in another part of the Constitution, for the reason that it expressed “the obligations of free persons,” while the other expressed “the condition of slaves.”  In the face of this authentic evidence, reported by Mr. Madison, it is difficult to see how the term “persons held to service” can be deemed to express anything beyond the “obligations of free persons.”  Thus, in the light of calm inquiry, does this exaggerated clause lose its importance.

The provision, showing itself thus tardily, and so slightly regarded in the National Convention, was neglected in much of the contemporaneous discussion before the people.  In the Conventions of South Carolina, North Carolina,and Virginia, it was commended as securing important rights, though on this point there was difference of opinion.  In the Virginia Convention, an eminent character, Mr. George Mason, with others, expressly declared that there was “no security of property coming within this section.”  In the other Conventions it was disregarded.  Massachusetts, while exhibiting peculiar sensitiveness at any responsibility for slavery, seemed to view it with unconcern.  One of her leading statesmen, General Heath, in the debates of the State Convention, strenuously asserted, that, in ratifying the Constitution, the people of Massachusetts “would do nothing to hold the blacks in slavery.” “The Federalist,” in its classification of the powers of Congress, describes and groups a large number as “those which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States,” and therein speaks of the power over public records, standing next in the Constitution to the provision concerning fugitives from service; but it fails to recognize the latter among the means of promoting “harmony and proper intercourse;” nor does its triumvirate of authors anywhere allude to the provision.

The indifference thus far attending this subject still continued.  The earliest Act of Congress, passed in 1793, drew little attention.  It was not suggested originally by any difficulty or anxiety touching fugitives from service, nor is there any contemporary record, in debate or otherwise, showing that any special importance was attached to its provisions in this regard.  The attention of Congress was directed to fugitives from justice, and, with little deliberation, it undertook, in the same bill, to provide for both cases.  In this accidental manner was legislation on this subject first attempted.

There is no evidence that fugitives were often seized under this Act.  From a competent inquirer we learn that twenty-six years elapsed before it was successfully enforced in any Free State.  It is certain, that, in a case at Boston, towards the close of the last century, illustrated by Josiah Quincy as counsel, the crowd about the magistrate, at the examination, quietly and spontaneously opened a way for the fugitive, and thus the Act failed to be executed.  It is also certain, that, in Vermont, at the beginning of the century, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the State, on application for the surrender of an alleged slave, accompanied by documentary evidence, gloriously refused compliance, unless the master could show a Bill of Sale from the Almighty.  Even these cases passed without public comment.