(58) This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight States,--Georgia, South Carolina, and I think North Carolina, voting for it.
(59) We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that their States would never agree to a _system_, which put in it the power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their a.s.sent from such a system.
(60) A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit; "No _navigation_ act shall be pa.s.sed without the a.s.sent of _two thirds_ of the members present in each House;" a proposition which the _staple_ and _commercial States_ were solicitous to _retain_, lest their _commerce_ should be placed too much under the power of the _eastern_ States; but which these last States were as anxious to _reject_. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _eastern_ States, notwithstanding their _aversion to slavery_, were very willing to indulge the southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the _slave-trade_, provided the southern States would, in their turn, gratify them, by laying _no restrictions on navigation acts_; and after a very little time the committee, by a great majority agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.
(61) This report was adopted by a majority of the convention but not without considerable opposition. It was said, that we had just a.s.sumed a place among independent nations, in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of _those rights_ to which G.o.d and nature had ent.i.tled _us_, not in _particular_, but in _common_ with _all the rest of mankind_; that we had _appealed_ to the _Supreme Being_ for his _a.s.sistance_, as the _G.o.d of freedom_, who could not but _approve_ our efforts to preserve the _rights_ which he had thus _imparted to his creatures_; that, now, when we scarcely had risen from our _knees_, from _supplicating_ his _aid_ and _protection_, in _forming our government_ over a _free people_, a government formed pretendedly on the _principles_ of _liberty_ and for _its preservation_,--in _that_ government, to have a provision not only putting it out of _its_ power to _restrain_ and _prevent_ the _slave-trade_, but _even encouraging that most infamous traffic_, by giving the _States power_ and _influence_ in the _Union, in proportion_ as _cruelly and wantonly sport with the rights of their fellow creatures, ought_ to be considered as a _solemn mockery_, of an _insult to that G.o.d_ whose protection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in _detestation_, and render us _contemptible_ to every _true friend_ of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered that national _crimes_ can only be, and _frequently are punished_ in this world, by national punishments; and that the _continuance_ of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a _national sanction_ and _encouragement_, ought to be considered as _justly exposing_ us to the _displeasure_ and _vengeance_ of _Him_, who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_.
(62) It was urged, that, by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to _restrain_, or _totally prohibit_, the _slave-trade_; it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree, that we should _except_ from the exercise of that power, the _only branch_ of _commerce_ which is _unjustifiable in its nature_, and _contrary_ to the rights of _mankind_; that, on the contrary, we ought _rather to prohibit expressly_ in our _const.i.tution_, the _further importation of slaves_; and to _authorize_ the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the _gradual abolition of slavery_, and the _emanc.i.p.ation_ of the _slaves_ which are already in the States: That _slavery_ is _inconsistent_ with the _genius_ of _republicanism_, and has a tendency to _destroy_ those _principles_ on which it is _supported_, as it _lessens_ the _sense_ of the _equal rights of mankind_, and habituates us to _tyranny_ and _oppression_.
(63) It was further urged that, by this system of government, every State is to be protected both from _foreign invasion_ and from _domestic insurrections_; that, from this consideration, it was of the _utmost importance_ it should have a power to restrain the importation of slaves; since in _proportion_ as the number of slaves are increased in any State, in the _same_ proportion the State is _weakened_, and _exposed_ to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, and _by so much less_ will it be able to protect itself against _either_; and, therefore will by so much the more want aid from, and be a burden to the Union. It was further said, that as, in this system, we were giving the general government a power under the idea of national character, or national interest, to regulate even our _weights_ and _measures_, and have prohibited all possibility of _emitting paper money_, and _pa.s.sing instalment laws_, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we should prohibit the government from interfering with the slave-trade than which, _nothing_ could so _materially affect_ both our _national honor_ and _interest_.
These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause as it now makes a part of the system.
