Weekly national intelligencer., 1864-03-10
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CT AUsE.

t l ~ y s +
, 1t is known to every student of our political
history that the sixth article of the Ordinance OF
l787, passed by the Congress of the Confederation
prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory, |
contained clause providing for the rendition to |
their masters of persons {" from whom labor or
service was lawfully claimed" in any one of the
original States. The article was as follows:
There shall be neither slavery involuntary
vtude in the said Territory, otherwise than in punish
ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted Provided aoays, That any person escaping
into the same, from whom labor service is lawfully
claimed any cf the original States such fugitive
may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person
claiming his or her labor and service aforesaid"
On comparing the slavery restriction contained
in the ordinance Of 1887 with that Of the earlier
pan presented by Mr.. Jefferson in 1874, and
that brought forward by Mr.. King, Of Massachu-
s,tts on the 18th Of March, 1885, it will be found
to differ from each of the latter in the provision it
makes for the rendition of fugitive slaves. With
out this clause it evidently could not have passed.
and the combination in which it is found with the
clause restricting slavery was evidently the result
of a compromise between the Southern and the
Northern States, the former agreeing to the pro-
hibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory on
condition of being furnished with guarantee for
the rendition of fugitives held to service under
their laws, and the latter agreeing to this njuno
tion in consideration Of the interdict laid upon the
extension of slavery in the territory north of the
Ohio Nor is it difficult to perceive the theory on
which this compromise rested for its basis. The
Southern States consented to the prohibition of
slavery ertension in order to secure guards for
the stability Of the institution in the States where
it had legal existence. By providing for the re-
oovery of their fugitive slaves in all parts of this
Territory, they secured in that region advantage
which they did not possess in the non-slaveholding
States by virtue Of the Articles Of the Confedera
tion for, as Mr.. Madison remarked in the Vir-
ginia Convention held on the adoption of the Con-
sttution, the States were unchuritable to one
another in this respect" under the Articles of
Confederation The Northern States, on the other
hand agreed to yield this advantage to the Slave
holding States on condition of remuneration made
by the latter Of any purpose or desire to extend
the institution Of slavery into the region about
to be opened to the colonization of all the States.
1t is known that the Congress of the Con-
federation which passed this ordinance, and the
Convention assembled for the formation of our pre-
sent Constitution, were both in session at the same
time-thc former in the city of New York and
the latter in Philadelphia. Many of the most dis
tinguished members of the Congress Of 1857 were
also members Of the Convention at Philadelphia,
and others who had served in the Continental Con-
gress during the pendency of this Territorial qucs
tion were chosen to assist in forming the new Con-
stitution Among this latter class we may cite, for
instance he name of Mr.. King, of Massachusetts,,
the author of the anti-slavery proposition intro
duced on the 18th of March, 1885. Hence it Is
not unreasonable to suppose that there was an In
terchapge of views between the two bodies, re-
sulting from knowledge Of the measures they
were respectively taking. In fact we are not left
to mere surmise on this point Weknow that MIR.
Richard Henry Lee, in letter dated two days
after the passage Of the ordinance, communicated
copy Of it to Gen. Washington, then presiding over
the Philadelphia Convention L Correspondence of
the American Revolution, vol. 4, p. IA Writ
ings cf Washington, vol 8, p. 26i.) The ordi-
nance was published also in Philadelphia news,
paper on the 25th Of July.
It is an interesting, il fortuitou', coincidence
that on the 18th day Of July, 1887, the very day
on which the sixth article Of the ordinance was
moved by Mr. Dane, and unanimously affixed to
the instrument by vote of the Continental Con-
gress, the Convention in Philadelphia we're occu-
pied in settling and determining that great COM
promise Of the Constitution which decided the re-
lations Of taxation and representation, according to
the existing rale which adopted on that day in
the following words: |" Representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
according to their respective numbers which shall
be determined by adding to the whole number Of
free persons, including those bound to service for
term Of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
laree.ffhs Of all other persons" 1t is also in
structive to mark that the Philadelphia Conven-
tion seems to have borrowed from the sixth article
Of the ordinance Of 1887 the clause now found in
our Constitution, and thus made obligatory on the
States, in relation to the rendition Of "persons
held to service" The germ Of that clause in our
Constitution, as derived doubtless from the ord-
nance of 1887, was moved in Convention by Mr.
Butler, Of South Carolina, on the Goth Of August,
Ia little more than month after the passage of the
ordinaIc ce,) in the following words, and unani
mously adopted: If any person bound to service