



Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)









_PUBLICATIONS OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE COLLEGIATE INSTRUCTION

OF WOMEN_

Fay House Monographs

No. 3




FUGITIVE SLAVES

(1619-1865)

BY

MARION GLEASON McDOUGALL




PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF

ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, PH.D.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY

IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

BOSTON, U.S.A.

PUBLISHED BY GINN & COMPANY

1891




_Copyright, 1891,_

BY THE SOCIETY FOR THE COLLEGIATE INSTRUCTION OF WOMEN.

University Press:

JOHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE.




EDITOR'S PREFACE.


Every careful student of history is aware that it is no longer possible
to write the general history of any important country from the original
sources; on any period, the materials which accumulate in a year are more
than can be assimilated by one mind in three years. The general historian
must use the results of others' work. It is therefore essential that the
great phases of political and constitutional development be treated in
monographs, each devoted to a single, limited subject and each prepared
on a careful and scientific method.

This first number of the historical series of the Fay House Monographs
aims to discuss the single topic of Fugitive Slaves. Mrs. McDougall has
drawn together and compared many cases found in obscure sources, and has
perhaps been able to correct some commonly received impressions on this
neglected subject.

Even in its limited range this does not pretend to be a complete work in
the sense that all the available cases are discussed or recorded. The
effort has been made to use the cases as illustrations of principles, and
to add such bibliography as may direct the reader to further details. The
appendix of laws is as full as it was possible to make it from the
collections in the Boston Public and Massachusetts State Libraries. If
the monograph prove useful to the student of American history, it will
meet the expectations of author and editor.

                                                ALBERT BUSHNELL HART.

CAMBRIDGE, April 2, 1891.




AUTHOR'S PREFACE.


The following monograph was written while the author was a student in the
"Harvard Annex" as a study in the Seminary course given by Professor
Albert Bushnell Hart. The work has continued during parts of the four
years since 1887. The effort has been to trace in some measure the
development of public sentiment upon the subject, to prepare an outline
of Colonial legislation and of the work of Congress during the entire
period, and to give accounts of typical cases illustrative of conditions
and opinions. Only a few of the more important cases are described
minutely, but a critical list of the authorities may be found in the
bibliographical appendix.

The thanks of the author are due first to Professor Hart, under whose
direction and with whose assistance and encouragement the monograph has
been prepared; then to Miss Anna B. Thompson, without whose careful
training in the Thayer Academy and continued sympathy, the work could not
have been undertaken. Many thanks are due also to the authorities of the
Library of Harvard College for the use, in the alcoves, of their large
and conveniently arranged collection of books and pamphlets on United
States History, and to the assistants in the Boston Public and
Massachusetts State Libraries for courteous aid. Colonel T. W. Higginson
has kindly examined the chapter on the cases from 1850 to 1860,
suggesting some interesting details; and Mr. Arthur Gilman has read the
whole in proof, and made many valuable suggestions.

                                              MARION GLEASON McDOUGALL.

ROCKLAND, MASS. April 2, 1891.




CONTENTS.


                                                                      Page

CHAPTER I.

_LEGISLATION AND CASES BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION._

  Sec. 1. Elements of colonial slavery                                     1

  Sec. 2. Regulations as to fugitives (1640-1700)                          2

  Sec. 3. Treatment of fugitives                                           3

  Sec. 4. Regulations in New England colonies                              4

       Sec. 5. Escapes in New England: Attucks case                        5

  Sec. 6. Dutch regulations in New Netherlands                             6

       Sec. 7. Escapes from New Amsterdam                                  6

  Sec. 8. Intercolonial regulations                                        7

       Sec. 9. Intercolonial cases                                         8

  Sec. 10. International relations                                         9

        Sec. 11. International cases                                      10

  Sec. 12. Relations with the mother country                              11

  Sec. 13. Regulation under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1788)     12

        Sec. 14. Ordinance for the Northwest Territory (1787)             13

  Sec. 15. The Fugitive question in the Constitutional Conventions        14


CHAPTER II.

_LEGISLATION FROM 1789 TO 1850._

  Sec. 16. Effect of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution        16

  Sec. 17. The first Fugitive Slave Act (1793)                            16

        Sec. 18. Discussion of the first act                              18

  Sec. 19. Propositions of 1797 and 1802                                  19

  Sec. 20. Propositions from 1817 to 1822                                 21

  Sec. 21. Period of the Missouri Compromise (1819-1822)                  23

  Sec. 22. Status of the question from 1823 to 1847                       24

        Sec. 23. Canada and Mexico places of refuge                       25

        Sec. 24. Status of fugitives on the high seas                     26

  Sec. 25. Kidnapping from 1793 to 1850: Prigg case                       27

  Sec. 26. Necessity of more stringent fugitive slave provisions          28

        Sec. 27. Action of Congress from 1847 to 1850                     28

        Sec. 28. Slavery in the District of Columbia                      29

  Sec. 29. The second Fugitive Slave Act (1850)                           29

        Sec. 30. Provisions of the second Fugitive Slave Act              30

        Sec. 31. Arguments for the bill                                   31

        Sec. 32. Arguments against the bill                               32


CHAPTER III.

_PRINCIPAL CASES FROM 1789 TO 1860._

  Sec. 33. Change in character of cases                                   34

        Sec. 34. The first case of rescue (1793)                          35

        Sec. 35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive (1796)      35

  Sec. 36. Kidnapping cases                                               36

        Sec. 37. Jones case (1836)                                        36

        Sec. 38. Solomon Northup case (about 1830)                        37

        Sec. 39. Washington case (between 1840 and 1850)                  38

        Sec. 40. Oberlin case (1841)                                      38

  Sec. 41. Interference and rescues                                       38

        Sec. 42. Chickasaw rescue (1836)                                  38

        Sec. 43. Philadelphia case (1838)                                 39

        Sec. 44. Latimer case (1842)                                      39

        Sec. 45. Ottoman case (1846)                                      40

  Sec. 46. Interstate relations                                           41

        Sec. 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837, 1839)                      41

        Sec. 48. Ohio and Kentucky cases (1848)                           41

  Sec. 49. Prosecutions                                                   42

        Sec. 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases (1840, 1844)          42

  Sec. 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850                 43

  Sec. 52. Principle of the selection of cases                            43

        Sec. 53. Hamlet case (1850)                                       43

        Sec. 54. Sims case (1851)                                         44

        Sec. 55. Burns case (1854)                                        45

        Sec. 56. Garner case (1856)                                       46

        Sec. 57. Shadrach case (1851)                                     47

        Sec. 58. Jerry McHenry case (1851)                                48

        Sec. 59. Oberlin-Wellington case (1858)                           49

        Sec. 60. Christiana case (1851)                                   50

        Sec. 61. Miller case (1851)                                       51

        Sec. 62. John Brown in Kansas (1858)                              51


CHAPTER IV.

_FUGITIVES AND THEIR FRIENDS._

  Sec. 63. Methods of escape                                              53

        Sec. 64. Reasons for escape                                       54

        Sec. 65. Conditions of slave life                                 55

        Sec. 66. Escapes to the woods                                     56

        Sec. 67. Escapes to the North                                     57

        Sec. 68. Use of protection papers                                 58

        Sec. 69. Fugitives disguised as whites: Craft case                58

  Sec. 70. Underground Railroad                                           60

        Sec. 71. Rise and growth of the system                            60

        Sec. 72. Methods pursued                                          61

        Sec. 73.  agents of the Underground Railroad               62

        Sec. 74. Prosecutions of agents                                   63

        Sec. 75. Formal organization                                      63

        Sec. 76. General effect of escapes                                64


CHAPTER V.

_PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS._

  Sec. 77. Character of the personal liberty laws                         65

  Sec. 78. Acts passed before the Prigg decision (1793-1842)              65

  Sec. 79. Acts passed between the Prigg decision and
          the second Fugitive Slave Law (1842-1850)                    66

  Sec. 80. Acts occasioned by the law of 1850 (1850-1860)                 66

  Sec. 81. Massachusetts acts                                             67

  Sec. 82. Review of the acts by States                                   69

  Sec. 83. Effect of the personal liberty laws                            70


CHAPTER VI.

_THE END OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE QUESTION (1860-1865)._

  Sec. 85. The Fugitive Slave Law in the crisis of 1860-61                71

        Sec. 86. Proposition to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law            72

        Sec. 87. Propositions to repeal or amend the law                  73

  Sec. 88. The question of slaves of rebels                               73

        Sec. 89. Slavery attacked in Congress                             74

              Sec. 90. Confiscation bills                                 75

              Sec. 91. Confiscation provisions extended                   75

        Sec. 92. Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation (1863)           77

  Sec. 93. Fugitives in loyal slave States                                77

        Sec. 94. Typical cases                                            78

        Sec. 95. Question discussed in Congress                           78

        Sec. 96. Arrests by civil officers                                80

  Sec. 97. Denial of the use of jails in the District of Columbia         80

        Sec. 98. Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia         82

        Sec. 99. Regulations against kidnapping                           82

  Sec. 100. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts                             83

        Sec. 101. Early propositions to repeal the acts                   83

        Sec. 102. Discussion of the repeal bill in the House              84

        Sec. 103. Repeal bills in the Senate                              85

        Sec. 104. The repeal act and the thirteenth amendment             86

  Sec. 105. Educating effect of the controversy                           87


APPENDICES.

  APPENDIX A.
    Colonial laws relative to fugitives                                89

  APPENDIX B.
    National acts and propositions relative to fugitive slaves
      (1778-1854)                                                     104

  APPENDIX C.
    National acts and propositions relating to fugitive slaves
      (1860-1864)                                                     117

  APPENDIX D.
    List of important fugitive slave cases                            124

  APPENDIX E.
    Bibliography of fugitive slave cases and fugitive slave
      legislation                                                     129

  INDEX.                                                              139




CHAPTER I.

_LEGISLATION AND CASES BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION._

   Sec. 1. Elements of colonial slavery.
   Sec. 2. Regulations as to fugitives (1640-1700).
   Sec. 3. Treatment of fugitives.
   Sec. 4. Regulations in New England colonies.
        Sec. 5. Escapes in New England: Attucks case.
   Sec. 6. Dutch regulations in New Netherlands.
        Sec. 7. Escapes from New Amsterdam.
   Sec. 8. Intercolonial regulations.
        Sec. 9. Intercolonial cases.
  Sec. 10. International relations.
        Sec. 11. International cases.
  Sec. 12. Relations with the mother country.
  Sec. 13. Regulation under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1788).
        Sec. 14. Ordinance for the Northwest Territory (1787).
  Sec. 15. The Fugitive question in the Constitutional Conventions.


=Sec. 1. Elements of colonial slavery.=--By the middle of the seventeenth
century, the settlements made in America by the English, Dutch, and
Swedes were arranged for the most part in a line of little colonies
closely following the Atlantic coast. To the west, wide forests and
plains, broken only by the paths of the Indian, stretched on to the
Pacific; while long intervals of unpopulated country separated the
colonists on the north from the French in Canada, and on the south from
the Spaniards in Florida.

In all the colonies thus grouped together, the system of slavery had
already become well established, and with its institution the question of
the escape and return of the slaves had necessarily arisen. The
conditions of the country, both physical and social, gave unusual
facilities for flight. The wild woods, the Indian settlements, or the
next colony, peopled by a foreign race, and perhaps as yet without firmly
established government, offered to the slave a refuge and possibly
protection. Escape, therefore, as a peculiar danger, demanded peculiar
remedies. Though it is the purpose of this monograph not so much to study
the detail of legislation or escape in the colonies as to deal with the
period from 1789 to 1865, a slight sketch of the intercolonial laws and
provisions which preceded and in part suggested later legislation will
first be necessary.

Almost immediately after the introduction of slavery, in 1619, we begin
to find regulations made by the colonists upon this subject. At first
they applied solely to their own territory, but soon agreements were
entered into among several colonies, or between a colony and the Indians
or the French in Canada. These acts and agreements recognized not only
the <DW64>, as at a later period, but also the white and the Indian slave.
There existed in some of the colonies of this time a peculiar class of
white people, who received no wages, and were bound to their masters.[1]
Usually these redemptioners were laborers or handicraftsmen, but
sometimes they were persons of education who had committed a crime, and
were sold according to law for a term of years, or for life. One of the
class is curiously connected with the education of no less a person than
George Washington. An unpublished autobiography of the Reverend John
Boucher, who from 1760 to the Revolution was a teacher and preacher in
Virginia, contains the following paragraph noticing the fact:--

  "Mr. Washington was the second of five sons, of parents distinguished
  neither for their rank nor fortune.... George, who, like most people
  thereabouts at that time, had no other education than reading, writing,
  and accounts, which he was taught by a convict servant whom his father
  bought for a schoolmaster, first set out in the world as a surveyor of
  Orange County."[2]


=Sec. 2. Regulations as to fugitives.=--The earliest regulation upon this
subject is found among the freedoms and exemptions granted by the West
India Company, in 1629, "to all Patroons, Masters, or Private Persons"
who would agree to settle in New Netherlands. The authorities promised to
do all in their power to return to their masters any slaves or colonists
fleeing from service.[3]

A little later, the Swedish colonists in Pennsylvania asked from their
government the same privilege of reclaiming fugitives.[4] The preamble of
an act against fugitives in East Jersey, in 1686, explains these
provisions. They found that "the securing of such persons as Run away, or
otherwise absent themselves from their master's lawfull Occasion," was "a
material encouragement to such Persons as come into this country to
settle Plantations and Populate the Province."[5] In many of the Southern
colonies, as Maryland and South Carolina, so severe were the acts against
this class of bound colonists that a runaway might be declared outlawed,
and might rightfully be killed by any person.[6]


[Sidenote: Treatment of Fugitives]

=Sec.3. Treatment of fugitives.=--From 1640 to 1700, laws were also passed
in New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. It is not
necessary to follow out the provisions here,[7] but each of the Southern
colonies, as in later regulations, provided most minutely for all
possible cases. By a Virginia law of 1642, all persons who entertained
runaways, whether slaves or hired freemen, were to be fined twenty pounds
of tobacco for each night's hospitality. The fugitives were to add to
their tenure of service double their time of absence, and on a second
offence to be branded with the letter R.[8]

A curious regulation in 1660-1, in Virginia, provided that if a <DW64> and
white bound servant ran away together, since the <DW64>'s time of
servitude was for life, and he was therefore incapable of making up his
lost time, the white servant's punishment should be doubled by adding the
<DW64>'s sentence to his own.[9] Another regulation, entitled "How to Know
a Runaway," commanded that all recovered fugitives have their hair "cutt"
close about their ears.[10]

Sometimes the penalties were even more severe, but the processes were
much the same. A person who found a slave or vagabond without a pass
usually took him before the next justice, who took cognizance of the
captor's good service, and certified it in the next Assembly: the runaway
was then delivered from constable to constable, until he was returned to
his master.

After 1700 the process grows yet more elaborate; for example, take a
North Carolina law of 1741. The securer of a runaway was to have seven
shillings and sixpence proclamation money, and for every mile over ten
which he conducted the fugitive threepence extra. When seized, runaways
were to be whipped and placed in the county gaol. If the owner was known,
he was notified and went for his slave; if not, a notice describing the
runaway must be placed upon the door of the court-house, and sent to the
clerk or reader of each church or chapel within the county. They were
required to post all such notices every Lord's day for two months in some
convenient place near the church. At the end of this time, should no
claimant appear, the slave must be sent from constable to constable, till
the public gaol of the government was reached. There, upon consent of the
court or of two justices, he might be sold to hire by the gaoler.[11] The
Maryland Archives record that in 1669 ten thousand pounds of tobacco were
appropriated to build one of these log-house gaols wherein fugitive
servants might be lodged.[12]


=Sec. 4. Regulations in New England colonies.=--Let us turn now to the New
England colonies. Here we must expect to find but few provisions, since
the class of slaves and bound servants was so small that it could easily
be controlled. The first law in Massachusetts Bay was passed in 1630, and
was entitled, "An Act respecting Masters, Servants, and Laborers." In
accordance with the arbitrary methods of government then pursued, it
included not only runaway servants, but also any persons who should
"privily go away with suspicion of evil intention," and ordered the
magistrate "to press men, boats, or pinnaces," and "to bring them back by
force of arms." A humane provision, usually wanting in Southern laws,
though also found in New Netherlands, declared that, whenever servants
fled on account of the tyranny of their masters, they should be protected
until measures for their relief could be taken.[13]

In Connecticut and New Hampshire similar laws were passed, and in 1707
Massachusetts Bay, in regulating the free <DW64> population, enacted that
every freeman or mulatto who should harbor a <DW64> servant in his house
without his owner's consent should pay five shillings for the use of the
poor of the town.[14]

In those days, when bridges were few, the ferrymen were apparently much
relied upon as agents to detect and apprehend runaways. In 1714 we find
that several <DW64> slaves had been carried over ferries, and thus escaped
out of Rhode Island. The Assembly therefore enacted that "no ferryman or
boatman whatsoever, within this colony, shall carry or bring any slave as
aforesaid over their ferries, without a certificate under the hands of
their masters or mistresses, or some person in authority, upon the
penalty of paying all costs and damages their said masters or mistresses
shall sustain thereby: and to pay a fine of twenty shillings for the use
of the colony for each offence, as aforesaid." All persons were also
commanded to take up any slave they might find travelling about without a
pass.[15]


[Sidenote: Escapes in New England.]

=Sec. 5. Escapes in New England: Attucks case.=--Although we do not find
records of fugitive slave cases tried at this time within the New England
colonies, advertisements of runaways exist in sufficient numbers to prove
that escapes were common. It seems probable, therefore, that the return
of a slave when within his own colony was taken as a matter of course,
and roused so little opposition, and required so simple a process at law,
that matters concerning it would seldom find mention in the chronicles of
the time. Here is a typical advertisement:--

  "Ran away from Samuel Gilbert of Littleton, an indentured Servant Boy,
  named Samuel Gilson, about 17 years old, of a middling Stature for his
  Age, and wears black curled Hair, he carried away with him a blue cloth
  Coat, a light  Jacket with sleeves, one pair of worsted
  Stockings, two striped woolen Shirts, and one good linnen Shirt. He
  went away in company with a short thick set Fellow, who wore a green
  coat and a green Jacket double breasted, also a pair Indian green
  Stockings. Whoever shall take up and secure, or give information of
  said runaway, so that his master may find him again, shall receive a
  Reward of two dollars and all necessary charges from

                                                    SAMUEL GILBERT.

  "All masters of vessels and others are cautioned against harboring,"
  etc.[16]

Again a case interesting not only as an illustration of the customs of
the time, but also because the fugitive himself bears a name known to
history in another connection, is noticed in the Boston Gazette of 1750.
Here is advertised as escaping, October 2, 1750, from his master, William
Browne of Framingham, Massachusetts, "A molatto fellow about twenty-seven
years of age, named Crispus." After describing his clothing and
appearance, a reward of ten pounds, old tenor, is offered for his return,
and "all masters of vessels and others are cautioned against concealing
said servant on penalty of law."[17] Tradition has it, however, that he
was never arrested, but returned of his own accord after a short time,
and was for the next twenty years a faithful servant.[18] Then, in 1770,
presumably while in town upon one of the expeditions he often undertook
to buy and sell cattle for his master, he was drawn into the Boston
Massacre of March 5.[19]

A somewhat famous case, which also occurred in Massachusetts, though many
years later, may here be mentioned. About 1769 one Rotch, a Quaker, and
therefore probably opposed to slavery, received on board the whaler
Friendship a young <DW64> boy named Boston, belonging to the heirs of
William Swain. At the end of the voyage his master, John Swain, brought
action in the court of Nantucket against Captain Folger for the recovery
of the slave; the jury, whether from lack of evidence or from sympathy
cannot be determined, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.[20]


[Sidenote: Dutch and Intercolonial Regulations.]

=Sec. 6. Dutch regulations in New Netherlands.=--The early New Netherlands
regulations furnish many interesting provisions concerning fugitive
servants. Apparently the servile class was numerous, and hard to govern.
In the words of the ordinance of 1640, "many servants daily run away from
their masters, whereby the latter are put to great inconvenience and
expense; the corn and tobacco rot in the field, and the whole harvest is
at a standstill, which tends to the serious injury of this country, to
their masters' ruin, and to bring the magistracy into contempt." It was
therefore ordained that runaways must, at the end of their term of
indenture, serve double the time of their absence, and make good all loss
and damage to their masters; while persons harboring fugitives were
obliged to pay a fine of fifty guilders.[21]


=Sec. 7. Escapes from New Amsterdam.=--Within these Dutch colonies there is
recorded a case of escape as early as 1659. Four menservants of Cornelis
Herperts de Jager, of New Amsterdam, ran away to Manhattan. One of them
soon returned, and in accordance with the regulation made in 1630 by the
West India Company,[22] requiring the return of fugitives in their
various settlements, one of the officers of the colony sent to Manhattan
an order to arrest and bring back the remaining three in chains.[23]


=Sec. 8. Intercolonial regulations.=--It will be seen that most of the
colonies considered some provision against runaways necessary to the
welfare of the settlements. To secure such legislation in a single colony
was a comparatively easy matter; but the unorganized and sparsely settled
condition of the country rendered any intercolonial regulations
difficult.

The first formal agreement of this kind was arranged by the New England
Confederation of Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Haven, in
1643. In their Articles of Confederation was a clause which promised: "If
any servant runn away from his master into any other of these
confederated Jurisdiccons, That in such Case vpon the Certyficate of one
Majistrate in the Jurisdiccon out of which the said servant fled, or upon
other due proofe, the said servant shall be deliuered either to his
Master or any other that pursues and brings such Certificate or
proofe."[24] This clause contains the earliest statement of the
principles regarding the treatment of fugitive slave cases, afterward
carried out in the United States statutes of 1787, 1793, and 1850. There
was no trial by jury, but the certificate of a magistrate was sufficient
evidence to convict the runaway.

It is probable, also, that the rendition of fugitives was considered a
duty incumbent upon all colonies, whatever their relation to each other,
since about this time we find an agreement made for the mutual surrender
of fugitives between the Dutch at New Netherlands and the English at New
Haven.[25]

Not only did the slaves of the Dutch escape to the English colonies, but
they often fled to the forests, where recovery must have been almost
impossible unless the Indians could be induced to hunt them out. Curious
rewards were sometimes offered. Maryland, in 1669, ordered that any
Indian who shall apprehend a fugitive may have a "match coate," or its
value.[26] Virginia would give "20 armes length of Roanoke," or its
value,[27] while in Connecticut "two yards of cloth" was considered
sufficient inducement.[28] We have record of several conferences upon
this subject. Governor Burnett of New York asked his Indians to exert
themselves in behalf of the Governor of Virginia, who had written to him
about the escape of several of his <DW64> servants to the mountains. The
Indians promised their help in this and any other search; but as they
seldom seem to have succeeded, it is probable that their sympathy was
with the fugitives.[29] Again Governor Burnett demanded the restoration
of a certain Indian slave whom they had kidnapped from the English. The
Indians acknowledged the fact, but they said that he was then sold to
others, and nothing further could be done.[30]

Canada even in these early times seems also to have been a haven for
fugitives. In 1705 New York passed an act, which was renewed in 1715, to
prevent slaves running away from frontier towns like Albany to Canada,
because it was of great importance, they said, in time of war, "that no
Intelligence be carried from the said city and county to the French in
Canada."[31]

During all this time the Southern colonies, especially the Carolinas and
Georgia, were also making many complaints in regard to the difficulty
they had in recovering the fugitives, both Indian and <DW64>, who were
escaping in large numbers into Florida. There, among the Creek Indians
and the Spanish at St. Augustine, they easily found refuge.[32] This
difficulty was, however, not remedied in colonial times, but continued
long after the formation of the Federal Union, and in fact until the
close of the Seminole war, in 1845.


[Sidenote: Intercolonial Cases.]

=Sec. 9. Intercolonial cases.=--When, as was often the case, no agreement
upon the return of fugitives had been arranged between the colonies, the
rendition of a slave depended wholly upon the state of feeling existing
between the two peoples, and sometimes became an important question.
Between the New England colonies no cases have been found recorded,
although we infer that there must have been reason for the insertion of
a fugitive slave clause in the Articles of Confederation of 1643.[33]

Of other early cases one of the most interesting is the escape from
Virginia of four Englishmen belonging to the class of bound servants.
They rowed in a small boat up the coast as far as Cape May, where they
landed.[34] They soon found themselves objects of suspicion with the
people, and, as was a common practice, took refuge among the Indians.
About a year afterward their masters tracked them to their place of
refuge, and captured two of them, but the others were again beyond reach.
The Indians, who evidently did not always befriend runaways, had just
sold one of them, William Browne, to a Swede, and Browne, learning of his
former master's appearance, had found opportunity to escape. The fourth
of the fugitives was still among the Mantas, and could not be secured. Of
the two recaptured, one was returned without trouble, but the other,
Turc, who had just entered the service of a certain Pieter Aldrich,
resisted his captors. A struggle took place upon the boat in which they
were carrying him away. After wounding three of his guards, he succeeded
in making his escape, only to be recaptured almost immediately. When
tried for the deed at New Amsterdam, he received a death sentence.[35] In
this case, one of the most complete in detail left to us, may be found,
in the incidents of escape, pursuit, resistance, and final rendition, all
the features of the later fugitive slave cases. It is also an example
wherein the laws of the period, which required the rendition of a bound
white man in the same manner as a <DW64> slave, were strictly carried out:
and in the diverse fates of the four men we find instances probably
typical of the fortunes of most fugitives of the time.


=Sec. 10. International relations.=--The proximity of the French, Spanish,
and Dutch settlements led to escapes from the colonies of one power into
those of another. All were slaveholding communities, and there was no
disposition to shield a slave because his lot was a hard one; but the
distrust and enmity between neighboring colonies owing allegiance to
different sovereigns caused such escapes to lead to petty quarrels. There
was no system of extradition treaties; in fact, there was as yet little
international law. Fugitives were demanded as an act of comity, and
sometimes their delivery was refused. It was hardly a subject on which
the home governments bestirred themselves. The colonies were left to make
their own agreements, or to settle their own disagreements.


[Sidenote: International Cases]

=Sec. 11. International cases.=--Thus far only those cases have been noticed
which arose within and between colonies of the same nation. Let us now
consider a very early case of disagreement between colonies of different
nations, which occurred in 1646. The commissioners of the United Colonies
made complaint to the Governor of New Netherlands that his Dutch agent at
Hartford was harboring one of their Indian slaves. Soon after, Governor
Stuyvesant was refused the return of some of his runaway servants from
New Haven. Thereupon the angry Lords of the West India Company issued a
proclamation commanding that there should be no rendition of fugitive
slaves to New Haven. This provision continued in effect until Governor
Elton sent back some of the fugitives to New Netherlands. It was then
annulled, and a mutual agreement to return the runaways was entered into
by the United Colonies and the Dutch.[36] Governor John Winthrop, in his
History of New England, refers to the case, and says that Massachusetts
Bay endeavored to bring about a reconciliation, and wrote to the Governor
of New Netherlands intimating to him that "at their request he might send
back the fugitives without prejudice to their right or reputation."[37]

Maryland also found difficulty, from the readiness with which her
servants could flee north to New Netherlands. In the State Archives may
be found a letter sent by the authorities to the Governor of New
Netherlands, as follows:--

  "SIR,--Some servants being lately fledd out of this colony, into yours,
  as is supposed, we could not promise ourselves from you that justice &
  faire correspondence betweene the two governments so neerly bordering &
  which are shortly like to be nearer neighbors in delaware bay, as to
  hope that vpon the receiving of these Outres & the demand of the
  parties interessted you will remand to us all such apprentice servants
  as are or shall run out of this government into yours; and will compell
  such other persons, as shall flie to you without a passe, being
  indebted or otherwise obnoxious to the justice of this place, to make
  such satisfaction to the parties endamaged by their unlawful departure,
  upon their complaints and proofe thereof, as you shall find justice to
  require. And you may promise yourself the like helpe and concurrence
  from this governm't in that or any other thing as shalbe in the power
  of it: And so we bid you heartilly farewell & rest.

  "To the hon'ble the Governor of the New Netherlands."[38]

In 1659 the Dutch had occasion to ask the same favor of Maryland. Whether
there had been trouble between the colonies since the earlier letter we
do not know, but the spirit of the communication was quite different.
Instead of assurances of good will, and expressions of a belief in the
certainty of peaceful return, the Dutch threatened, if their servants
were not secured to them, "to publish free liberty, access and recess to
all planters, servants, <DW64>s, fugitives, and runaways which may go
into New Netherland."[39]

Trouble was also constantly arising between the French and English, or
French and Dutch, in regard to the many runaways who fled from the
Eastern colonies northward to Canada. In 1750 there was a dispute about a
certain <DW64> belonging to the English, but at that time in possession of
the Sieur de la Corne St. Luc; and, in a letter to a friend, one of the
officers of the colony makes the following explanation concerning them:
"In regard to the <DW64> in possession of Sieur de la Corne St. Luc I
thought proper not to send him back every <DW64> being a slave wherever he
be. Besides, I am only doing what the English did in 1747. Ensign de
Malbronne on board Le Screux had a <DW64> servant who was at first taken
from him; I took pains to reclaim him, but the English refused to
surrender him on ground as above."[40]


=Sec. 12. Relations with the mother country.=--With only one country across
the sea was any question of fugitives likely to arise. In England white
slavery had long since died out, except as a punishment for crime;
villeinage ceased about the time the colonies were settled. But the
status of black slaves who were taken from the colonies to England was in
practice unchanged.

The principle thus apparently established by custom was overthrown by a
succession of legal decisions, culminating in the famous Somersett Case.
It was first decided by Thomas Grahame, judge in the Admiralty Court,
Glasgow, that a certain <DW64> who had been brought into Great Britain
must be liberated, on the ground that a guiltless human being taken into
that country must be free.[41] In 1762 occurred another similar case. A
bill had been filed in equity by an administrator to recover money given
by his intestate to a <DW64> brought to England as a slave. The suit was
dismissed by Lord Northington, who said that as soon as a man set foot on
English ground he was free.[42]

The Somersett case came ten years later. The circumstances were as
follows. A Mr. Stewart, accompanied by his slave Somersett, left Boston
on the 1st of October, 1769, and went to London, where he kept his slave
until October 1, 1771. Then Somersett ran away, but his owner soon
secured him and had him placed on board a vessel bound for Jamaica,
probably with the intention of selling him as a slave. A writ of habeas
corpus was then served upon the captain of the ship, and on the hearing
Lord Mansfield decided that Somersett must be discharged. In England, he
said, slavery could exist only by positive law; and in default of such
law there was no legal machinery for depriving a man of his liberty on
the ground that he was a slave. The importance of the case for the
colonies lay not in the assertion of the principle that slavery depended
on positive law, for the American statute-books were full of positive law
on slavery; the precedent thus established determined the future course
of England against the delivery of fugitives, whether from her colonies
or from other countries.[43]


=Sec. 13. International regulations under the Articles of Confederation
(1781-1788).=--When, on March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation went
into effect, the only action taken by the United States on the subject of
fugitives had been the negotiation of a treaty with the Delaware Indians,
August 7, 1778, by which the parties bound themselves not "to protect in
their respective States criminal fugitives, servants, or slaves, but the
same to apprehend, secure, and deliver."[44] In seven of the eight other
treaties negotiated with Indian tribes from 1784 to 1786, clauses were
introduced for the return of black prisoners, or of "<DW64>s and other
property."[45] The States affected were chiefly Southern; but the article
on the same subject in the Treaty of Peace in 1782 and 1783, was intended
as much to protect the slaveholders of New York as those of Virginia. It
was distinctly agreed that the British should not carry away "any <DW64>s
or other property."[46] The failure to abide by this agreement led to
reclamation by the American government, but no indemnity was ever
secured.[47]


[Sidenote: English Law. Northwest Ordinance.]

=Sec. 14. Ordinance for the Northwest Territory.=--Since all the thirteen
colonies recognized slavery, the Revolution made no difference in any
previous intercolonial practice as to the delivery of slaves; in framing
the Articles of Confederation no clause on the subject was thought
necessary. The precedent of the New England Confederation was forgotten
or ignored. But the action of the States of Vermont, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, in taking steps toward
immediate or gradual emancipation, from 1777 to 1784, brought up a new
question,--the status of fugitives in free regions. Before the change of
conditions in the States was completely understood, the same question had
arisen in the Western territories. Jefferson, in 1784, proposed to draw a
north and south line through the mouth of the Kanawha, west of which
there should be no slavery after 1800.[48] The next year a Northern man
proposed a similar limitation in the territory north of the Ohio, and
added a clause for the return of fugitive slaves to the original slave
States.[49] Neither of these two propositions was carried, but the
principles both of exclusion of slavery and of the return of fugitives
appear in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the first legislation by
Congress looking toward the surrender of fugitives by any Territory or
State. In providing a government for the new Territory, it was enacted,
July 13, 1787, that "any person escaping into the same from whom labor or
service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such
fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming
his or her labor or service as aforesaid."[50] The fugitive clause seems
to have provoked no discussion, but to have been accepted as a reasonable
condition of the limitation of slavery.


[Sidenote: Fugitive Question in Constitutional Conventions.]

=Sec. 15. The Fugitive question in the Constitutional Conventions.=--While
the Northwest Ordinance was passing through Congress, the Philadelphia
Convention was framing a new Constitution, and the return of fugitives
was again eagerly insisted upon by the slave States. The necessity of
some positive stipulation that fugitives should be returned was felt to
be even more necessary in a Constitution meant permanently to bind
together a free and a slaveholding section. The only debate of which we
have a record occurred August 28, 1787. Mr. Butler of North Carolina
pressed the point in behalf of the Southern States. To his first
proposition, "that fugitive slaves and servants be delivered up like
criminals,"[51] Mr. Wilson objected; he saw no reason for obliging the
state to arrest fugitives at public expense, while Mr. Sherman saw no
more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant
than a horse.[52] Mr. Butler therefore withdrew the proposition. He soon
introduced a more particular provision, which was accepted and inserted
in the Constitution, as follows:--

  "NO PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOUR 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 LABOUR, BUT
  SHALL BE DELIVERED UP ON CLAIM OF THE PARTY TO WHOM SUCH SERVICE OR
  LABOUR MAY BE DUE."[53]

In the various Constitutional Conventions, there was little discussion
upon the matter. The Southern States in general considered the clause
sufficient to protect their property. General Charles C. Pinckney, in
South Carolina, said: "We have obtained the right to recover our slaves
in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we
have not had before. In short, considering all circumstances, 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."[54] In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell
explained to the Convention that the Northern delegates, owing to their
peculiar scruples on the subject of slavery, did not choose the word
"slave" to be mentioned; but since the present laws were so prejudicial
to the inhabitants of the Southern States, some such clause was
necessary.[55] In Virginia, Mr. Grayson discussed the provision giving
Congress exclusive legislation over ten square miles surrounding the
capital. It seemed to him that, unless the ten miles square be considered
a State, "persons bound to labor who shall escape thereto will not be
given up. For they are only to be delivered up after they shall have
escaped into a State."[56] This objection, though perfectly good at the
time, was later overcome by the adoption by Congress of the laws of
Maryland for the regulation of the District of Columbia, whereby it was
made slave territory. Mr. Mason did not think the clause provided
sufficiently for the protection of their slaves,[57] but Mr. Madison
urged its adoption, as a better security than anything they then had.[58]

In the North, there was apparently no discussion upon this article.
Everywhere, however, it was thought that without such a clause the
Southern States would not consent to the Union, and, in a spirit of
compromise, the provision was accepted.


[Footnote 1: Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, I. 295.]

[Footnote 2: Nation, April 18, 1889.]

[Footnote 3: Appendix A, No. 1.]

[Footnote 4: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 211.]

[Footnote 5: Appendix A, No. 45.]

[Footnote 6: Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, I. 295.]

[Footnote 7: The texts will be found post, Appendix A.]

[Footnote 8: Appendix A, No. 6.]

[Footnote 9: Appendix A, No. 23.]

[Footnote 10: Appendix A, No. 20.]

[Footnote 11: Iredell, 90; Appendix A, No. 73.]

[Footnote 12: Maryland Archives, II. 224.]

[Footnote 13: Appendix A, No. 2.]

[Footnote 14: Appendix A, No. 53.]

[Footnote 15: Appendix A, No. 57; Appendix D, No. 6.]

[Footnote 16: Boston Gazette, Jan. 1, 1770.]

[Footnote 17: Boston Gazette, Oct. 2, 1750; G. W. Williams, History of
the <DW64> Race in America, I. 330.]

[Footnote 18: Liberator, March 16, 1860.]

[Footnote 19: W. C. Nell's Address at the Nineteenth Anniversary of
Boston Massacre.]

[Footnote 20: Moore, Slavery in Massachusetts, 117.]

[Footnote 21: Appendix A, No 3; Appendix D, No. 10.]

[Footnote 22: See _ante_, Sec. 2.]

[Footnote 23: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 238; Letter from Jacob
Aldrich to Director Stuyvesant of New Netherlands, New Amstel, 14 May,
1659; Documentary History of N. Y. Colony, II. 556; Appendix D, No. 2.]

[Footnote 24: Appendix A, No. 8, Gilman, History of the American People,
605.]

[Footnote 25: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, I. 342; Doyle, English in
America, I. 391.]

[Footnote 26: Maryland Archives, II. 523.]

[Footnote 27: Appendix A, No. 37.]

[Footnote 28: Acts and Laws of Connecticut, 229.]

[Footnote 29: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, V. 637; Appendix D, No. 4.]

[Footnote 30: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, V. 793.]

[Footnote 31: Appendix A, Nos. 50, 59.]

[Footnote 32: Giddings, Exiles of Florida, 281; Wilson, Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power in America, I. 122.]

[Footnote 33: _Ante_, Sec. 8.]

[Footnote 34: Letter from William Beekman to Director Stuyvesant, in N.
Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 346; Appendix D, No. 3.]

[Footnote 35: N. Y. Colonial Manuscripts, XIII. 346.]

[Footnote 36: Moore, Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts,
28; Doyle, English in America, I. 391; compare Appendix A, No. 14.]

[Footnote 37: John Winthrop, History of New England from 1630 to 1649,
p. 383; Appendix D, No. 1.]

[Footnote 38: Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of Council, 1636-1667,
pp. 134, 135.]

[Footnote 39: Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of Council, III. 472.]

[Footnote 40: Letter from M. de la Jonquiere to M. de Rouille, in N. Y.
Colonial Manuscripts, X. 209; Appendix D, No. 5.]

[Footnote 41: Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Third
Series, IX. 2; Appendix D, No. 7.]

[Footnote 42: J. Quincy, Reports of Cases, 96; Appendix D, No. 8.]

[Footnote 43: Moore, Slavery in Massachusetts, 117; T. R. Cobb,
Historical Sketch of Slavery, 2, Law of <DW64> Slavery, 164;
Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Third Series, IX. 2;
Josiah Quincy, Reports of Cases, 96; Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage,
II.]

[Footnote 44: Appendix B, No. 1.]

[Footnote 45: Appendix B, Nos. 3, 5.]

[Footnote 46: Appendix B, No. 2.]

[Footnote 47: Post, Sec. 22.]

[Footnote 48: Randall, Jefferson, I. 397-400; Winsor, VII. 528; Journals
of Congress, IX. 153-156.]

[Footnote 49: Appendix B, No. 4; Journals of Congress, X. 79; Bancroft,
History of the U. S. (last rev.), VI. 132-134; Bancroft, Constitution,
I. 178-180; Hildreth, III. 458.]

[Footnote 50: Appendix B, No. 6. On the Northwest Ordinance in general,
see Winsor, VII. 538; J. H. Merriam, Legislative History of the
Ordinance of 1787 (Worcester, 1888); Lalor's Cyclopaedia, III. 30-34.]

[Footnote 51: Elliot's Debates, V. 487.]

[Footnote 52: Ibid., V. 487.]

[Footnote 53: Appendix B, No. 7.]

[Footnote 54: Elliot's Debates, III. 277.]

[Footnote 55: Ibid., III. 182.]

[Footnote 56: Ibid., III. 401.]

[Footnote 57: Ibid., III. 428.]

[Footnote 58: Ibid., III. 335.]




CHAPTER II.

_LEGISLATION FROM 1789 TO 1850._

  Sec. 16. Effect of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution.
  Sec. 17. The first Fugitive Slave Act (1793).
        Sec. 18. Discussion of the first act.
  Sec. 19. Propositions of 1797 and 1802.
  Sec. 20. Propositions from 1817 to 1822.
  Sec. 21. Period of the Missouri Compromise (1819-1822).
  Sec. 22. Status of the question from 1823 to 1847.
        Sec. 23. Canada and Mexico places of refuge.
        Sec. 24. Status of fugitives on the high seas.
  Sec. 25. Kidnapping from 1793 to 1850: Prigg case.
  Sec. 26. Necessity of more stringent fugitive slave provisions.
        Sec. 27. Action of Congress from 1847 to 1850.
        Sec. 28. Slavery in the District of Columbia.
  Sec. 29. The second Fugitive Slave Act (1850).
        Sec. 30. Provisions of the second Fugitive Slave Act.
        Sec. 31. Arguments for the bill.
        Sec. 32. Arguments against the bill.


=Sec. 16. Effect of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution.=--By
obtaining in the Constitution the insertion of a clause requiring the
return of fugitives, a great step for the advancement of the interests of
slavery had been taken. For this embodiment in the Constitution ever
afterward formed a basis for the slaveholder's argument that the
Constitution recognized and defended slavery, and was a justification to
Northern men in their support of the later fugitive slave laws.

Although the clause did not in terms apply to the Territories, the
Ordinance of 1787 was, on August 7, 1789, confirmed in terms which by
implication continued the sixth article, including the rendition of
slaves;[59] and in the earliest treaties made by the United States with
Indian tribes, under the new Constitution, the return of <DW64>s was
expressly required.[60]


[Sidenote: The First Fugitive Slave Act.]

=Sec. 17. The first Fugitive Slave Act (1793).=--For some time, however, the
provision of the Constitution remained unexecuted; and it is a striking
fact that the call for legislation came not from the South, but from a
free State; and that it was provoked, not by fugitive slaves, but by
kidnappers. The case seemed to suggest that an act of Congress was
necessary, more definite in conditions and detail than the provision of
the Constitution.

A free <DW64> named John was seized at Washington, Pennsylvania, in 1791,
and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Pennsylvania, at the instigation
of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery, asked the return of the
three kidnappers; but the Governor of Virginia replied that, since there
was no national law touching such a case, he could not carry out the
request.[61]

On the matter being brought to the notice of Congress by the Governor of
Pennsylvania,[62] a Committee, consisting of Mr. Sedgwick, Mr. Bourne of
Massachusetts, and Mr. White, was appointed in the House of
Representatives to bring in a bill or bills "providing the means by which
persons charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who
shall flee from justice, shall, on the demand of the executive authority
of the State from which they fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the
State having jurisdiction of the crime; also providing the mode by which
a person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due."[63]

A bill prepared by the House committee, of which Mr. Sedgwick was
chairman, was reported, November 15, 1791;[64] but for some reason which
does not appear, it was dropped, and a Senate committee, of which Calvert
was chairman, was appointed, March 30, 1792, "to consider the expediency
[of] a bill respecting fugitives from justice and from the service of
their masters."[65] Nothing was done during this session, and, November
22, 1792, a second Senate committee was appointed, consisting of
Johnston, Calvert, and Read,[66] and they submitted a bill, December 20,
1792.[67] Unfortunately, we have no details of the debate; but on
December 28, a third Senate committee was appointed by adding Taylor and
Sherman to the committee of November 22, and to them the bill was
recommitted with instructions to amend.[68] At last, January 3, 1793, the
bill was reported in a form not unlike that finally agreed upon.[69] Of
the amendments offered, the text of only one is preserved in the
Journals; it was for the insertion of a less sum than five hundred
dollars as the penalty for harboring a fugitive, or resisting his
arrest.[70] It was not adopted. After two debates, of which we have no
record, the bill passed the Senate, January 18.[71] In the House it seems
to have elicited little discussion, and it passed, February 5, by a vote
of 48 to 7.[72] The bill became law by the signature of the President,
February 12, 1793.[73]

In thus uniting with the clause providing for the extradition of
fugitives from justice one requiring the return of fugitive slaves,
Congress was but following examples set in 1643 by the Articles of
Confederation,[74] and again in 1787 by the Constitution.[75] From the
scanty records, it is possible to discern only that there was serious
difference of opinion in the Senate, and that the measure finally adopted
was probably a compromise. In the one amendment stated, there is a faint
protest against the harshness of the law.[76]


=Sec. 18. Discussion of the first act.=--The provisions of the act of 1793
are quoted elsewhere;[77] their purport was as follows. The act provided
at the same time for the recovery of fugitives from justice and from
labor; but the alleged criminal was to have a protection through the
requirement of a requisition, a protection denied to the man on trial for
his liberty only. The act was applicable to fugitive apprentices as well
as to slaves, a provision of some importance at the time. In the
Northwest Territory there were so-called <DW64> apprentices, who were
virtually slaves, and to whom the law applied, since it was in terms
extended to all the Territories. Proceedings began with the forcible
seizure of the alleged fugitive.

The act, it will be observed, does not admit a trial by jury. It allowed
the owner of the slave, his agent or attorney, to seize the fugitive and
take him before any judge of a United States Circuit or District Court,
or any local magistrate.[78] The only requirement for the conviction of
the slave was the testimony of his master, or the affidavit of some
magistrate in the State from which he came, certifying that such a person
had escaped. Hindering arrest or harboring a slave was punishable by a
fine of five hundred dollars. The law thus established a system allowing
the greatest harshness to the slave and every favor to the master. Even
at that time, when persons might still be born slaves in New York and New
Jersey, and gradual emancipation had not yet taken full effect in Rhode
Island and Connecticut, it was repellent to the popular sense of justice;
there were two cases of resistance to the principle of the act before the
close of 1793.[79]


[Sidenote: Propositions of 1797 and 1802.]

=Sec. 19. Propositions of 1797 and 1802.=--Until 1850 no further law upon
this subject was passed, but as the provisions of 1793 were found
ineffectual, many attempts at amendment were made. In 1796 a troublesome
question arose out of the seizure, under the act of 1793, of four <DW64>s
who had been manumitted in North Carolina. A retroactive act of that
State had declared them slaves again, and they had fled to Philadelphia
where they were arrested. January 30, 1797, they petitioned Congress for
relief, and after an exciting debate the House by a vote of 50 to 33
refused to receive the petition.[80] There is nothing in the scanty
records which connects this case or petition with an attempt to amend the
act; but it is altogether likely that it occasioned Murray's motion of
December 29, 1796, for a committee to report on alterations of the
law;[81] and that it led to the almost simultaneous appointment of a
House committee on January 2,[82] and a Senate committee on January
3.[83] No report is recorded.

The coming on of difficulties with France, and the Alien and Sedition
Acts of 1798, absorbed the popular attention. In 1800 debates on the
slave trade and on the reception of petitions from free <DW64>s began.
January 22, 1801, a House committee was appointed to report a bill
increasing the stringency of the act.[84] The bill was reported, but
failed to be considered.[85] In the next Congress the matter was at last
brought to an issue. A committee, of which Nicholson of Maryland was
chairman, was appointed, December 11, 1801,[86] and reported only seven
days later. The report was made a special order for December 21.[87] On
that day no debate is recorded, but a petition from a free 
soldier of the Revolution was contemptuously denied reception.[88]
January 14 and 15, the bill was debated freely, and from the debate and
sundry amendments the character of the bill may be inferred. Not only
harboring, but employing a fugitive, was made punishable; and it was
ordained that every black employed must be furnished with an official
certificate, and that every person who employed a <DW64> must publish a
description of him. Southern members "considered it a great injury to the
owners of that species of property, that runaways were employed in the
Middle and Northern States, and even assisted in procuring a living. They
stated that, when slaves ran away and were not recovered, it excited
discontent among the rest. When they were caught and brought home, they
informed their comrades how well they were received and assisted, which
excited a disposition in others to attempt escaping, and obliged their
masters to use greater severity than they otherwise would. It was, they
said, even on the score of humanity, good policy in those opposed to
slavery to agree to this law."[89] This appeal to the humanity of the
North failed to produce the requisite effect. On the test vote, January
18, 1802, every Southern member except two voted for the bill, every
Northern member except five against it; the vote was 43 to 46, and the
bill was laid aside.[90]


[Sidenote: Propositions from 1817 to 1822.]

