instead got her lawyers to place a gagging injunction on the publishers."
"Another major, sensational case was played through the courts, and, unfortunately for her, the widow had sold the house and its contents to the publisher's editor. He, the court ruled, therefore owned the copyright in the books, as these were part of the house contents, and publication went ahead."
"As I'm sure we are all aware, it has become a classic. The TV series, and subsequent movie of Steve's life continue to attract huge audiences."
"Steve, of course, knew none of this. On her husband's death, and with the prospect of everything becoming known, the widow sold him to the organ banks.
We know from their records that he lived for a further six months after the accident until his heart and lungs were harvested, and that before that his eyes and kidneys had been used for other patients. Regrettably his skin was too damaged by the tattoos and whip lashes to be of any use for burns victims. Never the less, I'm sure that Steve would be glad to know that he was still serving faithfully at his end, as a slave should." "The widow, following all the notoriety, is now a virtual recluse. The son, Jamie, 'dropped out' and refused to accept money from the veterinarian's estate, or any help from his mother's family. Although he was legally a free man, he was publicly reviled as a 'pseudo slave'. His excellent schooling however had taught him to be resilient, and he moved to California, applied to change his name, and set up in business on his own account. He is now, I think I can say without fear of revealing too many details that might cause him to be recognised, one of our leading slave trainers specialising in the breaking of reluctant slaves."
The Speaker recognised MR JOHNSON of Alabama
"Mr Speaker, whilst the honourable gentleman from Pennsylvania has continued to recite this history, with which the house is almost certainly familiar, I still do not understand the relevance to the debate on the current bill."
The Speaker recognised MR HARLEY of Pennsylvania
"Mr Speaker, fellow members. We are proposing to make far-reaching changes to our slavery laws. The experiences of Steve are highly relevant and germane. If the house will indulge me, I will explain."
"Firstly, the current bill proposes to raise the percentage of men selected by the lottery from ten to twenty. I am sure we are all - on both sides of the house - in agreement with this measure and it is completely non-controversial. Our economy cannot continue to grow and provide the prosperity this country deserves with only ten percent of men used as slaves."
"It is the other measures that have caused wide debate, both in the public at large, and here in Congress."
"The main provision is of course that slaves should continue to be selected at one year old, but that at age four they should receive a penectomy. No slave would therefore ever reach sixteen knowing the pleasures to be had from manipulation of the penis. Steve's story is thus very relevant - many of Steve's moral uncertainties arose because of his desire for sex with Matt, and, later, with other ponies. He needed to dissemble and hide these liaisons from his owner, and we know that he was tortured by his desire for sex on the one part, and his wish to be the perfect slave and not lie to his owner on the other."
"It is not right that we should place slaves in this position, and we need to remove from them the need to make these choices: Steve's story shows us how he was constantly worried by this, and we owe it to our slaves to make their lives as easy as possible. The penectomy operation is relatively simple, and completely effective in removing the slave's knowledge of, and desire for, sex. The slave's testicles are not affected, so that the slave will grow to maturity properly and can be trained and toned to have full musculature development. No expensive drugs would be needed, as they would be if we instead opted for an early castration."
"The second controversial provision of the bill is that free men should be forbidden to use slave for the purposes of sexual gratification. Owners would not in future be able to use slave to masturbate them, or be allowed to perform acts of sexual intercourse in any of the slave's orifices. Again, we see in Steve's story all the sordid details of the way in which free men use slaves, and this is morally reprehensible. There is too much sentimentality about the relationships between free men and slaves and it undermines the system on which our country runs - a slave is a tool, something to be used in his owner's business, and not something that should be used for idle and dissolute pleasure by his owner. Free men should be encouraged to make relationships with their peers, and it is too easy for them to shirk this by simply using a slave as a convenient and uncomplaining receptacle for their penises."
"Now I know from our previous debates in this chamber that this provision is considered by some to be unworkable. It has been argued that it is impossible to police, without very invasive monitoring of the residences and clubs of free men. However I would draw the house's attention to the provisions that have for many years been in our laws that prevent men from having intercourse with animals."
"Of course there will be isolated instances where owners continue to use slaves sexually, just as there continue to be remote ranches where the ranch hands use a sheep or a goat for sexual relief. But the climate of public opinion makes such acts abhorrent to the majority of men, and, in time, with a firm law and a government campaign to mould public opinion, it will be just as unthinkable to use a slave for sex. Steve's story will be a constant, powerful reminder of the immorality of using slaves as he was used."
"Mr Speaker, fellow honourable members, I am conscious that as the proposer of this bill I have taken much of the house's time. But these are important and very far reaching measures for the way that we continue to operate our system of slavery, the system that provides continuing comfort and prosperity to our citizens. I commend it to you as the next step in the ongoing fight to maintain our American way of life and the freedom we all enjoy."
The Speaker recognised Mr MODE of California.
Mr MODE demanded that the vote be taken by the yeas and nays, which demand was supported by at least one-fifth of the Members present, so the yeas and nays were ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device. Yeas 395 it was decided in the Nays 28.
THE END. Pete Brown, London, September to December, 2003.