(64). You will perceive, Sir, not only that the general government is prohibited from interfering in the slave-trade _before_ the year eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the const.i.tution that it shall _afterwards_ be prohibited, nor any security that such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great reason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted until the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited afterwards. At _this time_, we do not generally hold this commerce in so great _abhorrence_ as we have done. When our _own_ liberties were at stake, we _warmly_ felt for the _common rights of men_. The danger being thought to be past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing _more insensible_ to those rights. In those States which have restrained or prohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative acts, which may be repealed. When those States find, that they must, in their _national character_ and _connexion_, suffer in the _disgrace_, and share in the _inconveniences_ attendant upon that detestable and iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the _benefits_ arising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by the sanction which is given to it in the general government.[569]
In Elliot"s Debates we find the following accredited to General Pinckney.
... The general then said he would make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman had thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African trade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia, who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions the gentleman has quoted--that, while there remained one acre of swampland uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am so thoroughly convinced as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert waste.
You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I need not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members who opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness of any state who admitted them; that they were a dangerous species of property, which an invading enemy could easily turn against ourselves and the neighboring states; and that, as we were allowed a representation for them in the House of Representatives, our influence in government would be increased in proportion as we were less able to defend ourselves.
"Show some period," said the members from the Eastern States, "when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we please, to the importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for your convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices of our people on this subject." The Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition; they were for an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the objections that were made in the best manner we could, and a.s.signed reasons for our insisting on the importation, which there is no occasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the house; a committee of the states was appointed in order to accommodate this matter, and, after a great deal of difficulty, it was settled on the footing recited in the Const.i.tution.
By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes for twenty years. Nor is it declared that the importation shall be then stopped; it may be continued. We have a security that the general government can never emanc.i.p.ate them, for no such authority is granted; and it is admitted, on all hands, that the general government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Const.i.tution, and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several states. We have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all circ.u.mstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad.[570]
Mr. Madison said in the Virginia ratifying Convention, June 17, 1787:
Mr. Chairman--I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded without encountering greater evils.--The southern states would not have entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued forever: But by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is therefore an amelioration of our circ.u.mstances. A tax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise congress might lay such a tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those states where slaves are free, he becomes emanc.i.p.ated by their laws. For the laws of the states are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this const.i.tution, "no person held to service, or labor, in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."--This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them.
This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states. The taxation of this state being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They cannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after that period they can. The gentlemen from South-Carolina and Georgia argued in this manner:--"We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much of the property now possessed has been purchased, or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the a.s.sistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets." I need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse. If those states should disunite from the other states, for not indulging them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers....
(_The 2d, 3d, and 4th clauses read._)
... Mr. _Madison_ replied, that even the southern states, who were most affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no danger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him, that the general government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty years, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten dollars; and that after the expiration of that period they may prohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the const.i.tution was intended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the community.--No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and exercises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive of the principles of equality: For that it was not possible to select any article which would be easy for one state, but what would be heavy for another.--...[571]
In 1789 Madison said:
I conceive the const.i.tution, in this particular, was formed in order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of America with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to impose a tax or duty upon the importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit; and this liberty was granted, I presume, upon two considerations: The first was, that until the time arrived when they might abolish the importation of slaves, they might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments on the policy and humanity of such a trade. The other was, that they might be taxed in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of value, and ought to be paid for.[572]
According to Elliot, Spaight said on July 26, 1787:
Mr. Spaight answered, that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose princ.i.p.al support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on....
Mr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of this trade to the term of twenty years was a compromise between the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on the entire abolition of the trade. That the state of North Carolina had not thought proper to pa.s.s any law prohibiting the importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the Convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it....[573]
In the House of Representatives on February 12, 1790:
Mr. Baldwin was sorry the subject had ever been brought before Congress, because it was of a delicate nature as it respected some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the formation of the Const.i.tution could not avoid the recollection of the pain and difficulty which the subject caused in that body.