=Sec. 20. Propositions from 1817 to 1822.=--For many years the question of
amendment of the law does not appear to have come up in Congress. The
abolition of the slave trade seems to have absorbed the attention of
Congress. Several treaties were negotiated including clauses on the
return of fugitives.[91] The question was brought up again in 1817 by
Pindall of Virginia, who for several years urged a revision of the act. A
committee of which he was chairman was appointed, December 15, 1817, and
reported a bill, December 29, 1817.[92] This third proposition of general
amendment led to a debate, January 26 and 29, 1818, in which for the
first time we have a record of discussion on the principles of the act
and its relations to human freedom. The opposition was based not only on
constitutional, but on humanitarian grounds.[93] A petition of the
Pennsylvania Abolition Society, asking for a milder law than that of
1793, added fuel to the discussion.[94]

The principle of the bill was that the fugitives should be surrendered by
a requisition on the State Executive, as in the case of fugitives from
justice: the question of proof was thus left to the courts of the State
of the claimant, and there was to be no habeas corpus. The strongest
expression of disapproval is found in the speech of Mr. Adams of
Massachusetts, who said, "that, in guaranteeing the possession of slaves,
the Constitution did not authorize or require the General Government to
go as far as the bill proposed to render this bill effectual; that the
bill contained provisions dangerous to the liberty and safety of the free
people of color in other sections of the Union."[95] Mr. Rich of Vermont
desired "that it might be so amended as to guard more effectually the
rights of free persons of color. This motion he enforced by urging the
oppressions to which these persons were now subjected, and the necessity
of some regulation on the subject, which he thought might be very
properly connected with this bill."[96] Mr. Livermore also showed that it
exposed the <DW52> men of the North to the peril of being dragged South,
and there convicted.[97]

All these objections, however, were considered of little value by some
who, like Smith of Maryland, thought that the subject of the free <DW52>
population and their protection should be treated separately, while Mr.
Holmes of Massachusetts suggested that the operation of the writ of
habeas corpus would render such acts of injustice improbable.[98] Mason,
of the same State, objected to a trial by jury, which had been suggested,
because "juries in Massachusetts would in ninety-nine cases out of one
hundred decide in favor of the fugitives, and he did not wish his town
[Boston] infected with the runaways of the South."[99]

Upon two constitutional points the opponents of the bill made a stand.
Mr. Sergeant wished to change the bill materially, by making "the judges
of the State in which ... slaves are seized the tribunal to decide the
fact of slavery, instead of the judges of the State whence the fugitives
escaped," but this was negatived by a large majority.[100]

Another objection to the bill, raised by Mr. Whitman, is noteworthy,
since some years later it was the point made most prominent in Judge
Story's decision in the Prigg Case.[101] Mr. Whitman disapproved of the
provision making it a penal offence for a State officer to refuse his
assistance in executing the act. He did not believe that Congress had any
right to compel State officers to perform this duty; they could do no
more than authorize it.[102]

A vote was taken, January 30, 1818, in the House, and the bill passed by
a vote of 84 to 69.[103] It was ordered that the title be "An Act to
provide for delivering up persons held to labor or service in any of the
States or Territories who shall escape into any other State or
Territory."

For the first time since 1793, amendment of the act seemed within reach.
The Senate showed itself in other questions more inclined than the House
to consider the claims of the South; but although Dagget's amendment to
strike out the elaborate provision for the return of fugitives by
executive requisition was not adopted,[104] the Senate first voted to
limit the bill to four years,[105] and then added other amendments. The
result was a non-concurrence with the House, and the failure of the
bill,[106] March 13-16, 1818. A last attempt to take the bill up failed,
April 10, 1818.[107]


[Sidenote: Period of the Missouri Compromise.]

=Sec. 21. Period of the Missouri Compromise (1819-1822).=--The loss of the
bill of 1818 seems not to have discouraged the friends of amendment of
the act of 1793. December 17, 1818, a resolution of the Maryland
legislature was laid before the House, calling for protection against the
citizens of Pennsylvania who harbored or protected fugitives.[108] A
committee was appointed, January 15, 1819, which promptly reported next
day, but the bill was not considered.[109]

The question of fugitives came incidentally into the great debate of the
next session on the admission of Missouri. The region which sought
admission as a slave State was flanked on the east by free territory, and
was therefore peculiarly difficult to protect. A compromise, which made
Missouri a slave State, prohibited slavery in all other territory gained
from France north of 36 deg. 30'.[110] In the prohibitory clause, however, it
was provided "that any persons escaping into the same from whom labor or
service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United
States, such fugitive may be reclaimed, and conveyed to the person
claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."[111] During the
immigration into Missouri which now began, large numbers of slaveholders
took their slaves with them, and on the passage opportunities for escape
were often found. In one instance, at least, recorded in Ohio, the public
sympathy was so strongly with the fugitives that they were successfully
protected from their masters even in court.[112]

Hardly was the ink dry on the President's signature of the Missouri
Compromise (March 15, 1820) before propositions were made in both the
House and Senate for new general fugitive slave acts. March 18, a House
committee was appointed,[113] but no report is recorded. April 3, an
inquiry was set on foot into the provisions of a Pennsylvania act
hindering the operation of the act of 1793,[114] and the Secretary of
State submitted a copy of the obnoxious act, April 18. On the day of the
Secretary's report a proposition in the Senate to instruct the Judiciary
Committee to report a bill was voted down.[115] Positive evidence cannot
be obtained, but it would seem that a continued effort was made to take
advantage of the agitation on the slavery question to secure a new
fugitive slave act, as was done in 1850.

One more attempt was made in 1821-22. Mr. Wright presented, December 17,
1821, a resolution of the Maryland General Assembly praying for relief
against the abettors of the fugitives in Pennsylvania.[116] He desired a
special committee, but the question was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, which reported a bill, January 14, 1822.[117] March 27 to
April 1, it was debated, but finally tabled.[118] The character of the
bill does not distinctly appear in the records.


=Sec. 22. Status of the question from 1823 to 1847.=--Although no amendment
could be procured to the act of 1793, the government of the United States
had repeatedly, by diplomatic demands and treaties, undertaken to recover
fugitives, or their value, for Southern owners. The first Indian treaty
negotiated under the Constitution, that of April 7, 1790, with the
Creeks, required the return of <DW64>s held as prisoners of war.[119] A
similar clause appeared in the treaty made in 1814, at the end of the war
with the Creeks, a war which had been provoked in part by their ready
reception of fugitives.[120] In 1832 the government went so far as to
promise to expend seven thousand dollars in paying for "slaves and other
property alleged to have been stolen" by the Seminoles.[121]

With Great Britain, also, the encouragement of fugitives became a subject
for negotiation. Much bitterness had been felt at the carrying away by
the British, in 1783, of slaves who had taken refuge with them.[122] In
the treaty of Ghent, therefore, a strict clause forbade the carrying away
by the British of "any slaves or other private property."[123] A large
number of slaves had, during the war, been received on board British
vessels, and the humane but specious plea was set up by the British
government that the clause applied only to slaves received after the date
of the peace. A convention of 1818 submitted the question to the Emperor
of Russia, who in 1822 made a decision not wholly favorable to either
party; and in 1826,[124] by a second convention, Great Britain agreed to
pay $1,204,960. This last award was obtained by a Pennsylvanian,
Gallatin, acting under the direction of President John Quincy Adams, a
citizen of Massachusetts.


[Sidenote: Canada and Mexico Places of Refuge.]

=Sec. 23. Canada and Mexico places of refuge.=--The existence on the
northern and southwestern frontiers of regions in which slavery was
practically, if not yet legally, extinct, brought about another set of
complications. January 24, 1821, a resolution was presented in Congress
from the General Assembly of Kentucky, protesting against the kindly
reception of fugitives in Canada, and asking for negotiation with Great
Britain on the subject.[125] In 1826, Mr. Clay, Secretary of State,
instructed Mr. Gallatin, United States Minister at the Court of St.
James, to propose the "mutual surrender of all persons held to service or
labor under the laws of either country who escape into the territory of
the other." The British government replied that any such agreement was
impossible, and, though a second attempt was made by the United States,
it was without success.[126]

In 1841 Mr. Woodbridge submitted a resolution to the Senate requesting
the Committee on Foreign Relations to consider the expediency of entering
into an arrangement with Great Britain for the arrest of fugitive slaves
charged with crime who might escape over the northern boundary of the
United States.[127] No action was taken upon the resolution.

The North, however, was not the only region to which slaves were fleeing
at this time. Complaint was heard after 1830, that the "freedom and
equality granted blacks by the Mexican Constitution and law of 1829, was
attracting large numbers of slaves from Louisiana,"[128] while in Florida
the Seminole trouble was not yet ended.

The last case of this kind occurred just at the outbreak of the Civil
War. A slave by the name of Anderson was found one day by Mr. Seneca T.
P. Diggs, wandering about his plantation in Howard County, Missouri,
without a pass. Mr. Diggs thereupon arrested him as a fugitive slave. In
the struggle which followed, the desperate runaway plunged a knife into
Mr. Diggs's heart. His captor dead, Anderson hastened on to Canada.[129]
There he lived a quiet and industrious life until 1860, when the American
government called upon Canada, under the extradition treaty, to give up
Anderson for punishment. He was arrested, but applied to the Toronto
court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was refused. An appeal was
immediately made to the Queen's Bench, England, which granted the
writ.[130] In the trial Anderson was defended by Mr. Gerrit Smith in an
eloquent speech, which made a great impression, and was circulated all
over the United States.[131] The prisoner was discharged on a technical
point.[132]


=Sec. 24. Status of fugitives on the high seas.=--When in 1830 gradual
emancipation began in the British colonies, and in 1837 slavery ceased to
exist there, a new set of complications arose. American vessels carrying
slaves from one part of the United States to another were repeatedly
driven or conveyed into British ports, and the slaves were there treated
as ordinary fugitives, that is, as free men. Thus the Comet in 1830,[133]
and the Encomium in 1834,[134] were cast away on the Bahamas, and the
slaves on board could not be recovered. In 1835 the Enterprise was forced
by stress of weather to enter a port of the Bermudas,[135] and the
officers were not permitted by the British authorities to restrain the
persons on board.

In none of these three cases were the <DW64>s restored; but in 1840 the
British government paid an indemnity for the first two cargoes, on the
ground that at the time of the wrecks slavery had not yet been completely
extinguished in the colonies.[136] No indemnity was allowed in the
Enterprise case, and the British government declared that it could assume
no responsibility in cases arising since the abolition of slavery.[137]
Elaborate resolutions introduced by Calhoun, March 4, 1840, and passed,
April 15, by a unanimous vote of the Senate, condemned the British
principle.[138] But when, in the next year, the slaves on board the
American ship Creole rose and by force carried her into Nassau,[139] the
British government refused to return them either as slaves or as
murderers.[140] Webster, as Secretary of State, strenuously urged the
surrender. In 1853, an arbitrator decided that an indemnity must be paid
to the American government.[141] On the other hand, when, in 1839, a
Spanish vessel, L'Amistad, in which the slaves on board had revolted and
killed their master, was brought into an American port, the Supreme Court
refused to permit their surrender, on the ground that they were free by
Spanish law, and therefore could not be tried for murder.[142]


[Sidenote: Kidnapping from 1793-1850. Prigg Case.]

=Sec. 25. Kidnapping from 1793 to 1850: Prigg case.=--Since slavery was now
extinct in the more northern States, their population contained many free
<DW64>s. Upon them the eyes of the slave trader were often turned, as
easy prey under the law of 1793, and many cases of kidnapping occurred.
It was such instances, involving as they did the most manifest injustice
and cruelty, that first aroused the sympathies of the people.[143] The
border States like Pennsylvania were often the scene of these acts. The
neighboring white families first began to try to protect the <DW64>s
settled near them, and a little later to give a helping hand to those
escaping from slavery, and at last, in the underground railroad,[144] to
complete a systematic organization for the assistance of fugitives. Cases
of kidnapping are recorded as early as 1808.[145] In 1832 the carrying
away of a black woman without process of law not only roused the people
of Pennsylvania, but led to a decision which took away much of the force
of the act of 1793.

A slave woman, Margaret Morgan, had fled from Maryland to Pennsylvania.
Five years later, in 1837, Edward Prigg, an attorney, caused her to be
arrested and sent back to her mistress without recourse either to the
national or State act on the subject. In the act he disregarded a law of
Pennsylvania, brought about in 1826 through the efforts of the Society
for the Abolition of Slavery, which forbade the carrying out of the State
of any <DW64> with the intention of enslaving him. Accordingly, Mr. Prigg
was arrested and convicted in the county court. The Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania sustained the decision. Thence the case was taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States. There the counsel for Mr. Prigg
argued that the statute of Pennsylvania on which the indictment was
founded was unconstitutional, since it conflicted with the law of 1793.
Justice Story delivered the opinion of the court, and upon this decision
all future judgments were based. He announced that the law must be
carried out through national authorities alone; the States or State
magistrates could not be forced into action.[146] After this, many
States, seeing the advantage thus given them, passed laws which forbade
the officers to aid in a fugitive slave case, and also denied the use of
their jails for imprisonment.[147] Plainly the Prigg case showed a
growing indisposition on the part of the States to carry out the law,
however severe its provisions might be; and this disposition to evade its
obligations is still further evidenced by the cases given in the next
chapter.


=Sec. 26. Necessity of more stringent fugitive slave provisions.=--The
increasing number of rescues,[148] and the occurrence of several cases of
resistance, proved conclusively the inadequacy of the law of 1793. After
the Prigg decision the provisions made for its execution through national
powers were entirely insufficient. Underlying all these acts, the South
also could but perceive a sentiment the growth of which, unless checked
in some way, would at last permanently injure, if not destroy, their
peculiar institution.


=Sec. 27. Action of Congress from 1847 to 1850.=--From 1822 until 1848
apparently no effort was made to secure a new law. Then a petition
received in 1847 from the Legislature of Kentucky, urging the importance
of passing such laws as would enable the citizens of slaveholding States
to recover their slaves when they escaped into non-slaveholding
States,[149] gave rise to a bill from the Committee on the
Judiciary.[150] The bill provided "for the more effectual execution of
the third clause of the second section of the Fourth Article of the
Constitution."[151] It passed only to the second reading. In 1849, Mr.
Meade proposed in the House to instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to
report a fugitive slave bill.[152] No report apparently was ever made,
but this was the last ineffectual proposition. In 1850, a new law was
successfully carried in both Houses.


=Sec. 28. Slavery in the District of Columbia.=--During this period, from
1840 to 1850, the subject of slavery and fugitives in the District of
Columbia began to occasion debate, which was never long silenced. It was
notorious that almost under the windows of the Capitol <DW64>s were
confined in public jails on the ground that they were fugitives; and that
a free <DW64> so confined might be sold for his jail fees. Resolutions for
an investigation of the condition of the jails were offered in 1848 by
Mr. Giddings;[153] and Mr. Hall also introduced more sweeping
propositions to repeal all laws of Congress and of Maryland which
authorized or required courts, officers, or magistrates to issue process
for arrest or commitment to the jail of the District of any fugitive
slave.[154] Congress, however, was in a mood too conciliatory toward the
South to consider these propositions; and no action was taken.


[Sidenote: The Second Fugitive Slave Act.]

=Sec. 29. The second Fugitive Slave Act (1850).=--In the early part of the
first session of the Thirty-first Congress, Mr. Mason of Virginia
introduced a bill to make the provisions of the fugitive slave act more
severe,[155] and the bill was reported from the Committee on the
Judiciary, January 16, 1850. Two additional amendments were soon offered
by Mr. Mason. The first imposed a fine of one thousand dollars and
imprisonment for twelve months upon any one who should obstruct the
execution of the law. The second provided that the testimony of a
fugitive should not be admitted. Mr. Seward, in opposition, proposed on
the 28th to allow a fugitive the right of trial by jury, with a fine of
five thousand dollars and the forfeiture of office should the right be
disallowed by any judge or marshal.[156]

Mr. Clay's "Omnibus Bill," by which he intended to settle the territorial
question then before Congress, and at the same time to check the
antislavery movement, contained a fugitive slave clause, though not so
severe in its provisions as Mr. Mason's.[157] This bill, however, was not
debated as a whole, but each proposition considered separately, and thus
Mr. Mason's bill became the basis of the fugitive slave provision in the
Compromise of 1850.

The measure was considered, and various amendments were offered, until
August 26, 1850, when it was passed by the Senate, and a few days later
by the House;[158] the signature of President Fillmore was readily
appended, and it became law, September 18, 1850.[159]


=Sec. 30. Provisions of the second Fugitive Slave Act.=--Every provision of
the act was arranged for the protection and benefit of the slaveholders.
It was based upon the law of 1793, but a number of new regulations were
added.[160] Commissioners were to be chosen by the Circuit Courts of the
United States and the Superior Courts of the Territories, to act with the
judges of those courts in fugitive slave cases. Such commissioners could
be fined one thousand dollars for refusing to issue a writ, and were
liable for the value of any slave escaping from them. The testimony
required for rendition was the official declaration of the fact of the
escape of a slave by two witnesses, and the establishment of his identity
by oath. The testimony of the accused could not be admitted. The right of
trial by jury was not affirmed, and was therefore practically denied. A
sheriff might call upon any bystander for help in executing the law, and
the penalty for harboring or aiding in a rescue was increased from five
hundred dollars, as in 1793, to one thousand dollars, and imprisonment
for not more than six months. Should the slave escape, damages to the
same amount were to be paid to the claimant. If a mob were feared,
military force might be employed; and by a discrimination little likely
to win respect for the act, the fee of the commissioner was to be
increased from five to ten dollars whenever the case was decided in favor
of the claimant.


[Sidenote: Arguments for the Bill.]

=Sec. 31. Arguments for the bill.=--The debate on the Fugitive Slave Bill
more than any other part of the Compromise illustrates the character of
the slavery conflict. Most of the Southern members urged the immediate
necessity of a new law, but some of the more ardent considered the evil
to be one which could be reached only through a change in public
sentiment, and they thought all legislation valueless.[161] Mr. Mason
thus presented the evils with which the law must cope. He stated that the
border States had found it an impossibility to reclaim a fugitive when he
once got within the boundaries of a non-slaveholding State; "and this
bill, or rather the amendments, ... have been framed with a great deal of
consideration, to reach, if practicable, the evils which this experience
has demonstrated to exist, and to furnish the appropriate remedy in
enabling the owner of a fugitive to reclaim him." Under the existing
laws, "you may as well go down into the sea and endeavor to recover from
his native element a fish which has escaped from you, as expect to
recover such a fugitive. Every difficulty is thrown in your way by the
population.... There are armed mobs, rescues. This is the real state of
things."[162]

Not only were the laws thus set aside by individuals, but also through
the Underground Railroad an organized system of depredation was carried
on, whereby thousands of dollars were every year lost to the
slaveholder.[163] As an illustration of the extent to which this
disregard of law was carried, Mr. Yulee, one of the most extreme of the
Southern men, instanced a convention which was then in session in New
York "for the very purpose, openly avowed, of congratulation upon their
successful violation of the Constitution in respect to fugitives, and to
devise ways and means to encourage the escape of slaves."[164]

Such, according to the Southern Congressmen, was the condition of
affairs. They then proceeded to contrast it with the situation as
contemplated by the Constitution, and supported by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Prigg case. Mr. Butler insisted that this bill
required "nothing more than is enjoined by the Constitution, and which
contains the bond of union and the security of harmony; and in the name
of Washington, I would invoke all parties to observe, maintain, and
defend it." He said it was the handiwork of sages and patriots, and
resulted from intelligent concessions, for the benefit of all.[165] Many
speeches were filled with prophecies, more or less openly expressed, of
the dissolution of the Union. Mr. Soule said the South must fight for its
rights, since it is the weaker of the two sections.[166] It had come down
to the question, How could the Union be preserved?[167] Some concessions
must be made. Mr. Badger urged the bill, because it "will give assurance,
it will satisfy the public mind that the Government is disposed, is truly
anxious, to accomplish the restitution of fugitive slaves; sincerely
wished and is resolved to do right to the uttermost of its power. The
proof of this will be complete, because we furnish the best means for the
recovery of the slave himself, and if these fail we can secure prompt and
adequate indemnity for the loss."[168]


[Sidenote: Arguments against the Bill.]

=Sec. 32. Arguments against the bill.=--On the Northern side, there seems to
have been an admission that some bill of the kind was necessary for the
interests of the Union. The opposition dwelt chiefly, therefore, upon the
details of the measure. Many considered them unjust, as recognizing only
one class of rights, those of the masters. Mr. Chase, from the
antislavery wing, demanded that a claim of this kind be put on the same
footing as any other statutory right. "Claims of right in the services of
individuals found under the protection of the laws of a free State must
be investigated in the same manner as other claims of right. If the most
ordinary controversy involving a contested claim of twenty dollars must
be decided by jury, surely a controversy which involves the right of a
man to his liberty should have a similar trial.... It will not do for a
man to go into a State where every legal presumption is in favor of
freedom, and seize a person whom he claims as a fugitive slave, and say,
'This man is my slave, and by my authority under the Constitution of the
United States I carry him off, and whoever interferes does so at his
peril.' He is asked, 'Where is your warrant?' and he produces none;
'Where is your evidence of claim?' and he offers none. The language of
his action is, 'My word stands for law.'"


[Footnote 59: Statutes at Large, I. 50.]

[Footnote 60: Appendix B, No. 8.]

[Footnote 61: Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., Appendix, 1585; Annals of
Cong., 2 Cong. 1 Sess., H. of R., 147.]

[Footnote 62: State Papers, Miscellaneous, I. 39-43.]

[Footnote 63: House Journal, 2 Cong. 1 Sess., 444; Annals of Cong.,
148.]

[Footnote 64: House Journal, 2 Cong. 1 Sess., 454; Annals of Cong.,
179.]

[Footnote 65: Senate Journal, 170; Annals, 115.]

[Footnote 66: 2 Cong. 2 Sess., Senate Journal, 460; Annals of Cong.,
616.]

[Footnote 67: Senate Journal, 16; Annals, 622.]

[Footnote 68: Senate Journal, 25, 26; Annals, 623.]

[Footnote 69: Senate Journal, 28; Annals, 625.]

[Footnote 70: Senate Journal, 35; Annals, 630.]

[Footnote 71: Senate Journal, 34, 35; Annals, 630.]

[Footnote 72: House Journal, 105; Annals, 861.]

[Footnote 73: Appendix B, No. 9.]

[Footnote 74: Ante, Sec. 8; Appendix A, No. 8.]

[Footnote 75: Ante, Sec. 15.]

[Footnote 76: For general discussions of the act, see Von Holst,
Constitutional History, I. 309-315; Hildreth, History of the U. S., IV.
406-440; Lalor's Cyclopaedia, II. 315-316; Stephens, War between the
States, I. 629-636, 674; Bancroft's History of the U. S. (last
revision), VI. 309, 310; Goodell, Slavery and Antislavery, 227; Curtis,
History of the Constitution, II. 450-467; Hurd, Law of Freedom and
Bondage, II. 142; Story, Commentaries, III. 673-678; McMaster, History
of the American People, I. 508, II. 356, 357; Elliott's Debates, V. 357,
487; Schouler, History of the U. S., I. 219, 220; Tucker, History of the
U. S., I. 500.]

[Footnote 77: Appendix B, No. 9.]

[Footnote 78: Post, Sec. 27.]

[Footnote 79: Post, Sec.Sec. 34, 35.]

[Footnote 80: Annals of Congress, 1796-97, p. 2015, and 1801-2, p. 343.]

[Footnote 81: House Journal, 4 Cong. 2 Sess., 65; Annals of Cong., 1741,
1767.]

[Footnote 82: Murray, Cooper, and Kiltera. Annals of Cong., 1767.]

[Footnote 83: Sedgwick, Reed, and Henry. Senate Journal, 4 Cong. 2
Sess., 39; Annals of Cong., 1528.]

[Footnote 84: Appendix B, No. 10.]

[Footnote 85: House Journal, 6 Cong. 2 Sess., 220; Annals of Cong.,
1053.]

[Footnote 86: Nicholson, Goddard, Holland, J. Smith (Va.), Lowndes.
House Journal, 7 Cong. 1 Sess., 34; Annals of Cong., 317.]

[Footnote 87: House Journal, 7 Cong. 1 Sess., 45; Annals of Cong., 335.]

[Footnote 88: Annals of Cong., 343.]

[Footnote 89: House Journal, 7 Cong. 1 Sess., 125; Annals of Cong., 422,
423; Appendix B, No. 10.]

[Footnote 90: House Journal, 7 Cong. 1 Sess., 125, 128; Annals of Cong.,
423, 425.]

[Footnote 91: _Post_, Sec. 22.]

[Footnote 92: House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 50, 86, 182, 186, 189,
193, 198; Annals of Cong., 446, 447, 513, 819, 829, 831, 840, 1339,
1393.]

[Footnote 93: Appendix B, No. 13.]

[Footnote 94: Annals of Cong., 829.]

[Footnote 95: Annals of Cong., 838.]

[Footnote 96: Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 829, 830.]

[Footnote 97: Annals of Cong., 838.]

[Footnote 98: Annals of Cong., 838.]

[Footnote 99: Annals of Cong., 838.]

[Footnote 100: Annals of Cong., 838.]

[Footnote 101: Appendix B, No. 13.]

[Footnote 102: _Post_, Sec. 25.]

[Footnote 103: House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 198; Annals of Cong.,
840.]

[Footnote 104: Appendix B, No. 14.]

[Footnote 105: Appendix B, No. 15.]

[Footnote 106: Senate Journal, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 128, 135, 174, 202,
227, 228, 233; House Journal, 328; Annals of Cong., 165, 210, 259, 262,
1339.]

[Footnote 107: Annals of Cong., 1716.]

[Footnote 108: Cf. Appendix B, No. 17.]

[Footnote 109: House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 188, 191; Annals of
Cong., 546, 551.]

[Footnote 110: Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 Sess., 469, 1587.]

[Footnote 111: Appendix B, No. 16.]

[Footnote 112: Liberator, Jan. 24, 1840 (N. Y. Evening Post).]

[Footnote 113: House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 Sess., 427; Annals of Cong.,
1863.]

[Footnote 114: Appendix B, No. 18.]

[Footnote 115: Senate Journal, 16 Cong. 1 Sess., 319, 326; Annals of
Cong., p. 618.]

[Footnote 116: Appendix B, No. 18.]

[Footnote 117: House Journal, 17 Cong. 1 Sess., 143; Annals of Cong.,
553, 558, 710.]

[Footnote 118: Annals of Cong, 17 Cong. 1 Sess., 1379, 1415, 1444.]

[Footnote 119: Appendix B, No. 8.]

[Footnote 120: Appendix B, No. 11.]

[Footnote 121: Appendix B, No. 19.]

[Footnote 122: _Ante_, Sec. 13; Appendix B, No. 2.]

[Footnote 123: Appendix B, No. 12.]

[Footnote 124: Am. State Papers, Foreign, IV. 106-126, VI. 346-354.]

[Footnote 125: Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 2 Sess., 94.]

[Footnote 126: S. G. Howe, Refugees from Slavery in Canada, 12-14;
Niles's Register, XXIII. 26, LV. 289.]

[Footnote 127: Appendix B, No. 21; cf. No. 24.]

[Footnote 128: Niles's Register, XXIII. 26.]

[Footnote 129: Liberator, Dec. 31, 1860.]

[Footnote 130: Pamphlets on Anderson case, Boston Public Library;
Appendix D, No. 65.]

[Footnote 131: Life of Gerrit Smith, 115.]

[Footnote 132: Liberator, Jan. 22, 1861.]

[Footnote 133: Von Holst, II. 312; Calhoun, III. 9, 464, 486; Senate
Docs., 25 Cong. 3 Sess., No. 216.]

[Footnote 134: Wilson, Slave Power, I. 439-442; Congressional Globe,
XIV. 50.]

[Footnote 135: Goodell, Slavery and Antislavery, 252, 253; Von Holst,
Calhoun, 204-209.]

[Footnote 136: House Docs., 27 Cong. 2 Sess., V., No. 242; Congressional
Globe, XIV. 50.]

[Footnote 137: Senate Docs., 26 Cong. 1 Sess., III., No. 11.]

[Footnote 138: Congressional Globe, XIV. 80, 113-118; Calhoun, III. 462;
Appendix B, No. 20.]

[Footnote 139: Senate Docs., 27 Cong. 1 Sess., II., No. 51.]

[Footnote 140: Cobbett's Case, 47; Dana's Wheaton, note 62; cf. Appendix
B, No. 23.]

[Footnote 141: Lawrence's Wheaton, 207, n.]

[Footnote 142: Von Holst, I. 321, 322; Opinions of the Attorney
Generals, III. 484; 15 Peters, 518.]

[Footnote 143: R. Smedley, Underground Railroad, 26.]

[Footnote 144: See _post_, Sec.Sec. 71-76.]

[Footnote 145: See _post_, Sec. 38.]

[Footnote 146: Appendix B, No. 22; 16 Peters, 957; Report of Case of
Edward Prigg, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 202; Bledsoe, Liberty and
Slavery, 355; J. F. Clarke, Antislavery Days, 69.]

[Footnote 147: _Post_, Sec.Sec. 78, 79.]

[Footnote 148: _Post_, Sec.Sec. 34, 41, 42.]

[Footnote 149: Senate Journal, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 59; Congressional
Globe, 51.]

[Footnote 150: Senate Journal, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 313; Congressional
Globe, 722.]

[Footnote 151: Senate Journal, 30 Cong. 1 Sess., 313; Congressional
Globe, 722.]

[Footnote 152: Appendix B, No. 29.]

[Footnote 153: Appendix B, Nos. 25, 27, 28.]

[Footnote 154: Appendix B, No. 26.]

[Footnote 155: Appendix B, No. 30. In this number of the Appendix is a
summary of the legislative history of the measure, from the introduction
of Mason's bill, Jan. 4, 1850, to the signature of the act by President
Fillmore, Sept. 18, 1850, with references to the records of Congress.]

[Footnote 156: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 236.]

[Footnote 157: Senate Journal, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 118.]

[Footnote 158: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 248; Appendix B,
No. 68. The test vote in the House stood as follows:--

      States.                 For.    Against.     Not           Total.
                                                 voting.

      New England
        States                 7         15         10             32

      Middle
        States                 9         33         21             63

      Interior and
        Pacific
        States                16         27          8             51
                              --         --         --            ---
      Total,
        Free States           32         75         39            146

      Border
        Slave States          32          0          6             38

      Planter
        States                45          0          9             54
                              --         --         --            ---
      Total,
        Slave States          77          0         15             92

                             ---         --         --            ---
      Total                  109         75         54            238]

[Footnote 159: Appendix B, Nos. 83, 84. For general discussions of the
act, see Von Holst, III. 548-557, IV. 9-12, 20-29; Wilson, Slave Power,
II. 302-329; Greeley, American Conflict, I. 210-221; Cooley's Story, Sec.
1921; Lalor's Cyclopaedia, II. 315-317; Bryant and Gay, U. S., IV.
397-401.]

[Footnote 160: For the text of the act, see Appendix B, No. 31.]

[Footnote 161: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., Appendix, 1610.]

[Footnote 162: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 1583.]

[Footnote 163: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., Appendix, 1051.]

[Footnote 164: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., Appendix, 1622.]

[Footnote 165: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 79.]

[Footnote 166: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 78.]

[Footnote 167: Von Holst, III. 493.]

[Footnote 168: Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., Appendix, 1597.]




CHAPTER III.

_PRINCIPAL CASES FROM 1789 TO 1860._

  Sec. 33. Change in character of cases.
        Sec. 34. The first case of rescue (1793).
        Sec. 35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive (1796).
  Sec. 36. Kidnapping cases.
        Sec. 37. Jones case (1836).
        Sec. 38. Solomon Northrup case (about 1830).
        Sec. 39. Washington case (between 1840 and 1850).
        Sec. 40. Oberlin case (1841).
  Sec. 41. Interference and rescues.
        Sec. 42. Chickasaw rescue (1836).
        Sec. 43. Philadelphia case (1838).
        Sec. 44. Latimer case (1842).
        Sec. 45. Ottoman case (1846).
  Sec. 46. Interstate relations.
        Sec. 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837, 1839).
        Sec. 48. Ohio and Kentucky cases (1848).
  Sec. 49. Prosecutions.
        Sec. 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases (1840, 1844).
  Sec. 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
  Sec. 52. Principle of the selection of cases.
        Sec. 53. Hamlet case (1850).
        Sec. 54. Sims case (1851).
        Sec. 55. Burns case (1854).
        Sec. 56. Garner case (1856).
        Sec. 57. Shadrach case (1851).
        Sec. 58. Jerry McHenry case (1851).
        Sec. 59. Oberlin-Wellington case (1858).
        Sec. 60. Christiana case (1851).
        Sec. 61. Miller case (1851).
        Sec. 62. John Brown in Kansas (1858).


=Sec. 33. Change in character of cases.=--The cases of escape which occur in
the period beginning with the formation of the Constitution, and ending
with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850, will be found, in
comparison with those of colonial times, much more frequent, more complex
in action, and more varied in detail. Instead of many colonies under
governments independent one of another, there was now one government and
one country; nevertheless, the extinction of the system of bondage and
the rise of the antislavery sentiment in the Northern States brought into
the cases new and difficult elements. No attempt will be made to mention
the cases in their chronological order, or to describe them all. They
will be classified into cases of simple escape, of kidnapping, of rescue,
and of State interference; and typical examples will be described in each
category.


[Sidenote: The First Case of Rescue.]

=Sec. 34. The first case of rescue.=--The first attempt to enforce the act
of 1793, of which any record has been discovered, immediately revealed
its unfairness, and the indisposition of the North to carry it out.

Mr. Josiah Quincy, then a young lawyer, afterwards known as a public man
and the President of Harvard College, has left an interesting account of
his connection with the case. "He states that the process was issued by a
justice of the peace, that he was retained as counsel for the alleged
slave, that he prepared his brief, and went down loaded with all the
necessary authorities. He found a great crowd of people assembled; but
while he was in the midst of the argument, he heard a noise, and, turning
around, he saw the constables lying sprawling on the floor, and a passage
opening through the crowd, through which the fugitive was taking his
departure without stopping to hear the opinion of the court, and that was
the last of that case, and that was the last of the law of 1793 in
Massachusetts."[169]


=Sec. 35. President Washington's demand for a fugitive.=--As has been
noticed in a previous chapter, George Washington's boyhood was connected
with white slavery. Now, at the zenith of his public life, we find one of
his chattels the occasion of the first recorded refusal on moral grounds
to return a slave. In 1796, President Washington wrote to Mr. Whipple,
Collector of Portsmouth, N. H., to send back to him one of his slaves who
had escaped to that place, if it could be done without exciting a mob.
This letter has been preserved, and the following extract gives us an
insight into President Washington's opinions upon the rendition of
fugitives:--

  "However well disposed I might be to gradual abolition, or even to an
  entire emancipation of that description of people, (if the latter was
  in itself practicable,) at this moment it would neither be politic nor
  just to reward unfaithfulness with a premature preference, and thereby
  discontent beforehand the minds of all her fellow serv'ts, who, by
  their steady attachment, are far more deserving than herself of
  favor."[170]

  Mr. Whipple answered, that any return would be impossible; public
  sentiment was too strong against it.


[Sidenote: Kidnapping.]

=Sec. 36. Kidnapping cases.=--The great number of cases of kidnapping
throughout the period from 1793 to 1850 show what cruel and unjust deeds
were possible under the existing system, and served as nothing else could
to rouse people to the defence of <DW64>s. Various were the methods by
which, in spite of law, kidnappers were enabled to secure their prey.
Perhaps the most common practice, in places where the courts were known
to be friendly to slavery, was to arrest a man on some false pretence,
and then, when he appeared in court without opportunity to secure papers
or witnesses, to claim him as a fugitive slave. Most of these cases
occurred in communities bordering upon or near the Southern States. The
risk and trouble of transporting slaves across free States were so great,
that up to 1850 we seldom hear of kidnapping cases, and rarely of the
capture of a genuine fugitive in the New England States.

The natural consequence of such acts of outrageous violence was to rouse
people to the forcible rescue of the captured <DW64>s. In the earliest
cases, <DW52> people seem to take the leadership; later on, the whites
joined, and became most active in the work.


=Sec. 37. Jones case.=--The following instance well exemplifies this form of
oppression. George Jones, a respectable <DW52> man, was arrested on
Broadway, New York, in 1836, on the pretext that he had committed assault
and battery. As he knew that no such charge could be sustained against
him, he at first refused to go with his captors; but finally he yielded,
on the assurance of his employer that everything possible should be done
for him. He was then placed in Bridewell, and his friends were told that
when they were wanted they "would be sent for"; but, soon after one
o'clock that same day, he was taken before the Hon. Richard Riker,
Recorder of New York, and to the satisfaction of that magistrate was
proved to be a slave. Thus, in less than two hours after his arrest he
was hurried away as the property of the kidnappers: their word had been
accepted as sufficient evidence, and he had not been allowed to secure
the presence of a single friendly witness.[171]


=Sec. 38. Solomon Northup case.=--Sometimes, if they feared to enter their
case in court, slave hunters could find opportunity, by watching a <DW64>
for a while, to carry out their plans through some small deception. One
of the most striking of these cases is that of Solomon Northup, who has
written an account of his experiences as freeman and as slave. He was
born in 1808 in New York State. His father had been made a free man by
the provisions of his master's will. Thus Solomon was brought up under
the influences of freedom, and knew little of slavery. After his
marriage, he lived for some years in Saratoga. Here he earned a
comfortable livelihood. During the day he worked about the hotels, and in
the evenings he was often engaged to play the violin at parties. One day,
two men, apparently managers of a travelling circus company, met him and
offered him good pay if he would go with them as a violinist to
Washington. He consented. Their behavior seemed to him peculiar, but he
remained in their service, only to find himself one morning in a slave
pen in Washington. How he got there remained always a mystery, but it is
evident that he must have been drugged. Resistance was useless. He was
carried South and sold to Mr. Epps, a hard master, with whom he remained
for twelve years.

After he had long given up all hopes of escape, a friend was found in a
Northern man who was working on the same plantation. Mr. Bass consented,
though at a great risk to himself, to write some letters, telling
Solomon's story to his Northern friends. The letters reached their
destination, and, under the law of 1840 against kidnapping, a memorial
was prepared to the Governor of New York. He became interested, and
immediately sent a man South to find Northrup. After a long search, the
agent was directed to Mr. Epps's plantation. Much to the disappointment
of the master, who used every means to prevent his return, Solomon was
identified at last, and went back to New York again a free man. Efforts
were made to prosecute the kidnappers; but as sufficient evidence could
not be obtained, no case was made out.[172]


=Sec. 39. Washington case.=--So bold did these stealers of men become, that
they sometimes resorted to simple force, without the slightest attempt at
concealment. A case of this kind occurred in Washington, D. C., between
1840 and 1850. Three or four men seized a <DW64> who was employed in a
hotel near the Capitol, and dragged him away. Mr. Hall, proprietor of the
house, after trying in vain to prevent the arrest, succeeded at last in
compelling them to take the man before a magistrate. The justice declined
to assume jurisdiction in such a case, and before any other protection
could be provided, the man was hurried by the kidnappers into a hack, and
taken across the Potomac into bondage.[173]


=Sec. 40. Oberlin case.=--Occasionally the result was less fortunate for the
captors. In Oberlin, three slave hunters seized by force a <DW64> man and
his wife, and carried them to an inn for the night. In the mean time the
people of the town decided that the <DW64>s must have a trial. They
therefore employed a lawyer, who discovered that the writ for the capture
was illegal, and secured a hearing. The captives were placed in jail,
but, aided by some undivulged agency, they managed to break the grates of
their prison windows, and escaped to Canada before the day set for
trial.[174]


[Sidenote: Interference and Rescues.]

=Sec. 41. Interference and rescues.=--After a kidnapping case had occurred
in a Northern village or town, measures were frequently taken by the
indignant citizens to prevent the recurrence of such acts. They organized
vigilance committees, or the antislavery societies took it up as a part
of their work. In a free community, public sentiment would not allow
<DW64> towns-people to stand entirely unprotected. Thus many of the cases
of interference and rescue were the result of some organized movements on
the part of the white people, though occasionally they came about through
the unpremeditated action of a mob.


=Sec. 42. Chickasaw rescue.=--The first case which has been found occurred
in 1836. A writ of habeas corpus was served against Captain Eldridge of
the brig Chickasaw, for holding two <DW52> women in his ship with the
intention of carrying them South. As both presented free papers at the
hearing, the judge ordered them discharged; but the agent of John B.
Morris of Baltimore, who demanded their return, declared that he would
soon have sufficient evidence to prove them fugitives. Thereupon the
<DW52> people rushed in, took the women to a carriage, and carried them
away to safety.[175]


=Sec. 43. Philadelphia and Kennedy cases.=--A similar but unsuccessful
attempt was made in Philadelphia in 1838. A slave had been delivered to
the man claiming to be his master. As the captors were about to take him
away, a crowd of <DW52> people gathered and attempted to rescue him. It
was not so simple a matter in a large city as in a country town. A body
of police soon appeared, protected the slaveholders, and finally arrested
some of the leaders among the free blacks.[176]

A few years later, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, three <DW64>s were arrested
and their identity established as the slaves of Messrs. Kennedy and
Hollingsworth of Maryland. The <DW52> people of the neighborhood had
caused a writ of habeas corpus to be issued and a second hearing was
held. Judge Hepburne decided that the magistrate first employed had no
right to commit the alleged fugitives, but he himself remanded them. A
riot ensued, and some thirty-six persons were tried for participating in
it.[177]


=Sec. 44. Latimer case.=--In the Latimer case, the first of that series of
famous fugitive slave trials which took place in Boston, was strongly
developed the feeling against kidnapping, or in fact against the
rendition of a slave under any circumstances.

In 1842, George Latimer was seized in Boston without a warrant, at the
request of James B. Grey of Norfolk, Virginia. Latimer's counsel, Samuel
E. Sewall and Amos B. Merrill, sued out a writ of habeas corpus, but
after argument Chief Justice Shaw denied it. Mr. Grey asked for time to
procure evidence against Latimer from Virginia. The judge ruled that the
request should be granted, and that Latimer should for the time being be
kept in the custody of the city jailer, Nathaniel Cooledge. A writ of
personal replevin, under the act of 1837 securing trial by jury,[178] was
then sworn out, but Justice Shaw decided that, according to the decision
by the Supreme Court in the Prigg case, the law was illegal.[179]

The proceedings aroused great indignation throughout the city and State.
Meetings to devise means of aiding Latimer were held in Faneuil Hall and
Belknap Street church. Stirring speeches were made by Wendell Phillips
and others, and resolutions condemning the proceedings of the
authorities, and remonstrating against the return of Latimer, were
adopted. Bands of ruffians strove to break up the meetings, and succeeded
in greatly disturbing them. To rouse the people, to give expression to
public sentiment, and to spread the news from day to day, Dr. H. I.
Bowditch and Dr. W. F. Channing edited a paper called "The Latimer
Journal and North Star." This was published for a number of weeks by the
friends of the fugitive. Petitions were sent to the sheriff to remove the
jailer, and to the Governor asking the removal of the sheriff if he did
not accede to their demand. Thereupon Latimer's custodian agreed to give
him up for a sufficient payment. The sum of four hundred dollars was
accordingly raised, the proceedings came to an abrupt termination, and
Latimer was released.

The excitement produced, however, did not die out immediately, and some
of the results were far-reaching. So intense was the public excitement,
that, soon after, a petition was prepared and sent to Congress, asking an
amendment to the Constitution. This was signed by fifty thousand people
in Massachusetts, and presented in the House by Mr. Adams. Another,
signed by sixty-five thousand people, was sent to the legislature. The
effect was the act of 1843, forbidding all officers to aid in the
recapture of a fugitive slave, or to permit the use of State jails for
their imprisonment. The petition to Congress was not received. A
resolution from the Latimer committee, which proposed an amendment to the
Constitution so as to base representation on "free persons," brought
about much discussion, and was not received in the House. In the Senate
it excited even more violent opposition, and the resolutions were laid on
the table and not printed.[180]


=Sec. 45. Ottoman case.=--Similar indignation was felt in Boston over the
case of Captain Hannum of the brig Ottoman. He had found a runaway
concealed on board, but had set sail to return, evidently with the
intention of taking the man back into captivity. A steamer was sent out
to rescue the slave, but the Ottoman managed to elude it, and the man was
lost. At a meeting held September 24, 1846, a committee was appointed for
the purpose of preventing similar outrages.[181]


[Sidenote: Interstate Relations.]

=Sec. 46. Interstate relations.=--The spirit of opposition to the execution
of the Fugitive Slave Law made itself felt, not only in popular
demonstrations and in legislation, but in interstate relations. We have
already noticed the Prigg case,[182] and its effect in relieving the
States from any responsibility in the enforcement of the law. Other
States took advantage of this decision, and of the general principle of
international law, that one nation or state is not bound to enforce the
municipal law of another.


=Sec. 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837-1839).=--In 1837 a runaway was found
on the ship Boston, then on her homeward voyage from Georgia to Maine.
After landing, the slave succeeded in getting to Canada. The Governor of
Georgia charged the captain with slave-stealing, and demanded his return
as a fugitive from justice. The Governor of Maine would not comply with
the request, because, as he said, the laws of that State recognized
slaves not as property, but as persons. The indignant legislature of
Georgia adopted resolutions calling upon Congress so to amend the laws
that the Governor of Maine should be compelled to give up slave stealers
as fugitives from justice. Resolutions were presented in the United
States Senate, but no action was taken.[183]

The refusal to use State machinery against fugitives extended to the
process of extradition against persons connected with the rescue of
slaves. Thus in the Isaac case, in 1839, Virginia asked New York for the
arrest of three <DW52> men who were accused of abetting a slave's
escape. The Governor of New York returned answer, that no State could
demand the surrender of a fugitive from justice for an act which was made
criminal only by its own legislation.[184]


=Sec. 48. Ohio and Kentucky case.=--Kentucky, in 1848, demanded from the
Governor of Ohio the extradition of fifteen persons on the charge of
aiding the escape of a fugitive. Governor Bell refused, on the ground
that Ohio laws did not recognize property in man.[185]


[Sidenote: Prosecutions. Act of 1850.]

=Sec. 49. Prosecutions.=--The effects of the aid and protection thus given
fugitives by Northern people or governments awakened among the
slaveholders a feeling of wrong and indignation. The Fugitive Slave Law
was clear, and they determined to carry it out to the letter. They began,
therefore, energetically to prosecute people for aiding and harboring
escaping slaves. The case just mentioned shows how difficult it was to
secure prosecutions beyond the State boundaries. When the offence
occurred within the bounds of a slave State, the judgments were most
severe, and the heaviest possible fines and longest terms of imprisonment
were inflicted for simple acts of charity.


=Sec. 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases.=--Mr. Van Zandt, returning
into the country from Cincinnati one day in 1840, took nine fugitive
slaves from Kentucky into his farm wagon. He was stopped by three
persons, and all but two of the slaves were recaptured. Mr. Van Zandt was
arrested, taken into court, and fined twelve thousand dollars, which
exhausted his entire property.[186]

A still more severe penalty was that imposed upon Captain Drayton, of the
schooner Pearl, in 1848. He took on board seventy-five fugitive slaves,
and sailed up the Potomac. An armed steamer, sent in pursuit, overtook
them and brought them back. Captain Drayton and another officer of the
schooner were placed in prison, where they remained for twenty years, and
at last were relieved only through the efforts of Charles Sumner.[187]

Another instance of the same sort is the case of Mr. Jonathan Walker, in
1844. With seven fugitives he embarked from Pensacola in an open boat for
the Bahama Islands, but he received a sun-stroke and was obliged to leave
the management of the craft in the hands of the <DW64>s. On account of
the accident, they were overtaken by two sloops, and both fugitives and
their protector captured. Mr. Walker was twice tried, imprisoned,
sentenced to stand in the pillory, and branded on the hand with the
letters S. S., slave stealer.[188] The crime and the punishment have
alike been glorified in Whittier's verses:--

      "Then lift that manly right hand, bold ploughman of the wave!
      Its branded hand shall prophesy 'Salvation to the Slave!'
      Hold up its fire-wrought language that whoso reads may feel
      His heart swell strong within him, his sinews change to steel."
      [189]


=Sec. 51. Unpopularity of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.=--The passage of
the new law probably increased the number of antislavery people more than
anything else which had occurred during the whole agitation. Many of
those formerly indifferent were roused to active opposition by a sense of
the injustice of the Fugitive Slave Act as they saw it executed in Boston
and elsewhere. Hence, in the cases of the period from 1850 to the
outbreak of the Civil War, we shall find a new element. The antislavery
party, grown strong, resisted the regulations, and instead of the
unquestioned return of a fugitive, as in colonial times, or of
prosecutions carried on under the simple conditions of the act of 1793,
the struggle became long and complex. In fact during this time hardly an
important case can be cited in which there was not some opposition to the
natural course of the law. These exasperating effects were not at first
apparent to the South, since before the famous rescues began several
cases of rendition showed the power of the Executive. As the escapes grew
more and more frequent yearly, increasing all the time in boldness, the
slaveholders put forth greater efforts to punish the offenders, and
prosecutions were numerous. But the "new law had no moral foundation,"
and against such an act public sentiment must sooner or later revolt, no
matter how severe may be its provisions.[190] As Mr. James Freeman Clarke
has said, "It was impossible to convince the people that it was right to
send back to slavery men who were so desirous of freedom as to run such
risks. All education from boyhood up to manhood had taught us to believe
that it was the duty of all men to struggle for freedom."[191]


=Sec. 52. Principle of the selection of cases.=--The large number of cases
occurring between 1850 and 1860 renders it impossible to present a
detailed account of them all in a brief monograph. The selection,
therefore, includes only such as are typical of the various phases of the
agitation.


