“On the recapture by a citizen of any negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed by another citizen, specific restitution shall be adjudged to the claimant, whether the original capture shall have been made on land or water, a reasonable salvage being paid by the claimant to the recaptor, not exceeding one-fourth part of the value of such labor or service, to be estimated according to the laws of the State of which the claimant shall be a citizen: but if the service of such negro, mulatto, Indian or other person, captured below high-water mark, shall not be legally claimed by a citizen of these United States, he shall be set at liberty.”
The delegates from North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut, refrained from voting; South Carolina voted in the negative: but it was carried by twenty-eight yeas, against two nays. After a spirited debate, continuing through several days, and having received several amendments, it finally passed on Dec. 4, 1781, as follows:—
“On the recapture by a citizen of any negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed by a State or a citizen of a State, specific restitution shall be adjudged to the claimant, whether the original capture shall have been made on land or water, and without regard to the time of possession by the enemy, a reasonable salvage being paid by the claimant to the recaptor, not exceeding 1-4th of the value of such labor or service, to be estimated according to the laws of the State under which the claim shall be made.
“But if the service of such negro, mulatto, Indian, or other person, captured below high water mark, shall not be legally claimed within a year and a day from the sentence of the Court, he shall be set at liberty.”
It should be carefully observed that the above law refers only to recaptures. It would be interesting to know the views the committee entertained in reference to slaves captured by the ministerial army. Nothing was said about this interesting feature of the case. Why Congress did not claim proper treatment of the slaves captured by the enemy while in the service of the United Colonies, is not known. Doubtless its leaders saw where the logic of such a position would lead them. The word “another” was left out of the original measure, and was made to read, in the one that passed, “a State or citizen;” as if it were feared that, by implication, a Negro would be recognized as a citizen.