Wednesday, August 29, 1787.

Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, “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 service 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 was agreed to, nem. con.—­p. 1456.

And again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly changed, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present Constitution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what subject the whole was intended to refer: 

  Saturday, September 15, 1787.

Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term “legally” was struck out; and the words, “under the laws thereof,” inserted after the word “State,” in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term legal equivocal, and favoring the idea that SLAVERY was legal in a moral view.—­p. 1589.

Is it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by the whole article?

The debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify the Constitution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was thought the framers had conveyed:—­In Virginia Mr. Madison said,

Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess.  At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws.  For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect.  But in this Constitution, “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.

Patrick Henry, in reply observed,

  The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than
  this—­that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New
  York.

Governor Randolph said,

But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition.  The words of the clause are, “No person held to service or labor in one State,” &c.  Every one knows that slaves are held to service and labor.  If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c.

General Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed,

  “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 North Carolina, Mr. Iredell