=Sec. 53. Hamlet case (1850).=--The first recorded action under the
provisions of the law of 1850 took place on the 26th of September of that
year, just eight days after the passage of the act. James Hamlet, a free
<DW64>, who with his family had been living for several years in New York,
was on that day arrested by a deputy United States Marshal as the
fugitive slave of Mary Brown of Baltimore. After a hasty examination by
Commissioner Gardiner, he was surrendered in accordance with the new law.
These proceedings were not sufficiently well known at the time to excite
a mob, but when discovered they roused so strong a feeling that the money
necessary to redeem Hamlet was almost immediately raised, and on the 5th
of October he was brought back from slavery.[192]


[Sidenote: Sims and Burns.]

=Sec. 54. Sims case (1851).=--Another instance in Boston, often mentioned as
the first under the law of 1850, but really six months later than the
Hamlet case, is that of Thomas M. Sims. A common method of seizure was
followed. Marshal Tukey arrested Sims on a false charge of theft. Mr.
Potter of Virginia then claimed him as his slave. Court Square was filled
with people. The Marshal feared a popular outbreak while the matter was
pending, and, to the indignation of the city, caused the court-house in
which Sims was confined to be surrounded with chains. As these were but
four feet from the ground, the judges as they went in and out from the
sessions were forced, morning and night, to bow beneath them. The
building was also strongly guarded by a company of armed men, ever
afterward known as the "Sims Brigade." Robert Rantoul, Jr. and Samuel E.
Sewall conducted Sims's case. Commissioner Curtis overruled the
constitutional objections to the Fugitive Slave Law, and to the judicial
functions of the Commissioners of the United States courts. Then, despite
all efforts of the antislavery people in his behalf, the certificate
which sent Sims back to Virginia was made out and signed by Commissioner
Curtis.[193] The Liberator says of the popular sentiment: "One feeling
was visible on almost every countenance, commiseration,
humiliation,--commiseration for the victim, humiliation at the
degradation of Massachusetts. No man talked, no man thought, of violence.
Why? Because it is acquiesced in? No! no! Because it is approved? A
thousand times, no! but because government is pleased to enforce the law,
and resistance is hopeless."[194] Sims was taken from his cell in the
early morning, observed only by a few faithful vigilants, and, amid
platoons of armed men, conducted to the United States ship Acorn, which
was detailed to carry him back to the South.[195]

The indignation of the antislavery people remained to be expressed, and a
mass meeting was held on the Common and in Tremont Temple. Wendell
Phillips and Theodore Parker addressed the assemblage, and Phillips
noticed the fact that hostile troops had not been seen in the streets of
Boston since the redcoats marched up from Long Wharf.[196]


=Sec. 55. Burns case (1854).=--The rendition of Anthony Burns in 1854 was
the last great fugitive slave case which occurred in Boston. Burns was
the property of Charles F. Suttle of Virginia. He escaped in 1854, and
came to Boston. One of the first things he did was to write a letter to
his brother, still a slave in the South. Unfortunately, though this was
mailed in Canada, by some oversight it was dated in Boston. Since a
letter to a slave was always opened by the master, Burns's hiding place
was discovered.[197] He was arrested upon the usual charge of theft.
Then, upon a warrant issued by Judge Loring, he was claimed as a fugitive
slave by Suttle.

When the knowledge of the arrest began to circulate, the most intense
excitement prevailed. Handbills asking all antislavery people to go to
Boston were sent throughout the country. Public meetings held in Faneuil
and Meionaon Halls were crowded with representatives from all the towns
about.[198] One of the people who took part in the attempted rescue which
followed one of these meetings thus describes it:--

  "On the evening of the 26th of May, we went down to Faneuil Hall to
  hear Wendell Phillips. He counselled waiting until morning before any
  attempt to rescue Burns should be made, but the excited audience
  silenced him with shouts of 'No, no! to-night! to-night!'

  "Mr. Phillips saw that it was useless to try to go on, so he sat down
  and Mr. Theodore Parker began speaking. At first he advocated the same
  plan, but at last, as he found the crowd growing more and more eager
  and uproarious, he said, 'Well, if you will, let us go!' and led the
  way out of the hall. The people followed, and my friend and I were
  among the first to reach the court-house. There we found prepared for us
  long beams and boxes of axes. Five or six men seized one of these
  beams, and before its pressure the large door of the court-house
  crushed like glass. Mr. Higginson first stepped in, but just then a
  pistol shot was heard, and the mob fell back. Mr. Higginson looked
  around, and entreated them not to desert him, but the favorable moment
  was gone. The people should have lost no time in filling the house, for
  the marines had been ordered from the Navy Yard, and when they appeared
  nothing further could be done."[199] In this riot James Batchelder,
  one of the Marshal's guards, was killed.

At the trial, though Burns was ably defended by Mr. R. H. Dana and
others, it was of no avail. His identity was unfortunately established
from the first. He had recognized and addressed his master, and also a
Mr. Brant, who had once hired him. The order for his rendition was
therefore at once given.[200]

Guarded by a large military force he was conducted through the streets,
filled with an indignant multitude, to the United States cutter Morris,
which had been ordered by the President to take him back.[201] Many
buildings on the route were hung with black, and so great was the popular
excitement, that Rev. J. F. Clarke, an eyewitness of the affair, has
said: "It was evident that a very trifling incident might have brought on
a collision, and flooded the streets with blood."

The difficulty of enforcing the act was shown in the precautionary
measures immediately adopted by the government. The city police, the
militia, the marines, and some regular troops, were ordered out to the
task of guarding one poor fugitive. It cost the country one hundred
thousand dollars to send this single slave back to his master.[202]

Not long after Burns's return, a sum of money, to which Charles Devens,
United States Marshal at his trial, contributed largely, was raised in
Boston and the vicinity for his purchase; but it was found impossible to
effect it.[203]

Mr. Higginson, Wendell Phillips, and Theodore Parker, with others, were
indicted for riot, but the indictment was quashed by Judge Curtis on
technical grounds, and they were discharged.[204]


[Sidenote: Garner and Shadrach.]

=Sec. 56. Garner case (1856).=--Of all the cases of rendition, the saddest,
and next to the Burns case probably the best known at the time, was that
of Margaret Garner. In accounts of the Underground Railroad we are told
that winter was the favorite season for flight in the section of the
country south of the Ohio, since ice then covered the river, and the
difficulty of crossing by boat did not arise. It was at this season that
Simeon Garner, his son Robert, and their families, fled from Kentucky and
crossed the frozen stream to the house of a <DW52> man in Cincinnati.
They were soon traced thither, and after a desperate hand to hand
struggle the house was entered. There the pursuers found that Margaret
Garner, preferring for her children death to slavery, had striven to take
their lives, and one lay dead. The case was immediately brought into
court, where, despite the efforts made to save them, rendition was
decided upon. On the way back, Margaret, in despair, attempted to drown
herself and her child in the river; but even the deliverance of death was
denied her, for she was recovered and sold, to be carried yet farther
south.[205]


=Sec. 57. Shadrach case (1851).=--In the three typical cases just described,
neither the law's delay, violent interference, nor the desperation of the
slave, availed to prevent the return of the fugitive to the oppressor.
Let us turn from this group, and take up those more important cases
wherein the law was not allowed to complete its course, but rescues were
accomplished, either by free <DW64>s or antislavery people. First in time
and importance comes the case of Shadrach, which occurred in Boston in
February, 1851.

In May, 1850, a slave named Frederic Wilkins had run away from Virginia
and come to Boston, where he found employment as a waiter in the Cornhill
Coffee House under the alias of Shadrach. He had been there not quite a
year, however, when John De Bere, his master in Norfolk, sent some one in
pursuit of him. A warrant was served and he was arrested while at work.
United States Commissioner Riley then took him to the court-house, where
Mr. List, a young lawyer of antislavery sympathies, offered his aid as
counsel, and Messrs. Charles G. Davis, Samuel E. Sewall, and Ellis Gray
Loring also came to his assistance. Mr. List obtained some delay in the
proceedings; but since, by the act of 1843,[206] the use of State jails
had been denied for fugitives, the officers were obliged to keep the
prisoner in the court-room until another place of confinement could be
found. By this time a large number of people had gathered about the
building, and were trying to force an entrance. For a long time they were
unable to enter, but at last opportunity was given as Mr. Davis opened
the door to leave the court-room. In spite of all efforts on the part of
the officers to close the door, a body of <DW52> people under the lead
of Lewis Hayden rushed in and seized the prisoner. They carried him
triumphantly out of the court-room on their shoulders, and soon saw him
safely started for Canada. Mr. Davis and others were prosecuted for
aiding in the rescue, but nothing was proved against them. Intense
excitement prevailed in the city, and finally throughout the country,
since Congress took up this infringement of the law.[207]

Mr. Clay, February 17, 1851, introduced a resolution which requested the
President to send to Congress "any information he may possess in regard
to the alleged recent case of a forcible resistance to the execution of
the laws of the United States in the city of Boston," and communicate to
Congress "what means he has adopted to meet the occurrence," and
"whether, in his opinion, any additional legislation is necessary to meet
the exigencies of the case."[208] President Pierce then issued a
proclamation announcing the facts to the country, and calling on all
people to assist in quelling this and other disturbances. The Senate's
request was also answered in an Executive message to Congress, which
announced to them that the President would use all his constitutional
powers to insure the execution of the laws. Such unusual national
interference gave the case wide celebrity, and, as Von Holst says, "The
pretensions and assumptions of the South were encouraged in a very unwise
way, by the fact that, by such a manner of treating the matter, people
seemed to recognize that it was entitled to hold the whole North
responsible for every violation of the compromise, which could properly
be laid at the door of only a few individuals. The proclamation and the
message placed the compromise in a far more glaring light than the
liberation of Shadrach."[209]


[Sidenote: Rescues.]

=Sec. 58. Jerry McHenry rescue (1851).=--Later, a case occurred at Syracuse,
New York, which was a significant illustration of the successful action
of a vigilance committee. Jerry McHenry, a respectable <DW52> man who
had lived for several years in that city, was arrested in October, 1851,
as a fugitive slave. At the examination, which took place at two o'clock
in the afternoon, he found opportunity to break away from the officers
and escape through the crowd, which opened to allow him to pass. He was,
however, immediately pursued and recaptured. It so happened that an
Agricultural Fair and a convention of the Liberty Party were going on at
that time in Syracuse, and the city was unusually full of people. When
the alarm bell gave notice to the vigilance committee that a <DW64> had
been seized, Mr. Gerrit Smith, who was attending the meetings, and Rev.
Samuel J. May, with others, hastened to the scene. The Commissioner,
after the capture, had again taken up the trial, but such a disturbance
was made by the crowd which gathered outside that he was forced to
adjourn. Meanwhile, Mr. Smith with the committee had planned a rescue,
and at about half-past eight fully two thousand people had assembled, and
an assault was begun upon the court-house. They broke doors and windows,
overpowered the officers, and at last bore Jerry away in triumph.

He remained in the home of a friend until he could be sent to Canada.
Prosecutions were immediately instituted, and eighteen persons indicted
for taking part in the rescue, but nothing came of the case. On the other
side, Henry W. Allen, Marshal in the case, was tried for kidnapping. The
judge declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, but a verdict of
not guilty was rendered.[210]


=Sec. 59. Oberlin-Wellington rescue (1858).=--Sometimes, however, general
sentiment was so strong that the rescue became, not an action instigated
and carried through by three or four determined men, but the indignant
uprising of a whole town. Such was the Oberlin-Wellington case,
celebrated for the great number of prosecutions and the high character of
those engaged in it. Two kidnappers from Kentucky induced an Oberlin boy,
by a bribe of twenty dollars, to entice away a <DW64> named John Rice on
pretence of giving him work. Having taken him to a lonely spot, he was
seized and carried about eight miles across country to Wellington, there
to await the south bound train.

On the way the party was overtaken by an Oberlin College student, who at
once gave the alarm. A crowd gathered and followed the kidnappers to the
railway station. There, by placing a ladder upon the balcony they
succeeded in rescuing John from the upper story of the house in which he
was confined. For this violation of the law thirty-seven citizens of
Oberlin and Wellington were indicted. This produced the greatest
excitement all over the country, and the case grew more and more
complicated, until the proceedings had lasted several months. Public
meetings to express sympathy with the prosecuted were held in many
places. Some of them were imprisoned to await the trial, but no severe
sentences were imposed.[211]


[Sidenote: Castner Hanway. John Brown.]

=Sec. 60. Christiana case (1851).=--Occasionally the rescue of fugitives was
not accomplished by a sudden unorganized movement, but by a deliberate
armed defence on the part of the slaves and their friends. In the
Christiana case the affair was marked by violence and bloodshed, while
the fact that the Quakers Castner Hanway and Elijah Lewis were afterward
prosecuted made it notorious; and the further fact that the charge was
not, as usual, that of aiding a fugitive, but of treason, gave it still
greater interest.

In and about Christiana, Pennsylvania, there were many <DW64>s who had
formerly been slaves, descriptions of whom were frequently furnished to
kidnappers by a band of men known throughout the country as the "Gap
Gang." A league for mutual protection had therefore been formed by the
<DW52> people, and prominent among them for intelligence and boldness
was William Parker. Soon after the passage of the law of 1850, Edward
Gorsuch and a party came from Maryland to Christiana for a fugitive
slave. With United States officers from Philadelphia they went
immediately to the house of William Parker, where the man they were
seeking was sheltered. When their demand was refused, they fired two
shots at the house. This roused the people, and a riot ensued in which
the fugitive escaped. Mr. Gorsuch was killed, his son desperately
wounded, and the rest put to flight. Castner Hanway at the beginning of
the struggle was notified of the kidnappers' presence, and, though feeble
in health, hastened to the scene. When ordered by Marshal Kline to aid
him in accordance with the law, he refused; yet, far from leading in the
affair, he tried in every way to prevent bloodshed and bring about peace.

After it was over, Parker, with two other <DW52> men, knowing that
arrest must follow, secreted themselves under piles of shavings in an old
carpenter's shop. At night they sent four wagons in different directions
as decoys for the detectives, and were carried safely away by a fifth.
Many <DW64>s hid that night in the corn shocks, and under the floors of
houses, until escape could be made in safety.[212]

Castner Hanway was arrested, and arraigned before the United States court
on the charge of treason; but no proof of a conspiracy to make a general
and public resistance to the law could be found, and he was acquitted.
Afterward it was desired to try Hanway and Lewis for "riot and murder,"
but the grand jury ignored the bill, and all prisoners were released.
With these prosecutions the end of the affair was apparently reached,
though perhaps its influence may be traced in a succeeding case.


=Sec. 61. Miller case (1851).=--A noted kidnapper from Maryland, in 1851,
seized a free <DW64> girl living at the house of Mr. Miller, in
Nottingham, Pennsylvania, and took her to Baltimore. Mr. Miller followed
them, and succeeded in getting her freed. He then started back, but never
reached home. Search was made, and his body found upon the way. It was
thought that the murder was committed in revenge for the part he had
taken in the Christiana riot.[213]


=Sec. 62. John Brown in Kansas (1858).=--It was during this period also that
John Brown was endeavoring to put into execution his famous plan for
freeing the slaves. This is interesting, not only as typical of organized
efforts to free the slaves on the plantations, but also because of its
connection with other phases of the slavery question, into which we shall
not attempt to enter here. His idea was first to gather as large a force
as possible, then, when his men were properly drilled, to run off the
slaves in large numbers; to retain the brave and strong in the mountains,
and to send the weak and timid to the North by the "Underground
Railroad."[214]

In December, 1858, Brown divided his forces into two divisions, and went
into Missouri. Here he succeeded in freeing eleven slaves, and, though
pursued by a far superior number of Missourians, took them safely into
Kansas. The affair, by its boldness, created great excitement throughout
the South. The Governor of Missouri offered three thousand dollars
reward, and the President of the United States two hundred and fifty
dollars, for Brown's capture; within a very short time he had succeeded
in conveying himself and his eleven fugitives safely into Canada, and the
horses which he had appropriated from the slaveholders in order to carry
his proteges out of Kansas were afterward publicly sold by him in
Ohio.[215]


[Footnote 169: Mr. Quincy also states, that "about a fortnight elapsed,
when I was called upon by Rufus Green Amory, a lawyer of eminence at the
Boston bar in that day, who showed me a letter from a Southern
slaveholder, directing him to prosecute Josiah Quincy for the penalty
under the law of 1793, for obstructing the agent of the claimant in
obtaining his slave under the process established by that law. Mr. Amory
felt, no less than myself, the folly of such a pretence; and I never
heard from him, or from any one, anything more upon the subject of
prosecution. This fact, and the universal gratification which the fact
appeared to give to the public, satisfied my mind, that, unless by
accident, or stealth, or in some very thin settled part of the country,
the law of 1793 would be forever inoperative, as the event has proved in
Massachusetts."--Meeting at Faneuil Hall to protest against the Fugitive
Slave Law, letter read from Josiah Quincy, Boston Atlas, Oct. 15, 1850;
Goodell, Slavery and Antislavery, 232; Appendix D, No. 12.]

[Footnote 170: Appendix D, No. 13.]

[Footnote 171: Appendix D, No. 19.]

[Footnote 172: Appendix D, No. 16.]

[Footnote 173: Appendix D, No. 42.]

[Footnote 174: Appendix D, No. 26.]

[Footnote 175: Appendix D, No. 20.]

[Footnote 176: Appendix D, No. 22.]

[Footnote 177: Appendix D, No. 35.]

[Footnote 178: See post, Sec. 81.]

[Footnote 179: _Ante_, Sec. 25.]

[Footnote 180: Appendix D, No. 28; see _post_, Sec. 81.]

[Footnote 181: Appendix D, No. 34.]

[Footnote 182: _Ante_, Sec. 25.]

[Footnote 183: Appendix D, No. 21.]

[Footnote 184: Appendix D, No. 24.]

[Footnote 185: Appendix D, No. 37.]

[Footnote 186: Appendix D, No. 25.]

[Footnote 187: Appendix D, No. 40.]

[Footnote 188: Appendix D, No. 31.]

[Footnote 189: Liberator, Aug. 15, 1845, "The Branded Hand."]

[Footnote 190: Von Holst, IV. 10, 11.]

[Footnote 191: J. F. Clarke, Antislavery Days, 92.]

[Footnote 192: Appendix D, No. 43.]

[Footnote 193: Appendix D, No. 48.]

[Footnote 194: Liberator, April 17, 1851.]

[Footnote 195: Daily Morning Chronicle, April 26, 1851.]

[Footnote 196: Liberator, April 17, 1851.]

[Footnote 197: Appendix D, No. 57.]

[Footnote 198: Boston Journal, May 29, 1854.]

[Footnote 199: Personal statement of Mr. Elbridge Sprague, made to the
writer. Col. T. W. Higginson suggests a few minor corrections in Mr.
Sprague's narrative. The first person to step in was an unknown <DW64>:
the beam used was found in Court Square; none were prepared beforehand;
there was but one box of axes.]

[Footnote 200: Boston Daily Advertiser, 1854, Worcester Spy, May 31,
1854, Argument of Mr. R. H. Dana.]

[Footnote 201: Liberator, Aug. 22, 1854.]

[Footnote 202: Von Holst, V. 64.]

[Footnote 203: Appendix D, No. 57.]

[Footnote 204: Commonwealth, June 26, 1854.]

[Footnote 205: Appendix D, No. 58.]

[Footnote 206: See post, Sec. 81.]

[Footnote 207: Appendix D, No. 47.]

[Footnote 208: 31 Cong. 2 Sess., Senate Journal, 187; Congressional
Globe, 580.]

[Footnote 209: Von Holst, III. 25.]

[Footnote 210: Appendix D, No. 51.]

[Footnote 211: Appendix D, No. 62.]

[Footnote 212: Appendix D, No. 49.]

[Footnote 213: Appendix D, No. 50.]

[Footnote 214: Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, 420; Douglass,
Life and Times of John Brown, 279, 282.]

[Footnote 215: Von Holst, John Brown, 104.]




CHAPTER IV.

_FUGITIVES AND THEIR FRIENDS._

  Sec. 63. Methods of escape.
        Sec. 64. Reasons for escape.
        Sec. 65. Conditions of slave life.
        Sec. 66. Escapes to the woods.
        Sec. 67. Escapes to the North.
        Sec. 68. Use of protection papers.
        Sec. 69. Fugitives disguised as whites: Craft case.
  Sec. 70. Underground Railroad.
        Sec. 71. Rise and growth of the system.
        Sec. 72. Methods pursued.
        Sec. 73.  agents of the Underground Railroad.
        Sec. 74. Prosecutions of agents.
        Sec. 75. Formal organization.
        Sec. 76. General effect of escapes.


=Sec. 63. Methods of escape.=--The great increase in the number of fugitives
after 1850 was in part due to the uneasiness felt by Northern people
under a law which made them co-workers with the South in a system of
slave hunting, and in part to the greater ease of communication now
afforded between the two sections. The knowledge that there was in the
North a body of "abolitionists" eager to aid them from bondage to freedom
was also spreading more widely each day among the slaves.

Public interest in the subject was more and more aroused, not only by the
cases of cruelty and injustice which were forcibly brought to the
attention of Northern communities, but also by the romantic and thrilling
episodes of the escapes. To understand the attitude of the North toward
fugitives, it is necessary to examine some of the different methods used
by the fugitives in their flight. Perhaps a better point of view than
that of the outside observer will be gained by placing ourselves in the
position of the slave, and examining his motives for flight, the
difficulties which he encountered at home, the manner in which he
overcame them, and, finally, the various paths of escape then open to
him, and the agencies which befriended him and forwarded him on his way.


[Sidenote: Reasons for Escape.]

=Sec. 64. Reasons for escape.=--First, why did the slave seek to escape?
However unlike the attending circumstances, we find upon investigation
that the <DW64>'s desire to run away may be traced to one of but three or
four motives. Among the more intelligent slaves, who could comprehend the
nature and injustice of their position, it often rose solely from the
upspringing in their hearts of that love of freedom natural to all men.
It is probable that in the greater number of cases this was the motive at
the root of the matter. A fugitive, on being questioned at an Underground
Railroad station as to his reasons for escape, replied that he had had a
kind master, plenty to eat and to wear, but that notwithstanding this for
many years he had been dissatisfied. He was thirsting for freedom.[216]
Another said that his owner had always been considerate, and even
indulgent to him. He left for no other reason than simply to gain his
liberty.[217]

A second reason, and that which perhaps most frequently led them to take
the decisive step in this often long premeditated act, was the cruel
treatment received from their masters. An owner upon one of the Southern
plantations said his slaves usually ran away after they had been whipped,
or something had occurred to make them angry.[218]

A third and very effective cause was the fear of being sold South, where
slave life, spent in toil under the merciless masters of the rice swamps
and cotton fields, was seen on its darkest side. Such was the horror with
which the slave regarded this change, that the threat of it was
constantly used by owners as one of the surest means of reducing their
rebellious slaves to submission. In the Virginia Slave Mother's Farewell
to her Daughters who have been sold into Southern bondage, Whittier has
well expressed their feelings.[219]

Many cases of this kind came to light through the examinations at the
Underground Railroad stations. Three brothers once learned that the next
day they were to be sent South with a slave trader then in the vicinity.
Filled with terror at the prospect, they preferred the danger of death in
the swamps to the certainty of life in the unknown country. That night
they made their escape, but it was only after weeks of wandering in
swamps and morasses that they reached a haven.[220]

So long as a black family remained together upon one plantation, their
love for one another operated as the strongest bond to prevent their
departure; but when, as constantly happened, the sale and separation of
the members scattered families far and wide, with no hope of reunion, the
firmest and often the sole tie which bound them to the South was broken.
There was no longer anything to hold them back.[221]


=Sec. 65. Conditions of slave life.=--These are some of the motives which
led the slave to plan an escape. It will now be well to glance at those
surrounding conditions, incident to the time and country, which made
successful flight particularly difficult. First, the slave was a <DW64>;
and in the South, where the presumption was that every black man must be
a slave, the color of his skin gave not only a means of tracing him, but
also made him liable at any moment to questioning and arrest.

In both city and country patrols were appointed, whose duty it was to
keep strict watch over the <DW64>s; and any slave found away from his
plantation, unless in livery or provided with a pass, could be whipped
and sent back to his master.[222] It was also lawful for any white man to
seize and carry a stray slave to the nearest jail.[223] The next morning,
if not claimed, he was advertised in a manner of which the following is
an example:--

  "Was taken up and committed to the jail of Halifax Co., on the 26th day
  of May, a dark <DW52> boy who says his name is Jordan Artis; said boy
  says he was born free, and bound out to Mr. Beale, near Murfreesboro,
  Hartford Co., N. C., and is now twenty-one years of age. Owner is
  requested to come forward, prove property, pay charges, and take said
  boy away within time prescribed by law, otherwise he will be dealt with
  as the law directs.

                                              "O. P. SHELL, _Jailer_.

  "Halifax Co., N. C., June 8, 1855."[224]

If not claimed within one year, such a prisoner could be sold by the
jailer. Thus Olmsted remarks that "the security of the whites is not so
much dependent upon patrols, as on the constant, habitual, and
instinctive surveillance and authority of all white people over the
blacks."[225]


=Sec. 66. Escapes to the woods.=--If an opportunity for escape should
present itself, the first question for the slave was, "In what direction
shall I turn?" Many slaves knew nothing of the Northern people, or had
heard of Canada only as a cold, barren, uninviting country, where the
<DW64> must perish. To those who had neither the courage nor the knowledge
requisite for a long journey, the woods and swamps near by offered the
only refuge. There they built cabins, or lived in caves, and got food by
hunting and fishing, and by raids upon the neighboring plantations.

In one of the papers of the day an underground den is noticed, the
opening of which, though in sight of two or three houses, and near roads
and fields, where passing was constant, had been so concealed by a pile
of straw, that for many months it had remained unnoticed. When
discovered, on opening a trap-door, steps were seen leading down into a
room about six feet square, comfortably ceiled with boards, and
containing a fire-place. The den was well stocked with food by the
occupants, who had been missing about a year.[226]

In most cases slaves were not so bold, and preferred concealment on an
uninhabited island, or a bit of land surrounded by morasses. We often
find advertisements of the time, mentioning such places as the probable
refuge of runaways. The Savannah Georgian of 1839 offers a reward for two
men who have been out for eighteen months, and are supposed to be
encamped in a swamp near Pine Grove Plantation.

In the Great Dismal Swamp, which extends from near Norfolk, Virginia,
into North Carolina, a large colony of these fugitive <DW64>s was
established, and so long was the custom continued that children were
born, grew up, and lived their whole lives in its dark recesses. Besides
their hunting and fishing, they sometimes obtained food and money, in
return for work, from the poor whites and the <DW64>s who had homes on
the borders of the swamp. It was this practice of remaining out near home
which, under easy masters, brought about the habitual runaways,--men who
were constantly escaping, and after a little time returning, often of
their own accord.[227] One of his masters said of William Browne,
afterward a well known speaker upon slavery, that he hesitated some time
before he invested seven hundred dollars in William, for he was "a noted
runaway."[228] Again, in a Southern paper advertising a sale of slaves,
one description is thus given: "Number 47, Daniel, a runaway, but has not
run away during the last two years, aged 28 years."[229]


[Sidenote: Escapes to the North.]

=Sec. 67. Escapes to the North.=--Of those who, with heroic hearts and firm
courage, determined to reach even Canada, many had seldom left the
plantation on which they were born, and were so completely ignorant of
geography and relative distances, that the best and quickest way
northward could seldom be chosen. They knew nothing of the facilities for
communication possessed by their masters through newspapers and
telegraph, and would often fancy themselves safe when they had travelled
but a short distance from home. In reality, the white people about were
often fully informed against them, and arrests were almost sure to
follow.[230]

The journeys of the fugitives were necessarily long, since unfrequented
ways were generally chosen, and but part of the day could be used. There
is a record of a man who had "taken a whole year in coming from Alabama
to Cincinnati. He had travelled only in the night, hiding in the woods
during the day. He had nothing to eat but what he could get from the
fields, sometimes finding a chicken, green corn, or perhaps a small
pig."[231]

Although the methods pursued were innumerable, and varied from those of
the man whose only guide was the north star, to those of the party aided
onward by the most elaborate arrangements of the Underground Railroad,
the fugitive was obliged to follow one of two great routes, by water or
by land. From the earliest times the ship had been a favorite refuge.
Once on board a craft bound to a Northern port, the fugitive was almost
certain of reaching that destination, and, once arrived, could hope for
protection from the Northern friends of whom vague rumors had penetrated
the South. New laws, therefore, bore more and more heavily upon captains
who should be found guilty of harboring a slave, and many cases were made
public of cruel treatment experienced by slaves at the hands of captains
who sent them directly back. Nevertheless, escapes on shipboard still
occurred frequently through the years of slavery. A method commonly used
by women in getting on board was to disarm suspicion by appearing to be
carrying some freshly laundered clothes to the sailors.


=Sec. 68. Use of protection papers.=--Another method called for less
physical effort on the part of the fugitive, but for greater coolness. It
was simply to procure from some freeman his protection papers, and to
show them whenever necessary to disarm suspicion. As the descriptions
could seldom be made to agree, both giver and receiver were placed in
situations of the greatest risk. It was thus, however, that Frederick
Douglass travelled in the most open manner from Baltimore to New York,
and escaped from a bondage to which he never afterward returned.[232]


[Sidenote: Fugitives disguised as Whites.]

=Sec. 69. Fugitives disguised as whites: Craft case.=--Sometimes the boldest
plans succeeded best if supported by sufficient firmness and presence of
mind. Three <DW64>s possessed of a considerable sum of money once
determined upon a plan, startling in its simplicity and success. They
hired a good travelling coach and horses. They then bribed a white beggar
to dress as a Virginian gentleman, while they mounted the coach as his
driver and footmen; and in this guise they successfully made their way
into Canada.[233]

Another example of unconcealed flight is found in the often told story of
the escape of William and Ellen Craft, in 1848. They lived in Macon,
Georgia, and were generally well treated. But Ellen had been compelled to
go North with her mistress, and leave her little child at home; during
this absence, the child died uncared for. From that time she determined
to escape.[234]

William at last arranged a plan which was successfully carried out. Ellen
was nearly white. She personated a young Southern planter, while William
accompanied her as her servant. She carried her right arm in a sling so
that she might not be expected to write, bandaged her smooth face, and
put on a pair of green goggles. Thus disguised, she succeeded in buying
tickets for herself and servant without discovery. In the train she was
terrified to see a gentleman who had known her from childhood. He even
sat down by her, and spoke, but to her great relief, he saw in her only a
young invalid going North for his health. From Savannah they took a
steamer to Charleston. There they had some difficulty in passing
inspection, but their most dangerous stopping place was Baltimore, where
every white man with a slave was required to prove his right of property
before he could be allowed to go on to Philadelphia. After some
conversation Ellen told the officer that she knew no one in Baltimore,
and had no proofs that William was her slave; but that he was necessary
to her on account of her illness, and she must take him on. The officer
finally relented, as the train was about to start, and Baltimore was
safely passed.

At Philadelphia shelter was found among the Quakers, and thence they
pushed on to Boston. Here they engaged the attention of Theodore Parker,
and he protected them during their stay. William took up his trade of
cabinet-making, while Ellen added to their income by sewing. They lived
thus quietly until the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850. From
that time, to remain even in Boston was hazardous. Soon after, there
appeared one day in William's shop a man who had worked with him in the
South. He immediately suspected the presence of others, and took refuge
among friends. For two weeks Ellen was with Mr. Parker, who wrote his
sermons during her stay with his sword in a drawer under his inkstand,
and a pistol in his desk.

They were then taken to Mr. Ellis Gray Loring's home. Here William showed
a most honorable spirit. When he found Mr. Loring was not at home he
would not remain, saying, "I am subjecting him to a heavy fine and
imprisonment, and I must go at once to look for some other shelter."

His pursuers, who had come from Georgia, were staying at the United
States Hotel. The knowledge of their object was soon spread abroad, and
they dared not go into the streets for fear of a mob. Handbills, calling
attention to them, were placed everywhere, and cries of "Slave hunters!
there go the slave hunters!" were heard on all sides. At last, they were
absolutely compelled to leave the city. William and Ellen no longer felt
safe, and therefore went to England, where the remainder of their life
was spent in peace.[235]


[Sidenote: The Underground Railroad.]

=Sec. 70. Underground Railroad.=--From the preceding sketch of the
conditions of escape, it is plain that no such numbers as are known to
have fled could possibly have escaped from their masters' power had they
depended solely upon their own exertions. From the beginning of the
antislavery agitation, about 1830, and especially near 1850, a mysterious
organization made it a business to receive, forward, conceal, and protect
fugitives. To that organization the name of "Underground Railroad" was
given, and the many methods used by those connected with it can best be
given under a more elaborate description of the system.


=Sec. 71. Rise and growth of the system.=--The first efforts toward any
systematic organization for the aid and protection of fugitive slaves are
found among the Quakers in Pennsylvania. The great number of cases of
kidnapping which occurred in this State after the passage of the law of
1793, by their injustice roused people to action in behalf of the free
blacks; and, their sympathies once enlisted for the <DW52> race, it was
but a step to the aid of the fugitive <DW64>s.[236] From this time, as
the number of runaways increased, new agencies were constantly being
established, until from the slave States to Canada a perfect chain of
stations was arranged, not more than one day's journey apart.[237] The
system is said to have extended from Kentucky and Virginia across Ohio,
and from Maryland, through Pennsylvania and New York, to New England and
Canada.[238]

As <DW64>s began to disappear, and their masters found themselves unable
to trace them farther than certain towns in Pennsylvania, they said, in
bewilderment, "There must be an Underground Railroad somewhere," and this
expression, suiting the popular fancy, became the general name by which
the whole system was known.[239]


[Sidenote: Operations "Underground."]

=Sec. 72. Methods pursued.=--Although often varied by circumstances, the
general method of work was always the same. In the South, money was
usually the motive, and for its sake the managers of the Railroad could
usually get some one to aid a slave in escaping and crossing the line. In
the North it was an unselfish, and sometimes dangerous, work of charity.

Fugitives arrived at the first station, ignorant, half-clothed, and
hungry. There they were fed, and, in order to elude the advertisements
sent through the States, disguises were provided. For women, the large
veiled bonnet and plain attire of the Quakeress proved one of the best
costumes. The men received a slip of paper, with a word or two which
would be recognized at the next place, and, unless special caution was
needed, were sent forward on foot. Women and children were often taken in
close carriages, sometimes constructed for this special purpose.[240]

Stations, that is, the houses of persons known to be interested, were
reached between sunset and ten o'clock in the evening. A tap at the door
would rouse some member of the family, and the fugitive would be taken to
the barn, or some place of concealment.[241] Often, too, these houses
were not merely places for a night's tarrying, but homes where the ill
and fatigued might remain and be cared for until strong enough for the
onward journey.[242]

To conduct people over this long line, and to baffle all plans of their
pursuers, required quick wit, as well as great courage and coolness.[243]
So successful were the conductors in this respect, however, that a
discouraged slave hunter, after a fruitless search, once said it was "as
easy to find a needle in a haymow as a <DW64> among Quakers."[244]

When fugitives were concealed, and persons desiring to search the house
appeared, it was the custom to receive the searchers courteously. One of
the family immediately engaged them in conversation, and offered them
refreshments. The hunt was thus delayed as long as possible, so that the
fugitive might be helped away. In one case, while the slave's master was
thus entertained upon the front piazza, the mistress of the house quietly
conveyed the hunted <DW64> out at the back door, and placed him under an
inverted hogshead standing by. Then, with the most unconcerned manner,
she allowed the man to search until he was satisfied that there could be
no fugitive in that house.[245]


=Sec. 73.  agents of the Underground Railroad.=--An example of the
most courageous and successful action may be found in the life of Harriet
Tubman,[246] who when a young girl made her escape from slavery alone and
unassisted. After several years of work in the North, she determined to
go back for her family. This trip was safely accomplished, and followed
by others, until during her life she had made nineteen journeys, never
losing a person. The Rev. James Freeman Clarke gives the following
account of her methods:--

  "She said she first obtained enough money, then went to Maryland, where
  she privately collected a party of slaves and got them ready to start.
  She satisfied herself that they had enough courage and firmness to run
  the risks. For if once a <DW64> entered her party, there was no falling
  back. Fully determined herself, she would allow no one to return.

  "She next made arrangements so that they should set out Saturday night,
  as there would be no opportunity on Sunday for advertising them, so
  that they had that day's start on their way North. Then she had places
  prepared where she could be sure that they could be protected and taken
  care of, if she had the money to pay for that protection. When she was
  at the North, she tried to raise funds until she got a certain amount,
  and then went South to carry out this plan. She always paid some
  <DW52> man to follow after the person who put up the posters
  advertising the runaway, and pull them down as fast as they were put
  up."[247]

When she feared the party were closely pursued, she would take them for a
time on a train southward bound, as no one seeing a company of <DW64>s
going in this direction would for an instant suppose them to be
fugitives. As their leader out of bondage, her people gave her the name
of "Moses," and thus she is generally known.


=Sec. 74. Prosecutions of agents.=--Such acts as those daily performed by
the conductors on the Underground Railroad could not be carried on under
the existing laws without leading to prosecutions. Large rewards were
many times offered for Harriet's capture, but she eluded all efforts to
stop her work. At one time the Maryland legislature offered a reward to
any person who should secure Thomas Garrett in any public jail in the
State. He was a Delaware Quaker, who, it is said, helped twenty-nine
hundred slaves in escaping. The Governor was required to employ the best
legal skill to prosecute him on the charge of aiding runaways.[248] He
was afterward tried and fined a sum which consumed his entire property.
As this was paid, the officer who received it said that he hoped the
remembrance of this punishment would prevent any further trouble. Mr.
Garrett, undaunted, replied that they had taken all that he possessed,
but added, "If thee knows any poor fugitive who wants a breakfast, send
him to me."[249] In fact, he seemed absolutely fearless. Angry
slaveholders often called upon him, and demanded their property. He never
denied knowledge of their slaves, or of having helped them on their way,
but, in the most quiet manner, positively refused to give information
concerning them.[250]


=Sec. 75. Formal organization.=--In 1838 the first formal organization of
the Underground Railroad was made, with Robert Purvis as President. It
was said that two marketwomen in Baltimore were their best helpers. They
had come into possession of a number of passports, or "freedoms," which
were used by slaves for part of the distance, and then were returned to
serve the same purpose again.[251]

In all transactions connected with this organization the greatest secrecy
was necessarily observed, seldom more than two or three persons at a
station being allowed any knowledge of it. In the Liberator of 1843, a
notice is found cautioning people against exposing in any way the methods
used by fugitives in escaping, as it only helped the pursuers in the next
case. The fugitives themselves were usually careful in this respect.
Frederick Douglass absolutely refused until after the abolition of
slavery to reveal the method of his escape.[252]

Mrs. G. S. Hillard, of Boston, was in the habit of putting fugitives in
an upper room of her house. A <DW52> man was placed there, and when Mrs.
Hillard went up to see him, she found he had carefully pulled down all
the shades at the windows. She told him that there was no danger of his
being seen from the street. "Perhaps not, Missis," he replied, "but I do
not want to spoil the place." He was afraid lest some one might see a
<DW52> face there, and so excite suspicions injurious to the next
man.[253]


=Sec. 76. General effect of escapes.=--Although many fugitives were aided
previous to 1850, it was after the new law went into effect that the
great efforts of the Abolitionists were centred on this form of
assistance. Of such importance did it become, that at the beginning of
the Civil War one of the chief complaints of the Southern States was the
injury received through the aid given their escaping slaves by the
North.[254]

It was, however, really the "safety valve to the institution of slavery.
As soon as leaders arose among the slaves who refused to endure the yoke,
they would go North. Had they remained, there must have been enacted at
the South the direful scenes of San Domingo."[255]


[Footnote 216: Still, Underground Railroad, 410.]

[Footnote 217: Ibid., 444.]

[Footnote 218: F. L. Olmsted, Journey in the Back Country, 49.]

[Footnote 219:

      "Gone, gone,--sold and gone
      To the rice swamp dank and lone,--
      Where the slave-whip ceaseless swings,
      Where the noisome insect stings,
      Where the fever demon strews
      Poison with the falling dews,
      Where the sickly sunbeams glare
      Through the hot and misty air,--
        Gone, gone,--sold and gone
        To the rice swamp dank and lone
        From Virginia's hills and waters,--
        Woe is me, my stolen daughters!

      "There no mother's eye is near them,
      There no mother's ear can hear them;
      Never, when the torturing lash
      Seams their back with many a gash,
      Shall a mother's kindness bless them,
      Or a mother's arms caress them....

      "Oh, when weary, sad, and slow
      From the fields at night they go,
      Faint with toil, and racked with pain,
      To their cheerless homes again,--
      There no brother's voice shall greet them
      There no father's welcome meet them."]

[Footnote 220: Still, Underground Railroad, 443.]

[Footnote 221: Ibid., 448.]

[Footnote 222: Williams, History of the <DW64> Race in America, 293.]

[Footnote 223: Still, Underground Railroad, 27.]

[Footnote 224: F. L. Olmsted, The Cotton Kingdom, 157.]

[Footnote 225: F. L. Olmsted, Journey in the Back Country, 444.]

[Footnote 226: W. I. Bowditch, Slavery and the Constitution; Macon (Ga.)
Telegram, Nov. 27, 1838.]

[Footnote 227: Ball, Mammoth Pictorial Tour of United States, 54; F. L.
Olmsted, Journey in the Back Country, 155.]

[Footnote 228: W. I. Bowditch, Slavery and the Constitution; Macon (Ga.)
Telegram, Nov. 27, 1838.]

[Footnote 229: Liberator, April 12, 1839.]

[Footnote 230: Wm. Parker, Freedman's Story, in Atlantic Monthly,
February and March, 1866; Letter from Gerrit Smith, in Liberator, Dec.
28, 1838.]

[Footnote 231: J. F. Clarke, Antislavery Days, 93.]

[Footnote 232: Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, 196.]

[Footnote 233: Appendix D, No. 41; Antislavery Almanac, 74.]

[Footnote 234: J. F. Clarke, Antislavery Days, 83.]

[Footnote 235: Appendix D, No. 41.]

[Footnote 236: Smedley, The Underground Railroad, 26.]

[Footnote 237: Lalor's Cyclopaedia, I. 5; Williams, History of the <DW64>
Race in America, II. 58, 59.]

[Footnote 238: Clarke, Antislavery Days, 81.]

[Footnote 239: Smedley, The Underground Railroad, 35.]

[Footnote 240: Ibid., 64, 138.]

[Footnote 241: Ibid., 568-570.]

[Footnote 242: Ibid., 172.]

[Footnote 243: Ibid., 34.]

[Footnote 244: Ibid., 146.]

[Footnote 245: Smedley, Underground Railroad, 58.]

[Footnote 246: Harriet, the Moses of her People.]

[Footnote 247: Clarke, Antislavery Days, 81.]

[Footnote 248: Liberator, March 2, 1860.]

[Footnote 249: Pamphlet proposing a Defensive League of Freedom, 6.]

[Footnote 250: Smedley, Underground Railroad, 241.]

[Footnote 251: Ibid., 355.]

[Footnote 252: Douglass, My Bondage and Freedom, 323.]

[Footnote 253: J. F. Clarke, Antislavery Days, 83.]

[Footnote 254: Lalor's Cyclopaedia, I. 5; Congressional Globe, 36 Cong. 1
Sess., Appendix, 250.]

[Footnote 255: Williams, History of the <DW64> Race in America, II. 58,
59.]




CHAPTER V.

_PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS._

  Sec. 77. Character of the personal liberty laws.
        Sec. 78. Acts passed before the Prigg decision (1793-1842).
        Sec. 79. Acts passed between the Prigg decision and the second
                Fugitive Slave Law (1842-1850).
        Sec. 80. Acts occasioned by the law of 1850 (1850-1860).
        Sec. 81. Massachusetts acts.
        Sec. 82. Review of the acts by States.
        Sec. 83. Effect of the personal liberty laws.


=Sec. 77. Character of the personal liberty laws.=--The personal liberty
laws were statutes passed in the Northern States whose object was to
defeat in some measure the national Fugitive Slave Law. Often their
ostensible purpose was to protect the free <DW64>s from kidnappers, and
to this end they secured for the alleged fugitive the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, and the trial by jury. Sometimes, however, they
frankly avowed their aim as a deliberate attempt to interfere with the
execution of the United States statutes. In the following examination of
these laws, they will be considered first chronologically, and afterward
more minutely according to their subject matter. In previous chapters we
have noticed many instances wherein fugitives have been befriended by
individuals, or by organizations like the Antislavery Societies or the
Underground Railroad. But the action of the State governments in the
personal liberty bills, from the time the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793
began to be executed to the outbreak of the Civil War, showed that the
dissatisfaction of the North was fundamental, and was not confined merely
to the few in the van of the Antislavery movement.


[Sidenote: Analysis.]

=Sec. 78. Acts passed before the Prigg decision (1793-1842).=--Although the
so-called personal liberty laws were not passed until about 1840,
Indiana[256] and Connecticut[257] had before that time provided that on
appeal fugitives might have a trial by jury. The Connecticut law, in
contrast to the hostile spirit of later legislation, was entitled, "An
Act for the fulfilment of the obligation of this State imposed by the
Constitution of the United States in regard to persons held to service or
labor in one State escaping into another, and to secure the right of
trial by jury in the cases herein mentioned." Notwithstanding this
preamble, the law provided for fining State officials who might take part
in fugitive slave cases.

The first definite personal liberty laws were passed by Vermont[258] and
New York,[259] in 1840, and were entitled Acts "to extend the right of
trial by jury." They not only insured jury trial, but also provided
attorneys to defend fugitives. This was the only law of the kind New York
ever passed, and proved of little value, since it soon fell into disuse,
and was almost forgotten.


=Sec. 79. Acts passed between the Prigg decision and the second Fugitive
Slave Law (1842-1850).=--After the Prigg decision in 1842, wherein it was
declared that the law must be executed through national powers only, and
that State authorities could not be forced into action,[260] a new class
of statutes sprang up. The State legislatures seized the opportunity
afforded them by Judge Story's opinion, to forbid State officers from
performing the duties required of them by the law of 1793, and prohibited
the use of State jails in fugitive slave cases. Such laws were passed in
Massachusetts,[261] Vermont,[262] Pennsylvania,[263] and Rhode
Island.[264] In 1844, Connecticut repealed her act of 1838, as being then
unconstitutional, but retained the portion forbidding State officers to
participate in the execution of the law.


=Sec. 80. Acts occasioned by the law of 1850 (1850-1860).=--The provisions
of the law of 1850 roused yet more opposition in the North, and before
1856 many of the States had passed personal liberty bills. The new
national law avoided the employment of State officers. This change in the
statute brought about a corresponding alteration in the State
legislation, and we therefore find the acts of this period differing
somewhat from those of earlier years. They almost invariably prohibited
the use of State jails, they often forbade State judges and officers to
issue writs or to give assistance to the claimant, and punished severely
the seizure of a free person with the intent to reduce him to slavery.