The members from the Southern States were so tender upon this point, that they had well nigh broken up without coming to any determination; however, from the extreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtaining an efficient Government, they were induced mutually to concede, and the Const.i.tution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gentlemen look over the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest degree of caution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated; but the moment we go to jostle on that ground, I fear we shall feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power to interfere with the importation of slaves beyond what is given in the ninth section of the 1st article of the Const.i.tution; everything else is interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the const.i.tution, we shall find the expressions relative to this subject cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other part, "The migration or importation of such persons shall not be prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not have secured the object sufficiently, it is declared, in the same section, "That no capitation or direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census;" this was intended to prevent Congress from laying any special tax upon negro slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the possessors of them as to induce a general emanc.i.p.ation. If we go on to the fifth article, we shall find the first and fifth clauses of the ninth section of the first article restrained from being altered before the year 1808.[574]
According to George Mason"s Account:
The constn as agreed to till a fortnight before the convention rose was such a one as he wd have set his hand & heart to....
with respect to the importn of slaves it was left to Congress, this disturbed the 2 Souther-most states who knew that Congress would immediately suppress the importn of slaves, those 2 states therefore struck up a bargain with the 3. N. Engld, states, if they would join to admit slaves for some years, the 2 Southernmost states wd join in changing the clause which required 2/3 of the legislature in any vote. It was done, these articles were changed accordingly, & from that moment the two S. states and the 3 Northern ones joined Pen. Jers. & Del. & made the majority 8. to 3. against us instead of 8. to 3. for us as it had been thro" the whole Convention. under this coalition the great principles of the Constn were changed in the last days of the Convention.[575]
The following debate on this subject took place in the House of Representatives, June 16-20, 1798:
Mr. B(aldwin). thought the 9th section, forbidding Congress to prohibit the migration, &c., was directly opposed to the principles of this bill. He recollected very well that when the 9th section of the Const.i.tution was under consideration in the Convention, the delegates from some of the Southern States insisted that the prohibition of the introduction of slaves should be left to the State Governments; it was found expedient to make this provision in the Const.i.tution; there was an objection to the use of the word slaves, as Congress by none of their acts had ever acknowledged the existence of such a condition. It was at length settled on the words as they now stand, "that the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit, should not be prohibited till the year 1808." It was observed by some gentlemen present that this expression would extend to other persons besides slaves, which was not denied, but this did not produce any alteration of it....
Mr. Dayton (the Speaker) commenced his observations with declaring that he should not have risen on this occasion, if no allusion had been made to the proceedings in the Federal Convention which framed the Const.i.tution of the United States, or if the representation which was given of what pa.s.sed in that body, had been a perfectly correct and candid one. He expressed his surprise at what had fallen from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Baldwin) relatively to that part of the Const.i.tution, which had been selected as the text of opposition to the bill under consideration, viz: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing "shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress, "prior to the year 1808." He could only ascribe either to absolute forgetfulness, or to willful misrepresentation, the a.s.sertion of the member from Georgia, that it was understood and intended by the General Convention that the article in question should extend to the importation or introduction of citizens from foreign countries.
As that gentleman and himself were the only two members of the House of Representatives who had the honor of a seat in that body, he deemed it his indispensable duty to correct the misstatement that had thus been made. He did not therefore, hesitate to say, in direct contradiction to this novel construction of the article (made as it would seem to suit the particular purposes of the opponents of the Alien bill) that the proposition itself was originally drawn up and moved in the Convention, by the deputies from South Carolina, for the express purpose of preventing Congress from interfering with the introduction of slaves into the United States, within the time specified. He recollected also, that in the discussion of its merits no question arose, or was agitated respecting the admission of foreigners but, on the contrary, that it was confined simply to slaves, and was first voted upon and carried with that word expressed in it, which was afterwards upon reconsideration changed for "_such persons_," as it now stands, upon the suggestion of one of the Deputies from Connecticut. The sole reason a.s.signed for changing it was, that it would be better not to stain the Const.i.tutional code with such a term, since it could be avoided by the introduction of other equally intelligible words, as had been done in the former part of the same instrument, where the same sense was conveyed by the circuitous expression of "three fifths of all other persons."