Should an alleged fugitive be arrested, the personal liberty acts were
intended to secure him a trial surrounded by the usual legal safeguards.
The identity of the person claimed was to be proved by two witnesses; or
they gave him the right to a writ of habeas corpus; or they enjoined upon
the court to which the writ was returnable a trial by jury. At the trial
the prisoner must be defended by an attorney, frequently the State or
county attorney, and a penalty was provided for false testimony. Any
violation of these clauses by State officers was punished by penalties
varying from five hundred dollars and six months in jail, as in
Pennsylvania, to the maximum punishment in Vermont, of two thousand
dollars' fine and ten years in prison.

Such acts were passed in Vermont,[265] Connecticut,[266] and Rhode
Island,[267] in Massachusetts,[268] Michigan,[269] and Maine.[270] Later,
laws were also enacted in Wisconsin,[271] Kansas,[272] Ohio,[273] and
Pennsylvania.[274] Of the other Northern States, two only, New Jersey and
California, gave any official sanction to the rendition of fugitives. In
New Hampshire, New York, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota, however,
no full personal liberty laws were passed.[275]


=Sec. 81. Massachusetts acts.=--Let us now examine the purport of these acts
in the various States. The general tenor and effect are best seen in
Massachusetts, which may be selected as a typical State. In 1837,
Massachusetts passed a law "to restore the trial by jury, on questions of
personal freedom." This secured to the prisoner a writ of personal
replevin, which was to be issued from and returnable to the Court of
Common Pleas for the county in which the plaintiff was confined, and was
to be issued fourteen days at least before the return day. If the
prisoner were secreted, the court might send out a capias to take the
body of the defendant. This act allowed an appeal to the Supreme Judicial
Court.

In 1842, the Latimer case[276] occurred. This so aroused public sentiment
that a great petition, signed by sixty-five thousand people, was sent to
the legislature, asking for a new personal liberty law. On the basis of
the Prigg decision, a law was enacted which forbade State magistrates to
issue certificates or take cognizance of the law of 1793, and withheld
the use of State jails for the imprisonment of fugitives.[277]

In 1851, in the Shadrach case,[278] there was opportunity for testing the
value of this law. The fugitive was not indeed confined in any jail, but
there was little difficulty in providing a place of detention, and the
court-house was secured. In this year, acting upon a clause in the
Governor's message, which treated of the new Fugitive Slave Law of 1850,
a committee in the legislature made a report, accompanied by resolutions
and a bill further to protect personal liberty; but no law was passed,
and there the matter rested until 1855.[279]

After the Sims[280] and Burns[281] cases, in which the court-houses were
again used in the place of jails, the heat of public indignation led to
petitions to the legislature asking for a more stringent personal liberty
law. A joint committee prepared a bill, which was passed, but was vetoed
by Governor Gardner, who had been advised by the Attorney General that
some of the clauses were unconstitutional. But so strong was the
influence in its favor that it was passed over the veto by a two-thirds
vote.[282] The feeling that it was probably unconstitutional, however,
must have strengthened in the next three years: for in 1858[283] we find
another act which amended the act of 1855. This limited some provisions,
and repealed the following sections: the tenth, which required that any
person who should give a certificate that a person claimed as a fugitive
was a slave should forfeit any State office he might hold; the eleventh,
which forbade any person acting as attorney for a claimant to appear as
counsel or attorney in the State courts; the twelfth, which made a
violation of the preceding section sufficient ground for the impeachment
of any officer of the Commonwealth; the thirteenth, which forbade any
United States officer empowered to give certificate or issue warrants
from holding a State office; and the fourteenth, which made liable to
removal any person holding a State judicial office who should also hold
the office of Commissioner.


[Sidenote: Review of the Acts by States.]

=Sec. 82. Review of the acts by States.=--Of the other New England States,
Maine had no personal liberty law until 1855.[284] Two years after,
however, in 1857,[285] a portion of an act declaring free all slaves
brought by their masters into that State was devoted to a provision "to
punish any attempt to exercise authority over them."

In New Hampshire, one of the laws of 1857[286] enacted that every person
holding any person as a slave for any length of time, under any pretence,
should be deemed guilty of felony; but provided that this should not
apply to United States officers executing any legal process.

Vermont, by an act in 1840,[287] extended to fugitives the right of trial
by jury, but after three years this was repealed,[288] only to be renewed
in 1850.[289]

Connecticut, as has been noticed, had no personal liberty law. Rhode
Island first passed such an act in 1848.[290] This forbade State officers
to take cognizance of fugitive slave cases, and the use of State jails.
Another statute, in 1854,[291] extended these provisions so as to apply
to the national law of 1850.

The act of 1840 was the only Personal Liberty Law of New York.[292]
Pennsylvania, some seven years later, forbade the use of jails, and
punished State officers for participating in fugitive slave cases.[293]
It also enacted a regulation of the same character as late as 1860.

Ohio made but one provision on the subject, and that lasted but a year.
Her jails were closed to suspected slaves in 1857,[294] but in 1858 this
law was repealed.[295]

Michigan passed such an act in 1855,[296] with the usual clauses on the
use of jails and jury trial, and imposed a fine on false testimony
against the defendant.

In 1858 Wisconsin and Kansas also passed similar acts.[297]


=Sec. 83. Effect of the personal liberty laws.=--Since the avowed purpose of
these laws was to obstruct the execution of one of the United States
statutes, national and State legislation were thus brought into direct
conflict; but the Fugitive Slave Law was held constitutional by the
Supreme Court, and any attempt to prevent its enforcement by positive
means, however righteous from an ethical standpoint, must be considered
an infraction of the Constitution, and of the common understanding
between the States, on which the Union was founded.[298] The provisions
denying the use of State institutions and officers, though distinctly
unfriendly, were not unconstitutional. Many of the Abolitionists,
however, held the national law to be unconstitutional, and at the same
time morally so repugnant that it ought never to be executed.[299] The
State laws were brought up by South Carolina, in her declaration of the
causes of secession, as one of the chief grievances against the North;
and President Buchanan, in his Message of 1860,[300] said they were "the
most palpable violations of constitutional duty which had yet been
committed." They must certainly be classed in principle with the
Nullification Ordinance of 1832. Indeed, the legislature of Wisconsin,
after the Supreme Court had overridden the decision of the State courts
in the case of Ableman v. Booth that the national law was contrary to the
national Constitution, passed some resolutions in which a "positive
defiance is urged as the 'rightful remedy'" against such
legislation.[301]


[Footnote 256: Revised Laws of Indiana, 1824, p. 221.]

[Footnote 257: Laws of Connecticut, 1838, p. 32.]

[Footnote 258: Acts and Resolves of Vermont, 1840, p. 13.]

[Footnote 259: Laws of New York, 1840, p. 174.]

[Footnote 260: See _ante_, Sec. 27.]

[Footnote 261: Laws of Massachusetts, 1843, p. 33.]

[Footnote 262: Acts and Resolves of Vermont, 1843, p. 11.]

[Footnote 263: Laws of Pennsylvania, 1847, p. 206.]

[Footnote 264: Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1848, p. 12.]

[Footnote 265: Laws of Vermont, 1850, p. 9.]

[Footnote 266: Public Acts of Connecticut, 1854, p. 80.]

[Footnote 267: Laws of Rhode Island, 1854, p. 22.]

[Footnote 268: Laws of Massachusetts, 1855, p. 924; 1858, p. 151.]

[Footnote 269: Laws of Michigan, 1855, p. 415.]

[Footnote 270: Laws of Maine, 1857, p. 38.]

[Footnote 271: Lalor, III. 162.]

[Footnote 272: Lalor, III. 162.]

[Footnote 273: Laws of Ohio, 1857, p. 170; 1857, p. 10.]

[Footnote 274: Lalor, III. 162.]

[Footnote 275: The following tabulation shows the provisions of the
personal liberty laws as distributed among the States:--

      _Judges and justices forbidden to take cognizance._
        Massachusetts, 1843;
        Vermont, 1843;
        Connecticut, 1838;
        Rhode Island, 1854;
        Maine, 1855;
        Pennsylvania, 1847.

      _Writ of habeas corpus._
        Massachusetts, 1855;
        Michigan, 1855;
        Maine, 1857;
        Connecticut, 1838 and 1844.

      _Jury trial._
        Indiana, 1824;
        New York, 1840;
        Vermont, 1840, 1850, and 1858;
        Connecticut, 1838;
        Michigan, 1855;
        Massachusetts, 1855.

      _Use of jails forbidden._
        Massachusetts, 1843 and 1855;
        Vermont, 1843 and 1858;
        Pennsylvania, 1847;
        Rhode Island, 1848;
        Maine, 1855;
        Michigan, 1855;
        Ohio, 1857.

      _Attorneys employed to defend fugitives._
        New York, 1840;
        Vermont, 1840;
        Massachusetts, 1855;
        Maine, 1857.

      _False testimony punished._
        Connecticut, 1838 and 1844;
        Michigan, 1855.

      _Admission of national officers._
        Connecticut, 1838 and 1844;
        Vermont, 1844;
        Maine, 1855;
        New Hampshire, 1857.]

[Footnote 276: See _ante_, Sec. 44.]

[Footnote 277: Laws of Massachusetts, 1843, p. 33.]

[Footnote 278: See _ante_, Sec. 57.]

[Footnote 279: Parker, Personal Liberty Laws, 27.]

[Footnote 280: See _ante_, Sec. 54.]

[Footnote 281: See _ante_, Sec. 55.]

[Footnote 282: Parker, Personal Liberty Laws, 27; Laws of Massachusetts,
1855, p. 924; Appendix D, No. 60, case of William Johnson.]

[Footnote 283: Laws of Massachusetts, 1858, p. 151.]

[Footnote 284: Acts and Resolves of Maine, 1855, p. 207.]

[Footnote 285: Ibid., 1857, p. 38.]

[Footnote 286: Acts and Resolves of New Hampshire, 1857, p. 1876.]

[Footnote 287: Acts and Resolves of Vermont, 1840, p. 13.]

[Footnote 288: Laws of Vermont, 1843, p. 11.]

[Footnote 289: Ibid., 1850, p. 9.]

[Footnote 290: Acts and Resolves of Rhode Island, 1848, p. 12.]

[Footnote 291: Laws of Rhode Island, 1854, p. 22.]

[Footnote 292: Laws of New York, 1840, p. 174.]

[Footnote 293: Laws of Pennsylvania, 1847, p. 206.]

[Footnote 294: Laws of Ohio, 1857, p. 170.]

[Footnote 295: Laws of Ohio, 1858, p. 10.]

[Footnote 296: Laws of Michigan, 1855, p. 415.]

[Footnote 297: Lalor, III. 162.]

[Footnote 298: Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, II. 763; Von Holst, IV.
551; Parker, Personal Liberty Laws.]

[Footnote 299: Phillips, No Slave Hunting in the Old Bay State;
Phillips, Argument against repeal of Personal Liberty Law; Pierce,
Personal Liberty Law, 4; Johnson, Speech on Personal Liberty Law, New
York, 1861.]

[Footnote 300: 36 Cong. 2 Sess., Congressional Globe, Appendix, 2.]

[Footnote 301: Lalor, III. 162.]




CHAPTER VI.

_THE END OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE QUESTION (1860-1865)._

   Sec. 85. The Fugitive Slave Law in the crisis of 1860-61.
         Sec. 86. Propositions to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.
         Sec. 87. Propositions to repeal or amend the law.
   Sec. 88. The question of slaves of rebels.
         Sec. 89. Slavery attacked in Congress.
               Sec. 90. Confiscation bills.
               Sec. 91. Confiscation provisions extended.
         Sec. 92. Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation (1863).
         Sec. 93. Fugitives in loyal slave States.
         Sec. 94. Typical cases.
         Sec. 95. Question discussed in Congress.
         Sec. 96. Arrests by civil officers.
   Sec. 97. Denial of the use of jails in the District of Columbia.
         Sec. 98. Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.
         Sec. 99. Regulations against kidnapping.
  Sec. 100. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts.
        Sec. 101. Early propositions to repeal the acts.
        Sec. 102. Discussion of the repeal bill in the House.
        Sec. 103. Repeal bills in the Senate.
        Sec. 104. The repeal act and the thirteenth amendment.
  Sec. 105. Educating effect of the controversy.


=Sec. 85. The Fugitive Slave Law in the crisis of 1860-61.=--If the number
of interesting fugitive slave cases falls off in the latter part of the
decade from 1850 to 1860, it is not because the law was better enforced,
but because it was little enforced. The continued interference of the
friends of the slave had proved that a fugitive could not safely be
recovered in Massachusetts, and that no punishment could be secured for
those who helped him to his freedom. The personal liberty bills added
serious legal obstacles. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin even went so far
as to declare the national act of 1850 unconstitutional.[302] In 1859
John Brown, in his Harper's Ferry raid, attempted to establish a centre
to which fugitives might flock; and although he was defeated, he had the
sympathy of a large number of persons in the North, including some public
men.

In the violent debates of 1860-61, one of the frequent charges brought by
the southern members against the North was its persistent refusal to
execute the Fugitive Slave Act, or to permit it to be executed.[303] Even
Republican members disclaimed responsibility for their party, and urged
that the personal liberty bills should be repealed.[304] Other bolder
spirits seized the opportunity to urge a repeal of the act, and in the
various compromise propositions introduced were several attempts to
modify the existing constitutional provision on the subject.


=Sec. 86. Propositions to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.=--In the crisis of
1860 the South seemed to expect a general settlement of the slavery
question like that of 1850, and therefore demanded a more effective act
for the return of fugitives. President Buchanan, in his message of
December 4, 1860, recommended "explanatory" constitutional amendments
which should recognize the master's right to the recovery of his fugitive
slaves, and the validity of the Fugitive Slave Law. He recommended also a
declaration against State laws impairing the right of the master, as
being violations of the Constitution, and consequently null and
void.[305] This recommendation was followed, December 12, 1860, by no
less than eleven resolutions upon the subject in the House.[306] Of these
five were constitutional amendments. Several provided, as a pacific
measure, that the town, county, or State, guilty of neglect to return a
fugitive, might be sued by the owner of the slave for the amount thus
lost to him.[307] The most arbitrary proposition was that of Mr. Hindman.
It denied representation in Congress to any State which should hold in
force laws hindering the delivery of fugitives.[308]

Another resolution inquired into the expediency of declaring it felony to
resist an officer of the United States in the execution of the law, or to
attempt to rescue a runaway.[309]


=Sec. 87. Propositions to repeal or amend the law.=--On the other hand,
antislavery members insisted that the provision for the return of
fugitives was already too severe; but only one of the resolutions
proposed any amendment in favor of the slave. Mr. Kilgore proposed to
give a trial by jury before a fugitive should be returned.[310]

As early as 1860 Mr. Blake had introduced into the House a bill to repeal
the law of 1850. It was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, from whom it was never reported.[311] At that time Congress,
in alarm at the state of the country, was vainly striving to mend matters
by making the Fugitive Slave Law even more effective. March 1, 1861, the
select committee of thirty-three brought in a bill for the amendment of
the law of 1850; it allowed an appeal to the Circuit Court of the United
States where jury trial was to be given. The bill passed the House the
same day; but in the Senate it never got beyond the first reading.[312]


[Sidenote: Enforcement. Slaves of Disloyal Men.]

=Sec. 88. The question of slaves of rebels.=--With the beginning of the
Civil War in 1861 the last period in the study of fugitive slaves opens,
to close only with the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law and the abolition
of slavery.

New conditions now surrounded the slaves. Their masters were away in the
army; many homes were broken up, and confusion reigned instead of law;
the strict discipline and oversight necessary for the maintenance of the
slave system was impossible. Opportunities for escape occurred everywhere
and at all times. Since war had brought the Northern people down into
their own land, the slave no longer needed to travel hundreds of miles to
find friends; the Northern camps were perhaps but a few miles from his
own plantation. In this way <DW64>s began to gather around the Federal
camps in such numbers that the question of disposing of them became
serious. If the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 were considered as still
binding, their apprehension and return were necessary; but many of the
masters were in arms against the government; should they still be
protected in their property? The belligerent position of the South seemed
to preclude any right on the part of disloyal owners to ask for the
benefit of the law.

To meet the changed conditions no policy had as yet been developed by the
government. The first solution of the problem was made at Fortress Monroe
by General Butler. He drew an analogy from international law, which makes
material of war imported into the country of a belligerent lawful prize
to the army or navy of the other belligerent. Regarded as property, the
slaves of rebels could be of great service to them, and of equal help to
the government in suppressing rebellion. Regarded as persons, they had
escaped from communities where rebellion was in progress, and they asked
protection from the government to which they were still loyal. In May,
1861, General Butler therefore replied to all demands for fugitives that
he should retain them as "contraband of war." The answer was widely
spread, and "contraband" became the name by which such <DW64>s were
known.[313]


=Sec. 89. Slavery attacked in Congress.=--A series of attacks upon slavery
now began in Congress. To many persons the fact that the institution was
recognized in the Constitution seemed sufficient ground for protecting
it. No doubt was entertained of the power of Congress to confiscate the
ordinary property of rebels; but such persons deprecated all interference
with slaves, who were supposed to possess a kind of constitutional
immunity, wholly unknown to and above all other property.[314] In the
minds of antislavery men, "no greater fallacy was ever asserted than this
attempt thus to link 'the institution' and the Constitution indissolubly
together, to engraft the former upon the latter, to make slavery the
corner stone of the nation, to be guarded and protected by the
government."[315] Nevertheless, the existence of slavery in the Border
States which had remained loyal made Congress very cautious as to general
enactments. On the other hand, no form of property held by rebels was so
vulnerable; slaves could not only be seized as the lines of the Northern
troops extended, they could, by actual law or by kindly reception, be
invited across the lines. Both the passions aroused by civil war and a
humane pity for the slave urged the government to deprive the master
engaged in secession of the services of his slave.


[Sidenote: Confiscation Bills.]

=Sec. 90. Confiscation bills.=--July 18, 1861, Mr. Chandler and Mr. Trumbull
introduced general confiscation bills in the Senate; they were both
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. In the discussion Mr.
Trumbull offered as an amendment "that whenever any person claiming to be
entitled to the service or labor of any other person, under the laws of
any State, shall employ such person in aiding or promoting any
insurrection, or in resisting the laws of the United States, or shall
permit or suffer him to be so employed, he shall forfeit all right to
such service or labor, and the person whose service or labor is thus
claimed shall be thenceforth discharged therefrom, any law to the
contrary notwithstanding."[316]

The proposition aroused considerable opposition, since it was a step far
in advance of anything which had yet been done against the interests of
slavery, and any proposition which advocated "an act of emancipation,"
however limited and qualified, was the signal for hot discussion. The
opposing party announced that "nothing will come of it but more
irritation,"[317] and in each crisis statesmen should "observe all
possible toleration, all conciliation, all liberality."[318] Mr. Wilson
upheld the opposite opinion, and thought that the time had come when this
government, and the men who are in arms under the government, should
cease to return their fugitive slaves to traitors.

The bill passed the Senate July 22, 1861. In the House it was amended so
as to limit the <DW64>s to be freed more strictly to those employed in
military service.[319] The bill went back to the Senate, which concurred
in the amendment,[320] and it received the signature of the President,
August 6, 1861.[321]


[Sidenote: The Emancipation Proclamation.]

=Sec. 91. Confiscation provisions extended.=--Propositions more far reaching
were introduced into the Senate in the session of 1861-62.[322] January
15, 1862, Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom the
various propositions had been referred, reported an original bill, and
asked that the committee be discharged from the consideration of
others.[323] March 14, 1862, Mr. Harris introduced into the Senate a bill
to confiscate the property of rebels and for other purposes.[324] These
propositions were considered at length, but never came to a vote. It is
not necessary to enter here into the discussion of confiscations and of
the constitutional right of Congress to free the slaves; in most of the
bills there was a provision against the return of slaves to disloyal
masters.

The Harris bill declared that, before any order for the surrender of
fugitives should be given, the claimant must establish not only his title
to the slave, as was then provided by law, but also that he is and has
been loyal to the United States during the Rebellion. Mr. Pomeroy
objected to this because it would make it "obligatory on the government
of the United States to surrender a person claimed to be indebted to
another for service or labor, if the claimant proves that he is loyal to
the government. Would not this re-enact the Fugitive Slave Law of
1850?"[325] An amendment was therefore adopted which so changed the law
that any reference to the act of 1850 was avoided.[326] After several
debates the proposition was recommitted, May 6.[327] Mr. Clark reported a
bill, May 14, which retained the provision in regard to fugitives as at
first offered.[328]

In the House, resolutions on confiscation and emancipation were offered
on the first day of the session, but the final action was based upon one
of several bills introduced by Mr. Eliot, May 14, 1862.[329] His first
bill, upon the confiscation of the property of the rebels, need not be
followed out here; but the second bill provided for the emancipation of
the slaves of disloyal masters, and forbade their return as fugitives.
After various recommitments[330] a bill was brought in, according to
which, in any suit brought by a claimant to recover the possession of
slaves to enforce such service or labor, it was to be a sufficient bar to
allege and prove that the master was disloyal to the government.[331] The
bill then passed the House by a vote of 82 to 54.[332]

When it came up in the Senate, June 23, 1862, Mr. Clark moved to strike
out all after the enacting clause, and to insert a substitute which would
again unite the confiscation and emancipation bills. This amendment was
rejected by the House, and a conference committee was appointed which
reported July 11 and 12. The fugitive from a disloyal master was by this
compromise to be deemed a captive of war, and forever freed from
servitude.[333] The report was adopted by both houses, and approved by
the President, July 17, 1862.[334] From that date any slave of a disloyal
master who could make his way into the territory occupied by the Northern
troops was _ipso facto_ free. The fugitive was to become a freeman.


=Sec. 92. Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation (1863).=--The complete
emancipation of the <DW64>s within the Confederate lines was the next
logical step, and was demanded as a war measure. It deprived the
Confederacy of the aid of these slaves, and at the same time made it
possible to arm and employ the former slaves against their masters.
September 22, 1862, President Lincoln issued his preliminary
proclamation, by which he warned the South that, unless it should return
to its allegiance, all persons held as slaves in the States in rebellion
on the 1st of January, 1863, should be "thenceforth and forever free."

At the end of one hundred days the final and absolute Proclamation was
put forth, January 1, 1863. It declared also that <DW64>s might be
received into the armed service of the United States; and henceforth
throughout the war, the former slaves were enrolled as soldiers and did
good service for the government.

The effect of this proclamation was to end slavery, and with it the
return of fugitives, within the Confederate lines. But here the legal
machinery of the government had no effect; the State laws relating to
slavery might be considered suspended, but practically the laws and
practices of the Confederacy prevailed. On the other hand, the Fugitive
Slave Law yet existed upon the statute-book where the Union had power;
the arrest and imprisonment of fugitives was yet legal, and many desired
to see the law repealed as another step toward the final crushing out of
the system.


[Sidenote: Fugitives from Loyal Slave States.]

=Sec. 93. Fugitives in loyal slave States.=--From the beginning of the war
one of the most embarrassing questions which had come before Congress
was, How shall the slaves of loyal owners be treated? The necessity of
holding the Border States firm for the Union disposed many to support
only the most conciliatory measures; but these States were a part of the
theatre of war. Northern armies now occupied parts of the Confederacy as
well, and among the great numbers of blacks who flocked to the Union camp
it was impossible to separate the slaves of the loyal from the disloyal.
Moreover, it was necessary that there should be some uniformity of
method. Without specific law, the reception given to fugitives from loyal
masters must vary with the views of each commanding officer with whom
they sought refuge.


=Sec. 94. Typical cases.=--Cases began to occur very early in the struggle.
In 1861 a slave called Wisdom ran away from Georgetown, and was taken in
by some wagoners belonging to the Northern army. He soon found work, but
his master succeeded in tracing him, and came to camp to claim him. He
demanded the slave of Captain Swan, officer of the day. Captain Swan
hoped the man might be smuggled away, and so delayed the search as long
as possible. The master then went to Colonel Cowden, who immediately
ordered the slave to be surrendered, without the form of proceedings
prescribed by the act of 1850, and in disregard of the fact that the
master was not provided with the necessary certificate. When the facts
became known in Massachusetts and elsewhere, there was great indignation.
The Colonel was hung in effigy in Boston, with the following inscription:
"Colonel Cowden, of Burns rendition notoriety, is now practising his
tricks at kidnapping in Washington."[335]

Major Sherwood of the 11th West Virginia Regiment had, in 1861, employed
a  refugee as his servant. The owner sent a United States marshal
to Brigadier General Boyle, who gave an order for his rendition. Major
Sherwood sent a message that he would give up his sword, but, while he
was in command, no fugitive should be returned. He was placed under
arrest for disobedience, to await court-martial; but General Staunton
ordered General Boyle's order revoked, and Major Sherwood was never
tried. In the mean time the boy had been sent away concealed under the
seat of an ambulance, and reached Canada in safety.[336]


=Sec. 95. Question discussed in Congress.=--As early in the war as 1861, a
number of resolutions were brought into Congress, designed to meet this
difficulty,[337] and Mr. Lovejoy introduced a bill making it a penal
offence "for any officer or private of the army or navy to capture or
return, or aid in the capture or return" of fugitive slaves.[338] The
bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which reported
adversely upon it, April 16, 1862.[339] December 16, 1861, Mr. Hale had
offered a resolution, which was adopted, looking toward a uniform method
of dealing with the slaves of rebels.[340] Mr. Sumner brought in another
on December 17, which forbade the employment of the armies in the
surrender of fugitives.[341] "I ask, sir," said the writer of a letter
read by Mr. Sumner, "shall our sons, who are offering their lives for the
preservation of our institutions, be degraded to slave catchers for any
persons loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the government, I
shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its preservation."[342]
Another protest came from two German companies in one of the
Massachusetts regiments, who, when they enlisted, entered the service
with the understanding that they should not be put to any such
discreditable service. They complained, and with them the German
population generally throughout the country.[343]

Some proof that the owner of the slave was at least loyal to the
government seemed necessary, if rendition were to be made at all; though
antislavery men were determined to admit no return of fugitives under any
circumstances. December 20, 1861, a resolution of Mr. Wilson's was
adopted, for an additional article of war forbidding officers from
returning fugitives under any consideration.[344] A bill was introduced,
discussed, and somewhat amended, but never passed.[345]

Mr. Blair's bill, of February 25, 1862, from the Committee on Military
Affairs in the House, was to the same purpose.[346] This, however, was
successfully carried in both houses, and signed by the President, May 14,
1862. In the discussion, Mr. Mallory opposed the bill, because it seemed
to him that it would prevent the President of the United States from
sending a military force into a State to aid the authorities in enforcing
a national law which stands upon the statute-book.[347] Mr. Bingham
answered this objection by saying that it simply determined that for the
future, as in the past, the army and navy should not exercise functions
which belong solely to the civil magistrates.[348]


=Sec. 96. Arrests by civil officers.=--The act of May 14, 1862, applied only
to army officers. Notwithstanding the opportunities then offered for
escape, wandering <DW64>s were still liable to be seized by civil
authorities and placed in jail. In this way numbers of <DW64>s, many of
them really free, were arrested, on the supposition of being runaways,
and were imprisoned without trial for an indefinite length of time. An
advertisement in 1863 shows the method then in use.

  "There was committed to the jail of Warren County, Kentucky, as a
  runaway slave, on the 29th September, 1862, a <DW64> man calling himself
  Jo Miner. He says he is free, but has nothing to show to establish the
  fact. He is about thirty-five years of age, very dark copper color,
  about five feet eight inches high, and will weigh about one hundred and
  fifty pounds. The owner can come forward, prove property, and pay
  charges, or he will be dealt with as the law requires.

                                                "R. J. POTTER, J. W. C.
  "March 16, 1863. 1 m."[349]


[Sidenote: District of Columbia.]

=Sec. 97. Denial of the use of the jails in the District of
Columbia.=--Several efforts were made to remedy this state of things, at
least in the territory over which Congress had exclusive control.
December 4, 1861, Mr. Wilson, who had been investigating the condition of
the District of Columbia jail in Washington, offered a joint resolution
for the release of all fugitives from service or labor therein held.[350]
It appeared that some sixty persons were imprisoned solely because they
were suspected of being runaways, and had been allowed no opportunity to
prove the contrary. A free boy from Pennsylvania came to Washington with
the 5th Pennsylvania Regiment. He was found in the streets and sent to
jail. Another boy, who was working for the soldiers on the railroad, was
also taken up and placed there.[351]

Mr. Wilson struck at the root of the matter by a resolution, which was
agreed to, looking to the revision of all the laws in the District of
Columbia providing for the arrest of persons as fugitives from service or
labor, and to consider the expediency of abolishing slavery in the
District.[352]

On December 9, 1861, Mr. Bingham introduced a resolution for the repeal
of all acts in force in the District of Columbia which authorized the
commitment of runaways and suspected runaways to the jail; it was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[353] Mr. Fessenden asked that
the Committee on the District of Columbia investigate and report upon the
condition of the jail; this was agreed to.[354]

A few weeks later, December 30, 1861, Mr. Grimes presented a bill in the
Senate in regard to the administration of criminal justice in the
District. This was read and referred to the committee, which reported it,
January 6, 1862.[355] Efforts were immediately made to prevent fugitive
slaves from being included in the general jail delivery contemplated by
the bill. Mr. Powell, in the debate upon his amendment to that purpose,
urged that so long as the institution of slavery existed in the South, no
such measure ought to prevail.[356] Mr. Grimes supported his measure by
giving some examples of exceedingly unjust cases which had occurred. "A
young  fellow, who came as a servant of an officer from the
vicinity of Pittsburg, was thrown into this jail in August last. The
regiment to which he was attached went forward toward the face of the
enemy. There was nobody here to look after him. There is no doubt as to
his being a free boy, yet he was there on the first day of this month."
To such cases he desired to have the law apply. "They have here in this
District and in Maryland what they call an apprehension fee. They have a
law which declares that if any slave wanders a certain distance from the
residence of his master, he may be taken up as a fugitive. There are
persons in this vicinity, I am credibly informed, who are lying in wait
all around your city and the surrounding country, in hope that they can
find some poor <DW52> man or woman who is out picking berries and
visiting a friend, and who will wander a little further than the distance
established by law from the residence of the master."[357] The opinion
that such injustice ought to be corrected prevailed, and the amendment
was rejected. After much discussion the bill passed the Senate, January
14, 1862,[358] and it was approved by the President on the same day.
Thenceforward the Fugitive Slave Law was practically a dead letter at the
seat of government, since the necessary machinery was lacking, and the
spirit of the administration was opposed to it. The new act was in effect
a national personal liberty bill.


=Sec. 98. Abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.=--The work
contemplated by all the propositions was finally accomplished in one act.
On December 16, 1861, Mr. Wilson had offered a bill in the Senate for the
total abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. It was reported
with amendments a few weeks after the passage of the act denying the use
of jails, and on February 24, 1862, Mr. Wilson presented a supplementary
bill.[359]

The debates upon this proposition were long and interesting. The South
regarded it as "an entering wedge of something more comprehensive and
radical,"[360] as preparatory to the abolition of slavery in the whole
country by Congress. The antislavery party rejoiced that at last an
opportunity had come for freeing the national capital from the disgrace
of slavery. The bill passed both houses, and was approved April 16,
1862.[361] By the final section of the act the black code of Maryland was
wiped out, and the severe local provisions against fugitives, which had
not been repealed by the previous act, were at last taken away. It
remained only to attack the last stronghold of the system,--the two acts
of 1793 and 1850.


=Sec. 99. Regulations against kidnapping.= In the act of April 16, 1862,
were included regulations against kidnapping,--a practice made easy by
the unsettled state of the country. It seems to have been largely carried
on not only by Southerners, but also by unprincipled soldiers connected
with the Union army. The Liberator of March 27, 1863, notices such a
case. Some men from the 99th Regiment of New York Volunteers kidnapped a
free <DW52> man at Norfolk, Virginia. They took his horse, cart, and the
provisions which he had just bought, and offered him for sale to be sent
South. During the absence of his captors for a few moments, the man was
able to work off his bonds and to escape in the darkness. He immediately
went before a provost marshal, told his story, and recognized one of his
captors who was just entering the door. What the consequences of this
meeting were the "Liberator" does not tell us; but the impression is
given that the <DW64> was saved from his pursuers.[362]


[Sidenote: Repeal of the Acts proposed.]

=Sec. 100. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts.=--By the successive acts of
Congress and the President, the legal effect of the Fugitive Slave Laws
was now confined practically to the limited area of the Border States. No
officer, civil or military, could return a fugitive into the Confederate
lines. Slavery was forbidden in the District of Columbia, and there could
be no escapes thence; and Congress forbade the use of the jails of the
District for the confinement of fugitives from slaveholding regions. In
the free States the rendition of slaves, though still legally required,
had long since ceased. The final step was delayed till 1864.


=Sec. 101. Early propositions to repeal the acts.=--Repeal, however, was
preceded by many earlier propositions. The Committee on the Judiciary, to
which was referred Mr. Howe's bill, presented December 26, 1861,[363] did
not report until 1863, and then with the opinion that it ought not to
pass. In introducing his repeal measure, Mr. Howe spoke of the bill of
1850 as one "which has probably done as much mischief as any other one
act that was ever passed by the national legislature. It has embittered
against each other two great sections of the country."[364] To take away
the law of 1850 would leave in force the act of 1793, which was "good
enough."

June 9, 1862, soon after the passage of the acts on the District of
Columbia, Mr. Julian presented in the House another repeal bill, which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[365] As the war
progressed, and the antislavery sentiment began to outweigh all others,
it became evident that the old law could not much longer obtain.
Nevertheless the question was set aside during the session of 1862-63,
but in 1863-64 five bills were introduced looking to the repeal of the
acts.[366]

Mr. Morris, from the committee to whom all bills for repeal had been
referred, reported a substitute for them, June 6, 1864, and this was the
basis of the final action of Congress.[367]


[Sidenote: Discussion of Repeal Bills.]

=Sec. 102. Discussion of the repeal bill in the House.=--Had the country
been divided simply into two parts, the slaveholding Southern Confederacy
and the free loyal North, little discussion could have arisen. The third
element, the slaveholding States which remained firm for the Union,
rendered the question far more complex. The bill therefore aroused much
indignation. Mr. Mallory demanded, as an act of justice to his State,
that "the Fugitive Slave Act be permitted to remain on the statute-book.
If you say it will be a dead letter, so much less excuse have you for
repealing it, and so much more certainly is the insult and wrong to
Kentucky gratuitous. This act, by which you declare your intention not to
obey the injunction of the Constitution is wanton and useless, except for
the purpose of bravely exhibiting your contempt for that instrument."
"The framers of the Constitution gave us the right to reclaim fugitive
slaves. It was conceded not as a favor, but as a right." "Kentucky has
remained true to her faith pledged to the government, and I warn you not
to persevere in inflicting on her insult and outrage."[368]

Again, one of the reasons for the departure of the Southern States, was
the "bad faith of the Northern States,--the fatal infringement of this
part of the Constitution. It was because of Personal Liberty bills, John
Brown raids, and general denunciation and intermeddling with
slavery."[369] Many members urged that there could be no more reckless
action than to show to the Border States an apparent disregard of the
Constitution. Mr. Cox considered the law the only refuge left to a
certain class of citizens to protect their "rights." It would be like
saying to them, We place the penalty of the treason of the revolted
slaveholders on your innocent heads. "We add to your calamities the
ingratitude and treachery of the government to which you have
adhered."[370]

The final discussion, June 13, opened with a long speech by Mr. King. The
old arguments from the Constitution, the far-seeing wisdom of the
fathers, the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Prigg case, and the harm
done the Border States, were again rehearsed.[371]

In answer to Mr. King, Mr. Hubbard denied that the Constitution provided
for the enactment of a law by Congress, and in any case, the treason of
slavery had already absolved the people from any such obligation. It
surely must be competent for this Congress to repeal any act which a
previous Congress had enacted. For yet another reason the law should be
repealed. <DW64> soldiers must be enlisted: "You cannot draft black men
into the field, while your marshals are chasing women and children in the
woods of Ohio with a view to render them back into bondage. The moral
sense of the nation, ay, of the world, would revolt at it."[372] Again,
this would make a conflict in our laws, said Mr. Morris. A <DW52> man
might enlist in our army, then, under the Fugitive Slave Law, "he might
be seized and remanded to slavery; and as a further consequence, dealt
with as a deserter from his post of duty."[373] It was also urged that
unless slavery was to survive the war, the two acts were useless and
obsolete statutes, which ought to be wiped out of existence. No one who
believes that slavery is dead would desire to keep such a guaranty of the
institution.[374] Mr. Hubbard then demanded the yeas and nays on the
passage of the bill. It was declared in the affirmative, yeas 82, nays
57, and thus the repeal was successfully carried in the House.[375]


=Sec. 103. Repeal bills in the Senate.=--Mr. Sumner had already reported a
repeal bill from the Committee on Slavery and Freedom in the Senate,
February 29, 1864.[376] The progress of the bill was so delayed by the
opposition, that Mr. Sumner at last gave notice that he should take every
proper occasion to call up the bill, and press its consideration.[377]

In the debate several speeches were made against the measure, while Mr.
Sumner defended it. To the antislavery party the act was
constitutionally[378] and morally wrong, so against public sentiment that
it could seldom be enforced, and the question of its repeal was as plain
as a "diagram," "the multiplication table," or "the ten
commandments."[379] They desired to strike slavery wherever they could
hit it, and to "purify the statute-book, so that there should be nothing
in it out of which this wrong can derive any support." It should be
repealed for the sake of our cause in foreign lands.[380] "Since the
outbreak of the Rebellion this statute has been constantly adduced by our
enemies abroad as showing that we are little better than Jefferson Davis
and his slave-monger crew; for slavery never shows itself worse than in
the slave-hunter. It is a burden for our cause which it ought not to be
obliged to bear."

To retain the law of 1793, framed by the founders of the Republic, and
repeal the act of 1850 with its manifest injustice, was suggested as a
desirable compromise. Mr. Sherman, therefore, offered an amendment to
this effect, and it was accepted.[381] The friends of the measure then
felt that the bill as it stood was of little value to the antislavery
cause. Mr. Brown maintained that it was really a proposition to reinstate
slavery in its fastness in the Constitution. "The civilized world, when
it beholds the spectacle of the American Senate going back for three
quarters of a century to resurrect a statute of slave-catching, and pass
it anew with their indorsement, will credit very little all your talk
about freedom. The act will give the lie to all argument."[382]

Before further action was taken on Mr. Sherman's bill, the repeal bill
from the House came before the Senate, and was reported from the
committee, June 15, 1864. It was discussed for several days, but no new
arguments were offered, and, June 23, 1864, the bill passed the Senate by
a vote of 27 to 12.[383] On the 25th of June it received President
Lincoln's signature, and the Fugitive Slave Laws were swept from the
statute-book of the United States.[384]


[Sidenote: Repeal of the Acts.]

=Sec. 104. The repeal act and the thirteenth amendment.=--The act was a
simple one; it runs as follows:--

  "Chap. CLXVI. An Act to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act of eighteen
  hundred and fifty, and all Acts and parts of Acts for the rendition of
  Fugitive Slaves.

  "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
  United States of America in Congress assembled_, That sections three
  and four of an act entitled 'An act respecting fugitives from justice,
  and persons escaping from the service of their masters,' passed
  February twelve, seventeen hundred and ninety-three, and an act
  entitled 'An act to amend, and supplementary to, the act entitled An
  act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the
  service of their masters, passed February twelve, seventeen hundred and
  ninety-three,' passed September, eighteen hundred and fifty, be and the
  same are hereby repealed.

  "Approved, June 28, 1864."

The whole structure of statutes, decisions, and judicial machinery which
had been erected to compel by national authority the people of free
States to share in the responsibility for slavery, was at last
overthrown. But the constitutional obligation remained; so long as a
slave anywhere existed, the neighboring States were bound to pursue him,
if he ran away, and might by statute provide for his return. The final
step was therefore to complete the work of legal emancipation by the
thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. On January 31, 1865, Congress
voted to submit the following article to the States for their approval
and ratification: "Art. XIII. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to
their jurisdiction." On December 18, 1865, the Secretary of State
proclaimed that the amendment had been approved by twenty-seven of the
thirty-six States, and was consequently adopted.


=Sec. 105. Educating effect of the controversy.=--The first act of 1793 was
imperfect. It did not provide a national machinery whereby its provisions
could be executed, and many of the States by means of the personal
liberty laws refused to lend their officers and jails for the work. All
efforts to amend the law were unsuccessful until the great compromise of
1850 gave opportunity to pass a second act.

This new measure remedied certain defects in the first statute, and was
therefore more satisfactory to the slave-owners. As soon as it began to
be executed, however, its provisions were found to be so severe that the
trials and rescues it occasioned served only to educate the people to the
evils of slavery by bringing its effects close to them. Thus, far from
compelling the North to acquiesce in the system, it greatly increased the
number of Abolitionists. The arraying of the North and South against each
other in the Civil War intensified public sentiment upon the question,
and led more and more to a loose execution of the law. It was found
impracticable to return slaves to disloyal masters, and a law to prevent
any such return was the next step toward the doing away of the whole
system. Next came the question of the duty and power of the general
government, within its exclusive jurisdiction: in 1862 all responsibility
was disavowed. By this time the force of the law extended only to the
loyal slave States, and the force of public opinion in 1864 withdrew the
last statutory safeguard of slavery under the Constitution. A change in
the text of the Constitution finally took away the force of the clause on
which the return of fugitives was based.

We can see, at this distance, how clearly slavery was doomed to
destruction, from the time the two sections first made it an issue in
1820; but there was no relation arising out of slavery except the
territorial question which did so much as the fugitive slave controversy
to hasten the downfall of the system. The contrast between the free
principles of democratic government and human bondage was forced upon the
attention of the North by the pursuit of fugitives in their midst. Yet
without national machinery for the recapture of runaways the institution
could not have long been maintained. There is no evidence that the North
was profoundly stirred by the horrors of slavery before 1850; it was only
when the North was called upon, in the Territories, and through the
Fugitive Slave Law, to give positive aid to the system that the
antislavery movement grew strong. Fugitive slaves and fugitive slave laws
helped to destroy slavery.


[Footnote 302: Ableman v. Booth, 3 Wis., 1.]

[Footnote 303: Globe, 1860-61, p. 356, App. 197.]

[Footnote 304: Globe, 1860-61, (Baker) 228, (Burnham) 970.]

[Footnote 305: Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., p. 18. Appendix C, No.
1.]

[Footnote 306: House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., p. 60; Congr. Globe, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 77. Appendix C, Nos. 2-12. For a list of proposed
constitutional amendments bearing on fugitive slaves, I am indebted to
Mr. H. V. Ames, of the Harvard Graduate School, who has kindly furnished
me transcripts from his material for a forthcoming monograph on proposed
amendments to the Constitution.]

[Footnote 307: Cong. Globe, 3 Cong. 2 Sess., 114. Appendix C, Nos.
2-12.]

[Footnote 308: House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 70; Cong. Globe, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 79. Appendix C, No. 10.]

[Footnote 309: House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 67; Cong. Globe, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 77. Appendix C, No. 3.]

[Footnote 310: House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 70; Cong. Globe, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 78. Appendix C, No. 11.]

[Footnote 311: Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 1328.]

[Footnote 312: Appendix C, No. 25.]

[Footnote 313: Liberator, Nov. 1, 1861; Edw. L. Pierce, in Atlantic
Monthly, November, 1861.]

[Footnote 314: Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 1076.]

[Footnote 315: Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 1077.]

[Footnote 316: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 218. Appendix C, Nos. 30,
31.]

[Footnote 317: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 219.]

[Footnote 318: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 412.]

[Footnote 319: House Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 197; Cong. Globe, 409,
410. Appendix C, No. 31.]

[Footnote 320: Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 178; Cong. Globe, 434.
Appendix C, No. 31.]

[Footnote 321: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 454. Appendix C, No. 31.]

[Footnote 322: Appendix C, Nos. 37, 40, 44.]

[Footnote 323: Appendix C, No. 52.]

[Footnote 324: Appendix C, No. 59. Referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and reported by them, April 16, 1862. Appendix C, No. 67.]

[Footnote 325: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 944.]

[Footnote 326: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 946.]

[Footnote 327: Appendix C, No. 71.]

[Footnote 328: Appendix C, No. 72.]

[Footnote 329: Appendix C, No. 73. Previous bills introduced by Mr.
Eliot had been unfavorably reported on by the Judiciary Committee.
Appendix C, No. 69.]

[Footnote 330: Appendix C, No. 75.]

[Footnote 331: Appendix C, No. 78.]

[Footnote 332: Appendix C, No. 78.]

[Footnote 333: Appendix C, No. 79.]

[Footnote 334: Appendix C, No. 79.]

[Footnote 335: Liberator, July 19, 1861; Appendix D, No. 68.]

[Footnote 336: Williams, History of <DW64> Race in America, 245; Appendix
D, No. 69.]

[Footnote 337: Appendix C, Nos. 36, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48.]

[Footnote 338: Appendix C, No. 35.]

[Footnote 339: Appendix C, No. 66.]

[Footnote 340: Appendix C, No. 41.]

[Footnote 341: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 110; Appendix C, No. 42.]

[Footnote 342: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 1 Sess, 130.]

[Footnote 343: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 130.]

[Footnote 344: Appendix C, No. 47.]

[Footnote 345: Appendix C, No. 48.]

[Footnote 346: Appendix C, No. 58.]

[Footnote 347: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 955.]

[Footnote 348: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 956.]

[Footnote 349: Liberator, May 1, 1863 Extract from Frankfort
Commonwealth.]

[Footnote 350: Appendix C, No. 33.]

[Footnote 351: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 10.]

[Footnote 352: Appendix C, No. 33.]

[Footnote 353: Appendix C, No. 39.]

[Footnote 354: Appendix C, No. 38.]

[Footnote 355: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 182; Appendix C, No. 51.]

[Footnote 356: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 313.]

[Footnote 357: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 264.]

[Footnote 358: Appendix C, No 51.]

[Footnote 359: Appendix C, Nos. 42, 54, 56.]

[Footnote 360: Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, iii.
273.]

[Footnote 361: Appendix C, Nos. 62, 65.]

[Footnote 362: Appendix D, No. 68.]

[Footnote 363: Appendix C, No. 49.]

[Footnote 364: Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 1356.]

[Footnote 365: Appendix C, No. 76.]

[Footnote 366: Three bills were introduced in the House on the same day,
December 14, 1863, by Messrs. Stevens, Julian, and Ashley. They were
read twice and referred. Appendix C, Nos. 104, 106. Before the final
consideration of the subject, on February 8, 1864, two more bills were
introduced in Congress, Mr. Sumner's in the Senate, and Mr. Spalding's
in the House. The former went to the Committee on the Judiciary, the
latter to the Select Committee on Slavery and Freedom. Appendix C, No.
80.]

[Footnote 367: Appendix C, No. 80.]

[Footnote 368: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2774, 2775.]

[Footnote 369: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2914.]

[Footnote 370: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2914.]

[Footnote 371: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2911.]

[Footnote 372: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2913.]

[Footnote 373: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2919.]

[Footnote 374: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2917.]

[Footnote 375: Cong. Globe. 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 2920.]

[Footnote 376: Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 196; Cong. Globe, 38
Cong. 1 Sess., 869; Appendix C, No. 80.]

[Footnote 377: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 1175.]

[Footnote 378: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 1710.]

[Footnote 379: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 1709.]

[Footnote 380: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 1713.]

[Footnote 381: Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 348; Cong. Globe, 38
Cong. 1 Sess., 1710, 1714.]

[Footnote 382: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 1752.]

[Footnote 383: Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 3191; Appendix C, No. 83.]

[Footnote 384: Appendix C, No. 116.]




APPENDIX A.

COLONIAL LAWS RELATIVE TO FUGITIVES.


The precise text is quoted in each case. The figures in brackets [] refer
to paragraphs in the text. The sign (¤) indicates that the full text is
to be found in the reference cited.

=1. New Netherlands:--Running away from Patroons. [Sec. 2].=

=1629, June 7.= Freedoms and exemptions. Granted by the West India
Company to all Patroons, Masters or Private Persons who will plant
Colonies in New Netherlands.--"XVIII. The Company promise the colonists
of the Patroons.... XIX.--And any Colonist who shall leave the service
of his Patroon and enter into the service of another, or shall, contrary
to his contract, leave his service, we promise to do everything in our
power to apprehend and deliver the same into the hands of his Patroon or
attorney, that he may be proceeded against according to the customs of
this country, as occasion may require."--¤_Laws and Ordinances of New
Netherlands, 7._


=2. Massachusetts:--Capture and protection of servants. [Sec. 4.]=

=1630-1641.= "Acts respecting Masters, Servants, and Labourers."--"Sec.
3. It is also ordered, that when any servants shall run from their
masters, or any other inhabitants shall privily go away with suspicion
of evil intentions, it shall be lawful for the next magistrate, or the
constable and two of the chief inhabitants where no magistrate is, to
press men and boats or pinnaces at the publick charge, to pursue such
persons by sea and land, and bring them back by force of arms.... Sec.
6. It is ordered, and by this court declared; that if any servant shall
flee from the tyranny and cruelty of his or her master to the house of
any freeman of the same town, they shall be there protected and
sustained till due order be taken for their relief; provided due notice
thereof be speedily given to their master from whom they fled, and to
the next magistrate or constable where the party so fled is
harboured."--¤_Charters and General Laws of the Colony and Province of
Massachusetts Bay, 155._


=3. New Netherlands:--Runaway servants. [Sec. 6.]=

=1640, Aug. 7.= "Ordinance of the Director and Council of New
Netherland, against Fugitives from Service, and providing for the proper
drawing up of Legal Instruments." Passed 9 August, 1640. "Whereas many
Servants daily run away from their masters, whereby the latter are put
to great inconvenience and expense; the Corn and Tobacco rot in the
field and the whole Harvest is at a stand still, which tends to the
serious injury of this country, to their Masters' ruin, and to bring the
magistracy into contempt. We, therefore, command all farm and house
Servants faithfully to serve out their time with their Masters according
to their contracts and in no manner to run away, and if they have any
thing against their masters, to come to Us and make application to be
heard in due form of Law, on pain of being punished and of making good
all losses and damages of their Masters and serving double the time they
may lose.... We do, also, forbid all inhabitants of New Netherland to
harbor or feed any of these Fugitive Servants under the penalty of Fifty
guilders, for the benefit of the Informer; 1/3 for the new Church and
1/3 for the Fiscal." Dated as above.--¤_Laws and Ordinances of New
Netherlands, 32._


=4. Maryland:--Runaway apprentices felons.=

=1642, March 26.= Act against Fugitives.--"It shall be felony in any
apprentice Servant to depart away secretly from his or her Master or
dame then being with intent to convey him or her Selfe away out of the
Province. And on any other person that shall wittingly accompany such
Servant in such unlawfull departure as aforesaid. And the offendors
therein shall suffer paines of death, and after his due debts paid shall
forfeit all his Lands, goods, & Chattels within the Province. Provided,
that in Case his Lordship or his Leivt't-Generall shall at the request
of the partie so condemned exchange such pains of death into Servitude,
that then such exchange shall not exceed the term of Seaven years, and
that the Master or dame of the parties so pardoned of death shall first
be satisfied for the terme of such parties Service unexpired from the
day of such unlawfull departure, and for double the time of his absence
dureing his said departure."--¤_Archives of Maryland, Assembly
Proceedings, 124._


=5. New Netherlands:--Against harboring fugitive servants. [Sec. 6].=

=1642, April 13.= "We have interdicted and forbidden, as we do hereby
most, expressly interdict and forbid, all our good inhabitants here,
from this time henceforward, lodging any strangers in their houses, or
furnishing them more than one meal and harboring them more than one
night without first notifying the Director," etc.--¤_Laws and Ordinances
of New Netherlands, 32._


=6. Virginia:--Entertainment of fugitives. [Sec. 3].=

=1642-3, March.= Act XXI. "Whereas complaints are at every quarter court
exhibited against divers persons who entertain and enter into covenants
with runaway servants and freemen who have formerly hired themselves to
others, to the great prejudice if not the utter undoeing of divers poor
men, thereby also encouraging servants to runn from their masters and
obscure themselves in some remote plantation. Upon consideration had for
the future preventing of the like injurious and unjust dealings, _Be it
enacted and confirmed_ that what person or persons soever shall
entertain any person as hireling, or sharer, or upon any other
conditions for one whole yeare, without certificate from the commander
or any one commissioner of the place, that he or she is free from any
ingagement of service. The person so hireing without such certificate as
aforesaid, shall for every night that he or she entertaineth any
servant, either as hireling or otherwise, fforfeit to the master or
mistris of the said servant twenty pounds of tobacco. And for evrie
freeman which he or she entertaineth (formerly hired by another) for a
year as aforesaid, he or she shall forfeit to the party who had first
hired him twenty pound of tobacco for every night deteyned. And for
every freeman which he or she entertaineth (though he hath not formerly
hired himselfe to another), without certificate as aforesaid, And in all
these cases the party hired shall receive such censure and punishment as
shall be thought fitt by the Governor and Counsell: Allways provided
that if any such runnaway servants or hired freemen shall produce such a
certificate, wherein it appears that they are freed from their former
masters service, or from any such ingagement respectively, if afterwards
it shall be proved that the said certificates are counterfeit then the
retayner not to suffer according to the penalty of this act, But such
punishment shall be inflicted upon the forger and procurer thereof as
the Governor and Council shall think fitt."--¤_Statutes at Large.
Hening, Laws of Virginia, I. 253._


=7. Virginia:--Runaway servants. [Sec. 3.]=

=1642-3, March.= Act XXII. "_Be it therefore enacted and confirmed_ that
all runaways that shall absent themselves from their said master's
service shall be lyable to make satisfaction by service at the end of
their tymes by indenture (vizt.) double the tyme of service soe
neglected, and in some cases more if the commissioners for the place
appointed shall find it requisite and convenient. And if such runaways
shall be found to transgresse the second time or oftener (if it shall be
duely proved against them), that then they shall be branded in the cheek
with the letter R. and passe under the statute of incorrigible
rogues."--¤_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia, I. 254._


=8. New England Confederation:--Articles of Confederation. [Sec. 8.]=

=1643, Aug. 29.= VIII. "It is also agreed that if any servant runn away
from his master into any other of these confederated Jurisdiccons, That
in such Case, vpon the Certyficate of one Magistrate in the Jurisdiccon
out of which the said servant fled, or upon other due proofe, the said
servant shalbe deliuered either to his Master or any other that pursues
and brings such Certificate or proufe."--¤_Plymouth Colony Records, IX.
5._


=9. Connecticut:--Servants and apprentices.=

=1644, June 3.= "Whereas many stubborn, refrectary and discontented
searuants and apprentices with drawe themselves from their masters
searuices, to improue their tyme to their owne aduantage; for the
preuenting whereof, It is Ordered, that whatsoeuer searuant or
apprentice shall heareafter offend in that kynd, before their couenants
or terme of searuice are expiered, shall searue their said Masters, as
they shall be apprehended or retayned the treble terme, or threefold
tyme of their absense in such kynd."--¤_Connecticut Records, I. 105._


=10. New Netherlands:--Entertainment of runaways.=

=1648, Oct. 6.= Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherland
against Fugitives from Service. Passed 6 October, 1648.--"The Director
General and Council hereby notify and warn all persons against harboring
or entertaining any one bound to service either to the Company or to any
private individual here or elsewhere, and against lodging or boarding
them at most longer than twenty-four hours, and if any one shall be
found to have acted contrary hereto, he shall forfeit a fine of fl. 150,
to be paid to whomsoever will make the complaint and it may
appertain."--¤_Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands, 104._


=11. Maryland:--Against fugitives.=

=1649.= _Archives of Maryland, Assembly Proceedings, 249._


=12. Maryland:--Against fugitives.=

=1654, Oct.= _Archives of Maryland, Assembly Proceedings, 348._


=13. Virginia:--Penalty for second offence.=

=1655-6, March.= "Act XI. _Be it enacted by this Grand Assembly_ that if
any runnaway servant offend the second time against the act in March,
1642, concerning runnaway servants, that he shall not onely be branded
with the letter R., and passe under the statute for an incorrigible
rogue, but also double his time of service so neglected, and soe
likewise double the time that any time afterward he shall neglect, and
in some cases more if the Commissioners think fitt: And be it further
enacted by the authority aforesaid, that he or she that shall lodge or
harbour any such runnaway shall not only pay 20 lb. of tobacco per
night, but also 40 lb. of tobacco per day so long as they shall be
proved to entertaine them, contrary to an act of assembly in March,
1642."--¤_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia, I. 401._


=14. New Netherlands:--Treaty with United Colonies. [Sec. 11.]=

=1656.= Resolution of the States General ratifying the treaty of
Hartford, passed February 22, 1656.--"Respecting Fugitives. It is agreed
that the same method shall be observed between the United English
Colonies and the Dutch nation in this country of New Netherland,
agreeably to the eighth Article of the confederation between the United
English Colonies in that case provided."--¤_Laws and Ordinances of New
Netherlands, 216._


=15. City of Amsterdam:--Runaway colonists banished.=

=1656, December.= Articles and Ordinances revised and enacted by the
Right Honorable the Lords Burgomasters of the City of Amsterdam,
according to which shall be engaged and sworn all those who shall
hereafter enter the service of the Lord's Burgomasters of the City of
Amsterdam, for the purpose of going with their own, or chartered ships
to New Netherlands and the limits of the West India Company's Grant,
etc. Passed December, 1656.--"Whoever runs off to the French, English,
or any other Christian or Indian neighbors by whatsoever name they may
be called, shall, in addition to the forfeiture of all his monthly pay
to the City, be banished forever from New Netherland as a perjured
villain, and if he afterward come to fall into the hands of the City, he
shall, without any consideration, be punished by death or otherwise,
according to the exigency of the case."--¤_Laws and Ordinances of New
Netherlands, 273._


=16. Virginia:--Entertainment of runaways.=

=1657-8, March.= Act XV. Concerning Hireing Servants. Thirty pounds of
tobacco shall be paid for every night a servant or person without a
certificate is entertained.--_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of
Virginia, I. 439._


=17. Virginia:--Punishment of runaways.=

=1657-8, March.= Act XVI. Against Runnaway Servants. Runnaways shall
double the time of service absent at the end of their time of indenture.
For the second offence they shall be branded with the letter R. and
double the time lost.--_Hening, Laws of Virginia, I. 440._


=18. Virginia:--Huie and crie after runaways.=

=1657-8, March.= "Act CXIII. Concerning Huie and cries. Whereas huy and
cries after runnaway servants hath been much neglected to the greate
damage and loss of the inhabitants of this colloney, _Bee it therefore
enacted and confirmed by the anthorite of this present Grand Assembly_,
that all such huy and cries shall be signed either by the Governor or
some of the Councill, or under the hand of some com'r, nameing the
county where the said com'r lives, and the same shall be conveyed from
house to house with all convenient speed according as the direction
thereof expresseth: And every com'r of each county unto whose house by
this meanes the said huy and crie shall come shall then date and
subscribe the same, And the master of every house that shall make
default in the speedy conveyance of any such huies and cries shall for
every such default forfeit and pay unto the owners of any such runnawaie
as the said hues and cries shall mention, one hundred pounds of tobacco,
and where the said runnawaie servant is found he shall be apprehended
and sent from constable to constable untill such runnawaie or runnawayes
shall be delivered to his or theire master or mistresse, and if any
neglect can be proved against the constable hee to be fined three
hundred and fiftie pounds of tobacco."--¤_Statutes at Large. Hening,
Laws of Virginia, I. 483._


=19. New Netherlands:--Runaway servants.=

=1658, April 9.= Ordinance of the Director General and Council of New
Netherland renewing sundery Ordinances therein mentioned. Passed 9
April, 1658.--"13thly, not to debauch or incite any person's servants,
male or female, or to harbor them, or fugitives and strangers, longer
than 24 hours without notifying the Fiscal, Magistrates, or Schouts, and
all servant men and women remaine bound to fulfill and complete their
contracts, on pain of arbitrary correction, according to the Ordinance
of the 6 October, 1648."--¤_Laws of New Netherlands, 344._


=20. Virginia:--How to know a runnaway servant. [Sec. 3.]=

=1658-9, March.= Act III. "_It is enacted and ordained_ that the master
of everie such runaway shall cutt, or cause to be cutt, the hair of all
such runnawayes close above their ears, whereby they may be with more
ease discovered and apprehended."--¤_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of
Virginia, I. 517._


=21. Virginia:--Payment of Dutch shipmasters.=

=1659-60, March.= Act XV. An Act for the Pay of Dutch Masters bringing
in Runnaway Servants. Whenever a master shall refuse to pay the cost of
returning a runnaway from the Dutch, the payment shall be made by the
secretary at his office.--_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia,
I. 539._


=22. Virginia:--Apprehension of runaways.=

=1660-61, March.= Act X. Apprehending of Runnawayes.--"Whereas the
pursuit and takeing of runnaways is hindered chiefly by the neglect of
constables in making search according to their warrants, _Bee itt
enacted_ that every constable shall make diligent search and inquiry
through his precincts, and what constable soever shall upon search
apprehend such runaways shall receive from the master of the servant for
his encouragement two hundred pounds of tobaccoe, and if any constable
shall neglect he shall be fined three hundred and fifty pounds of
tobaccoe and caske according to former act."--¤_Statutes at Large.
Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 21._


=23. Virginia:--English runnaway with <DW64>s. [Sec. 3.]=

=1660-1, March. Act XIII.= "_Bee itt enacted_ that in case any English
servant shall runaway in company with any <DW64>s who are incapable of
making satisfaction by addition of time, Bee itt enacted that the
English so running away in company with them shall serve for the time of
the said <DW64>s absence as they are to do for their owne by a former
act"--¤_Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 26._


=24. Virginia:--Glocester to have jurisdiction over runaways.=

=1660-1, March.= It was ordered that the county of Glocester have the
power to make such laws for the recovering of runaways as shall be found
necessary and convenient.--_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia,
II. 35._


=25. Virginia:--Runaway servants.=

=1661-2, March.= Act CII. Runaways.--Penalties for running away are the
same as in former acts. English servants if running away with <DW64>s,
and the <DW64>s die or be lost, shall pay either four thousand five
hundred pounds of tobacco and caske, or four years service for every
<DW64> so lost or dead.--_Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 117._


=26. Maryland:--Against runaways.=

=1662.=_ Maryland Archives, Assembly Proceedings, 451._


=27. Virginia:--Pursuit of runaways to the Dutch.=

=1663, September.= Act VIII. "An Act concerning the pursuit of
runawayes." It is enacted that runaways are to be pursued at the public
expense, and, if they have escaped to the Dutch, letters are to be
written to the Governors of those Plantations to return the runaways.
Expenses are to be paid according to the provisions of a former
act.--_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 187._


=28. Maryland:--Against English servants.=

=1663, October.= _Maryland Archives, Assembly Proceedings, 489._


=29. New Netherlands:--Quakers, etc. refused admission to colony.=

=1663, May 17.= Ordinance of the Director General and Council of New
Netherland prohibiting the bringing of Quakers and other Strollers into
New Netherland. Passed 17 May 1663.--"The Director General and Council,
therefore, do hereby Order and command all Skippers, Sloop captains and
others, whomsoever they may be, not to convey or bring, much less to
land within this government, any such Vagabonds, Quakers and other
Fugitives, whether Men or Women, until they have first addressed
themselves to the government, etc.... on the pain of the Importers
forfeiting a fine of Twenty pounds Flemish for every person,"
etc.--¤_Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands, 439._


=30. Virginia:--Entertainment of runaways.=

=1666, October.= Act IX. "An act against entertayners of runaways."
Penalty for entertaining runaways increased to sixty pounds of tobacco
for every day and night he or they shall be harbored.--_Statutes at
Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 239._


=31. Maryland:--Runaways and their entertainers.=

=1666, May.= "An Act providing against Runaways, and all such as shall
Entertayn them. Whereas there was an act providing against Runnawaies
made in the year 1650, and another act made in the year 1662, both which
acts being adjudged insufficient Satisfaccion for the reparacion of
their respective Masters, mrssrse, Dame, or overseers damages sustained
by their servt running from them, Be it enacted by the right hon'ble,
the Lord Proprietary, by and with the consent of the upper and Lower
House of this present general assembly, that from and after the
publicacion hereof any Servant or Servants whatsoever unlawfully
absenting themselves from their said Master, Mistress, Dame, or
overseer, shall serve for every day 10. And be it further enacted by the
Authority aforesaid that any Master, Mistress, dame, or Overseer that
shall entertain any servant unlawfully absenting himselve as aforesaid,
having been forewarned by the Master, mistress, Dame, or Overseer of the
said servant, shall be fined for the first night five hundred pounds of
Casked tobacco, for the second one thousand pounds of casked tobacco,
for every other night fifteen hundred pounds of casked tobacco, the one
half to the Lord Proprietor, the other to the informer, or them that
shall sue for the same within any Court of Record within this province,
to be Recovered by action of debt, plaint or Informacion wherein no
Essoyne, protection or wager of Lawe to be allowed, Provided that this
Act nor anything therein conteynd shall not be adjudged to the predudice
of any person or persons that shall apprehend any Runaway servants who
are hereby required to use the best endeavors to Convey them to their
owners or next justice of the peace to be conveyed from constable to
constable until they be delivered to their said owners, if then living
within this province. This act to continue for 3 years, or to the end of
the next general assembly which shall first come."--¤_Maryland Archives,
Assembly Proceedings, 147._


=32. New Jersey--Fugitive servants.=

=1668, May 30.= Acts passed and assented unto by the Governor, Council,
and Burgess of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Caesarea, or
New Jersey, the 30th Day of May, Anno Domini 1668.--"Concerning
Fugitives, It is Enacted by the same Authority, that every Apprentice
and Servant that shall depart and absent themselves from their Master
and Dames, without leave first obtained, shall be judged by the Court to
double the Time of such their Absence, by future Service over and above
other Damages and costs which Master and Dame shall sustain by such
unlawful Departure.

"And it is also enacted, that whosoever shall be proved to have
transported, or to have contrived the Transportation of any such
Apprentice or Servant shall be fined _Five Pounds_, and all such Damages
as the Court shall Judge, and that the Master or Dame can make appear,
and if not able, to be left to the Judgement of the Court."--¤_New
Jersey Laws, 82._


=33. Virginia:--Runaways.=

=1668, September.= Act IV. About Runawayes. Moderate corporal punishment
inflicted by the master or magistrate shall not deprive the master of
the satisfaction allowed by the law.--_Statutes at Large, Hening, Laws
of Virginia, II. 266._


=34. Virginia:--Runaways.=

=1669, October.= Act VIII. Against Runawayes. "_Be it therefore enacted_
that whosoever apprehends any runaways, whether servant by indenture,
custome or covenant, not haveing a legall passe, by those in every
county that shall be appointed to give passes, or a note from his
master, shall have a thousand pounds of tobacco allowed him by the
publique, which tobacco shall be repaid by the service of the servant to
the country when free from his master, and by the hired ffreeman
immediately after expiration of his covenant to the man that
apprehends."

"_And be it further enacted_ that he that takes up such runaway is
hereby enjoyned first to carry him before the next justice who is to
take cognizance of his good service, and to certify it in the next
assembly, and then to deliver him to the constable of the parish where
that justice dwells, who is to convey him to the next constable, till he
be retorned to his master, and that each constable upon receipt of such
runaway give his receipt, and if escape be made from any constable, the
delinquent constable to pay one thousand pounds of tobacco; and for the
reimbursing the publique with the tobacco disbursed to the taker
up."--¤_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 273._


=35. Virginia:--Apprehension of Runaways.=

=1670, October.= Act I. An Act concerning runaways. Reward for
apprehending runaways is reduced to two hundred pounds of tobacco.
Servants are to serve four months for every two hundred pounds of
tobacco. Masters who fail to cut their servants' hair after twice
running away shall be fined two hundred pounds of tobacco. Every
constable through whose hands a runaway passes is to whip the servant
severely. Constables allowing runaways to escape shall pay four hundred
pounds of tobacco. Masters must not allow their servants to go free
until the time of service has been worked out.--_Statutes at Large.
Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 277._


=36. Virginia:--Reward to the first taker up of runaways.=

=1670, October.= Act XIII. Runawayes. Only the first taker up of a
runaway shall be rewarded.--_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of
Virginia, II. 283._


=37. Virginia:--Apprehension of Runaways. [Sec. 8.]=

=1672, October.= Act VIII. An Act for the apprehension and suppression
of runawayes, <DW64>s and slaves. Runaways resisting may be killed or
wounded, and if they die from the effects of a wound the public shall
pay the owner, but the person inflicting the injury is not to be
questioned. Indians shall be rewarded by twenty armes length of Roanoake
or the value thereof in goods for the apprehension of a runaway. Act is
to continue in force only until the next assembly.--_Statutes at Large.
Hening, Laws of Virginia, II. 299._


=38. Maryland:--Apprehension of runaways.=

=1671, April.= The three acts of 1650, 1662, and 1666 have not proved
sufficient encouragement to people to apprehend runaways, therefore a
statute against runaways and such persons that shall give them
entertainment and others that shall travel without passes is
enacted.--_Maryland Archives, Assembly Proceedings, 298._


=39. New Jersey:--Fugitive servants and apprentices.=

=1675, November.= "XXXIII. Concerning Fugitives, It is enacted by the
same Authority, that every Apprentice and Servant that shall depart and
absent themselves from their Masters or Dames, without leave first
obtaind, shall be judged by the court to double the Time of such their
Absence, by future Service, over and above other Damages and Costs which
the Master and Dame shall sustain by such unlawful Departure. XXXIV.
_And it is further enacted_, that whosoever shall be proved to have
transported or contrived the Transportation of any such Apprentice,
Servant, or Slave, shall be fined _Five Pounds_, and all such Damages as
the Court shall judge, and that the Master or Dame can make appear, and
if not able to be left to the Judgement of the Court. _It is further
enacted_, that every Inhabitant that shall harbour or entertain any such
Apprentice, Servant, or Slave, and knowing that he hath absented himself
from his Service upon Proof thereof, shall forfeit to their Master or
Dame _Ten Shillings_ for every days Entertainment or Concealment, and if
not able to satisfy, to be liable to the Judgement of the Court."--_New
Jersey Laws, 109._


=40. Maryland:--Runaways.=

=1676, June.= An Act against runaways.--_Laws of Maryland, Bacon,
Index._


=41. East New Jersey:--Fugitive servants.=

=1682, March.= Laws passed by General Assembly in East New Jersey. Chap.
IX. A Bill against fugitive Servants, and entertainers of them. "Be it
enacted by the Governor, Council, and Deputies in General Assembly met,
and by the Authority of the same, that every Apprentice, or Servant,
that shall depart or absent themselves from their Master or Mistress,
without leave first obtained, shall be adjudged by the Court to double
the Time of such their absence by future Service, besides all Costs and
Damages, which the master or mistress shall have sustained by such
unlawful Departure. _Be it further enacted_ by the Authority aforesaid,
that whosoever shall knowingly transport or contrive the Transportation
of any Apprentice, Servant, or Slave, or be any aiding or assisting
thereto, and be thereof lawfully convicted, shall be fined _Five
Pounds_, and make full Satisfaction to the master or mistress of such
Apprentice, Servant, or Slave, for all Costs or Damages which the said
master or mistress can make appear to have thereby sustained. _Be it
further enacted_ By the Authority aforesaid, that every Inhabitant, who
shall entertain, or afford any manner of Relief to such Apprentice,
Servant, or Slave, knowing that he hath absented himself as aforesaid,
except of real Charity, and thereof be lawfully convicted, shall pay to
the master or mistress of such Servant _Ten Shillings_ for every Days
Entertainment and concealment, and be fined according to the Discretion
of the Court."--_Acts of the Proprietary Government of New Jersey, 238._


=42. New Jersey:--Prevention of runaways.=

=1683.= No title given. General Assembly. VI. "And for the preventing
Servants running away from their Masters, and other Vagabonds, _Be it
hereby enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, that all Magistrates,
Officiers, Ordinary Keepers, and other Inhabitants within this Province,
take special notice of all suspicious Travellers, and require their pass
or certificates, under the Hand and Seal of the Magistrate or
Magistrates, or Publick Notary of the Place of their last Abode, to
satisfy the clearness of his, her, or their coming away, and for want of
such Pass or Certificate, to secure such Person or Persons into the
Custody of the next constable; which Person and Persons so to be
secured, or their Masters, shall pay such Charge and Trouble as the
Person or Persons shall be put to, in the securing them as aforesaid,
before they shall be discharged, at the Discretion of two or more of the
Magistrates of the said Province."--¤_Acts of the Proprietary
Governments of New Jersey, 477._


=43. South Carolina.--Prevention of runaways.=

=1683, Nov. 7.= An Act to prevent Runaways. Title only preserved. Table
of contents.--_Statutes at Large of South Carolina, II._


=44. Virginia:--Repeal of law of 1663, September.=

=1684, April.= Act III. An act repealing the act concerning the persuit
of runawayes. The law of September, 1663, has been found inconvenient in
practice, it is therefore repealed.--_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of
Virginia, III. 12._


=45. East New Jersey:--Runaway servants. [Sec. 2.]=

=1686, April.= Chap. XI. An Act concerning Runaway Servants. "Whereas the
securing of Servants that Runaway, or otherwise absent themselves from
their Masters lawful Occasions, is found a material encouragement to
such Persons as come into this country to settle Plantations and
Populate the Province; for the better encouragement of such Persons, Be
it therefore enacted by the Governor and Council and Deputies now met in
General Assembly, and by the authority of the same, that if any Servant
or Servants, Prentices or Covenant Servants, Run away or absent him or
herself unlawfully from their Masters or Mistress' Service, being taken
up or secured, so that the master or mistress hath him or her again, for
the better Encouragement of such Person or Persons so securing him or
them, they shall have _Twenty Shillings_ paid him or them," etc.--_New
Jersey Laws, 292._


=46. Virginia: Law of 1670 amended.=

=1686, October.= Act I. Slight change in making out the certificate for
apprehension of runaway.--_Statutes at Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia,
III. 29._


=47. South Carolina:--Inhibition of trade with runaways.=

=1691.= An act inhibiting the tradeing with Servants and Slaves. "_And
it is alsoe enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, that if any servant or
servants shall at any tyme or tymes hereafter absent or withdraw him or
themselves from his, her, or their master or mistresses service, such
servant or servants soe offending shall for every naturall day they
shall soe absent themselves serve one whole weeke, and for every weeke,
if they shall att any one tyme soe long absent themselves, one whole
yeare to theire master or mistresse, over and above their contracted
tyme of servitude."--¤_Statutes at Large of South Carolina, II. 53._


=48. Pennsylvania:--Regulation of servants.=

=1700.= An Act for the better Regulation of Servants in this Province
and Territories. "And for the Prevention of Servants quitting their
masters Service, _Be it enacted_ by the Authority aforesaid, that if any
Servant shall absent him or herself from the Service of their Master or
Owner for the Space of one Day, or more, without Leave first obtained
for the same, every such Servant shall, for every such Days absence, be
obliged to serve Five Days after the Expiration of his or her Time, and
shall further make such Satisfaction to his or her Master or Owner for
the Damages and Charges sustained by such Absence as the respective
County Courts shall see meet, who shall order as well the Time to be
served, as other Recompence for Damages sustained. And whosoever shall
apprehend or take up any Runaway Servant, and shall bring him or her to
the Sheriff of the County, such Person shall for every such Servant, if
taken up within Ten miles of the Servants abode, receive _Ten
Shillings_; and if Ten miles or upwards, _Twenty Shillings_ Reward of
the said Sheriff, who is hereby required to pay the same, and forthwith
to send Notice to the master or Owner, of whom he shall receive _Five
Shillings_ Prison Fees upon the Delivery of the said Servant, together
with all other Disbursements and reasonable Charges for and upon the
same."--¤_Province Laws of Pennsylvania, I. 5._


=49. New York:--Regulation of slaves.=

=1702.= An Act for regulating Slaves. "And be it further enacted, etc.,
That no Person or Persons whatsoever do hereafter Employ, Harbour,
Conceal or Entertain other Men's Slaves at their House, Out-house, or
Plantation, without the consent of their master or mistress, either
signified to them verbally, or by Certificate in writing, under the said
Master or Mistress' Hand upon Forfeiture of Five Pounds for every Night
or Day, to the Master or Mistress of such Slave or Slaves, so that the
Penalty of such Slave do not exceed the value of the said Slave. And if
any Person or Persons whatsoever shall be found guilty of Harbouring,
Entertaining, or Concealing of any Slave, or assisting to the Conveying
them away, if such Slave shall happen to be lost, dead, or otherwise
distroyed, such Person or Persons, so Harbouring, Entertaining,
Concealing, Assisting or Conveying of them away, shall be also liable to
pay the Value of such Slave to the master or mistress, to be recovered
by Action of Debt, in manner aforesaid."--¤_Acts of Province of New York
from 1691 to 1718, p. 58._


=50. New York:--Punishment of runaways to Canada. [Sec. 8.]=

=1705.= An act to prevent the Running away of <DW64> Slaves out of the
City and County of _Albany_, to the French at Canada. "Whereas the City
and County of Albany are the Frontiers of this Province toward the
_French_ of Canada; and that it is of great concern to this Colony,
during this time of War with the French, that no Intelligence be carried
from the said City and County to the French at Canada: ... Be it
enacted, and it is hereby enacted by his Excellency the Governor,
Council and Assembly, etc., that all and every <DW64> Slave or Slaves,
belonging to any of the Inhabitants of the city and county of _Albany_,
who shall from and after the First Day of _August_ of this present year
of our Lord, One thousand seven hundred and five, be found traveling
Forty miles above the City of Albany, at or above a certain place called
_Sarachtoge_ (unless in Company of his, her, or their Master, Mistress,
or such employed by them, or either of them), and be thereof convicted
by the Oaths of Two or more credible Witnesses, before the Court of
Sessions of the Peace of the said City and County (which Court of
Sessions are hereby Authorized and Impowered to hear and determine the
same, in manner aforesaid, and thereupon to award execution), he, she,
or they so Convicted, shall suffer the Pains of Death, as in cases of
Felony."--_Acts of Province of New York, 77._


=51. New York:--Act of 1702 revived.=

=1705.= An act for Reviving and continuing an Act, Intituled, An Act for
Regulating Slaves, 1702 (expired in 1712).--_Acts of the Province of New
York, 79._


=52. Virginia:--Runaway servants and slaves.=

=1705, October.= Chap. XLIX. An Act concerning Servants and Slaves. XXI.
Penalty for entertaining runaway servants without a certificate shall be
for every day sixty pounds of tobacco. XXIII. Persons rewarded for
taking up runaway according to the distance.--_Hening, Laws of Virginia,
II. 447._


=53. Massachusetts Bay:--Regulation of free <DW64>s. [Sec. 4.]=

=1707.= An Act for the regulating of free <DW64>s. "Sec. 3. And be it
further enacted, that every free <DW64> or mulatto who shall harbour or
entertain any <DW64> or mulatto servant in his or her house, without the
leave or consent of their respective masters or mistresses, shall
forfeit and pay the sum of five shillings to the use of the poor of the
town, for each offence."--_Charters and General Laws of the Colony and
Province of Massachusetts Bay, 386._


=54. South Carolina:--For the better ordering of slaves.=

=1712.= _Statutes at Large of South Carolina, II. 381._


=55. New Jersey:--Regulation of slaves.=

=1713.= An Act for Regulating of Slaves. Sec. 2. "<DW64>s, etc., not
having a pass may be taken up if 5 miles from Home whipped, and Persons
so taking up have 5s." Sec. 3. "<DW64> belonging to another Province not
having license, to be whipped, and the Taker of them to have
10s."--_Acts of the Assembly of New Jersey, 18._


=56. New Jersey:--Regulation of white servants.=

=1713.= An Act for regulating of White Servants, and taking up Soldiers
and Seamen deserting Her Majestys Service, and coming into this Colony.
Sec. 2. "Servants absenting without leave to be adjudged by any one
Justice to serve double the time, and pay or serve for costs." Sec. 3.
"Those who counsel, aid, etc. such Servants to runaway, to forfeit 10L"
etc. Sec. 4. "Those who knowingly conceal them, to pay 10s. per Day."
Sec. 5. "Those who take up Runaways and carry them back to have 15s. and
6d. per mile for so doing." Sec. 8. "Any Boatman, etc., who shall carry
them into or out of this Province, etc., not having Passes, as
aforesaid, and Publick-Housekeepers entertaining them to forfeit 40s.,"
etc.--_Acts of the Assembly of New Jersey, 24._


=57. Rhode Island:--Ferriage of runaways. [Sec. 4.]=

=1714, Oct. 27.= "Whereas, several <DW64>s and mulatto slaves that
have run away from their masters or mistresses, under pretence
of being sent or employed by their masters or mistresses upon
some service, and have been carried over the ferries, out and
into the colony, and suffered to pass through the several towns
under the aforesaid pretence, to the considerable damage and
charge of their owners, and many times to the loss of their
slaves;--Be it therefore enacted by this Assembly, and by the
authority thereof it is enacted, that no ferryman or boatman
whatsoever, within this colony, shall carry or bring any slave
as aforesaid over their ferries, without a certificate under
the hands of their masters or mistresses, or some person in
authority, upon the penalty of paying all costs and damages
their said masters or mistresses shall sustain thereby; and
to pay a fine of twenty shillings for the use of the colony,
for each offence, as aforesaid. The said fine to be recovered
by any two justices of the peace, upon confession or conviction
of the said fact; and all persons in authority, and other His
Majesty's Subjects in this colony knowing of any such slaves
traveling through their township, wherein they dwell, without
a certificate, as aforesaid, they are hereby required to cause
such slave to be examined and secured so as the owner may be
notified thereof, and have his slave again, paying the costs
and charges that shall accrue thereon."--_Proceedings of General
Assembly, Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Providence, 177; Records of Colony of Rhode Island, 177._


=58. South Carolina:--Additional Act to Act of 1712.=

=1714.= _Statutes at Large of South Carolina, II. 620._


=59. New York:--Act of 1705 revived. [Sec. 8.]=

=1715.= An Act for Reviving and Continuing an Act, Intituled an act to
prevent the Running away of <DW64> Slaves out of the city and county of
Albany to the French at Albany, 1705.--_Laws Province of New York, 218._


=60. North Carolina:--Servants and slaves.=

=1715.= An Act concerning servants and Slaves. Title only given.--_Laws
of North Carolina, 21, 27._


=61. New Hampshire:--Runaway minors and servants.=

=1715.= An Act for preventing Men's Sons or Servants absenting
themselves from their Parents or Masters Service without Leave.--"That
no commander of any private man of war, or master of any merchant ship
or vessel coming into, tarrying or abiding in, or going forth of any
port, harbour, or place within this province, shall receive, harbour,
entertain, conceal or secure on board such ship or other vessel, or
suffer to be there harbour'd or detain'd any man's son, being under age
or apprentice or covenant servant (knowing him to be such, or after
notice thereof given) without license or consent of his parent or master
in writing under his hand first had and obtain'd, on pain of forfeiting
the sum of _five pounds per_ week, and so proportionably for a longer or
shorter time, that any son, apprentice, or servant shall be held,
harbour'd, conceal'd, or detain'd on board any such ship or other
vessel, as aforesaid, without license and consent as aforesaid; the one
moiety thereof to her Majesty, to be employed toward the support of the
government of the province, and the other moiety unto the parent or
master of such son, apprentice or servant that shall inform, or sue for
the same, in any of her majesty's courts of record, within this
province, by bill, plaint, or information, wherein no essoign,
protection or wager of law shall be allowed. Sec. 2. _And be it further
enacted by the authority aforesaid_, that every apprentice or covenant
servant who shall unlawfully absent himself from his master, and enter
himself on board any ship or vessel, as aforesaid, with intent to leave
his master's service, or incline there more than the space of
twenty-four hours, and be thereof convicted before any two of her
majesty's justices of the peace, or in general sessions, within this
province, shall forfeit unto his master such further service, from and
after the expiration of the term which his said master had in him at the
time of his departure as the said court shall order, not exceeding one
year."--¤_Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Province of New Hampshire, 40._


=62. South Carolina:--Additional Act against runaways.=

=1717.= _Statutes at Large of South Carolina, III. 39._


=63. Massachusetts Bay:--Transportation of apprentices and servants.=

=1718, October.= An Act for the preventing of persons under age,
apprentices or servants, being transported out of the province without
the consent of their masters, parents, or guardians. "Every master of
any outward bound ship or vessel that shall hereafter carry or transport
out of this province any person under age, or bought or hired servant or
apprentice, to any parts beyond the seas, without the consent of such
master, parent or guardian, signified in writing, shall forfeit the sum
of fifty pounds," etc.--_Charters and Laws of the Colony and Province of
Massachusetts Bay, 750._


=64. South Carolina:--Regulation of Slaves.=

=1722.= An Act for the better ordering and governing of
slaves.--_Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 193._


=65. Pennsylvania:--Regulation of <DW64>s.=

=1725.= An Act for the better Regulating of <DW64>s in this province.
"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no Person or
Persons whatsoever shall imploy, or knowingly harbour, conceal, or
entertain other Peoples slaves at their Houses, Out Houses, or
Plantations, without the Masters or Owners consent, excepting in stress
of weather or other Extraordinary Occasion, under the Penalty of _Thirty
Shillings_ for every Twenty four Hours he or they shall entertain or
harbour him or them as aforesaid."--_Province Laws of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, 1725._


=66. Virginia:--Earlier act amended.=

=1726, May.= Chap. III. The clause in regard to imprisonment when slave
would not give name of master has proved very inconvenient. Chap. IV. An
Act for amending the Act concerning Servants and Slaves; and for the
further preventing the clandestine transportation of Persons out of this
colony. IV. The sheriff or under sheriff to whom the slave is committed
shall cause a notice containing a full description of the runaway to be
posted on the door of the court-house, and shall send a copy to each
church or chapel within the county which shall be set up "in some open
and convenient place" on every Lord's day for two months. Neglect on
part of the sheriff shall be fined five hundred pounds of tobacco; on
the part of the clerk, two hundred pounds. VI. Provisions in regard to
transportation. VIII. Runaways may be let out to hire by the keeper of
the gaol. IX. When demanded by the owner, the person hireing shall
deliver up the servant. X. "Provided also, that where the keeper of the
said public gaol shall, by the direction of such court or courts, as
aforesaid, let out any such <DW64> or runaway to hire to any person or
persons whatsoever, the said keeper shall, at the time of his delivery,
cause a strong iron collar to be put on the neck of such <DW64> or
runaway, with the letters (P. G.) stamped thereon; and that thereafter
the said keeper shall not be answerable for any escape of the said <DW64>
or runaway." XII. Fees of the gaolers given. XIII. Runaways from
Maryland or Carolina shall be committed to any public gaol, and the fees
shall be according to the laws of the province wherein the master
dwells. XIV. The keeper of the gaol shall send descriptions of the
runaway to such places of this dominion bordering on Maryland or
Carolina as shall be agreed upon. XV., XVI. Fees described. XVIII.
Masters of vessels shall take the following oath: "I, A. B., master of
the ship (or vessel), do swear that I will make diligent enquiry and
search in my said ship (or vessel), and will not knowingly or willingly
carry, or suffer to be carried, in my said ship, out of this dominion,
without such pass as is directed by law, any person or persons
whatsoever, that I shall know to be running hence in order to deceive
their creditors; nor any servant or slave that is not attending his or
her master or owner, or sent by such master or owner." XX. For forging a
pass persons offending shall stand two hours in the pillory, and receive
thirty lashes at the whipping-post. XXI. A white servant who shall run
away, change his name, or disguise himself with intent to escape, shall
serve six months longer than his term for running away.--_Statutes at
Large. Hening, Laws of Virginia, IV. 168._


=67. Connecticut:--Runaway servants and slaves.=

=1730 (probably).= An Act concerning _Indian_, _Molatto_, and _Negro_
Servants and Slaves. "That whatsoever _Negro_, _Molatto_, or _Indian_
Servant, or Servants shall be found wandering out of the Bounds of the
Town, or Place to which they belong, without a Ticket or Pass in
writing, under the Hand of some Assistant or Justice of the Peace, or
under the Hand of the Master, or Owner of such _negro_, _molatto_, or
_Indian_ Servants shall be deemed and Accounted to be Run-aways, and may
be Treated as such; and every Person Inhabiting this colony, Finding or
Meeting with any such _Negro_, _molatto_, or _Indian_ Servant or
Servants, not having a ticket as aforesaid, is hereby impowered to Seize
and Secure him, or them, and Bring him or them before the next Authority
to be Examined, and Returned to his, or their master or Owner, who shall
satisfy the Charge Accruing thereby. And all Ferry-Men within this
colony, are hereby Required not to suffer any _Indian_, _molatto_ or
_negro_ servant without certificate, as aforesaid, to pass over their
Respective Ferries, by Assisting them therein Directly or Indirectly, on
Penalty of paying a Fine of Twenty Shillings for every such
Offence."--¤_Acts and Laws of His Majestie's Colony of Connecticut,
229._


=68. New York:--Slave insurrections, etc.=

=1730.= An Act for the more effectual preventing and punishing the
conspiracy and Insurrection of <DW64>s and other Slaves; for the better
regulating them, and for repealing the acts therein mentioned, relating
thereto. Passed the 29th of October, 1730. No fugitive slave provision.
Penalty for entertaining Slaves as in 1702. Also Persons who do not
discover those that entertain slaves shall pay Forty Shillings.--_Acts
of Province of New York, 193._


=69. South Carolina:--Regulation of slaves.=

=1735.= _Statutes at Large of South Carolina, III. 405._


=70. Delaware:--Regulation of servants and slaves.=

=1740.= An Act for the better regulation of Servants and Slaves within
this government (a). Sec. 5. "Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid,
that from such time as any servant shall absent him or herself from his
or her masters or mistress' service, without leave first obtained for
the same, every such servant, for such absence, and the expenses of
taking up, shall at the expiration of the time of his or her servitude,
make satisfaction by servitude, according to the judgement of any court
of Quarter Sessions within this government." Sec. 6. "And be it further
enacted by the authority aforesaid, that if any person shall apprehend
or take up any runaway servant and carry him or her before the next
Justice of the Peace of the county where such servant shall be so taken
up, in order to be sent to and secured in the gaol of the said county,
for his or her master's or mistress' service." The sheriff or gaoler
shall then send notice to the servant's owner, if known; if not, the
servant shall be advertised in some newspaper in the city of
Philadelphia. The reward for taking up runaways shall be, "if ten miles
distant from the place of the said servants last abode, or under, the
sum of Ten Shillings, if upwards of ten miles, the sum of Twenty
Shillings." "And if the master or owner of such servant so imprisoned
shall, for the space of six weeks next after notice had of his or her
servants imprisonment, neglect or refuse to release such servant, it
shall and may be lawful for the said Sheriff, and he is hereby required
and commanded, upon affidavit made of the due service of such notice, to
expose every such servant to sale at public vendue, and him or her to
sell to the highest bidder, for such term and sum as shall be sufficient
for the defraying the costs and charges arising upon the apprehending
and imprisoning the said servant." Sec. 7. "Suspicious persons
travelling without a pass shall be deemed runaway servants and treated
as such."--_Laws of Delaware, 211, 212._


=71. Delaware:--Regulation of servants and slaves.=

=1740.= An Act for the better regulation of Servants and Slaves within
this Government. "Sec. 14. _And be it further enacted by the authority
aforesaid_, that who so ever shall take up any <DW64> or mulatto slave at
above ten miles distance from his or her masters or mistress' dwelling
or habitation, and not having leave in writing from his or her master or
mistress, or not being known by the taker-up to be about his or her
master's or mistress' business or service, and shall convey him or her
to the habitation of his or her said master or mistress, if known, such
taker-up shall receive of the said master or mistress, for his reward,
the sum of Five Shillings, with reasonable charges. Sec. 15. _And be it
further enacted by the authority aforesaid_, that no person shall employ
or knowingly harbour, conceal or entertain another's servant or slave at
his or her house or plantation without the master or owner's leave and
consent, except in distress of weather or other extraordinary occasion
or accident, under the penalty of Forty Shillings for every twenty four
hours he or she shall entertain any such servant or slave, as afore
said, and so in proportion for any lesser time."--¤_Laws of the State of
Delaware, 215, 216._


=72. South Carolina:--Regulation of slaves.=

=1740.= _Statutes at Large, South Carolina, III. 568._


=73. North Carolina:--Entertainment of runaways, etc. [Sec. 3.]=

=1741.= XXVII. Any person harbouring a runaway shall be prosecuted and
compelled to pay the sum of twenty-five pounds or serve the owner of the
slave or his assigns five years. If he actually carry away the slave, he
shall be convicted of felony and suffer accordingly. XXVIII. Seven
shillings and sixpence, Proclamation money, reward for taking up
runaways. For every mile over ten, threepence. XXXIV. Runaways when
taken up shall be whipped. XXXV. Constables must give a receipt for
runaway. Any failure shall be fined twenty shillings, Proclamation
money, to be paid the church warden. XXXVI. Sheriff who shall hold a
runaway longer than the act directs shall forfeit five pounds. Sheriff
who allows a runaway to escape is liable to action from the party
grieved. XXXVIII. This article takes up the fees of the jailor,
etc.--_Laws of North Carolina, 89._


=74. Virginia:--Ferriage of runaways.=

=1748, Oct.= An Act for the Settlement and Regulation of Ferries, and
for the Despatch of Public Expresses. VI. All constables and their
assistants charged with conducting any runaway servant shall be passed
ferry free. The ferriage shall then be paid by the owners of the
runaways.--_Statutes at Large, Hening, VI. 22._


=75. South Carolina: Act additional to Act of 1740.=

=1751.= _Statutes at Large of South Carolina, III. 738._


=76. Rhode Island:--Assistance of runaways.=

=1766-1798.= An Act relative to Slaves, and to their Manumission and
support.--Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, that if any person shall
conceal any <DW64> or mulatto slave, or shall in any manner assist such
slave in escaping from the lawful authority of his or her master, the
person so offending shall forfeit and pay the sum of three hundred
dollars, to be recovered by action of debt, one moiety thereof to and
for the use of the State, and the other moiety thereof to and for the
use of the person who shall sue for the same.--_Laws of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations, 607._


=77. North Carolina:--Slave stealing.=

=1779.= An Act to prevent the stealing of Slaves, or by Violence,
Seduction, or any other Means, taking or conveying away any Slave or
Slaves the Property of another, and for other Purposes therein
mentioned. IV. And whereas many evil disposed Persons frequently entice
or persuade Slaves (without any Intention to steal them) and Servants,
to absent themselves from their Master or Mistress, and often times
harbour and maintain runaway Servants and Slaves; _Be it therefore
further enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, that any Person or Persons
who shall hereafter entice or persuade any Servant or Slave to absent
him or herself from his or her Master or Mistress, or who shall harbour
or maintain any runaway Servant or Slave, shall for every such Offence
forfeit or pay to the Master or Mistress of such Servant or Slave, the
sum of one hundred Pounds current money, to be recovered by Action of
Debt, in any Jurisdiction having Cognizance thereof; and be further
liable to the said master or mistress in an action for Damages, where in
no Essoign, Injunction, Protection, or Wager of Law shall be allowed or
admitted, notwithstanding any Law, Usage, or Custom to the
contrary.--_Laws of North Carolina, 371._


=78. Connecticut:--Escape of <DW64>s and servants.=

=No date given.= An Act to prevent the Running away of Indian and <DW64>
Servants. "Be it enacted by the Governour, Council, and Representatives,
in General Court assembled, and by the Authority of the same, that
whatsoever <DW64> or Indian Servant or Servants shall at any time after
the publication hereof be found wandering out of the Town Bounds, or
Place to which they belong, without a Ticket or Pass in writing under
the Hand of some Assistant or Justice of the Peace, or under the Hand of
the Master or Owner of such <DW64> or Indian Servant or Servants, shall
be deemed and accounted to be Run-aways; and every person Inhabiting in
this Colony, finding or meeting with any such <DW64> or Indian Servant or
Servants, not having a Ticket as aforesaid, is hereby impowered to seize
and secure him or them, and bring him or them before the next authority,
to be examined and returned to his or their Master or Owner, who shall
satisfy the charge accruing thereby; and all Ferrymen within this Colony
are hereby required not to suffer any Indian or <DW64> Servant, without
Certificate as aforesaid, to pass over their respective Ferrys, by
assisting of them therein directly or indirectly, on penalty of paying a
fine of Twenty Shillings for every such Offence to the County Treasury,
to be levied on their estates upon non-payment, by warrant from any one
Assistant or Justice of the Peace: And the like methods shall or may be
used and observed as to Vagrant or Suspected Persons, found wandring
from Town to Town, having no Certificate as aforesaid, who shall be
seized and conveyed before the next Authority to be Examined and
Disposed of according to Law: And if any Free <DW64>s shall travel
without such Certificate or Pass, and be stopped, seized, or taken up,
they shall pay all Charges arising thereby."--¤_Acts and Laws of His
Majesty's Province of Connecticut, 87._


=79. Connecticut:--Pursuit of runaways.=

=No date given.= "It is also ordered, that when any servants shall runn
from theire Masters, or any other inhabitants shall privately goe away
with supition of ill intentions, It shall bee lawfull for the next
Magistrate, or the constable and two of the chiefest inhabitants where
no magistrate is, to press men and boates or pinnaces, at the publique
charge, to persue such persons by sea or land, and bring them back by
force of armes."--¤_Colonial Records of Connecticut, I. 539._


=80. Pennsylvania:--Harboring fugitives.=

=Anno Regni Duodecimo Georgii Regis. [1726?]= An Act for the better
regulating of <DW64>s in this Province. "And be it further enacted by
the Authority aforesaid, that no Person or Persons whatsoever shall
Employ, or knowingly harbour, conceal, or entertain other Peoples Slaves
at their Houses, Out-houses, or Plantations, without the Master or
Owner's consent; excepting in Distress of weather or other Extraordinary
Occasion, under the Penalty of Thirty Shillings for every twenty-four
Hours he or they shall entertain or harbour him or them as
aforesaid."--¤_Province Laws of Pennsylvania, 325._




APPENDIX B.