Mr. Dayton said that at that time he was far from believing, and that indeed until the present debate arose, he had never heard, that any one member supposed that the simple change of the term would enlarge the construction of this prohibitory provision, as it was now contended for. If it could have been conceived to be really liable to such interpretation, he was convinced that it would not have been adopted, for it would then carry with it a strong injunction upon Congress to prohibit the introduction of foreigners into newly erected States immediately, and into the then existing States after the year 1808, as it undoubtedly does, that of slaves after that period....
Mr. Baldwin ... observed that he was yesterday obliged to leave the House a little before adjournment, and he had understood that, in his absence, the remarks which he had made on that point a few days ago, in Committee of the Whole, had been controverted, and that it had been done with some degree of harshness and personal disrespect. What he had before a.s.serted was, that the clause respecting migration and importation was not considered at the time when it pa.s.sed in the Convention as confined entirely to the subject of slaves. He spoke with the more confidence on this point, as there was scarcely one to which his attention had been so particularly called at the time. In making the Federal Const.i.tution, when it was determined that it should be a Government possessing Legislative powers, the delegates from the two Southern States, of which he was one, were so fully persuaded that those powers would be used to the destruction of their property in slaves, that for some time they thought it would not be possible for them to be members of it: to that interesting state of the subject he had before alluded. In the progress of the business, other obstacles occurring, which he need not repeat, it was concluded to give to the delegates of those States the offer of preparing a clause to their own minds, to secure that species of property. He well remembered that when the clause was first prepared, it differed in two respects from the form in which it now stands. It used the word "slaves" instead of "migration", or "importation," or persons, and instead of "ten dollars," it was expressed "five percent ad valorem on their importation," which it was supposed would be about the average rate of duties under this Government. Several persons had objections to the use of the word "slaves, as Congress had hitherto avoided the use of it in their acts, and not acknowledged the existence of such a condition. It was expressly observed at the time, that making use of the form of expression as it now stands, instead of the word slaves, would make the meaning more general, and include what we now consider as included; this did not appear to be denied, but still it was preferred in its present form. He had more confidence than common in his recollection on this point, for the reasons which he had before stated. He gave it as the result of his very clear recollection. Any other member of that body was doubtless at liberty to say he did not recollect it. Still that would not diminish the confidence he felt on this occasion....[576]
In a letter to Robert Walsh November 27, 1817, Madison said:
Your letter of the 11th was duly recd, and I should have given it a less tardy answer, but for a succession of particular demands on my attention, and a wish to a.s.sist my recollections, by consulting both ma.n.u.script & printed sources of information on the subjects of your enquiry. Of these, however, I have not been able to avail myself, but very partially.
As to the intention of the framers of the Const.i.tution in the clause relating to "the migration and importation of persons &c"
the best key may perhaps be found in the case which produced it.
The African trade in slaves had long been odious to most of the States, and the importation of slaves into them had been prohibited. Particular States however continued the importation, and were extremely adverse to any restriction on their power to do so. In the Convention the former States were anxious, in framing a new const.i.tution, to insert a provision for an immediate and absolute stop to the trade. The latter were not only averse to any interference on the subject; but solemnly declared that their const.i.tuents would never accede to a const.i.tution containing such an article. Out of this conflict grew the middle measure providing that Congress should not interfere until the year 1808; with an implication, that after that date, they might prohibit the importation of slaves into the States then existing, & previous thereto, into the States not then existing. Such was the tone of opposition in the States of S. Carolina & Georgia, & such the desire to gain their acquiescence in a prohibitory power, that on a question between the epochs of 1800 & 1808, the States of N. Hampshire, Ma.s.satts, & Connecticut, (all the eastern States in the convention); joined in the vote for the latter, influenced by the collateral motive of reconciling those particular States to the power over commerce & navigation; against which they felt, as did some other States, a very strong repugnance. The earnestness of S. Carolina & Georgia was further manifested by their insisting on the security in the V. article against any amendment to the Const.i.tution affecting the right reserved to them, & their uniting with the small states who insisted on a like security for their equality in the Senate.