_NATIONAL ACTS AND PROPOSITIONS RELATIVE TO FUGITIVE SLAVES. 1778-1854._


This Appendix contains all the important bills, acts, and treaties from
the foundation of the Constitution to 1860. Many minor propositions may
be found through the foot-notes to the text of Chapter II. The figures in
brackets [] refer back to the text of the monograph.


[Sidenote: Treaties and First Act.]

=1. Fugitive clause in treaty with the Delawares.=

=1778, Aug. 7.= Art. IV. "And it is further agreed between the parties
aforesaid, that neither shall entertain or give countenance to the
enemies of the other, or protect in their respective States, criminal
fugitives, servants, or slaves, but the same to apprehend, and secure
and deliver to the State or States to which such enemies, criminals,
servants, or slaves respectively belong."--_Statutes at Large, VII. 14._


=2. Fugitive clause in the treaty of peace. [Sec.Sec. 13, 22.]=

=1782-83. 1782, Nov. 13.= Provisional articles. =1783, Sept. 3.=
Definitive treaty. "His Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient
speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any <DW64>s
or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies,
garrisons, and fleets from the said United States."--_Treaties and
Conventions, ed. of 1889, pp. 372, 378._


=3. Fugitive clauses in Indian treaties. [Sec. 13.]=

=1784-86. 1784, Oct. 22.= Treaty with the Six Nations, Art. I.

=1785, Jan. 21.= Treaty with the Wyandots, etc. Art. I. "All the
prisoners white and black" taken by the Indians "shall be delivered up"
or "restored."--_Statutes at Large, VII. 15, 16._


=4. Fugitive clause in King's ordinance. [Sec. 14.]=

=1785, April 6.= Report of the Committee on Government of the Western
Territory. "Provided that always, upon the escape of any person into any
of the States described in the resolve of Congress of the twenty-third
day of April, 1784, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in
any one of the thirteen original States, such fugitive might be lawfully
reclaimed and carried back to the person claiming his labor or service,
this resolve notwithstanding."--_Papers of Old Congress_, XXI. 331,
cited in _Bancroft, History of the United States (last Revision), VI.
133._


=5. Fugitive clauses in Indian treaties. [Sec. 13.]=

=1785, Nov. 28.= Treaty with the Cherokees, Art. I.

=1786, Jan. 3.= Treaty with the Choctaws, Art. I.

=1786, Jan. 10.= Treaty with the Chickasaws, Art. I.

Identical clauses. The Indians "to restore all the <DW64>s and all other
property taken during the late war."

=1786, June 31.= Treaty with the Shawanees. Art. I. "All prisoners white
and black taken in the late war from among the citizens of the United
States by the Shawanee nation shall be restored."--_Statutes at Large,
VII. 18, 21, 25, 26._


=6. Fugitive clause in Northwest Ordinance of 1787. [Sec. 14]=

=1787, July 13.= Art. VI. "There shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted;
_provided_, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom
labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States,
such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person
claiming his or her labor or service aforesaid." Read first time, July
11, 1787. Passed July 13, 1787.--¤ _Journals of Congress, XII. 84, 92._


=7. Fugitive clause in the Constitution. [Sec. 15.]=

=1787, Sept. 13.= Art. IV. Sec. 2. "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."--_Revised Statutes of the United
States, I. 18._


=8. Clauses for returning fugitives in Indian treaties.=

=1789, Jan. 7.= Treaty with the Wiandots, etc. Art. I. "The said nations
agree to deliver up all the prisoners now in their hands (by what means
soever they may have come into their possession)."--_Statutes at Large,
VII. 28._

=1790-91. 1790, Apr. 7.= Treaty with the Creeks. Art. III. "The Creek
Nation shall deliver ... all citizens of the United States, white
inhabitants or <DW64>s, who are now prisoners in any part of the said
nation. And if any such prisoners or <DW64>s should not be delivered on
or before the first day of June next ensuing, the governor of Georgia
may empower three persons to repair to the said nation, in order to
claim and receive such prisoners and <DW64>s."--_Statutes at Large, VII.
35._

=1791, July 2.= Treaty with the Cherokees. Art. III. All prisoners to be
yielded up on both sides.--_Statutes at Large, VII. 36._


=9. First Fugitive Slave Act.=

=1793, Feb. 12.=

_An Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the
service of their masters._

"SECTION 1._ Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That whenever the
executive authority of any state in the Union, or of either of the
territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, shall demand any
person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any
such state or territory to which such person shall have fled, and shall
moreover produce the copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made
before a magistrate of any state or territory as aforesaid, charging the
person so demanded, with having committed treason, felony or other
crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the
state or territory from whence the person so charged fled, it shall be
the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which
such person shall have fled, to cause him or her to be arrested and
secured, and notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority
making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to
receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such
agent when he shall appear: But if no such agent shall appear within six
months from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged. And
all costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing, and
transmitting such fugitive to the state or territory making such demand,
shall be paid by such state or territory.

"SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any agent, appointed as
aforesaid, who shall receive the fugitive into his custody, shall be
empowered to transport him or her to the state or territory from which
he or she shall have fled. And if any person or persons shall by force
set at liberty, or rescue the fugitive from such agent while
transporting, as aforesaid, the person or persons so offending shall, on
conviction, be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and be
imprisoned not exceeding one year.

"SEC. 3. _And be it also enacted_, That when a person held to labour in
any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the
northwest or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall
escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to
whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby
empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, and to take him
or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United
States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of
a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall
be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate,
either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a
magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or
arrested, doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he
or she fled, owe service or labour to the person claiming him or her, it
shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate
thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be
sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour, to the
state or territory from which he or she fled.

"SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall
knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent or
attorney, in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labour, or shall
rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney when so
arrested pursuant to the authority herein given or declared; or shall
harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive
from labour, as aforesaid, shall, for either of the said offences,
forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars. Which penalty may be
recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt, in
any court proper to try the same; saving moreover to the person claiming
such labour or service, his right of action for or on account of the
said injuries or either of them."--¤_Statutes at Large, I. 302-305._


[Sidenote: Bills and Propositions.]

=10. Abstract of amendatory bill on fugitives. [Sec. 19.]=

=1801, Dec. 18.= "The bill contemplates inflicting a penalty of five
hundred dollars on any person harboring, concealing, or employing
runaway slaves. Every person employing a black person, unless he had a
certificate with a county seal to it, or signed by a justice of the
peace, would be liable to the penalty."

=1802, Jan. 15.= A motion was made to strike out the second section of
the bill, which would create therein and inflict the penalty for
employing a person of color who has not a certificate of his freedom.
Motion not carried.--_7 Cong. 1 Sess., Annals of Congress, H. of R.,
423._


=11. Restoration of slaves by Indian treaties. [Sec. 22.]=

=1814, Aug. 9.= Treaty with the Creeks. Art. III. "The United States
demand that a surrender be immediately made of all the persons and
property taken from the citizens of the United States ... to the
respective owners."--_Treaties and Conventions._


=12. Fugitive slave clause in the Treaty of Ghent. [Sec. 22].=

=1814, Dec. 24.= Art. I. "All territory, etc. shall be restored without
delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any
artillery, ... or any slaves or other private property."--Treaties and
Conventions.


=13. Amendments proposed to Pindall's bill. [Sec. 20]=

=1818, Jan. 29.= "Resolved, That the said bill be referred to the
committee to whom was referred the memorial of the annual meeting of the
Society of Friends, of Baltimore, with instructions to inquire into the
expediency of so amending the said bill as to guard more effectually
against infringement of the rights of free <DW64>s and other persons of
color." Introduced by Mr. Rich. Resolution not accepted.--_House Journal
15 Cong. 1 Sess., 193; Annals of Congress, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 830._

To change the bill materially "by making judges of the State in which
the apprentices, slaves, etc. are seized, the tribunal to decide the
fact of slavery, instead of the judges of the States whence the
fugitives have escaped." Introduced by Mr. Sergeant. Amendment not
accepted.--_Annals of Congress, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 830._

"Mr. Rich made several successive attempts to procure amendments to the
bill, relaxing some of its provisions, which were successively
negatived."--_Annals of Congress, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 830._


=14. Provision for delivery on executive requisition. [Sec. 20.]=

=1818, March 11.= Mr. Daggett moved to strike out the following section
of the bill: "Sec. 6. _And be it further enacted_, that whenever the
Executive authority of any State in the Union, or of either of the
Territories thereof, shall, for or in behalf of any citizen or
inhabitant of such State or Territory, demand any fugitive slave of the
Executive authority of any State or Territory, to which such slave shall
have fled, and shall moreover produce a certificate, issued pursuant to
the first section of this act, it shall be the duty of the Executive
authority of the State or Territory to which such fugitive shall have
fled to cause him or her to be arrested and secured, and notice of the
arrest to be given to the Executive authority making such demand, or to
the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to
cause such fugitive to be delivered to the said agent, on the confine or
boundary of the State or Territory in which said arrest shall be, and in
the most usual and direct route to the place from whence the said
fugitive shall have escaped; and the reasonable expense of such arrest,
detention, and delivery of such fugitive shall be paid by the said
agent." Amendment determined in the negative.--_Senate Journal, 15 Cong.
1 Sess., 227, 228; Annals of Congress, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 259._


=15. Proposed limitation to four years. [Sec. 20.]=

=1818, May 10.= Mr. Lacock moved to amend by adding the following:
"Sec.--. _And be it further enacted_ that this law shall be and remain
in force for the term of four years, and no longer." The Senate being
equally divided, the President determined the question in the
affirmative.--_Senate Journal, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 228; Annals of
Congress, 15 Cong. 1 Sess., 259._


=16. Fugitive Slave clause in the Missouri Compromise. [Sec. 21.]=

=1820, March 19.= The Missouri Compromise provided "that any persons
escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed
in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be
lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her
labor, or service, as aforesaid."--_Annals of Congress, 16 Cong. 1
Sess., 1469, 1587._


=17. Investigation into the Pennsylvania Act. [Sec. 21.]=

=1820, April 3.= Mr. Pindall introduced the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That the Secretary of State be instructed to procure and
transmit to this House, as soon as practicable, a copy of such late act
or acts of the Pennsylvania Legislature as prohibit or restrain the
justices, aldermen, or other magistrates or officers of that State from
interposing in the apprehension or surrender of fugitive
slaves."--_House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 Sess., 371; Annals of Congress, 16
Cong. 1 Sess., 1717._

Mr. Tarr moved to amend as follows: "Provided, any such act or acts
shall have been passed." Resolution and amendment agreed to.--_House
Journal, 16 Cong. 1 Sess., 371; Annals of Congress, 16 Cong. 1 Sess.,
1717._

=1820, April 18.= Ordered, That the letter from the Secretary of State
with the Act of the Pennsylvania Legislature accompanying it, "be
committed to the committee appointed 18th of March to inquire into the
expediency of providing by law for reclaiming persons held to service or
labor in one State, and escaping therefrom into another."--_House
Journal, 16 Cong. 1 Sess., 427; Annals of Congress, 16 Cong. 1 Sess.,
1863._


=18. Maryland resolutions protesting against Pennsylvanians. [Sec. 21.]=

=1821, Dec. 17.= "Mr. Wright laid before the House an attested copy of a
resolution passed by the General Assembly of the State of Maryland,
complaining of the protection offered by the citizens of Pennsylvania to
the slaves of the citizens of Maryland, who abscond and go into that
State, and declaring that it is the duty of Congress to enact such a law
as will prevent a continuance of the evils complained of; which
resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."--_House
Journal, 17 Cong. 1 Sess., 62; Annals of Congress, 17 Cong. 1 Sess.,
553._


=19. Assumption of claims on Indians for fugitives. [Sec. 22.]=

=1832, May 9.= Treaty with the Seminoles, Art. VI. "The Seminoles being
anxious to be relieved from repeated vexatious demands for slaves and
other property alleged to have been stolen and destroyed by them, so
that they may remove unembarrassed to their new homes, the United States
stipulate to have the same property investigated, and to liquidate such
as may be satisfactorily established, provided the amount does not
exceed seven thousand (7,000) dollars."--_Statutes at Large, VII. 369._


=20. Calhoun's resolution on the status of slaves on the high seas. [Sec.
24.]=

=1840, April 15.= "_Resolved_, That a ship or vessel on the high seas,
in time of peace, engaged in a lawful voyage, is, according to the laws
of nations, under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State to which her
flag belongs; as much so as if constituting a part of its own domain.

"_Resolved_, That if such ship or vessel should be forced by stress of
weather, or other unavoidable cause, into the port, and under the
jurisdiction of a friendly power, she and her cargo, and persons on
board, with their property, and all the rights belonging to their
personal relations, as established by the laws of the State to which
they belong, would be placed under the protection which the laws of
nations extend to the unfortunate under such circumstances.

"_Resolved_, That the brig Enterprise, which was forced unavoidably by
stress of weather into Port Hamilton, Bermuda Island, while on a lawful
voyage on the high seas from one port of the Union to another, comes
within the principles embraced in the foregoing resolutions; and that
the seizure and detention of the <DW64>s on board by the local authority
of the island, was an act in violation of the laws of nations, and
highly unjust to our own citizens, to whom they belong."--_Cong. Globe,
26 Cong. 1 Sess., 327._


=21. Woodbridge resolution on extradition of slaves. [Sec. 23.]=

=1841, Dec. 22.= Mr. Woodbridge submitted the following resolution,
which was considered, and by unanimous consent agreed to.

"_Resolved_, That the Committee on Foreign Relations inquire into the
expediency of entering into some arrangement with the Government of
Great Britain, reciprocal in its provisions, for the arrest of fugitives
escaping over the Northern or Western boundary of the United States,
charged with the commission of any crime or crimes, and for the
surrender of such fugitives upon reasonable requisition to the
authorities of the State or province from which such fugitives may have
fled: _Provided_, such arrangements do not comprehend cases of political
offences merely, but be restricted to those which are in themselves
criminal." No action taken.--_Senate Journal, 27 Cong. 2 Sess., 47;
Cong. Globe, 27 Cong. 2 Sess., 48._


[Sidenote: Prigg Decision. Resolutions.]

=22. Significant extracts from the Prigg decision. [Sec. 25.]=

=1842.= "Upon this ground we have not the slightest hesitation in
holding that, under and in virtue of the Constitution, the owner of a
slave is clothed with entire authority, in every state in the Union, to
seize and recapture his slave, whenever he can do it without any breach
of the peace, or any illegal violence."

"The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of
any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state
actions to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot,
therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an
unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that
the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of
the national government nowhere delegated or intrusted to them by the
Constitution."

"If this be so, then it would seem, upon just principles of
construction, that the legislation of Congress, if constitutional, must
supersede all state legislation upon the same subject; and by necessary
implication prohibit it."

"As to the authority so conferred upon state magistrates, while a
difference of opinion has existed, and may exist still on the point, in
different states, whether state magistrates are bound to act under it;
none is entertained by this Court that state magistrates may, if they
choose, exercise that authority, unless prohibited by state
legislation."--_16 Peters, Justice Story's Opinion, 608._


=23. Giddings's resolutions on the status of slaves on the high seas. [Sec.
24.]=

=1842, March 21.= "Resolved, That when a ship belonging to the citizens
of any State of this Union leaves the waters and territory of such
State, and enters upon the high seas, the persons on board cease to be
subject to the slave laws of such State, and thenceforth are governed in
their relations to each other by, and are amenable only to, the laws of
the United States.

"Resolved, That when the brig Creole, on her late voyage for New
Orleans, left the territorial jurisdiction of Virginia, the slave laws
of that State ceased to have jurisdiction over the persons on board said
brig, and such persons became amenable only to the law of the United
States.

"Resolved, That the persons on board the said ship, in reserving their
natural rights of personal liberty, violated no law of the United
States, incurred no legal penalty, and are justly liable to no
punishment."--_Cong. Globe, 27 Cong. 2 Sess., 324._


=24. Benton's resolution on slaves escaping to Canada. [Sec. 23.]=

=1844, Jan. 29.= Mr. Benton presented the following resolution:--

"_Resolved_, That the President be requested to communicate
to the Senate the information, if any, which may be in the
Department of State, in relation to slaves committing crimes
and escaping from the United States to the British dominions
since the ratification of the treaty of 1842, and the refusal
of the British authorities to give them up. Also, that he
communicate to the Senate the information, if any such is
possessed by him, of the construction which the British government
puts upon the said article in relation to slaves committing
crimes in the United States and taking refuge in the British
dominions."--_Congressional Record, 28 Cong. 1 Sess., 206._


=25. Giddings's resolution for the abolition of the slave trade in the
District of Columbia. [Sec. 28.]=

=1848, Jan. 17.= Mr. Giddings described the seizure of a <DW52> man
employed as waiter in a  boarding-house in Washington. He then
offered the following resolution:--

"_Resolved_, That a select committee of five members be appointed to
inquire into and report upon facts aforesaid; also as to the propriety
of repealing such acts of Congress as sustain or authorize the slave
trade in this District, or to remove the seat of the Government to some
free State." Resolution laid on the table.--_House Journal, 30 Cong. 1
Sess., 250; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong. 1 Sess., 179._


=26. Hall's repeal resolution for the District of Columbia. [Sec. 28.]=

=1848, Feb. 28.= Mr. Nathan K. Hall offered the following preamble and
resolutions, which were read, and, debate arising thereon, it was laid
over under the rule, viz.:--

"Preamble.... _Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be, and
they are hereby, directed to report to this House with all convenient
speed a bill repealing all laws of Congress, and abrogating, so far as
they are operative or in force in the District of Columbia all the laws
in the State of Maryland which authorize or require the courts,
officers, or magistrates of the United States, or of the said District,
within the District of Columbia to issue process for arrest, or commit
to the jail of the said District any runaway or other slave or fugitive
from service," etc. Resolution laid over under the rule.--_House
Journal, 30 Cong. 1 Sess., 450, 453; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong. 1 Sess.,
390._


[Sidenote: Resolutions. Bill of 1850.]

=27. Giddings's resolution inquiring into the condition of the District
of Columbia jail. [Sec. 28.]=

=1848, April 18.= Mr. Giddings introduced the following resolution:--

"Whereas, more than eighty men, women, and children, are said to be now
confined in the prison of the District of Columbia without being charged
with crime or any impropriety other than an attempt to enjoy that
liberty for which our fathers encountered toil, suffering, and death
itself, and for which the people of many European governments are now
struggling; And whereas said prison was erected, and is now sustained,
by funds contributed by the people of the free as well as of the slave
States, and is under the control of the laws and officers of the United
States:

"And whereas, such practice is derogatory to our national character,
incompatible with the duty of a civilized and Christian people, and
unworthy of being sustained by an American Congress: Therefore, _Be it
resolved_, That a select committee of five members of this body be
appointed to inquire into and report to this House by what authority
said prison is used for the purpose of confining persons who have
attempted to escape from slavery, with leave to report what legislation
is proper in regard to said practice. _Resolved, further_, that said
committee be authorized to send for persons and papers." Objections
being made, the motion was not received.--_Cong. Globe, 30 Cong. 1
Sess., 641._


=28. Giddings's resolution on the jail in the District of Columbia. [Sec.
28.]=

=1848, April 21.= Mr. Giddings visited the jail in the District of
Columbia for the purpose of interviewing the persons confined there on
charge of carrying away slaves from this District. He was then mobbed
and his life endangered.

"_Resolved_, That a committee of five members be appointed to
investigate and report to this House respecting the points alluded to in
the above statement, and that said committee be authorized to send for
persons and papers, and to sit during the session of the House."--_Cong.
Globe, 30th Cong. 1 Sess., 664._


=29. Meade's resolution on more effectual enforcement of the
constitutional article on fugitive slaves. [Sec. 27.]=

=1849, Jan. 8.= Mr. Meade moved that the rules be suspended to enable
him to offer the following resolution:--

"Preamble. Whereas it is the duty of the Congress of the United States
to enact all laws necessary to enforce such provisions of the
Constitution as were intended to protect the citizens of the several
States in their rights of property, and past experience has proved that
laws should be passed by Congress to enforce the second section of the
fourth article of the Constitution, which requires that persons held to
labor in one State, escaping into another, shall be delivered up on
claim of the party to whom such labor may be due; therefore, Resolved,
That the Committee on the Judiciary is hereby instructed to report a
bill to this House, providing effectually for the apprehension and
delivery of fugitives from labor who have escaped, or may hereafter
escape, from one State into another." Rules not suspended.--_House
Journal, 30 Cong. 3 Sess., 213; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess., 188._


=30. Legislative history of the Fugitive Slave Act. [Jan. 3 to Sept. 18,
Sec. 29.]=

=1850, Jan. 3.= Mr. Mason of Virginia gave notice of his intention to
introduce a bill.--_Cong. Globe, 99._

=Jan. 4.= Senate bill No. 23 introduced by Mason, read twice, ordered
printed, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.--_Senate
Journal, 54; Globe, 103._

=Jan. 16.= Bill reported favorably by Butler from the committee, ordered
printed, and made a special order for Jan. 23.--_Senate Journal, 88;
Globe, 171; Senate Reports, I. No. 12._

=Jan. 22.= Debate begun. Mason offered an amendment which made the fine
for any obstruction of the workings of the act one thousand dollars, and
refused to allow the testimony of a fugitive.--_Globe_, 210.

=Jan. 23, 24.= Bill taken up and debated.--_Senate Journal_, 104, 110;
_Globe_, 220, 228; _Globe App._ 79, 83.

=Jan 28.= Seward presented an amendment, which allowed the right of
trial by jury, and punished judges who should disallow the writ of
habeas corpus.--_Senate Journal_, 117; _Globe_, 233-237.

=Jan. 29.= Clay introduced, as a part of his compromise resolutions, a
declaration that a more effective fugitive slave act should be
passed.--_Senate Journal_, 118; _Globe_, 247.

=Jan. 31.= Mason offered a substitute for the bill already before the
Senate. It was laid on the table, and ordered to be printed.--_Globe_,
270.

=June 3.= Webster brought in an amendatory bill.--_Senate Journal_, 370;
_Globe_, 1111.

=Aug. 15.= The debate was again opened, and made the special order for
Aug. 19.--_Senate Journal_, 560; _Globe_, 1588.

=Aug. 19.= Mason offered as an amendment a substitute for the bill
already before the Senate.--_Senate Journal_, 564; _Globe_, 1605; _Globe
App._, 1582.

Dayton brought in an amendment which gave trial by jury. This was
rejected.--_Senate Journal_, 564; _Globe App._, 564.

Chase offered one of the same character, which was also
rejected.--_Globe App._, 1589.

Winthrop brought in an amendment granting the protection of the habeas
corpus. This was rejected.--_Senate Journal_, 565; _Globe App._, 1589.

=Aug. 20.= Mason's substitute was agreed to.--_Senate Journal_, 568;
_Globe_, 1616; _Globe App._, 1591.

An amendment to Mason's substitute was offered by Mr. Pratt. This gave
the owner the right of suit against the United States for the value of
the slave if not delivered. This was afterward amended by Mason and
Pratt, and rejected, August 23.--_Senate Journal_, 570-573; _Globe_,
1636; _Globe App._, 1609.

=Aug 22.= Underwood offered an amendment as a substitute, and Davis
presented an amendment to Mason's bill striking out the clause providing
compensation for escaped slaves. This was rejected.--_Senate Journal_,
573, 580; _Globe_, 1636; _Globe App._, 1609, 1619.

= Aug. 23.= Amendments were offered to Underwood's amendment by Chase
and Badger. Both were rejected.--_Senate Journal_, 575-580; _Globe
App._, 1619, 1623, 1625.

Another slight amendment by Chase was also rejected.--_Globe App._,
1624.

Mason amended his bill by making the Marshal liable for the value of a
slave who has escaped from his custody.--_Senate Journal_, 576; _Globe
App._, 1625.

An attempt to amend the bill by striking out the compensation for
escaped slaves, and other slight changes, was made by Davis, and the
amendment was accepted.--_Senate Journal_, 580; _Globe App._, 1630.

Bill as amended was then ordered to be engrossed for the third
reading.--_Senate Journal_, 581; _Globe_, 1647; _Globe App._, 1630.

=Aug. 26.= After changing the title to make it an act supplementary to
that of 1793, the bill was passed, and sent to the House.--_Senate
Journal_, 583; _Globe_, 1660.

=Sept. 12.= In the House it was read a first and second time by title.
Thompson of Pennsylvania moved to put it on its passage, and moved the
previous question, which he refused to withdraw, and which was
carried.--_House Journal_, 1289, 1448.

Stevens moved to lay it on the table, but the motion was lost, and the
bill was ordered to a third reading.--_House Journal_, 1449.

The bill was passed, 109 to 75.--_House Journal_, 1451-1453; _Globe_,
1807.

It was returned to the Senate.--_Senate Journal_, 627; _Globe_, 1810.

=Sept 14.= The bill was signed by the presiding officer of the
Senate.--_Senate Journal_, 629; _Globe_, 1815.

Bill signed by the Speaker of the House.--_House Journal, 1457; Globe,
1812._

=Sept. 16.= Bill sent to the President, and signed by him Sept.
18.--_House Journal, 1472, 1497; Senate Journal, 638, 648._


[Sidenote: Second Fugitive Slave Act.]

=31. Second Fugitive Slave Act. [Sec.Sec. 29, 30.]=

=1850, Sept. 18.= "_An Act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act
entitled 'An Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping
from the Service of their Masters,' approved February twelfth, one
thousand seven hundred and ninety-three._

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That the persons who have
been, or may hereafter be, appointed commissioners, in virtue of any act
of Congress, by the Circuit Courts of the United States, and who, in
consequence of such appointment, are authorized to exercise the powers
that any justice of the peace, or other magistrate of any of the United
States, may exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offence
against the United States, by arresting, imprisoning, or bailing the
same under and by virtue of the thirty-third section of the act of the
twenty-fourth of September seventeen hundred and eighty-nine, entitled
'An Act to establish the judicial courts of the United States,' shall
be, and are hereby, authorized and required to exercise and discharge
all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

"SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the Superior Court of each
organized Territory of the United States shall have the same power to
appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and affidavits,
and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, which is now
possessed by the Circuit Court of the United States; and all
commissioners who shall hereafter be appointed for such purposes by the
Superior Court of any organized Territory of the United States, shall
possess all the powers, and exercise all the duties, conferred by law
upon the commissioners appointed by the Circuit Courts of the United
States for similar purposes, and shall moreover exercise and discharge
all the powers and duties conferred by this act.

"SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the Circuit Courts of the
United States, and the Superior Courts of each organized Territory of
the United States, shall from time to time enlarge the number of
commissioners, with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim
fugitives from labor, and to the prompt discharge of the duties imposed
by this act.

"SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That the commissioners above named
shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judges of the Circuit and
District Courts of the United States, in their respective circuits and
districts within the several States, and the judges of the Superior
Courts of the Territories, severally and collectively, in term-time and
vacation; and shall grant certificates to such claimants, upon
satisfactory proof being made, with authority to take and remove such
fugitives from service or labor, under the restrictions herein
contained, to the State or Territory from which such persons may have
escaped or fled.

"SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of all
marshals and deputy marshals to obey and execute all warrants and
precepts issued under the provisions of this act, when to them directed;
and should any marshal or deputy marshal refuse to receive such warrant,
or other process, when tendered, or to use all proper means diligently
to execute the same, he shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in the
sum of one thousand dollars, to the use of such claimant, on the motion
of such claimant by the Circuit or District Court for the district of
such marshal; and after arrest of such fugitive, by such marshal or his
deputy, or whilst at any time in his custody under the provisions of
this act, should such fugitive escape, whether with or without the
assent of such marshal or his deputy, such marshal shall be liable, on
his official bond, to be prosecuted for the benefit of such claimant,
for the full value of the service or labor of said fugitive in the
State, Territory, or District whence he escaped: and the better to
enable the said commissioners, when thus appointed, to execute their
duties faithfully and efficiently, in conformity with the requirements
of the Constitution of the United States and of this act, they are
hereby authorized and empowered, within their counties respectively, to
appoint, in writing under their hands, any one or more suitable persons,
from time to time, to execute all such warrants and other process as may
be issued by them in the lawful performance of their respective duties;
with authority to such commissioners, or the persons to be appointed by
them, to execute process as aforesaid, to summon and call to their aid
the bystanders, or _posse comitatus_ of the proper county, when
necessary to insure a faithful observance of the clause of the
Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act;
and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the
prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may
be required, as aforesaid, for that purpose; and said warrants shall
run, and be executed by said officers, anywhere in the State within
which they are issued.

"SEC. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That when a person held to service
or labor in any State or Territory of the United States, has heretofore
or shall hereafter escape into another State or Territory of the United
States, the person or persons to whom such service or labor may be due,
or his, her, or their agent or attorney, duly authorized, by power of
attorney, in writing, acknowledged and certified under the seal of some
legal officer or court of the State or Territory in which the same may
be executed, may pursue and reclaim such fugitive person, either by
procuring a warrant from some one of the courts, judges, or
commissioners aforesaid, of the proper circuit, district, or county, for
the apprehension of such fugitive from service or labor, or by seizing
and arresting such fugitive, where the same can be done without process,
and by taking, or causing such person to be taken, forthwith before such
court, judge, or commissioner, whose duty it shall be to hear and
determine the case of such claimant in a summary manner; and upon
satisfactory proof being made, by deposition or affidavit, in writing,
to be taken and certified by such court, judge, or commissioner, or by
other satisfactory testimony, duly taken and certified by some court,
magistrate, justice of the peace, or other legal officer authorized to
administer an oath and take depositions under the laws of the State or
Territory from which such person owing service or labor may have
escaped, with a certificate of such magistracy or other authority, as
aforesaid, with the seal of the proper court or officer thereto
attached, which seal shall be sufficient to establish the competency of
the proof, and with proof, also by affidavit, of the identity of the
person whose service or labor is claimed to be due as aforesaid, that
the person so arrested does in fact owe service or labor to the person
or persons claiming him or her, in the State or Territory from which
such fugitive may have escaped as aforesaid, and that said person
escaped, to make out and deliver to such claimant, his or her agent or
attorney, a certificate setting forth the substantial facts as to the
service or labor due from such fugitive to the claimant, and of his or
her escape from the State or Territory in which such service or labor
was due, to the State or Territory in which he or she was arrested, with
authority to such claimant, or his or her agent or attorney, to use such
reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary, under the
circumstances of the case, to take and remove such fugitive person back
to the State or Territory whence he or she may have escaped as
aforesaid. In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of
such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in
this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of
the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove
such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall
prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued
by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever.

"SEC. 7. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall
knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his
agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her,
or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either
with or without process as aforesaid, or shall rescue, or attempt to
rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the custody of such
claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or persons
lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the
authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such
person so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly,
to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or
persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such
fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person,
after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive
from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences,
be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and
imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction
before the District Court of the United States for the district in which
such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of
criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized
Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by
way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the
sum of one thousand dollars, for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to
be recovered by action of debt, in any of the District or Territorial
Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have
been committed.

"SEC. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That the marshals, their deputies,
and the clerks of the said District and Territorial Courts, shall be
paid, for their services, the like fees as may be allowed to them for
similar services in other cases; and where such services are rendered
exclusively in the arrest, custody, and delivery of the fugitive to the
claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or where such supposed fugitive
may be discharged out of custody for the want of sufficient proof as
aforesaid, then such fees are to be paid in the whole by such claimant,
his agent or attorney; and in all cases where the proceedings are before
a commissioner, he shall be entitled to a fee of ten dollars in full for
his services in each case, upon the delivery of the said certificate to
the claimant, his or her agent or attorney; or a fee of five dollars in
cases where the proof shall not, in the opinion of such commissioner,
warrant such certificate and delivery, inclusive of all services
incident to such arrest and examination, to be paid, in either case, by
the claimant, his or her agent or attorney. The person or persons
authorized to execute the process to be issued by such commissioners for
the arrest and detention of fugitives from service or labor as
aforesaid, shall also be entitled to a fee of five dollars each for each
person he or they may arrest and take before any such commissioner as
aforesaid, at the instance and request of such claimant, with such other
fees as may be deemed reasonable by such commissioner for such other
additional services as may be necessarily performed by him or them; such
as attending at the examination, keeping the fugitive in custody, and
providing him with food and lodging during his detention, and until the
final determination of such commissioner; and, in general, for
performing such other duties as may be required by such claimant, his or
her attorney or agent, or commissioner in the premises, such fees to be
made up in conformity with the fees usually charged by the officers of
the courts of justice within the proper district or county, as near as
may be practicable, and paid by such claimants, their agents or
attorneys, whether such supposed fugitives from service or labor be
ordered to be delivered to such claimants by the final determination of
such commissioners or not.

"SEC. 9. _And be it further enacted_, That, upon affidavit made by the
claimant of such fugitive, his agent or attorney, after such certificate
has been issued, that he has reason to apprehend that such fugitive will
be rescued by force from his or their possession before he can be taken
beyond the limits of the State in which the arrest is made, it shall be
the duty of the officer making the arrest to retain such fugitive in his
custody, and to remove him to the State whence he fled, and there to
deliver him to said claimant, his agent, or attorney. And to this end,
the officer aforesaid is hereby authorized and required to employ so
many persons as he may deem necessary to overcome such force, and to
retain them in his service so long as circumstances may require. The
said officer and his assistants, while so employed, to receive the same
compensation, and to be allowed the same expenses, as are now allowed by
law for transportation of criminals, to be certified by the judge of the
district within which the arrest is made, and paid out of the treasury
of the United States.

"SEC. 10. _And be it further enacted_, That when any person held to
service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the District of
Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to whom such service or
labor shall be due, his, her, or their agent or attorney, may apply to
any court of record therein, or judge thereof in vacation, and make
satisfactory proof to such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape
aforesaid, and that the person escaping owed service or labor to such
party. Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the
matters so proved, and also a general description of the person so
escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be; and a transcript of
such record, authenticated by the attestation of the clerk and of the
seal of the said court, being produced in any other State, Territory, or
district in which the person so escaping may be found, and being
exhibited to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the
law of the United States to cause persons escaping from service or labor
to be delivered up, shall be held and taken to be full and conclusive
evidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of the
person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned. And upon
the production by the said party of other and further evidence if
necessary, either oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained
in the said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she
shall be delivered up to the claimant. And the said court, commissioner,
judge, or other person authorized by this act to grant certificates to
claimants of fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and
other evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of his
right to take any such person identified and proved to be owing service
or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall authorize such claimant
to seize or arrest and transport such person to the State or Territory
from which he escaped: _Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall
be construed as requiring the production of a transcript of such record
as evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be heard
and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent in law.

"Approved, September 18, 1850."--_Statutes at Large, ix. 462-465._


[Sidenote: Act of 1850. Resolutions.]

=32. McLanahan's resolution against repeal of the law of 1850.=

=1851, Jan. 13.= Mr. McLanahan moved that the rules be suspended to
enable him to introduce the following resolution, viz., "_Resolved_,
That it would be inexpedient and improper to repeal the law passed at
the last session of Congress, entitled 'An act to amend, and
supplementary to, the act entitled An act respecting fugitives from
justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters,'
approved Feb. 12, 1793." House refused to suspend the rules.--_House
Journal, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., 139; Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., 226._


=33. Clay's resolution on the Shadrach case, Boston. [Sec. 51.]=

=1851, Feb. 17.= Mr. Clay submitted the following resolution, which lies
over one day: "_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be
requested to lay before the Senate, if not incompatible with the public
interest, any information he may possess in regard to an alleged recent
case of a forcible resistance to the execution of the laws of the United
States in the city of Boston, and to communicate to the Senate under the
above condition what means he has adopted to meet the occurrence, and
whether, in his opinion, any additional legislation is necessary to meet
the exigency of the case, and to more rigorously execute existing laws."
Resolution adopted.--_Senate Journal, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., 187; Cong.
Globe, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., 580._


=34. Bright's bill explanatory of law of 1850.=

=1851, Feb. 10.= Mr. Bright obtained leave to bring in a bill (458)
explanatory of the act approved 18th September in the year 1850,
entitled, "An Act to amend, and supplemental to, the act entitled, 'An
Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the
service of their masters,'" approved Feb. 12, 1793, which was read
twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.--_Senate Journal,
32 Cong. 1 Sess., 162._

The bill is in the following terms: "_Be it enacted, etc._, that all
action and causes of action, and all proceedings instituted and to be
instituted, for any violation of the provisions of said act respecting
fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their
masters, approved the 12th February, 1793, may be instituted and
prosecuted to final judgment and execution as if the said act of Sept.
18, 1850, had not been passed."--_Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., 492._


=35. Fitch's resolution affirming the Compromise.=

=1852, March 1.= Mr. Fitch offered the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That we recognize the binding efficacy of the compromises
of the Constitution, and believe it to be the intention of the people
generally, as we hereby declare it to be ours individually, to abide
such compromises, and to sustain the laws necessary to carry out the
provisions for the delivery of fugitive slaves ordered, and that we
deprecate all further agitation of questions growing out of that
provision of the Constitution embraced in the acts of the last Congress
known as the Compromise."--_House Journal, 32 Cong. 1 Sess., 408; Cong.
Globe, 32 Cong. 1 Sess., 659._


=36. Jackson's resolution affirming the Compromise.=

=1852, March 22.= "_Resolved_, That we recognize the binding efficacy of
the compromises of the Constitution, and believe it to be the intention
of the people generally, as we hereby declare it to be ours
individually, to abide such compromises, and to sustain the laws
necessary to carry them out,--the provision for the delivery of fugitive
slaves, and the act of the last Congress for that purpose included,--and
that we deprecate all further agitation of questions growing out of that
provision, of the questions embraced in the acts of the last Congress
known as the Compromise, and of questions generally connected with the
institution of slavery as unnecessary, useless, and dangerous."
Resolution, as amended by Mr. Hillyer below, agreed to.--_House Journal,
32 Cong. 1 Sess., 550; Cong. Globe, 32 Cong. 1 Sess., 825._


=37. Hillyer's finality resolution.=

=1852, April 5.= Mr. Hillyer moved the following resolution:

"Resolved, That the series of acts passed during the first session of
the Thirty-first Congress, known as the compromise, are recorded as a
final adjustment, and a permanent settlement of the questions there
embraced, and should be maintained and executed as such." Resolution
agreed to, April 6, 1852.--_House Journal, 32 Cong. 1 Sess., 548; Cong.
Globe, 32 Cong. 1 Sess., 979._


=38. Chase's resolution of inquiry into payments under act of 1850.=

=1852, June 3.= Mr. Chase submitted the following resolution: "Resolved,
That the Secretary of the Interior be directed to communicate to the
Senate statements, showing in detail the expenses incurred and claims
made under the Act to amend and supplemental to the 'Act respecting
fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their
masters,' distinguishing the expenses incurred and claimed by reason of
prosecutions for treasons, alleged to have been committed in resistance
of said act from expenses incurred and claimed by reason of other
prosecutions for offending against said act, and for proceedings before
and under orders made by committee." No action taken.--_Senate Journal,
32 Cong. 1 Sess., 450; Cong. Globe, 32 Cong. 1 Sess., 1519._




APPENDIX C.

_NATIONAL ACTS AND PROPOSITIONS RELATING TO FUGITIVE SLAVES._
(1860-1864.)


This Appendix is intended to contain references to all the resolutions,
bills, and acts of Congress, relative to fugitives, from the beginning of
the critical session of 1860-61 to the repeal of the acts in 1864. The
resolutions for amendments to the Constitution have been collected by Mr.
Herman V. Ames of the Harvard Graduate School, who has kindly selected
out of the numerous amendments proposed in the last session of the
Thirty-Sixth Congress those bearing upon this subject.

The single star (*) indicates a measure which passed one House: a double
star (**) a measure which passed both Houses.


=1. President Buchanan's message. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 4.= Paragraph on the return of fugitive slaves: _Senate
Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 18._


=2. Cochrane's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= To amend the Constitution, for the return of fugitives:
_House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 61; Cong. Globe, 77._


=3. Morris's Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= To amend the Fugitive Slave Law: _House Journal, 36
Cong. 2 Sess. 63; Cong. Globe, 77._


=4. Leake's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= Amendment to the Constitution: _House Journal, 36 Cong.
2 Sess., 65; Cong. Globe, 77._


=5. Cox's Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= To amend the Fugitive Slave Law: _Senate Journal, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 66; Cong. Globe, 77._


=6. Stevenson's Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= To amend the Fugitive Slave Law: _House Journal, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 67; Cong. Globe, 77._


=7. Niblack's Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= To amend the Fugitive Slave Law: _House Journal, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 69; Cong. Globe, 77._


=8. English's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= Amendment to the Constitution on the return of
fugitives: _House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 68; Cong. Globe, 78._


=9. McClernand's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= Amendment to the Constitution, on fugitive slaves:
_House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 68; Cong. Globe, 78._


=10. Hindman's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= Amendment to the Constitution for the enforcement of
the Fugitive Slave Law: _House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 70; Cong.
Globe, 79._


=11. Kilgore's Resolution. [Sec. 86]=

=1860, Dec. 12.= To amend the Fugitive Slave Law: _House Journal, 36
Cong. 2 Sess., 70; Cong Globe, 78._


=12. Johnson's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 13.= Amendment to the Constitution for the return of
fugitive slaves: _Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 41; Cong. Globe,
83._


=13. Crittenden's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 18.= Amendment to the Constitution for payment for fugitive
slaves: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 114._


=14. Douglas's Joint Resolution. [Sec. 86.]=

=1860, Dec. 24.= Amendment to the Constitution for payment for fugitive
slaves: _Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 61; Cong. Globe, 183._


=15. Florence's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Jan. 15.= Amendment to the Constitution for payment for fugitive
slaves: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong 2 Sess., 378._


=16. Morris's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Jan. 23.= Amendment to the Constitution on the return of fugitive
slaves: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 527._


=17. Douglas's Bill to amend the Fugitive Slave Laws. [Sec. 101.]=

=1861, Jan. 28.= Introduced: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 586._


=18. Florence's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Jan. 28.= Amendment to the Constitution against the obstruction
of the Fugitive Slave Law by States: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess.,
598._


=19. Kellogg's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Feb. 1.= Amendment to the Constitution on the power of Congress
over fugitive slaves: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 690._


=20. Kellogg's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Feb. 26.= Same as above: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess, 1243._


=21. Kellogg's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Feb. 27.= Similar to above: _House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess.,
410; Cong. Globe, 1259._


=22. Peace Convention Amendment to the Constitution. [Sec. 85.]=

=1861, Feb. 27.= Reported by select committee: _Senate Journal, 36 Cong.
2 Sess., 332, 637; Cong. Globe, 1254._


=23. Clarence's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Feb. 27.= Amendment to the Constitution for payment for fugitive
slaves: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong 2 Sess., 1260._


=24. Crittenden's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Feb. 28.= Amendment to the Constitution on the power of the
States over fugitive slaves, etc.: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess.,
1270._


=*25. Compromise Bill to amend the Fugitive Slave Act. [Sec. 87.]=

=1861, Mar. 1.= Bill reported by the select committee of thirty-three
for the amendment of the act for the rendition of fugitives from labor:
_Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 1327._----=Mar. 1.= Vallandigham's
amendment to the above: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 1328._----=Mar.
1.= Bill passed the House: _Cong. Globe, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 1327,
1328._----=Mar. 2.= Bill read in the Senate: _Cong. Globe, 36, Cong. 2
Sess., 1350._


=26. Pugh's Joint Resolution.=

=1861, Mar. 2.= Amendment to the Constitution on the return of fugitive
slaves: _Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 2 Sess., 378; Cong. Globe, 1368._


=27. Johnson's Joint Resolution on the return of fugitives.=

=1861, Mar. 2.= Amendment to the Constitution: _Senate Journal, 36 Cong.
2 Sess., 382; Cong. Globe, 1401._


=28. Powell's Joint Resolution on the return of fugitive slaves.=

=1861, Mar. 2.= Amendment to the Constitution: _Senate Journal, 36 Cong.
2 Sess., 384; Cong. Globe, 1404._


=29. Lovejoy's Resolution against the return of fugitives by the Army.
[Sec. 95.]=

=1861, July 9.= Introduced: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 653; Cong.
Globe, 32._


=30. Trumbull's confiscation Bill. [Sec. 90.]=

=1861, July 15.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 42;
Cong. Globe, 120._


=**31. Chandler's confiscation Act. [Sec. 90.]=

=1861, July 15.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 44;
Cong. Globe, 120._----=July 22.= Trumbull's amendment: _Senate Journal,
37 Cong. 1 Sess., 70; Cong. Globe, 218._----=July 22.= Passed the Senate
(yeas and nays not given): _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 71; Cong.
Globe, 219._----=July 23.= Senate bill introduced into the House and
referred: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 136; Cong. Globe,
231._----=Aug. 2.= Reported with amendment in the House: _House Journal,
37 Cong. 1 Sess., 197; Cong. Globe, 409._----=Aug. 3.= Committee
amendments: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 232; Cong. Globe,
431._----=Aug 3.= Passed the House (yeas 60, nays 48): _House Journal,
37 Cong 1 Sess., 235; Cong. Globe, 431._----=Aug 5.= Passed the Senate
as amended in the House: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 1 Sess., 178; Cong.
Globe, 434._----=Aug. 6.= Bill signed by the President: _Senate Journal,
37 Cong. 1 Sess., 195; Cong. Globe, 454._


=32. Wilson's Joint Resolution for discharge of fugitives from the
Washington jail. [Sec. 97.]=

=1861, Dec. 4.= Introduced and referred: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong, 2
Sess., 24; Cong. Globe, 12._


=*33. Wilson's Resolution on repeal of the black code in the District of
Columbia. [Sec. 97.]=

=1861, Dec. 4.= Introduced and agreed to: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 22; Cong. Globe, 12._


=*34. Clark's Resolution on persons in Washington jail.=

=1861, Dec. 4.= Introduced and agreed to: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong 2
Sess., 22; Cong. Globe, 12._


=35. Lovejoy's Bill to prevent return by the Army. [Sec. 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 4.= Introduced: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 16; Cong.
Globe, 34._


=*36. Sumner's Resolution on Army orders relating to fugitive slaves.=

=1861, Dec. 4.= Introduced and agreed to: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 19; Cong. Globe, 9._


=37. Trumbull's Confiscation Bill.=

=1861, Dec 5.= Introduced and read twice: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 27; Cong. Globe, 10._


=*38. Fessenden's Resolution on the Washington jail. [Sec. 97.]=

=1861, Dec. 9.= Introduced: _House Journal, 37 Cong 2 Sess., 54; Cong.
Globe, 36._----=Dec. 9.= Aldrich's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 36._----=Dec. 9.= Lovejoy's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 36._----=Dec. 9.= Passed as amended: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 36._


=39. Bingham's Resolution on the Washington jail. [Sec. 97.]=

=1861, Dec. 9.= Introduced and referred: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 52; Cong. Globe, 35._


=40. Morrill's confiscation Joint Resolution. [Sec. 91.]=

=1861, Dec. 11.= Introduced and referred: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 36; Cong. Globe, 49._


=*41. Hale's Resolution on the slaves of rebels. [Sec. 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 16.= Introduced and agreed to: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 45; Cong. Globe, 88._


=42. Wilson's Bill for emancipation in the District of Columbia. [Sec.
98.]=

=1861, Dec. 16.= Introduced and read twice: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 47; Cong. Globe, 89._----=Dec. 19.= Referred: _Cong. Globe, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 153._ [See No. 54.].


=*43. Sumner's Resolution against the surrender of fugitives by the
Army. [Sec. 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 18.= Introduced and agreed to: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 130; Cong. Globe, 130._


=44. Lovejoy's confiscation and emancipation Resolution. [Sec.Sec. 91, 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 20.= Introduced and laid on the table: _Senate Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 106; Cong. Globe, 158._


=*45. Julian's Resolution to amend the Fugitive Slave Law. [Sec. 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 20.= Introduced and adopted: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 103; Cong. Globe, 158._


=46. Shank's Resolution on the return of fugitives by the Army. [Sec. 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 20.= Introduced and referred: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 102, 124; Cong Globe, 158, 172._


=*47. Wilson's Resolution for articles of war. [Sec. 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 20.= Introduced: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 103;
Cong. Globe, 158._----=Dec. 23.= Adopted: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 109, 114; Cong. Globe, 159, 168._


=48. Wilson's Bill on the arrest of fugitives by the officers of the
Army and Navy. [Sec. 95.]=

=1861, Dec. 23.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 167;
Cong. Globe, 161, 209._----=1862, Jan. 7.= Committee Amendments: _Senate
Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 88; Cong. Globe, 207._ [See No 53.]


=49. Howe's Bill for repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. [Sec. 101.]=

=1861, Dec. 26.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 74;
Cong. Globe, 177._


=50. Davis's confiscation Bill.=

=1861, Dec. 30.= Introduced and referred: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 75; Cong. Globe, 178._


=**51. Grimes's Act on criminal justice in the District of Columbia [Sec.
97.]=

=1861, Dec. 30.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 75;
Cong. Globe, 182._----=1862, Jan. 6.= Reported: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 199._----=Jan. 10.= Committee amendments: _Senate Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 98; Cong. Globe, 264._----=Jan. 10.= Powell's amendment:
_Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 98, 109; Cong. Globe, 264,
319._----=Jan. 14.= Pearce's two amendments: _Senate Journal. 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 109; Cong. Globe, 319._----=Jan. 14.= Ten Eyck's amendment:
_Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 109; Cong. Globe, 320._----=Jan. 14.=
Harlan's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 320._----=Jan. 14.=
Clark's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 320._----=Jan 14.=
Saulsbury's amendment: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 109; Cong.
Globe, 320._----=Jan. 14.= Clark's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 321._----=Jan. 14.= Passed the Senate (yeas 31, nays 4): _Senate
Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 109; Cong. Globe, 321._


=52. Trumbull's Bill for the confiscation of property of rebels and to
free the slaves of rebels. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, Jan. 15.= Reported from the Senate Committee on Judiciary:
_Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 113; Cong. Globe, 334._ [See No. 57.]


=53. Amendments to Wilson's Bill on Army and Navy officers. [Sec. 95.]=

=1862, Jan 16.= [See No. 48.] Collamer's amendment: _Senate Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 116; Cong. Globe, 358._----=Jan. 16.= Saulsbury's
amendment: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 116; Cong. Globe,
358._----=Jan. 16.= Rice's amendment to Saulsbury's amendment: _Cong.
Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 359._


=54. Wilson's District of Columbia Bill. [Sec. 98.]=

=1862, Feb 12.= [See No. 41.] Reported: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess.,
785._


=*55. Wilson's Resolution on the management of the Washington jail.=

=1862, Feb. 18.= Introduced and agreed to: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 217; Cong. Globe, 861._


=56. Wilson's Bill to repeal the black code in the District of Columbia.
[Sec. 98.]=

=1862, Feb. 24.= Introduced and referred: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 263; Cong. Globe, 917._


=57. Amendments to the confiscation Bill. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, Feb. 25.= [See No. 52.] Trumbull's amendment: _Senate Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 239; Cong. Globe, 942._----=Feb. 25.= Sumner's amendment:
_Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 239; Cong. Globe, 946._----=Feb. 27.=
Davis's substitute: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 986._ [See No. 59.]


=**58. Blair's Act prohibiting return by the Army. [Sec. 95.]=

=1862, Feb. 25.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 358;
Cong. Globe, 955._----=Feb. 25.= Bingham's amendment: _House Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 358; Cong. Globe, 955._----=Feb. 25.= Passed the House
(yeas 95, nays 51): _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 265; Cong. Globe,
958._----=Mar. 10.= In the Senate; Davis's amendment: _Senate Journal,
37 Cong, 2 Sess., 285; Cong. Globe, 1142._----=Mar. 10.= Saulsbury's
amendment: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 284; Cong. Globe,
1142._----=Mar. 10.= MacDougall's amendment: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 284; Cong. Globe, 1142._----=Mar. 10.= Saulsbury's amendment:
_Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 284; Cong. Globe 37 Cong. 2 Sess.,
1142._----=Mar. 10.= Passed the Senate (yeas 29, nays 9): _Senate
Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 285; Cong. Globe, 1142._----=Mar. 14.=
Approved by the President: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 1243._


=59. Harris's confiscation Bill. [Sec. 91]=

=1862, Mar. 14.= Introduced and referred: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 304; Cong. Globe, 1228._ [See No. 63.]


=60. Report of House Judiciary Committee on confiscation.=

=1862, Mar. 30= Adverse to all bills referred by the House: _Cong.
Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 1303._ [See No. 64]


=61. Wilson's Resolution on the return of fugitives by the Army and
Navy.=

=1862, Apr. 3.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 361;
Cong. Globe, 1546._ [See No. 70.]


=*62. Bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. [Sec.
98.]=

=1862, Apr. 3.= Passed the Senate: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess.,
1648._ [See No. 65]


=63. Sherman's Amendment to Harris's confiscation Bill.=

=1862, Apr. 10.= [See No. 59.] Introduced: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 1652._ [See No. 67.]


=64. Wilson's Bill to amend the Fugitive Slave Act. [Sec. 101.]=

=1862, Apr. 11= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong 2 Sess., 385, Cong.
Globe, 1624._----=Apr. 14.= Harris's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess, 1652._----=Apr. 14.= Grimes's amendment: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong.
2 Sess, 393, 439; Cong. Globe, 1692._


=*65. Bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. [Sec.
98.]=

=1862, Apr. 16.= [See No. 62.] Passed the House: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong.
2 Sess., 1686._ Approved by the President.


=66. Lovejoy's Bill on return of fugitives by the Army. [Sec. 95.]=

=1862, Apr. 16.= Reported adversely from the Committee on Judiciary in
the House: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 1682._


=67. Harris's confiscation Bill. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, Apr. 16.= [See No. 63.] Reported from the Senate Committee on
Judiciary: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 400; Cong. Globe, 37 Cong.
2 Sess., 1678._----=Apr. 22.= Walton's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong.
2 Sess., 1771._----=Apr. 22.= Porter's amendment: _Senate Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 703; Cong. Globe, 1767, 1772._----=Apr. 22.= Bingham's
amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 1767._----=Apr. 22.=
Collamer's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 1782,
1895._----=Apr. 24.= Motion to recommit: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 434; Cong. Globe, 1856, 1886._ [See No. 71.]


=68. House confiscation Bill. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, Apr. 23.= A Select Committee raised in the House: _House Journal,
37 Cong. 2 Sess., 602; Cong. Globe, 1788, 1820._


=69. Eliot's confiscation and emancipation Bill. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, Apr. 30.= Introduced: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 625;
Cong. Globe, 1886._ [See No. 73.]


=70. Saulsbury's amendment of Wilson's Resolution.=

=1862, May 1.= [See No. 61.] Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 439; Cong. Globe, 1894._


=71. Harris's confiscation Bill recommitted. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, May 6.= [See No. 67.] Wilson's amendment of Collamer's amendment:
_Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 450; Cong. Globe, 1954._----=May 6.=
Final vote: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 450; Cong Globe, 1954,
1965._


=72. Clark's confiscation Bill. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, May 14.= Reported: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 476; Cong.
Globe, 2112._----=May 14.= Discussed but not acted upon: _Cong. Globe,
37 Cong. 2 Sess., 2163, 2188, 2219, 2842._


=73. Confiscation and emancipation Bill. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, May 14.= [See No. 69.] Reported in the House: _House Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 683; Cong. Globe, 2128._ [See No. 75.]


=74. Sumner's Resolution on fugitive slaves.=

=1862, May 22.= Introduced: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 520;
Cong. Globe, 2275._----=May 23.= Grimes's amendment: _Senate Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 523; Cong. Globe, 2306._----=May 26.= Walton's
emancipation bill amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 2362,
2363._


=75. Emancipation Bill.=

=1862, June 4.= [See No. 73.] Recommitted: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 799; Cong. Globe, 2561._ [See No. 76.]


=76. Julian's Bill to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act. [Sec. 101.]=

=1862, June 9.= Introduced with a resolution: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 826; Cong. Globe, 2623._


=77. Colfax's Resolution demanding trial by jury for fugitives.=

=1862, June 9.= Introduced: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 828; Cong.
Globe, 2624._


=*78. Bill for emancipation of fugitives from disloyal masters. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, June 17.= [See No. 75.] Reported in the House: _House Journal, 37
Cong. 2 Sess., 874; Cong. Globe, 2764._----=June 18.= Eliot's
substitute: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 282; Cong. Globe,
2793._----=June 18.= Emancipation bill passed the House (yeas 82, nays
54): _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 2793._----=June 23.= Clark's Senate
amendment to Eliot's substitute: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 2879,
2996._----=June 28.= Trumbull's Amendment: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 2999, 3006._


=**79. Progress of the confiscation Bill. [Sec. 91.]=

=1862, June 28.= Passed the Senate (yeas 28, nays 13): _Senate Journal,
37 Cong. 2 Sess., 726._----=July 11.= Report of Conference Committee
adopted by the House: _House Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 1045; Cong.
Globe, 3267._----=July 12.= Report of Conference Committee adopted by
the Senate: _Senate Journal, 37 Cong. 2 Sess., 814; Cong. Globe,
3275._----=July 17.= Approved by the President: _Cong. Globe, 37 Cong. 2
Sess., 3403._


=80. Bills for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. [Sec.Sec. 101-103.]=

=1863, Feb. 8.= Ten Eyck's report on Wilson's repeal bill: _Cong. Globe,
37 Cong. 3 Sess._----=Dec. 14.= Stevens's repeal bill: _House Journal,
38 Cong. 1 Sess., 43; Cong. Globe, 19._----=Dec. 14.= Julian's repeal
bill: _House Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 43; Cong. Globe, 20._----=Dec.
14.= Ashley's repeal bill: _House Journal, 38 Cong 1 Sess., 43; Cong.
Globe, 29._----=1864, Feb 8.= Sumner's repeal bill: _Senate Journal, 38
Cong. 1 Sess., 133; Cong. Globe, 521._----=Feb. 8.= Spalding's repeal
bill: _House Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 235; Cong. Globe, 526._----=Feb.
29.= Sumner's bill reported: _Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 196;
Cong. Globe, 864._ [See No. 84]


=81. Saulsbury's substitute on the validity of personal liberty laws in
the States, etc.=

=1864, Apr. 8.= Joint resolution for an amendment to the Constitution:
_Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 311; Cong. Globe, 1489._


=82. Discussion of the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. [Sec. 101.]=

=1864, Apr. 19.= [See No. 80.] Sherman's amendment: _Senate Journal, 38
Cong 1 Sess., 348; Cong. Globe, 1710, 1714._----=Apr. 19.= Henderson's
amendment to Sherman's amendment: _Cong. Globe, 38 Cong. 1 Sess.,
1710._----=Apr. 19.= Saulsbury's amendment: _Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1
Sess., 348, 621; Cong. Globe, 1715, 3191._----=Apr. 19.= Hale's
amendment to Saulsbury's amendment: _Senate Journal, 38 Cong 1 Sess.,
358; Cong. Globe, 1782._----=Apr. 21.= Howard's amendment: _Senate
Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 358; Cong. Globe, 1782._ [See No. 81.]


=**83. Act repealing the Fugitive Slave Acts. [Sec.Sec. 101-104.]=

=1864, June 6.= [See No. 82.] Hubbard's repeal resolution: _House
Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 749._----=June 6.= House substitute for
repeal bill, reported by the Committee on Judiciary: _House Journal, 38
Cong. 1 Sess., 755; Cong. Globe, 2774._----=June 13.= Passed House (yeas
82, nays 57): _House Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 503; Cong. Globe,
2920._----=June 15.= Referred in the Senate: _Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1
Sess., 561; Cong. Globe, 2963._----=June 23.= Saulsbury's amendment:
_Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 621; Cong. Globe, 1864._----=June
23.= Johnson's amendment: _Senate Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 621; Cong.
Globe, 3191._----=June 23.= Passed the Senate: _Senate Journal, 38 Cong.
1 Sess., 621; Cong Globe, 3191._----=June 28.= Signed by the President:
_House Journal, 38 Cong. 1 Sess., 931; Cong Globe, 3360._




APPENDIX D.

_LIST OF IMPORTANT FUGITIVE SLAVE CASES._


No attempt has been made to present a full list of cases, but only such
as had especial influence on the public mind, or such as illustrate some
special phase of the question.


=1. New Netherlands and Hartford controversy. [Sec. 11.]=

=1646.= Escapes from both colonies: _Winthrop, History of New England,
383; Moore, Notes on History of Slavery in Massachusetts, 28; Doyle,
English in America, I. 391._


=2. Escape to Manhattan. [Sec. 7.]=

=1659.= Four men escaped from New Amsterdam: _New York Colonial
Manuscripts, XIII. 238; Documentary History of N. Y. Colony, II. 556 (Ch.
I. p. 4)._


=3. Escape of white servants to Cape May. [Sec. 9.]=

=1661.= Virginian white colonists escape: _New York Colonial Manuscripts,
XIII. 346._


=4. Escape to the Indians. [Sec. 8.]=

The <DW64> servants of the Governor of Virginia: _New York Colonial
Manuscripts, II. 637._


=5. Escape from English to French. [Sec. 11.]=

=1748.= <DW64> servant escapes from English to Canada: _New York Colonial
Manuscripts, X. 209._


=6. Crispus Attucks. [Sec. 5.]=

=1750, Oct.= Escaped from Framingham, Mass.: _Boston Gazette, Oct. 2,
1750; Liberator, Mar. 16, 1860; Nineteenth Anniversary of Boston
Massacre, W. C. Neil, Address; Williams, History of the <DW64> Race in
America, I. 330._


=7. Glasgow. [Sec. 12.]=

Slave freed in Glasgow: _Mass. Historical Society Collections, Third
Series, IX. 2._


=8. Shanley v. Haney. [Sec. 12.]=

=1762.= Slave freed in England: _Quincy, Reports of Cases, 96._


=9. Somersett case. [Sec. 12.]=

=1772.= England will not return a fugitive slave: _Moore, Slavery in
Mass., 117; Cobb, Historical Sketch of Slavery, 163; Goodell, Slavery and
Antislavery, 44-52; Hurd, Law of Freedom and Bondage, I. 189-193; Broom,
Constitutional Law, 6-119; Howells, State Trials, XX. 1;
Tasswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History, 300, n._


=10. Ship Friendship, case of. [Sec. 5.]=

=1770.= Harbored a slave: _Moore, Slavery in Mass., 117._


=11. John. [Sec. 17.]=

=1778.= Free <DW64> kidnapped in Pennsylvania: _Am. State Papers, I. 39;
Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., Appendix, 1585._


=12. Quincy's case. [Sec. 34.]=

=1793.= First case in Boston after 1793: _Edw. C. Learned, Speech on The
New Fugitive Slave Law, Chicago, Oct. 25, 1850; Whittier, Prose Works,
11, 129, A Chapter of History; Goodell, Slavery and Antislavery, 232;
Boston Atlas, Oct. 15, 1850._


=13. Washington's slave. [Sec. 35.]=

=1796, Oct.= President Washington demanded a slave from Portsmouth, N.
H.: _Magazine of American History, Dec., 1877, p. 759; Charles Sumner,
Works, III. 177._


=14. North Carolina fugitives. [Sec. 19.]=

=1796.= _Annals of Congress, 1796-7, p. 2015, 1801-2, p. 343._


=15. Columbia case.=

=1804.= General Boude defends a runaway: _Smedley, Underground Railroad,
26._


=16. Solomon Northup. [Sec. 38.]=

=1808.= Kidnapping at Saratoga, N. Y.: _Solomon Northrup, Autobiography._


=17. Williams case.=

=1815.= Claimed as a fugitive in Philadelphia: _Greeley, American
Conflict, I. 216._


=18. Prigg case. [Sec. 27.]=

=1832.= _16 Peters, 539; Report of Case of Edward Prigg, Supreme Court,
Pennsylvania; Cobb, Historical Sketch of Slavery; Bledsoe, Liberty and
Slavery, 355; Clarke, Antislavery Days, 69; Hurd, Law of Freedom and
Bondage, II. 456-492; Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, I.
472-473; Von Holst, Constitutional History, III. 310-312._


=19. Kidnapping of Jones. [Sec. 37.]=

=1836.= Kidnapping in New Jersey: _Liberator, Aug. 6, 1836._


=20. Chickasaw rescue. [Sec. 42.]=

=1836.= Rescue of two <DW52> women on brig Chickasaw: _Liberator, Aug.
6, 1836._


=21. Schooner Boston case. [Sec. 47.]=

=1837.= Georgia and Maine controversy: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power, I. 473; Niles's Register, LIII. 71, 72, LV. 356; Senate
Journal, 1839-40, pp. 235-237; Senate Doc., 26 Cong. 1 Sess., Vol. V.
Doc. 273._


=22. Philadelphia. [Sec. 43.]=

=1838.= Attempted rescue: _Liberator, March 16, 1838._


=23. Escape of Douglass. [Sec.Sec. 68, 75.]=

=1838.= Escape of Frederick Douglass: _Life and Times of Douglass;
Williams, <DW64> Race in America, II. 59, 422; Wilson, Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power, I. 501, 502._


=24. Isaac Gansey case. [Sec. 47.]=

=1839.= Virginia and New York controversy: _U. S. Gazette, Case of Isaac,
Judge Hopkinson's speech; Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, I.
474; Seward, Works, II. 449-518; Von Holst, Constitutional History, II.
538-540; Senate Documents, 27 Cong. 2 Sess., Vol. II. Doc. 96._


=25. Van Zandt case. [Sec. 50.]=

=1840.= Prosecution for aiding escape: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power, I. 475; T. R. Cobb, Historical Sketch of Slavery, 207._


=26. Oberlin case. [Sec. 50.]=

=1841 (about).= _Liberator, May 21, 1841._


=27. Thompson case.=

=1841, July.= Prosecution for aiding escapes: _Thompson, Prison Life and
Reflections; Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II. 69; Goodell,
Slavery and Antislavery, 440._


=28. Latimer case. [Sec. 44.]=

=1842.= Famous fugitive slave case, Boston: _Liberator, Oct. 25, Nov. 11,
Nov. 25, 1842, Feb. 3, 7, 17, 1843, and Aug. 16, 1844; Law Reporter,
Latimer case; Eleventh Annual Report of Mass. Antislavery Society; Mass.
House Journal, 1843, pp. 72, 158; Mass. Senate Journal, 1843, p. 232;
Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, I. 477._


=29. Goin case.=

=1844.= Attempted seizure of fugitive: _Liberator, April 19, 1844._


=30. Thomas case.=

=1844.= Seizure in Marietta, Penn.: _Liberator, June 14, 1844._


=31. Walker case. [Sec. 50.]=

=1844.= Prosecution for aiding escapes: _Trial and Imprisonment of
Jonathan Walker, Liberator, Aug. 16, 31, Sept. 6, 13, Oct. 18, 25, and
Dec. 27, 1844, Aug. 8, 15, and July 18, 1845._


=32. Smithburg.=

=1845.= Battle between whites and ten runaways: _Liberator, June 27,
1845._


=33. Kirk case.=

=Between 1845 and 1849.= Unsuccessful attempt to capture George Kirk in
New York: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II. 52; Supplement
to New York Legal Observer, containing report of case, Boston Public
Library._


=34. Brig Ottoman. [Sec. 45.]=

=1846.= Unsuccessful attempt to rescue slave on brig: _Wilson, Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power, II. 54._


=35. Kennedy case. [Sec. 43.]=

=1847.= Riot in Carlisle, Penn.: _Liberator, Sept. 10, 27, 1847;
Congressional Globe, 1860-61, pp. 801, 802, 908._


=36. Slaves on board Brazilian ship.=

=1847.= Attempt to rescue: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II.
53; Liberator, Aug. 20, 1847._


=37. Ohio and Kentucky controversy. [Sec. 48]=

=1848.= Controversy on account of extradition demanded: _Liberator, July
14, 1848._


=38. South Bend case.=

=1847, Oct. 9.= Fugitives discharged on trial in Michigan: _South Bend
Fugitive Slave case._


=39. Brig Wm. Purrington.=

=1848.= Escape from: _Liberator, Dec. 31, 1848._


=40. Drayton and Sayres. [Sec. 50.]=

=1848.= Prosecution for aiding escapes: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power, II. 104._


=41. Crafts escape. [Sec. 69.]=

=1848.= Escape of William and Ellen Crafts: _Liberator, Nov. 1, 1850;
Still, Underground Railroad, 368; Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave
Power, II. 325._


=42. Washington case. [Sec. 39.]=

Between =1840-1850:= _Liberator, May 26, 1848._


=43. Hamlet case. [Sec. 53.]=

=1850.= Rendition in N. Y.: _Fugitive Slave Bill, its History and
Unconstitutionality, with an Account of the Seizure of James Hamlet, 3;
Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II. 304._


=44. Gannett case.=

=1850, Oct. 18.= Alleged fugitive discharged in Philadelphia: _Wilson,
Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II. 326; May, Fugitive Slave Law and
its Victims, 8._


=45. Gibson case.=

=1850, Dec. 21.= Rendition of an innocent man: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power, II. 327; May, Fugitive Slave Law and its Victims, 8;
Still, Underground Railroad, 349._


=46. Case in Pennsylvania.=

=1851, Jan.= House of <DW52> man entered by force: _Liberator, Jan. 10,
1851._


=47. Sims case. [Sec. 54.]=

=1851.= Rendition in Boston: _Liberator, April 17 and 18, 1851; Daily
Morning Chronicle, April 26, 1851; Twentieth Annual Report of Mass.
Antislavery Society, 1855, p. 19; Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave
Power, II. 333; New England Magazine, June, 1890; May, Fugitive Slave Law
and its Victims, 16; Trial of Sims, Arguments by R. Rantoul, Jr. and C.
G. Loring; C. F. Adams, Richard Henry Dana, I. 185-301._


=48. Shadrach case. [Sec. 57.]=

=1851, Feb.= Rendition in Boston: _Liberator, Feb. 21, May 30, 1851;
Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 2 Sess., Appendix, 238, 295, 510; Von Holst, III.
21; May, Fugitive Slave Law and its Victims, 10; Wilson, Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power, II. 329; New England Magazine, May, 1890; Boston
Traveller, Feb. 15, 1851; Boston Courier, Feb. 17, 1851; Washington
National Era, Feb. 27, 1851; Statesman's Manual, III. 1919._


=49. Christiana case. [Sec. 60.]=

=1851, Sept.= Riot in Christiana: _Parker's account, The Freedman's
Story, T. W. Higginson, Atlantic Monthly, Feb. and March, 1866; U. S. v.
Hanway, Treason, 247; Smedley, Underground Railroad, 105, 107, 130, 223;
May, Fugitive Slave Law, 14; Lunsford Lane, 114; Wilson, Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power, II. 324; History of the Trial of Castner Hanway and
others for Treason; N. Y. Tribune, Sept. 12, 1851, and Nov. 26 to Dec.
12; Greeley, American Conflict, I. 215; National Antislavery Standard,
Sept. 18, 1851; Lowell Journal, Sept 19, 1851; Boston Daily Traveller,
Sept. 12, 1851; Still, Underground Railroad, 348._


=50. Miller. [Sec. 61.]=

=1851, Nov.= Mr. Miller murdered: _Liberator, Feb. 4, 1853; Lunsford
Lane, 113; May, Fugitive Slave Law, 15; Wilson, Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power, II. 324._


=51. Jerry case. [Sec. 58.]=

=1851, Oct.= Rescue in Syracuse, N. Y.: _Liberator, Oct. 10 to 17, 1851;
Life of Gerrit Smith, 117; Trial of H. W. Allen, 3; Wilson, Rise and Fall
of the Slave Power, II. 327._


=52. Parker rescue.=

=1851, Dec. 31.= Rescue by Mr. Miller: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of the
Slave Power, II. 324; May, Fugitive Slave Law and its Victims, 15;
Liberator, 1853, Feb. 4; Lunsford Lane, 113._


=53. Brig Florence.=

=1853.= Rescue of slave on board by Mr. Bearse: _Bearse, Reminiscences of
Fugitive Slave Days in Boston, 34._


=54. Lewis case.=

=1853.= Escape of Lewis from trial: _Liberator, Oct. 28, 1853._


=55. Glover case.=

=1854.= Joshua Glover rescued by a mob at Milwaukee: _Wilson, Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power, 444; Liberator, April 7, 24, 1854._


=56. Bath.=

=1854.= Escape to Canada from ship from Florida: _Liberator, Oct. 6,
1854._


=57. Burns case. [Sec. 55.]=

=1854.= Rendition in Boston: _Liberator, May, June, 1854, Aug. 22, 1861;
Kidnapping of Burns, Scrapbook collected by Theo. Parker; Personal
Statement of Mr. Elbridge Sprague, N. Abington; Accounts in Boston
Journal, May 27, 29, 1854; Daily Advertiser, May 26, 29, June 7, 8, July
17; Traveller, May 27, 29, June 2, 3, 6, 10, July 15, 18, Oct. 3, Nov.
29, Dec. 5, 7, 1854, April 3, 4, 10, 11, 1855; Evening Gazette, May 27,
1854; Worcester Spy, May 31; Argument of Mr. R. H. Dana; May, Fugitive
Slave Law and its Victims, 256; Clarke, Antislavery Days, 87; Wilson,
Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, II. 435; Stevens, History of Anthony
Burns; Greeley, American Conflict I. 218; New York Tribune, May 26, 1854;
Liberator, June 2, 9, 16, 1854; Von Holst VI. 62; Garrisons' Garrison,
II. 201, III. 409; C. F. Adams, Dana, I. 262-330._


=58. Garner. [Sec. 56]=

=1856.= Rendition of a family in Ohio: _Liberator, Feb. 8, 22, 29, 1856;
May, Fugitive Slave Law and its Victims, 37; Lunsford Lane, 119; Greeley,
American Conflict, I. 219, Lalor's Cyclopaedia, I. 207; Wilson, Rise and
Fall of the Slave Power, II. 446, 447._


=59. Williamson case.=

=1856, Jan.= Prosecution for aiding fugitives: _Wilson, Rise and Fall of
the Slave Power, II. 448; May, Fugitive Slave Law and its Victims, 9, 34;
Annual Report of American Antislavery Society, N. Y., May 7, 1856, p. 24;
Narrative of the Facts in the Case of Passmore Williamson, Penn.
Antislavery Society._


=60. Johnson case.=

=1856, July 16.= Rescue of slave on ship from Mobile: _Liberator, July
18, 1856._


=61. Gatchell case.=

=1857, Jan.= Rendition of Philip Young: _Chambers, Slavery and Color;
Fugitive Slave Law, Appendix, 197._


=62. Oberlin-Wellington case. [Sec. 59]=

=1858.= Rescue at Wellington: _Liberator, Jan. 28, April 29, May 6, June
3, June 10, 1859; Shepherd, Oberlin-Wellington Rescue; Lunsford Lane,
179; Anglo-African Magazine (Oberlin-Wellington Rescue), 209; May,
Fugitive Slave Law and its Victims, 108._


=63. John Brown's Raid. [Sec. 62.]=

=1858.= Raid in Missouri: _Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, 420;
Von Holst, John Brown, 104._


=64. Nalle case.=

=1859, April 28.= Rescue of Charles Nalle by a mob: _Bradford, Harriet,
the Moses of her People, Appendix, 143; Liberator, May 4, 1860._


=65. Anderson case. [Sec. 23.]=

=1860.= Extradition case between U. S. and Canada: _Liberator, Dec. 3,
1860; Pamphlets on Anderson Case, Boston Public Library; Life of Gerrit
Smith, 15; Liberator, Jan. 22, 1861._


=66. Wisdom case. [Sec. 91.]=

=1861.= Rendition by army officers: _Liberator, July 19, 1861._


=67. Major Sherwood's servant. [Sec. 91.]=

=1861.= Rendition ordered in army: _Liberator, July 19, 1861._


=68. Norfolk case.=

=1863.= Kidnapping by N. Y. Volunteers: _Liberator, March 27, 1863._


=69. Archer Alexander.=

=1863.= Fugitive during the war: _Archer Alexander._




APPENDIX E.

_BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FUGITIVE SLAVE CASES AND FUGITIVE SLAVE LEGISLATION._


       1. Sources of information.
       2. Libraries.
       3. Secondary works.
       4. Biographies.
       5. Original sources.
       6. Slave autobiographies.
       7. Records of trials.
       8. Speeches.
       9. Reminiscences.
      10. Reports of societies.
      11. Periodicals and newspapers.
      12. Materials bearing on legislation.
      13. Alphabetical list of works.


=1. Sources of information.=

There are many sources from which material for a study of fugitive slaves
may be gathered. Almost any work upon the slavery question touches sooner
or later upon this topic, and the difficulties arise rather from the
amount of the literature which must be examined than from lack of
information. No formal bibliography of the subject, or of any phase of
it, has been found; it has therefore been necessary to go through a large
body of material, and to sift out references which bear upon the subject.


=2. Libraries.=

The labor has been much facilitated by the completeness and convenient
arrangement of the literature bearing upon slavery in the libraries of
Cambridge and Boston. The Harvard College Library possesses two unique
collections of slavery pamphlets, one the bequest of Charles Sumner, the
other the gift of Colonel T. W. Higginson; and the Card Catalogue of the
Library is a comprehensive guide to a large alcove of other books. The
great collections of the Boston Public Library have also been made
accessible by the full Card Catalogue of that Library. The Boston
Athenaeum has also furnished valuable material; and in the Massachusetts
State Library is an excellent set of State Statutes, which has been
freely used. I have not been able to consult the antislavery collection
of the Cornell Library at Ithaca.


=3. Secondary works.=

The material upon fugitive slaves, as upon any topic, may be divided into
two classes, secondary and original. The general and local histories
which come under the first class have been of good service as guides to
further investigation. _The Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America_,
by _Henry Wilson_, takes up the whole question of slavery in a thorough
manner, and devotes special attention to the debates in Congress. Though
long and ill-arranged, it is comprehensive and trustworthy.
Unfortunately, the work is not provided with foot-notes. _Williams's
History of the <DW64> Race_, and _Greeley's American Conflict_, are other
surveys of the whole subject. For a discussion of political forces and
constitutional questions, _Von Holst_ is the best authority, while
_Hurd_, besides enumerating the statutes from colonial times down,
considers the subject with great clearness from a judicial point of view,
describes many cases, and in foot-notes gives references to others.

Studies of colonial slavery are found in _Lodge's English Colonies in
America_ and _Doyle's English in America_. Several special essays have
been printed on slavery in Massachusetts; _Deane's_ and _Moore's Notes on
Slavery_, and _Washburn's Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts_. Little
attention is in any of these works given to fugitive slaves.

To another class belong books descriptive of the institution of slavery.
_Mrs. Frances Kemble_ wrote about life on a Southern plantation before
the war, and the _Cotton Kingdom_ and other volumes by _Frederick Law
Olmsted_ give many interesting details, and furnished me with much
material for the chapter on Fugitives and their Friends.


=4. Biographies.=

Biographies of antislavery men are likely to contain information on
fugitive slave cases. The _Life of Isaac T. Hopper_ is full of accounts
of his ways of aiding flight, and for the same reason the _Life of Gerrit
Smith_ is exceedingly interesting. Birney's _Life of James G. Birney_
deals little with fugitives. The biographies of Mrs. Lydia Maria Child,
Arthur and Lewis Tappan, John Brown, Garrison, Phillips, and the Grimke
sisters, may also be mentioned. Others, like those of Jonathan Walker, L.
W. Paine, Daniel Drayton, captain of the schooner Pearl, W. L. Chaplin,
Work, Burr, and Thompson, and the recently published _Life of Rev. Calvin
Colman_, relate simply the stories of trials and imprisonments for aiding
fugitives, and are often more in the nature of original than secondary
sources.


=5. Original sources.=

Very early in the preparation of this work it became evident that no
writer had systematically examined and compared the legislation of the
Colonies and States, or searched the records of Congress, or looked for
contemporary accounts of any considerable number of escapes. I was
therefore obliged to search for such original material as was within my
reach. Doubtless some important books and pamphlets have escaped me, and
an examination of other collections would enlarge the bibliography; but
the effort has been made to exhaust the literature of the subject, except
in newspapers.


=6. Slave autobiographies.=

Out of the great variety of original sources containing descriptions of
slave life and escapes, the autobiographies of the slaves themselves are
the most interesting, and often the saddest. The Rev. James Freeman
Clarke says, in his Antislavery Days: "Even now, when it is all over, the
flesh creeps and the blood curdles in the veins at the accounts of the
dreadful cruelties practised on slaves in many parts of the South. I
would advise no one to read such histories to-day unless his nerves are
very well strung." _Frederick Douglass_ has given us two books, one
written before slavery was abolished, and a fuller account afterward,
when it was no longer imprudent to reveal the whole story of his escape.
Many of these lives were published by antislavery people, who wished by
such means to rouse the North. Such are the stories of _Box Brown_,
_Peter Still_, _Archy Moore_, _Solomon Northrup_, _Lunsford Lane_, and
others, most of which have been quoted above.


=7. Records of trials.=

Much descriptive detail can often be found in the published reports of
trials. A volume is devoted to the Oberlin-Wellington case, and several
volumes have been published on the Burns trial. For the Prigg and Hanway
cases, and others of importance, the records of the Supreme Court and
lower courts have been consulted. Most of the important cases were tried
in State courts or before commissioners, and the only reports are
fugitive pamphlets, of which many have been consulted and cited.


=8. Speeches.=

In the study of public sentiment and for the weighing of argument the
speeches of _Phillips_, _Sumner_, _Seward_, _Giddings_, _Webster_,
_Mann_, _Rantoul_, _Loring_, and others, are of the greatest value. They
often throw light upon obscure cases, and the fugitive slave stories
brought in as illustrations have sometimes led to the discovery of
interesting and forgotten cases.


=9. Reminiscences.=

A valuable aid in reconstructing in the mind the conditions of the
slavery struggle are the reminiscences of participants. _Rev. James
Freeman Clarke's Antislavery Days_ and _Mr. Parker Pillsbury's_ book have
been helpful in these chapters. A pamphlet by _Mr. Austin Bearse_
describes the Fugitive Slave Laws in Boston, and relates the work of the
Vigilance Committee in protecting escaped <DW64>s. The books of _Still_,
_Smedley_, and _Coffin_, on the workings of the Underground Railroad, are
composed chiefly of reminiscences, and have furnished many essential
facts.


=10. Reports of societies.=

The reports of the various antislavery societies, especially of those of
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, have also been examined with profit as to
the work among the refugees in Canada, etc. For the colonial period the
publications of the Massachusetts and New York Historical Societies are
exceedingly important, and have been freely drawn upon.


=11. Periodicals and newspapers.=

Not much has been gathered from periodicals. _Poole's Index_ was used and
occasionally something of importance was discovered. Thus _The Freedman's
Story_ in the _Atlantic Monthly_ has furnished one of the most striking
of the stories about resistance to escapes. Such articles are few, and
occur long after the slavery period, when such disclosures were no longer
unpopular. _The Magazine of American History_ contains Several articles.
Among newspapers, the _Liberator_ is without doubt the most complete
record of the extreme antislavery sentiment toward the fugitive slave
laws and their workings. Each case as it occurs is fully commented upon,
and in addition there is each week a column or two of atrocities, and
among them stories of fugitives are often given. The Harvard College
Library contains a complete file, which I have examined; and references
to the Liberator are therefore frequent throughout the work. The colonial
newspapers are of little value, except for the conclusions which may be
drawn from the advertisements for runaways. Newspapers of that time were
so limited in scope, that an affair so unimportant to them as a fugitive
slave case would scarcely appear.


=12. Materials bearing on legislation.=

The materials for the study of colonial legislation must be gathered from
many sources. The best collection of them in Boston may be found at the
State Library. In some colonies there are carefully edited series of
volumes chronologically arranged, but in others the records have been but
irregularly printed. The laws of New Netherlands and of early New York
are easily accessible in well printed volumes of a recent date. For the
Southern States, the Hening edition of the Virginia Statutes at Large is
clear, and covers a long period. There is also the Cooper collection for
South Carolina, Bacon's series for Maryland, Iredell's edition of South
Carolina Statutes, and Leaming and Spicer for New Jersey. There are of
course many others, but these comprise the most important.

From the beginning of the Constitutional period, the proceedings of
Congress may be followed as minutely as desired. An outline of the
proceedings is given in the Journals of the Senate and House, while for a
fuller account and reports of speeches the Annals of Congress and
Congressional Debates to 1837, and the Congressional Globes from 1833 to
1863, furnish ample material. Information in regard to the number and
personnel of the House is most readily gathered from Poore's
Congressional Directory.


=13. Alphabetical list of works.=

This list includes all the books and articles which have been of service
in preparing the monograph, except a few of the general histories.


=Adams, Charles Francis, Jr.= Richard Henry Dana: a Biography. 2 vols.
Boston, 1890.

=Allen, H. W.= Trial of U. S. Deputy Marshal for Kidnapping, etc.
Syracuse, 1852.

=Amherstburg Quarterly Mission Journal=, Amherstburg, Canada West.

=Antislavery Almanacs=, miscellaneous collection of, in the Library of
Harvard College.

=Antislavery Pamphlets=, miscellaneous collection of, unsuitable for
binding, in the Library of Harvard College.

=Antislavery Societies=, Annual Reports of.

=Ball, J. P.= Mammoth Pictorial Tour of the United States, compiled for
a Panorama. Cincinnati, 1855.

=Bayard, James.= A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United
States. Philadelphia, 1845.

=Bearse, Anthony.= Remembrances of Fugitive Slave Law Days in Boston.
Boston, 1880. pp. 41.

=Birney, J. G.= Examination of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Case of Strader, Gorman, and Armstrong _vs._
Christopher Graham, 1850. Cincinnati, 1851. pp. 47.

=Bledsoe, Albert T.= An Essay on Liberty and Slavery. Philadelphia,
1887. pp. 383.

=Boston Slave Riot and Trial of Anthony Burns.= Boston, 1854.

=Bowditch, H. I.= To the Public. [Defence of his conduct in the case of
Latimer against the charges of J. B. Gray.] Boston, 1842. pp. 11.

=Bowditch, W. I.= The Rendition of Anthony Burns. Boston, 1854. pp. 40.

=----.= The United States Constitution a Pro-slavery Instrument. New
York, 1855. pp. 12.

=Bowen, C. W.= Arthur and Lewis Tappan, a Paper read at the Fiftieth
Anniversary of the New York City Antislavery Society, Oct. 2, 1883. New
York, 1883. (?) pp. 116.

=Bowen, F.= Fugitive Slaves. In _North American Review_, LXXI. 252.
(July, 1850.)

=Brown, W. W.= Narrative of a Fugitive Slave. Boston, 1848. pp. 144.

=Bump, O. F.= Notes of Constitutional Decisions, being the Digest of the
Provincial Interpretations of the Constitution of the United States,
etc. New York, 1878.

=Canada Mission=, 7th Annual Report of. Rochester, N. Y.

=Case of William R. Chaplin=, etc. Boston, 1851. pp. 54.

=Chambers, William.= American Slavery and Color. London, 1857.

=Chase, S. P.= Reclamation of Fugitive Slaves from Service, an Argument
for the Defendant, submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States
at December Term, 1840, in Case of W. Jones _vs._ John Van Zandt.
Cincinnati, 1847. pp. 108.

=Child, Lydia Maria.= The Duty of Disobedience to the Fugitive Slave Act
(an Appeal to the Legislators of Mass.). Boston, 1860. pp. 36.

=----.= Isaac T. Hopper (a True Life). Boston, 1853. pp. 120.

=----.= Letters of Lydia Maria Child. Boston, 1883.

=Clarke, James Freeman.= Antislavery Days. New York, 1884.

=Clarke, Lewis and Milton=, Narrative of the Sufferings of, among the
Slaveholders of Kentucky. Boston, 1848. pp. 144.

=Cobb, T. R.= Historical Sketch of Slavery. Philadelphia, 1836.

=Coffin, L.= (President of Underground Railroad). Reminiscences of a
Lifetime spent in Behalf of the Slave. Cincinnati, 1876.

=Constitutional Provision, The=, respecting Fugitives from Justice, and
the Act of Congress, Sept. 18, 1850. Boston, 1852.

=Cooley, Thomas M.= The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the
United States of America. Boston, 1880. pp. 376.

=Daggs (Ruel)= _vs._ =Elihu Frazier et als.= Fugitive Slave Case,
Southern Division of Iowa. Burlington, 1850. pp. 40.

=Deane, Charles, and Moore.= Slavery in Massachusetts. Connecticut,
1877.

=Desty, Robert.= Constitution of the United States, with Notes by Robert
Desty, etc. San Francisco, 1887.

=Douglass, Frederick.= Narrative of his Life. Written by himself.
Boston, 1845.

=----.= Life and Times of Frederick Douglass. Hartford, 1881-82.

=Drayton, Daniel.= Personal Memoirs of, for four years and four months
(a prisoner for charity's sake in Washington Jail), including Narrative
of Voyage and Capture of Schooner Pearl. New York, 1855.

=Drew, Benjamin.= North Side View of Slavery, or Narrative of a Refugee
in Canada, with an Account of the History of the <DW52> Population in
Upper Canada. Boston, 1856.

=Eliot, W. G.= The Story of Archer Alexander from Slavery to Freedom.
Boston, 1885.

=Elliott, Chas. W.= The New England History, from the Discovery of the
Continent by the Northmen, A. D. 986, to the Period when the Colonies
declared their Independence, A. D. 1776. 2 vols. New York, 1857.

=Friend, By A.= The Experiences of Thomas Jones, who was for forty-three
years a Slave. Boston, 1850.

=Frothingham, O. B.= Life of Gerrit Smith. A Biography. New York, 1878.
pp. 381.

=Fugitive Slave Bill= enacted by U. S. Congress, and approved by
President Fillmore, Sept. 8, 1850. Boston, 1854. pp. 7.

=Fugitive Slaves.= In Democratic Review, XXVIII. 57 (April, 1851).

=Furness, W. H.= The Moving Power. A Discourse delivered in the First
Congregational Unitarian Church in Philadelphia, Feb. 9, 1851, after the
occurrence of a Fugitive Slave Case. Philadelphia, 1851.

=Garrison, Wendell Phillips=, and =Garrison, Francis Jackson.= William
Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879: the Story of his Life, told by his Children
[Wendell Phillips Garrison and Francis Jackson Garrison]. 4 vols., 8vo.
New York, 1885.

=Giddings, J. R.= The Exiles of Florida, or Crimes committed by our
Government against Maroons who fled from South Carolina, etc. Columbus,
O., 1858.

=Goodell, William.= Views of American Constitutional Law in its Bearings
upon American Slavery. 2d ed. Utica, N. Y., 1845.

=Goodloe, D. R.= The Southern Platform, or Manual of Southern Sentiments
on the Subject of Slavery. Boston, 1858.

=Gray, A. F.= (?) Letter to W. H. Seward touching the Surrender of
certain Fugitives from Justice. New York, 1841.

=Great Britain.= British Documents, Parliament of Great Britain,
Correspondence respecting Case of Fugitive Slave Anderson. London, 1861.

=Greeley, Horace.= The American Conflict; a History of the Great
Rebellion, 1860-65; its moral and political Phases, with the Drift and
Progress of America respecting Human Slavery from 1776. 2 vols., 8vo.
Hartford, 1864.

=Green, William= (formerly a slave), Narrative of Events in the Life of.
Written by himself. Springfield, 1853. pp. 23.

=Hawkins, W. G.= Lunsford Lane, or Another Helper from North Carolina.
Boston, 1863.

=Helper, H. R.= The Impending Crisis in the South, and How to Meet it.
New York, 1860. pp. 420.

=Henson, Josiah.= Life of J. Henson, formerly a Slave, now an Inhabitant
of Canada, as narrated by himself.

=Hildreth, R.= The Slave, or Memoirs of Archy Moore. Boston, 1840.

=Hopper, I. T.= Thomas Cooper. New York, 1837.

=Hossack, John.= Speech of John Hossack, convicted of Violation of the
Fugitive Slave Law, before Judge Drummond of the United States District
Court, Chicago, Ill. New York, 1860. pp. 12.

=Howe, S. G.= Refugees from the South in Canada West. Report to
Freedman's Inquiry Committee. Boston, 1864.

=Hurd, J. C.= The Law of Freedom and Bondage. 2 vols. New York, 1858,
1862.

=----.= Topics of Jurisprudence connected with the Condition of Freedom
and Bondage. New York, 1856. pp. ix, 113.

=Hurd, R. C.= Treatise on the Right of Personal Liberty, and on the Writ
of Habeas Corpus, and Practice connected with it, with a View of the Law
of Extradition of Fugitives. Albany, 1858.

=Joliffe, John.= In the Matter of George Gordon's Petition for Pardon.
John Joliffe's Argument for Petitioner. Cincinnati, 1862.

=Kane, Judge.= District Court of the United States for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. United States of America, ex relatione
Wheeler, _vs._ Williamson. Opinion of Judge Kane, Oct. 12, 1855.
Philadelphia, 1855. pp. 20.

=Kemble, Frances Anne.= Journal of a Residence on a Georgian Plantation
in 1836-39. New York, 1863.

=Kent, J.= Commentaries on American Law. 4 vols. Boston, 1884.

=Kidnapping.= _African Observer_, May, 1837.

=Kingsbury, Harmon.= The Fugitive Slave Bill, its History and
Unconstitutionality: with an Account of the Seizure and Enslavement of
James Hamlet and his subsequent Restoration to Liberty (with Appendix).
New York, 1850.

=Larned, E. C.= Argument on the Trial of Joseph Stout, indicted for
rescuing a Fugitive Slave from a United States Deputy Marshal at Ottawa,
Ill., Oct. 20, 1859, delivered March 12 and 13, 186-. Chicago, 186-. pp.
43.

=----.= The new Fugitive Slave Law. Speech of E. C. Larned, Chicago,
Oct. 25, 1850. Chicago, 1850.

=Latimer Case.= From the _Law Reporter_, March, 1843. Boston, 1843. pp.
10.

=Letter= to His Excellency, William H. Seward, Governor of the State of
New York, touching the Surrender of certain Fugitives from Justice. New
York, 1841. pp. 101.

=Lord, J. C.= The Higher Law in its Application to the Fugitive Slave
Bill. Buffalo, 1851.

=Madison, James.= The Constitution a Pro-slavery Compact. New York,
1844.

=Mann, Horace.= Fugitive Slave Law. Boston, 1851.

=Massachusetts Senate.= Various Documents. Senate, 1851, No. 89
(examination of Sims Case).

=May, S. J.= American Antislavery Society. The Fugitive Slave Law and
its Victims. New York, 1856, 1861.

=----.= Catalogue of Antislavery Publications in America, 1750-1830.

=Moore, G. H.= Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts. New
York, 1866.

=Narrative= of Facts in the Case of Passmore Williamson. Philadelphia,
1855.

=Narrative= of Solomon Northrup, a Citizen of New York, kidnapped in
Washington in 1844, and rescued in 1853 from a Cotton Plantation near
Red River, Louisiana. Cincinnati, H. W. Derby.