But some of the States were not only anxious for a const.i.tutional provision against the introduction of Slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "Slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase "migration or importation of persons"; the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view _imported_ persons as a species of emigrants, whilst others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho" not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.
But whatever may have been intended by the term "migration" or the term "persons", it is most certain, that they referred, exclusively, to a migration or importation from other countries into the U. States; and not to a removal, voluntary or involuntary, of Slaves or freemen, from one to another part of the U. States. Nothing appears or is recollected that warrants this latter intention. Nothing in the proceedings of the State conventions indicate such a construction there. Had such been in the construction it is easy to imagine the figure it would have made in many of the states, among the objections to the const.i.tution, and among the numerous amendments to it proposed by the state conventions, not one of which amendments refers to the clause in question.... It falls within the scope of your enquiry, to state the fact, that there was a proposition in the convention, to discriminate between the old and new States, by an article in the Const.i.tution declaring that the aggregate number of representatives from the states thereafter to be admitted, should never exceed that of the states originally adopting the Const.i.tution. The proposition happily was rejected. The effect of such a descrimination, is sufficiently evident.[577]
Speaking about the meaning of migration, Walter Lowrie of Pennsylvania said in the United States Senate:
In the Const.i.tution it is provided that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax," etc. In this debate it seems generally to be admitted, by gentlemen on the opposite side, that these two words are not synonomous; but what their meaning is, they are not so well agreed. One gentlemen tells us, it was intended to prevent slaves from being brought in by land; another gentleman says, it was intended to restrain Congress from interfering with emigration from Europe.
These constructions cannot both be right. The gentlemen who have preceded me on the same side, have advanced a number of pertinent arguments to settle the proper meaning of these words. I, sir, shall not repeat them. Indeed, to me, there is nothing more dry and uninteresting, than discussions to explain the meaning of single words. In the present case, I will only refer to the authority of Mr. Madison and Judge Wilson, who were both members of the Convention, and who gave their construction to these words, long before this question was agitated. Mr. Madison observes, that, to say this clause was intended to prevent emigration does not deserve an answer. And Judge Wilson says, expressly, it was intended to place the new States under the control of Congress, as to the introduction of slaves. The opinion of this latter gentleman is ent.i.tled to peculiar weight.
After the Convention had labored for weeks on the subject of representation and direct taxes--when those great men were like to separate without obtaining their object, Judge Wilson submitted the provision on this subject, which now stands as a part of your Const.i.tution. Sir, there is no man, from any part of the nation, who understood the system of our Government better than him; not even excepting Virginia, from whence the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Walker) tells us, we have all our great men.[578]
Madison wrote on the same question that year in a letter to Monroe:
I have been truly astonished at some of the doctrines and declarations to which the Missouri question has led; and particularly so at the interpretation put on the terms "migration or importation &c." Judging from my own impressions I shd. deem it impossible that the memory of any one who was a member of the Genl. Convention, could favor an opinion that the terms did not _exclusively_ refer to migration & importation, _into the_ U. S.
Had they been understood in that Body in the sense now put on them, it is easy to conceive the alienation they would have there created in certain States: and no one can decide better than yourself the effect they would had in the State conventions, if such a meaning had been avowed by the advocates of the Const.i.tution. If a suspicion had existed of such a construction, it wd. at least have made a conspicuous figure among the amendments proposed to the Instrument.[579]
There was very little objection to the provision for the return of fugitive slaves. On the twenty-ninth of August, it was agreed that:
"If any Person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State, He or She shall not be discharged from such services or labor in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape; but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor."
which pa.s.sed in the affirmative (Ayes--11; noes--0.)
It was moved and seconded to strike out the two last clauses of the 17 article[580]
On the same day when the question came up again:
Mr. Butler moved to insert after art: XV. "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the U--States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor," which was agreed to nem: con:[581]