=Needles, Edward.= Historical Memoir of the Pennsylvania Society for
Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. Philadelphia, 1848.

=New York Court of Appeals=, Report of the Lemmon Slave Case. New York,
1861. pp. 446.

=New York Legal Observer=, Supplement to, containing Report of the Case
In the Matter of George Kirk, a Fugitive Slave, heard before J. W.
Edmunds, Circuit Judge; also the Argument of John Jay, Counsel for the
Slave. New York, 1844. pp. 20.

=Oberlin-Wellington Rescue.= New Englander, XVII. 686.

=Olmsted, F. L.= The Cotton Kingdom. 2 vols. New York, 1861.

=Paine, Byron=, and =Smith, A. D.= Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive
Slave Act. Argument of A. D. Smith. Milwaukee, 1854. pp. 35.

=Paine, L. W.= Six Years in a Georgia Prison. Narrative of L. W. Paine,
who suffered Imprisonment for aiding Slaves to escape from that State
after he had fled from Slavery. Boston, 1852.

=Parker, Joel.= Personal Liberty Laws (State of Massachusetts) and
Slavery in the Territories (Case of Dred Scott). Boston, 1861. pp. 97.

=Parker, Theodore.= Anthony Burns. [Collection made and arranged in the
form of a scrap-book by Theodore Parker, whose Autograph and Manuscript
it contains.] Boston Public Library.

=Peabody, Andrew Preston.= [Address before the New England
Historic-Genealogical Society, May 6, 1891.]

=Peabody, E.= Narratives of Fugitive Slaves. _Christian Examiner_,
XLVII. 61.

=Phillips, Wendell.= Argument of Wendell Phillips, Esq., against Repeal
of the Personal Liberty Laws before the Committee of the Legislature,
Tuesday, January 29, 1861. Boston, 1861.

=----.= No Slave Hunting in the Old Bay State, before Committee on
Federal Relations, H. R., Thursday, Feb. 17, 1859. Boston, 1859.

=----.= Speech in the House of Representatives of Massachusetts before
the Committee on Federal Relations [against the recapture of fugitive
slaves]. Boston, 1859.

=Pickard, Mrs. K. E. R.= The Kidnapped and the Ransomed. Personal
Reflections of Peter Still and his Wife Vina after Forty Years of
Slavery. Syracuse, New York, 1856.

=Pierce, E. L.= Remarks of E. L. Pierce before the Committee of the
Legislature of Massachusetts on the General Statutes relating to
Personal Liberty, at their Hearing of Feb. 1, 1861. Boston, 1861.

=Pomeroy, J. N.= An Introduction to the Constitutional Laws of the
United States. Boston, 1868.

=Poole, W. F.= Sketch of Antislavery Opinion before Year 1800. An Essay
read before the Cincinnati Literary Club, Nov. 16, 1872. Cincinnati,
1873.

=Randolph, Peter=, an emancipated slave. Sketches of Slave Life. Boston,
1855. pp. 82.

=Rantoul, Robert.= Speech at Lynn, April 3, 1852, on the Fugitive Slave
Law. Speech in Congress on June 11, 1852, on the Constitutionality of
the Fugitive Slave Law.

=Rendition of Fugitive Slaves.= Acts of 1793 and 1850, and Decisions of
the Supreme Court sustaining them. The Dred Scott Case. 1860. pp. 15.

=Refugees' Home Society=, Report of Committee. Winsor, 1852. pp. 8.

=Report= of the Trial of Castner Hanway for Treason, etc. Philadelphia,
1852. pp. 275.

=Report= of the Case of Edward Prigg against the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in Superior Court. Philadelphia, 1842.

=Roper, Moses=, Narrative of the Adventures and Escape of, from American
Slavery. Philadelphia, 1838. pp. 89.

=Sergeant, Thomas.= On Constitutional Law. Philadelphia, 1830.

=Seward, W. H.= John Van Zandt, etc., Argument for Defendant by W. H.
Seward. Albany, 1847. pp. 40.

=Sherman, H.= Slavery in the United States; from the Establishment of
the Confederation to the present Time. Hartford, 1860. pp. 60.

=Shipherd, J. R.= History of Oberlin-Wellington Rescue. Boston, 1859.

=Smedley, R. C., M. D.= History of the Underground Railroad in Chester
and neighboring Counties of Pennsylvania. Lancaster, Pa., 1883. pp. 395.

=Smith, Gerrit.= Argument on the Fugitive Slave Law, June, 1852, on the
Trial of H. W. Allen for Kidnapping. Syracuse. pp. 32. No date.

=South Bend Fugitive Slave Case, The.= (John Ames _vs._ L. B. Newton.)
New York. pp. 24.

=Spooner, L.= A Defence for Fugitive Slaves against the Acts of Congress
of Feb. 12, 1793, and Sept. 18, 1850. Boston, 1850. Pam.

=Stearns, Charles.= Narrative of Henry Box Brown, who escaped from
Slavery enclosed in a Box three feet long and two wide. Boston, 1849.

=Stearns, Charles.= The "Fugitive Slave Law of the United States."

=Stevens, C. E.= Anthony Burns (a Fugitive Slave). A History. Boston,
1856.

=Still, W.= The Underground Railroad. Philadelphia, 1872.

=Stroud, G. M.= Sketch of Laws relative to Slavery in the several States
of the United States of America. Philadelphia, 1827. pp. 128.

=Sumner, Charles.= Fugitive Slaves. _Brownson_, XI. 487 (October, 1854).

=Tappan, Arthur.= The Life of. New York, 1870.

=Thomas, B. F.= A few Suggestions to a Friend upon Personal Liberty Laws
and Secession (so called), in a Letter to a Friend. Boston, 1861.

=Thompson, George.= Prison Life and Reflections, Narrative of Trial,
Imprisonment, etc. of Work, Burr, and Thompson for aiding Slaves to
Liberty. Hartford, 1849.

=----.= The <DW64>s' Flight from American Slavery to British Freedom.
1849. pp. 16.

=Watson, Henry.= Narrative of Henry Watson, a Fugitive Slave. Written by
himself. Boston, 1848. pp. 48.

=Weld, S. D.= American Slavery as it is: Testimony of Thousands of
Witnesses. New York, 1839.

=Wesley, Rev. J.= The Rev. J. W. Loguen as a Slave and as a Freeman.
Syracuse, New York, 1859.

=Weston, G. M.= Progress of Slavery in the United States. Washington,
1857.

=White Slave, The=: Or Memoirs of a Fugitive. Boston, 1852. pp. 408.

=Whittier, John G.= The Writings of John G. Whittier. Boston, 1888-89. 7
vols. 12mo.

=Wigham, E.= Antislavery Cause in America and its Martyrs. London, 1863.

=Wilcox, A.= The Powers of the Federal Government over Slavery.
Baltimore, 1862. pp. 23.

=Willey, Rev. Austin.= History of the Antislavery Cause in State and
Nation. Portland, 1886. pp. xii, 503.

=Williams, George W.= History of the <DW64> Race in America. 2 vols. New
York, 1883.

=Wilson, Henry.= History of the Antislavery Measures in the 37th and
38th United States Congresses. Boston, 1865.

=----.= History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America. 3
vols. Boston, 1875-1877.

=Wisconsin Supreme Court.= Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Slave
Act. Decision in Case of Booth and Bycraft. Milwaukee, 1855.




INDEX.


      Abolition,
        in the D. C., Sec. 98, C 62, C 65;
        of the slave trade in the D. C., B 25.
        See also Antislavery, Emancipation.

      Abolitionists,
        known to slaves, Sec. 63;
        efforts on the Underground Railroad, Sec. 76.
        See also Antislavery.

      Acorn, ship, Sec. 54.

      Act,
        first fugitive slave, B 9;
        second fugitive slave, B 31;
        Grimes, C 51;
        Blair, C 58;
        repealing fugitive slave act, C 83.
        See also Bill.

      Adams, ----,
        against fugitive slave bill, Sec. 20.

      Adams, J. Q.,
        in Treaty of Ghent Convention, Sec. 22;
        presented petitions, Sec. 44.

      Advertisement,
        of runaways, Sec. 3;
        colonial, Sec. 5;
        later, Sec. 65, Sec. 96;
        of probable place of refuge of an habitual runaway, Sec. 66.

      Albany,
        escapes from, Sec. 8, A 50.

      Aldrich,
        amendment, C 58.

      Alexander, Archer, D 69.

      Alien and Sedition Acts,
        absorb attention, Sec. 19.

      Allen, Henry W.,
        tried for kidnapping, Sec. 58.

      Amendments to the Constitution, Sec. 104.

      Amsterdam,
        banishes runaway colonists, A 15.

      Anderson case, Sec. 23, D 65.

      Antislavery men,
        biographies of, E 4.

      Antislavery reminiscences, E 9.

      Antislavery sentiment,
        rise of, Sec. 33.

      Antislavery societies,
        character of work, Sec. 41;
        reports of, E 10.

      Apprentices,
        fugitive, A 9, A 39.

      Arbitration,
        in Creole case, Sec. 24.

      Army officers,
        arrests by, Sec. 95.

      Arrest,
        <DW64> liable to, Sec. 65;
        by army officers, Sec. 95.

      Articles of Confederation,
        fugitive slave clause in, Sec. 8, Sec. 14, A 8.

      Articles of war,
        resolution on, C 47;
        bill for an additional, Sec. 95.

      Artis, Jordan,
        advertisement of, Sec. 65.

      Ashley,
        repeal bill, Sec. 101, C 80.

      Athenaeum,
        Boston, E 2.

      Attorneys,
        to defend fugitives, Sec. 76;
        forbidden to act, Sec. 81.

      Attucks, Crispus,
        escape of, Sec. 5, D 6.


      Badger,
        on fugitive slave bill, Sec. 31.

      Bahamas,
        treatment of fugitives in, Sec. 22, Sec. 24.

      Bass,
        aids S. Northrup, Sec. 38.

      Batchelder, James,
        death of, Sec. 55.

      Bath,
        escape from, 127 D 56.

      Bell, Governor.
        See Ohio.

      Benton Resolution, B 24.

      Bermudas,
        treatment of fugitives in, Sec. 24.

      Bill,
        for a new fugitive slave law,
          reported, Sec. 17-Sec. 20, Sec. 21, Sec. 27;
          28-29;
          character of, 1802, Sec. 19;
          principles of, 1818, Sec. 19-Sec. 20;
        for amending, Sec. 20;
        on Maryland resolutions, Sec. 21;
        Douglas's, C 17;
        Lovejoy's, C 35, C 66;
        Wilson's, C 42, C 48, C 54, C 56;
        Howe's, C 49;
        Davis's C 50, C 57;
        confiscation, C 68, C 72, C 73, C 79;
        abolition, C 62, C 65;
        Harris's, C 59, C 67, C 71;
        Clark's, C 72;
        Julian's, C 45, C 76;
        emancipation, C 73, C 75, C 78;
        repeal, C 80;
        Stevens's, C 80;
        Ashley's, C 80;
        Sumner's, C 80, C 83;
        Spalding's, C 80;
        House substitute, C 83.
        See also Acts.

      Bingham, ----,
        on Blair bill, Sec. 95;
        resolutions, Sec. 97, C 39;
        amendments, C 58, C 67.

      Black Code, in the D. C.,
        resolution on, C 33;
        bill to repeal, C 56.

      Blair, ----,
        bill, Sec. 95;
        Act, C 58.

      Blake, ----,
        introduces repeal bill, Sec. 87.

      Boston massacre,
        Attucks killed in, Sec. 5.

      Boston, schooner,
        case of, Sec. 47, D 21.

      Boucher, Rev. John,
        on Washington's education, Sec. 1.

      Bound servants,
        escape from Virginia, Sec. 9.

      Bourne, ----,
        appointed on committee, Sec. 17.

      Bowditch, H. I.
        See Latimer Journal.

      Boyle, ----,
        Brigadier General in Sherwood case, Sec. 94.

      Bright, ----,
        Explanatory Bill, B 34.

      Brown,
        on repeal bill, Sec. 103.

      Brown, John,
        in Missouri and Kansas, Sec. 62;
        plan of, Sec. 62;
        effect of raid, Sec. 102;
        case, D 63.

      Brown, Mary,
        demands arrest of Hamlet, Sec. 53.

      Browne, William,
        story of escapes, Sec. 9.

      Browne, William,
        a runaway, Sec. 66.

      Buchanan, James,
        presidential message of, Sec. 86, C 1.

      Burnett, Governor,
        conference with Indians, demands slave, Sec. 8.

      Burns, Anthony,
        arrest and trial, Sec. 55, D 57;
        use of court-house in his case, Sec. 81.

      Butler, ----,
        proposition on fugitive slave clause, Sec. 15;
        on fugitive slave bill, Sec. 31;
        reports fugitive slave bill, B 30.

      Butler, General B. F.,
        on "contrabands," Sec. 88.


      Calhoun,
        Resolution, Sec. 24, B 20.

      California,
        sanctions rendition, Sec. 80.

      Calvert,
        appointed on committee, made chairman, Sec. 17.

      Cape May,
        escapes to, D 3.

      Carlisle,
        fugitive slave case in, Sec. 43.

      Cases, legal,
        change in character of, Sec. 33;
        classification of, Sec. 33;
        principle of selection of, Sec. 52.

      Certificate,
        evidence for conviction, Sec. 8.

      Chandler, Zachary,
        introduces confiscation bill, Sec. 90;
        confiscation act, C 31.

      Chase, S. P.,
        on fugitive slave law, Sec. 32;
        on payments under law of 1850, B 38;
        offers amendments, B 30.

      Cherokees.
        See Treaty.

      Chickasaws.
        See Treaty.

      Chickasaw case, Sec. 42, D 20.

      Christiana case, Sec. 60, D 49;
        influence traced, Sec. 60.

      Choctaws.
        See Treaty.

      Clarence, ----,
        joint resolution, C 23.

      Clark, ----,
        reports confiscation bill, Sec. 91;
        substitute, Sec. 91;
        resolution, B 34;
        amendments, C 51; C 78;
        confiscation bill, C 72.

      Clarke, J. F.,
        quoted, Sec. 51, Sec. 55, Sec. 67, Sec. 73.

      Clay, Henry,
        see Gallatin;
        provision on fugitives, Sec. 29;
        on Shadrach case, Sec. 57, B 33;
        amendment, B 30.

      Cochrane,
        joint resolution, C 2.

      Colfax, Schuyler,
        resolution, C 77.

      Collamer, ----,
        amendments, C 53; C 67.

      Colonial regulation,
        began early, Sec. 2;
        cases, Sec. 1-Sec. 12;
        legislation, Appendix A.

      Colonists,
        runaway, A 15.

      Colony,
        of fugitives, Sec. 66.

      Columbia,
        case in, D 15.

      Comet case, Sec. 24.

      Commissioners,
        of United Colonies, complain of fugitives, Sec. 11;
        duty of, Sec. 30.

      Committee,
        for a new fugitive slave law, Sec. 17;
        on the fugitive slave law, Sec. 17-Sec. 21, Sec. 24;
        on Maryland resolution, Sec. 21;
        to prevent outrages, Sec. 45;
        conference, Sec. 91;
        amendments by, C 31, C 48, C 51;
        on judiciary, instructed, Sec. 27;
        report a fugitive slave law, Sec. 27.

      Compromise,
        resolution affirming, B 35;
        fugitive slave act, C 25.

      Conferences,
        between Indians and the Governor of New York, Sec. 8.

      Confiscation,
        of slaves of rebels, Sec. 89;
        report on, C 60;
        bill, Sec. 90, Sec. 91;
        amendments, Sec. 90;
        provisions extended, Sec. 90, Sec. 91;
        presented, Sec. 90, Sec. 91;
        act approved by President, Sec. 91;
        Trumbull's, C 30, C 37, C 52;
        Chandler's, C 31;
        Davis's, C 50;
        coupled with emancipation, C 44, C 69, C 73;
        amendments to, C 57, C 67, C 71;
        Harris's, C 59, C 63, C 67, C 71;
        Clark's, C 72;
        progress of, C 79;
        Morrill's joint resolution, C 40.

      Congress,
        action of, from 1847 to 1850, Sec. 27.

      Connecticut,
        legislation in, Sec. 4;
        in the New England confederation, Sec. 8;
        offers reward, Sec. 8;
        emancipation in, Sec. 14;
        Personal Liberty Laws in, Sec. 78, Sec. 79, Sec. 82;
        servants in, A 9;
        against runaways, A 67, A 78, A 79.

      Constitution,
        fugitive slave clause in, Sec. 16, B 7;
        defended slavery, Sec. 16;
        amendments proposed, C 22.

      Constitutional Convention,
        fugitive question in, Sec. 15.

      Contrabands,
        origin of term, Sec. 88.

      Convention,
        in Treaty of Ghent, Sec. 22.
        See also Constitutional Convention.

      Conviction of a fugitive,
        evidence necessary, Sec. 18.

      Cooledge, N.,
        in Latimer case, Sec. 44.

      Court,
        Commissioners, how chosen, Sec. 30.
        See also Conviction, Trials.

      Court-house assaulted, Sec. 58.

      Cowden, Colonel,
        in Wisdom case, Sec. 94.

      Cox, ----,
        resolution, C 5;
        on repeal bill, Sec. 102.

      Crafts, William and Lucy,
        escape of, Sec. 69, D 41.

      Creek Indians,
        escapes to, Sec. 8;
        treaty with, Sec. 22;
        restoration clause in treaty, B 11.

      Creole, case of, Sec. 24.

      Crittenden,
        joint resolution, C 13, C 24.

      Curtis, Commissioner, Sec. 54.

      Curtis, Judge,
        trial of, Sec. 55.


      Dagget amendment, Sec. 19, B 14.

      Dana, R. H.,
        defends Burns, Sec. 55.

      Daniel,
        offered for sale, Sec. 66.

      Davis,
        amendment, B 30;
        bill, C 50;
        substitute bill, C 57;
        amendments, C 58.

      Davis, Charles G.,
        in Shadrach case, Sec. 57.

      Dayton amendment, B 30.

      Debate,
        on fugitive slave clause in the constitution, Sec. 15;
        on fugitive slave bill, Sec. 17-Sec. 19;
        on the slave trade, Sec. 19;
        on the fugitive slave act, Sec. 19, Sec. 20;
        on the admission of Missouri, Sec. 21;
        on slavery in the D. C., Sec. 28;
        on the fugitive slave law of 1850, Sec. 31, Sec. 32.

      De Bere, John,
        in Shadrach case, Sec. 57.

      Delaware,
        regulation of servants and slaves, A 70.

      Delawares,
        fugitive slave clause in treaty, B 1.

      Diggs, S. T. P.,
        in Anderson case, Sec. 23.

      Dismal Swamp,
        refuge for fugitive, Sec. 66.

      District of Columbia,
        slavery in, Sec. 28;
        repeal of jail laws in, Sec. 97, Sec. 98;
        Grimes's bill, Sec. 97, Sec. 98;
        debate on abolition of slavery in, Sec. 98;
        resolution on repeal of the Black Code in, C 33;
        bill for emancipation in, C 42;
        act on criminal justice in, C 51;
        bill, C 54;
        bill to repeal Black Code in, C 56;
        bill for the abolition of slavery in, C 62, C 65.

      Drayton, ----, Captain,
        aids fugitives, Sec. 50.

      Drayton and Sayres,
        case of, Sec. 50, D 40.

      Douglass, Frederick,
        method of escape, Sec. 68, Sec. 75, D 23.

      Douglas, Stephen A.,
        joint resolution, C 14.

      Dutch Colonies,
        along the coast, Sec. 1;
        regulations on fugitives, Sec. 2, Sec. 4;
        legislation in, Sec. 6.
        See also New Amsterdam, New Netherlands.


      East Jersey,
        against fugitives, Sec. 2, A 41;
        against runaways, A 45.

      Eldridge, Captain, of brig Chickasaw, Sec. 42.

      Eliot, ----,
        introduces confiscation bill, Sec. 91;
        bill, C 69;
        substitute bill, C 78.

      Elton, Governor,
        action in fugitive slave case, Sec. 11.

      Emancipation,
        in Great Britain, Sec. 24;
        resolutions on, Sec. 91;
        in the District of Columbia, C 42;
        bill, C 75;
        coupled with confiscation, C 44, C 69, C 73;
        of fugitives from disloyal masters, bill for, C 78.

      Emancipation proclamation,
        effect of, as a war measure, Sec. 92.

      Encomium, case of, Sec. 24.

      England.
        See Great Britain.

      English, ----,
        joint resolution, C 8.

      English colonies, Sec. 1.
        See Colonies.

      Enterprise, case of, Sec. 24.

      Escape,
        by ferries, Sec. 4;
        methods of investigation of, Sec. 63;
        methods of, Sec. 63;
        motives for, Sec. 64;
        to the woods, Sec. 66;
        to the North, Sec. 67;
        by laundry work, Sec. 67;
        by coach, Sec. 69;
        by passports, Sec. 75;
        general effect of, Sec. 76;
        from English to French, D 5.
        See also Fugitives, Runaways.

      Extradition,
        no system of, in the colonies, Sec. 9.


      False testimony,
        punished, Sec. 82.

      Faneuil Hall,
        mass meetings in, Sec. 44, Sec. 55.

      Fee,
        of commissioners, Sec. 30.

      Felons,
        runaway apprentices, A 4.

      Felony,
        when guilty of, Sec. 82.

      Ferries,
        escapes by, Sec. 4.

      Fessenden, ----,
        requests investigation of the District
          of Columbia jail, Sec. 97, C 38.

      Fitch, ----,
        resolutions affirming the Compromise, B 35.

      Florence, ----,
        joint resolutions, C 15, C 18.

      Florida,
        escapes to, Sec. 8;
        Seminole trouble in, Sec. 23.

      Fortress Monroe,
        contrabands at, Sec. 88.

      Free <DW64>s,
        penalty for harboring fugitives, Sec. 4;
        condition of, Sec. 25.

      Free States,
        difficulty of transporting slaves across, Sec. 36.

      French colonies,
        interval of unpopulated
        country south, Sec. 1;
        refuse to return fugitives, Sec. 11.

      Friendship, ship, case of, Sec. 5, D 10.

      Frontiers,
        places of refuge, Sec. 23.

      Fugitive apprentices,
        act applies to, Sec. 18.
        See also servants.

      Fugitives,
        evidence to convict, Sec. 19;
        status on the high seas, Sec. 24;
        penalty for harboring, Sec. 30, A 80;
        pursuit interfered with, 41;
        length of journeys, Sec. 67;
        disguised as whites, Sec. 69;
        how conducted on the underground railroad, Sec. 72;
        in loyal slave states, Sec. 93;
        typical cases of, during the war, Sec. 94;
        arrests of, by civil officers, advertisement of, Sec. 96;
        entertainment of, A 6;
        against, A 11, A 12;
        resolution for the discharge of, C 32;
        bill to prevent return of, C 35;
        resolution against the return of, C 43, C 46;
        bill on the arrest of, by army and navy officers, C 48;
        act to prohibit return by the army, C 58;
        resolution on the return of, by the army and navy,
          bill on the return of, by the army,
          resolution demanding trial by jury for, C 61, C 66, C 77;
        bill for the emancipation of fugitives from disloyal
          masters, C 78.
        See also Runaways, Escapes;
          see Table of Contents.

      Fugitive Slaves,
        appeal for, Sec. 19;
        status of question from 1823 to 1847, Sec. 20, Sec. 23;
        resolutions on, Sec. 95;
        question discussed, Sec. 95;
        arrest by army officers, Sec. 95;
        resolutions on the return of,
          resolution on army orders on, C 28, C 36;
        resolution on, C 74;
        sources of information on,
          general histories of, E 1, E 3;
        secondary sources of information on,
          original sources of information on,
          autobiographies of,
          records of trials of,
          periodicals and newspapers upon, E 3, E 5, E 6, E 7, E 11;
        materials for study of legislation upon, E 12.
        See also Escapes, Fugitives, Runaways,
          and Table of Contents.

      Fugitive Slave Act, first (1793), Sec. 16, Sec. 17;
        first called for, Sec. 17;
        necessity of the act, Sec. 17;
        passed the Senate, passed the House, Sec. 17;
        signed by the President, Sec. 17;
        text, B 9;
        followed earlier examples, Sec. 17, Sec. 18;
        status of opinion on, Sec. 17;
        remained inoperative, Sec. 16, Sec. 17;
        to enforce the, B 29.

      Fugitive Slave Act, second (1850),
        attempts to secure, Sec. 20, Sec. 21;
        secured, Sec. 29;
        introduced by Mason, Sec. 29, B 30;
        Webster proposes, B 30;
        substitute offered, B 30;
        passed Congress, Sec. 29;
        necessity of, urged, Sec. 31;
        arguments for, Sec. 31;
        arguments against, Sec. 32;
        provisions of, Sec. 30;
        text of, B 31;
        unpopularity of, Sec. 51;
        no moral foundation, Sec. 51;
        declared unconstitutional, Sec. 85;
        non-execution of, Sec. 85;
        resolution to amend, C 45.

      Fugitive Slave Acts repealed (1864),
        repeal urged, Sec. 85;
        status of, Sec. 100;
        early propositions, Sec. 101;
        discussion, Sec. 101;
        repeal bill, Sec. 101;
        passed, Sec. 103;
        repeal bill discussed, Sec. 103;
        bill to amend, C 25;
        repeal bills, C 49, C 76, C 80, C 82;
        repeal bill passes, Sec. 103;
        text of, Sec. 104, C 83.

      Fugitive Slave Bill of 1818,
        passed the House, Sec. 19, Sec. 20;
        title of, Sec. 20;
        failure in the Senate, Sec. 21.

      Fugitive Slave Cases.
        See Table of Contents.

      Fugitive Slave Clause,
        in the New England Articles of Confederation, Sec. 8;
        in the Constitution, Sec. 15-Sec. 16;
        in the Treaty of Ghent, Sec. 22, B 12.

      Fugitive Slave Controversy,
        educating effect of,
          recapitulation of, Sec. 105.

      Fugitive Slave Legislation,
        opposed by Northern States, Sec. 25;
        inadequacy of, proved, Sec. 26;
        necessity of more stringent, Sec. 26;
        proposition for new, Sec. 27;
        must be carried out, Sec. 49;
        new element in, Sec. 79;
        in 1860, Sec. 85;
        resistance to, declared felony, Sec. 86;
        propositions to repeal or amend, Sec. 87;
        after emancipation proclamation, Sec. 92.


      Gallatin, Albert,
        in Treaty of Ghent, Sec. 22.

      Gannett,
        case of, D 44.

      Gansey, Isaac,
        case of, D 24.

      "Gap Gang,"
        aid kidnappers, Sec. 60.

      Gardiner, ----,
        commissioner in Hamlet case, Sec. 53.

      Garner, Margaret,
        flight and seizure, Sec. 56.

      Garner, Robert,
        flight and seizure, Sec. 56.

      Garner, Simeon,
        flight and seizure, Sec. 56;
        case D 58.

      Garrett, Thomas,
        trial and fine, reward offered for, Sec. 74.

      Gatchell case, D 61.

      Georgia,
        difficulty in recovery of fugitives in, Sec. 8;
        Governor of, demands fugitives from justice, Sec. 47.

      Gibson case, D 45.

      Giddings
        resolution, Sec. 28, B 23, B 25, B 27, B 28.

      Glasgow,
        freedom case in, Sec. 12, D 7.

      Glocester,
        given jurisdiction over runaways, A 24.

      Glover case, D 55.

      Goin case, D 29.

      Gorsuch, Edward,
        claims a fugitive, Sec. 60.

      Grahame, Thomas,
        in freedom case, Sec. 12.

      Grayson, ----,
        on fugitive slave clause, Sec. 15.

      Great Britain,
        status of fugitives in, Sec. 12;
        diplomatic relations, Sec. 12;
        encouragement of fugitives, Sec. 22, Sec. 23;
        pays indemnity, Sec. 24.
        See also England.

      Great Dismal Swamp,
        refuge for runaways, Sec. 66.

      Grey, James B.,
        demands a fugitive, Sec. 44.

      Grimes,
        criminal justice bill, Sec. 97;
        act, C 51;
        amendments, C 64, C 74.


      Hale, ----,
        resolution, Sec. 95, C 41;
        amendment, C 82.

      Hall, ----,
        resolution, Sec. 28, B 26.

      Hamlet, James, case, Sec. 53, D 43.

      Hannum, Captain,
        in Ottoman case, Sec. 45.

      Hanway, Castner,
        in Christiana case, Sec. 60.

      Harlan, ----,
        amendment, C 51.

      Harris, ----,
        introduces confiscation bill, Sec. 91;
        confiscation bill, C 59, C 67, C 71;
        amendment, C 64.

      Hartford,
        fugitive harbored in, Sec. 11;
        treaty of, ratified, A 14;
        controversy with New Netherlands, D 1.

      Harvard College,
        Library of, E 2.

      Henderson amendment, C 82.

      Hepburne, Judge,
        in Kennedy case, Sec. 43.

      Higginson, T. W.,
        in Burns case, Sec. 55.

      Hilliard, Mrs. G. S.,
        harbors a fugitive, Sec. 75.

      Hillyer, ----,
        finality resolution, B 37.

      Hindman, ----,
        proposition, Sec. 86;
        joint resolution, C 10.

      Holmes, ----,
        on the fugitive slave bill, Sec. 20.

      Howard, ----,
        amendment, C 82.

      Howe, ----,
        repeal bill, 83, C 49.

      Hubbard, ----,
        on repeal bill, Sec. 102;
        resolution, C 83.


      Illinois,
        no full personal liberty law in, Sec. 80.

      Immigration,
        into Missouri, Sec. 21.

      Impeachment,
        ground for, Sec. 81.

      Imprisonment of a runaway, Sec. 65.

      Indented Servants.
        See Servants.

      Indiana,
        personal liberty law in (1824), Sec. 78, Sec. 80.

      Indians,
        received fugitives in the wilderness, Sec. 1;
        as slaves, Sec. 1;
        as slave hunters, Sec. 8;
        conferences with, Sec. 8;
        escapes to, Sec. 9.
        See Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Delawares,
          Seminoles.

      Intercolonial cases,
        early agreements as to fugitives, Sec. 1, Sec. 2;
        agreement between the Dutch and English, Sec. 8;
        difficulty of arranging regulations, Sec. 8;
        first contained in Articles of Confederation, Sec. 8;
        dependent upon intercolonial feeling, Sec. 9;
        case of escape of slaves, Sec. 11.

      Interferences and rescues, Sec. 41.

      International cases,
        earliest, Sec. 11;
        relations unsettled, Sec. 10;
        regulations under the Articles of Confederation, Sec. 13.

      Interstate relations,
        affected by Prigg decision, Sec. 46.

      Iowa,
        personal liberty laws in, Sec. 80.

      Iredell,
        on fugitive slave clause, Sec. 15.

      Isaac,
        case of, Sec. 47, D 24.


      Jackson, ----,
        resolution, B 36.

      Jager, Cornelis Herperts de,
        escape of servants of, Sec. 7.

      Jail, in the District of Columbia,
        resolution on, Sec. 97;
        denied to fugitives, Sec. 97, B 27, B 28.
        See District of Columbia.

      Jails, State,
        not to be used, Sec. 44;
        denied to fugitives, Sec. 57;
        denial constitutional, Sec. 83;
        use forbidden, Sec. 82.
        See also Personal Liberty Bill.

      Jefferson, Thomas,
        proposition, Sec. 14.

      John case, Sec. 17, D 11.

      Johnson,
        joint resolution, C 12, C 27;
        amendment, C 83.

      Johnson Case, D 60.

      Johnston,
        on committee, Sec. 17.

      Jones, George, case, Sec. 37, D 19.

      Julian, George W.,
        repeal bills, Sec. 101, C 76, C 80;
        resolution, C 45.

      Jury trial,
        not admitted, Sec. 8;
        disuse of, Sec. 78.


      Kansas,
        personal liberty laws in, Sec. 80, Sec. 82.

      Kellogg, ----,
        joint resolution, C 19, C 20, C 21.

      Kennedy case, Sec. 43, D 35.

      Kentucky,
        resolutions, Sec. 23;
        petition of Legislature, Sec. 27;
        demands extradition of abettors of fugitives, Sec. 48;
        controversy with Ohio, D 37.

      Kidnapping,
        suggests new fugitive slave law, Sec. 17;
        from 1793 to 1850, Sec. 25;
        in border States, Sec. 25;
        character of cases, Sec. 36;
        enlists sympathy, Sec. 71;
        regulations against, Sec. 99.

      Kilgore,
        resolution, Sec. 87, C 11.

      King, ----,
        on repeal bill, Sec. 102.

      Kirk case, D 33.

      Kline, Marshal,
        demands assistance, Sec. 60.


      L'Amistad case, Sec. 24.

      Latimer, George,
        case of, Sec. 44, D 28;
        effect, Sec. 81;
        daily journal, Sec. 44.

      Leake, ----,
        joint resolution, C 9.

      Le Screux,
        slave on, C 9.

      Lewis case, D 54.

      Lewis, Elijah,
        prosecution of, Sec. 60, D 49.

      Liberator,
        kidnapping case in, Sec. 99.
        See Newspapers.

      Liberty,
        love of, by slaves, Sec. 64.

      Liberty Party,
        convention of, Sec. 58.

      Libraries,
        use of, E 2.

      Lincoln, President,
        preliminary proclamation, Sec. 92;
       final emancipation proclamation, Sec. 92.

      List,
        counsel in Shadrach case, Sec. 57.

      Loring, Ellis Gray,
        in Shadrach case, Sec. 57;
        Crafts taken to house of, Sec. 69.

      Louisiana,
        escape of slaves from, Sec. 21.

      Lovejoy,
        bills, Sec. 95, C 35, C 66;
        resolutions, C 29, C 44;
        amendment, C 38.


      Madison,
        on fugitive slave clause, Sec. 15.

      Maine, Governor of,
        refuses to surrender fugitives from justice, Sec. 47;
        personal liberty law in, Sec. 82.

      Malbronne, Ensign de,
        loses servant, Sec. 11.

      Mallory, ----,
        on Blair bill, Sec. 95;
        on repeal, Sec. 102.

      Manhattan,
        escape to, Sec. 7, D 2.

      Mansfield, Lord.
        See Somersett case.

      Market women,
        on Underground Railroad, Sec. 75.

      Maryland,
        regulations on fugitives, Sec. 2, Sec. 3;
        offers reward, Sec. 8;
        letter from, to New Netherlands, Sec. 11;
        fugitives escape from, Sec. 11;
        resolution, Sec. 21;
        resolutions debated, Sec. 21, B 18;
        offers reward for Thomas Garrett, Sec. 74;
        regulations against runaways, A 4, A 11, A 12, A 26, A 28,
          A 31, A 38, A 40.

      Mason,
        of Massachusetts, on the fugitive slave bill, Sec. 20.

      Mason, of Virginia,
        fugitive slave bill, Sec. 29, B 30;
        amendment, Sec. 29;
        argument, Sec. 31.

      Massachusetts Bay,
        regulation against transportation of apprentices and
          servants, A 63;
        on the capture of servants in, A 2;
        regulation of free <DW64>s, A 53.

      Massachusetts Colony,
        first law as to fugitives, Sec. 4;
        in the New England Confederation, Sec. 8;
        emancipation in, Sec. 14;
        first fugitive slave case in, Sec. 34.

      Massachusetts State,
        Governor of, advised, Sec. 81;
        personal liberty law, Sec. 79, Sec. 80, Sec. 81;
        no recovery of fugitives in, Sec. 85.

      May, S. J.,
        in "Jerry" case, Sec. 58.

      McClernand, ----, C 9.

      McHenry, "Jerry," case, Sec. 58, D 51.

      McLanahan, ----,
        resolution, B 32.

      Meade, ----,
        proposition, Sec. 27;
        resolution, B 29.

      Meionaon,
        mass meetings in, Sec. 55.

      Merrill, Amos B.,
        in Latimer case, Sec. 44.

      Mexico,
        as a place of refuge, Sec. 23.

      Michigan,
        personal liberty laws in, Sec. 80, Sec. 82.

      Miller,
        in kidnapping case, Sec. 61, D 50.

      Miner, Jo,
        advertisement of, Sec. 96.

      Minnesota,
        personal liberty law in, Sec. 80.

      Missouri,
        admission of, Sec. 21;
        Anderson case in, Sec. 23;
        Governor of, offers reward for John Brown, Sec. 62.

      Missouri Compromise,
        fugitive slave clause in, Sec. 21, B 16;
        period of, Sec. 21.

      Mob,
        provisions against, Sec. 30.

      Morgan, Margaret.
        See Prigg Case.

      Morrill, ----,
        resolution, C 40.

      Morris, cutter,
        in Burns case, Sec. 55.

      Morris, ----,
        substitute reported, Sec. 101;
        on repeal bill, Sec. 102;
        resolution, C 3;
        joint resolution, C 16.

      Morris, John B.,
       demands a fugitive slave, Sec. 42.

      "Moses."
        See Harriet Tubman.

      Murray, ----,
        motion, Sec. 19.


      Nalle case, D 64.

      Nassau,
        fugitives in, Sec. 24.

      <DW64>s,
        ignorance of, Sec. 67;
        regulation of, A 65;
        against escape of, A 78;
        petition of a soldier, Sec. 19;
        free, how affected, Sec. 20;
        regulation of, A 53.
        See also Fugitives.

      New Amsterdam,
        escape of servants from, Sec. 7;
        trial at, Sec. 9.
        See also New Netherlands.

      New England,
        regulations as to fugitives, Sec. 4.

      New England Confederation,
        composition of, Sec. 8;
        articles of, A 8.

      New Hampshire,
        legislation in, Sec. 4, A 61;
        personal liberty laws in, Sec. 80, Sec. 82.

      New Haven,
        in the New England Confederation, Sec. 8.

      New Jersey,
        regulations on fugitives, Sec. 3, A 32, A 39, A 42;
        sanctions rendition, Sec. 80;
        slaves, A 55;
        white servants, A 56.

      New Netherlands,
        legislation in, Sec. 4;
        on fugitive slave cases, Sec. 11;
        regulations against runaways, A 1, A 3, A 5, A 10, A 14, A 19;
        Quakers, A 29;
        controversy with Hartford, D 1.
        See also Dutch Colonies.

      New York,
        regulation on fugitives, Sec. 8, A 50, A 51, A 59;
        Governor of, in Solomon Northrup case, Sec. 38;
        refusal to return abettors of fugitives, Sec. 47;
        personal liberty laws, Sec. 80, Sec. 82, Sec. 83;
        slaves, A 49;
        prevention of insurrections, A 68;
        kidnapping in, Sec. 99.

      Niblack, ----,
        resolution, C 7.

      Nicholson,
        on committee, Sec. 19.

      Norfolk,
        kidnapping cases in, Sec. 99, D 68.


      Oberlin Case, Sec. 40, D 26.

      Oberlin-Wellington,
        rescue, Sec. 59, D 62.

      Officers,
        return of fugitives by army and navy, C 53.

      Ohio,
        fugitives protected in, Sec. 21;
        refusal to return abettors of fugitives, Sec. 48;
        personal liberty law, Sec. 80, Sec. 82.

      Olmsted, F. L.,
        quoted, Sec. 65.

      "Omnibus Bill,"
        fugitive slave provision in, Sec. 29.

      Ordinance of 1787,
        for the Northwest Territory, Sec. 14, Sec. 15;
        confirmed, Sec. 16.

      Ottoman case, Sec. 45, D 34.


      Parker, Theodore, speaks on Burns' case, Sec. 55; indicted for
      riot, Sec. 55; protects William and Lucy Crafts, Sec. 69.

      Parker, William, in Christiana case, Sec. 60.

      Pass, necessity of, Sec. 65.

      Patrols, duty of, Sec. 65.

      Patroons, runaways from, A 1.

      Peace Convention, amendment, C 22.

      Pearl, carries fugitives, Sec. 50.

      Penalties for escape, Sec. 30; for violating personal liberty
      laws, Sec. 80.

      Pennsylvania, emancipation in, Sec. 14; Governor of, in "John"
      case, Sec. 17; act of, reported, Sec. 21, B 17; fugitives abetted in,
      24; personal liberty laws in, Sec. 80, Sec. 82; regulation of
      servants, A 48; regulation of <DW64>s, A 65; harboring of
      fugitives, A 80; case in, D 46.

      Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, efforts in
      behalf of "John," Sec. 17; petition of, Sec. 20; efforts of, Sec. 25.

      Pensacola, Walker embarks from, Sec. 50.

      Personal Liberty Laws, passed, Sec. 25; character of, Sec. 77; before
      the Prigg decision, Sec. 78; between the Prigg decision and the
      Second Fugitive Slave Law, Sec. 79; occasioned by the law of 1850,
      Sec. 80; change in character, Sec. 80; table of, Sec. 80; distribution
      among States, Sec. 80; report on, Sec. 81; effect of, Sec. 83, Sec. 105;
      constitutionality of, Sec. 83; obstruction by, Sec. 85; repeal urged,
      Sec. 85; resolution against, Sec. 86; Saulsbury substitute on, C 81.

      Petition of North Carolina <DW64>s, Sec. 19; of free <DW64>s, Sec.
      19; of a free  soldier, Sec. 19; of the Pennsylvania
      Abolition Society Sec. 20; from the Kentucky Legislature, Sec. 27; to
      remove jailer and sheriff in Latimer case, Sec. 44; for an
      amendment to the Constitution, Sec. 44; for a new personal liberty
      law, Sec. 81.

      Philadelphia, constitutional convention sits in, Sec. 15;
      attempted rescue in, Sec. 43, D 22.

      Phillips, Wendell, speeches on Latimer case, Sec. 44; addresses
      mass meeting, Sec. 55; speaks on Burns' case, Sec. 55; indicted for
      riot, Sec. 55.

      Pierce, Franklin, President, sends executive message, Sec. 57;
      issues proclamation, Sec. 57.

      Pindall, on revision of the fugitive slave act, Sec. 20; made
      chairman of committee, Sec. 20; amendatory bill, B 10.

      Pine Grove Plantation, probable refuge, Sec. 66.

      Pinckney, Gen. C. C., on the fugitive slave clause, Sec. 15.

      Plymouth, in the New England Confederation, Sec. 8.

      Pomeroy, ----, on confiscation bill, Sec. 91.

      Porter, ----, amendment, C 67.

      Potter, R. J., advertisement by, Sec. 96.

      Powell, ----, on District of Columbia jail, Sec. 97; joint
      resolution, C 28; amendment, C 51.

      Pratt, ----, amendment, B 30.

      Priggs vs. Pennsylvania case, Sec. 25, D 18; consequences of, Sec.
      76; extracts from, B 22.

      Proclamation, by West India Company, Sec. 11; on Shadrach case, Sec.
      57; emancipation, Sec. 91.

      Prosecutions, carried on, Sec. 49; after "Jerry" rescue, Sec. 58; of
      Oberlin-Wellington rescuers, Sec. 59; of Wendell Phillips, Sec. 55.

      Protection papers, use of, Sec. 68.

      Pugh, George H., joint resolution, C 26.

      Purrington, brig William, D 39.

      Purvis, Robert, connection with Underground Railroad, Sec. 75.


      Quakers, arrange station on the Underground Railroad, Sec. 71;
      fugitives hidden by, Sec. 72; refused admision to New Netherlands,
      A 29.

      Quincy, Josiah, account of first fugitive slave case in the
      North, Sec. 34, D 12.


      Raids, upon plantations, Sec. 66.

      Rantoul, Robert, Jr., in Sims case, Sec. 54.

      Read, ----, on committee, Sec. 17.

      Redemptioners, described, Sec. 1; cases of, Sec. 1; case of running
      away with <DW64>s, Sec. 3.

      Refuge, place of, Sec. 66.

      Rendition, a duty, Sec. 8. See also Fugitives.

      Rescue, first case of, Sec. 34.

      Resolution, by Maryland Legislature, Sec. 21; on relations with
      Canada, Sec. 23; Kentucky, Sec. 23; on fugitives on the high seas, Sec.
      24; Giddings, Sec. 28; against the return of Latimer, Sec. 44; to
      base representation on free persons, Sec. 44; Georgia Legislature,
      Sec. 47; on arrests by army officers, Sec. 95; Fitch, B 35; Jackson,
      B 36; Hillyer, B 37; Chase, B 38; Cochrane's joint, C 2;
      Morris, C 3; Leake, C 4; Cox, C 5; Stevenson, C 6; Niblack, C
      7; English joint, C 8; McClernand joint, C 9; Hindman, C 10;
      Kilgore, C 11; Johnson's joint, C 12, C 27; Crittenden's joint,
      C 13; Douglas's joint, C 14; Florence, C 15, C 18; Morris's
      joint, C 16; Kellogg's joint, C 19, C 20, C 21; Clarence's
      joint, C 23; Crittenden's joint, C 24; Pugh's joint, C 26;
      Powell's joint, C 28; Lovejoy's, C 29; Wilson's, C 32, C 33, C
      47, C 55, C 61; Clark, C 34; Sumner, C 36; Fessenden, C 38;
      Bingham, C 39; Morrill's confiscation joint, C 40; Hale, C 41;
      Sumner, C 43, C 74; Lovejoy, C 44; Julian, C 45; Shank, C 46;
      Colfax, C 77; Hubbard's repeal, C 83.

      Revolution, did not change condition of slave, Sec. 14.

      Reward, offered by Missouri, Sec. 62; by United States, Sec. 62; by
      colonies, Sec. 8.

      Rhode Island legislation, Sec. 4; emancipation, Sec. 14; personal
      liberty law, Sec. 79, Sec. 80, Sec. 82; regulation of ferries in, A 57.

      Rice, ----, amendment, C 53.

      Rice, John, kidnapped, Sec. 59.

      Rich, on the fugitive slave bill, Sec. 20.

      Riker, Richard, in Jones case, Sec. 37.

      Riley, ----, United States commissioner, Sec. 57.

      Rotch, aids escape, Sec. 5.

      Runaways, regulations against, Sec. 6, Sec. 8; easily regulated, Sec. 8;
      the habitual, Sec. 66; methods pursued, Sec. 67; harboring upon a
      ship, Sec. 67; regulations against, A 1, A 3, A 4, A 7, A 17, A
      24, A 25, A 27, A 31, A 33, A 40, A 52, A 61, A 67;
      entertainment of, A 10, A 16, A 29, A 37, A 73; second offence,
      how punished, A 13; hue and cry after, A 18; from the Dutch, A
      21; apprehension of, A 22; English, A 23; in Glocester, A 24;
      apprehension of, A 35, A 38; capture rewarded, A 37; prevention
      of, A 42; to Canada, A 50; trade with, inhibited, A 47; against
      ferriage of, A 57, A 74; minor, A 61; pursuit of, A 79.

      Russia, Emperor of, arbitration by, Sec. 22.


      Saulsbury, amendments, C 51, C 53, C 58, C 70, C 81, C 83.

      Savannah Georgian, advertisement in, Sec. 66.

      Secrecy, observed by fugitives, Sec. 75.

      Sedgwick, ----, on committee, Sec. 17.

      Seizure, of North Carolina <DW64>s, Sec. 19. See also Arrest,
      Kidnapping Cases.

      Seminoles, steal slaves, Sec. 22; trouble, Sec. 23; United States
      claims on, B 19.

      Sergeant, ----, on the fugitive slave bill, Sec. 20.

      Servants, English, A 25, A 28; an act concerning, A 60;
      regulation of, A 56, A 70, A 71; fugitive, A 9, A 19, A 21, A
      32, A 39, A 41, A 45, A 67, A 78; how to know a, A 20. See also
      Fugitives, Runaways.

      Sewall, Samuel E., counsels fugitives, Sec. 44, Sec. 57.

      Seward, W. H., amendments, Sec. 29, B 30.

      Shadrach, case, Sec. 57; personal liberty laws tested, Sec. 81;
      Clay's resolution on, B 33; case, D 48.

      Shank, ----, resolution, C 46.

      Shanley vs. Haney case, D 8.

      Shaw, Chief Justice, in Latimer case, Sec. 44.

      Shell, O. P., advertises a runaway, Sec. 65.

      Sheriff, power of, Sec. 30.

      Sherman, John, amendments, Sec. 103, C 82.

      Sherman, Roger, on the fugitive slave clause, Sec. 15; on
      committee, Sec. 17.

      Sherwood, Major, case of servant of, Sec. 94, D 67.

      Ship, refuge for runaways, Sec. 67; slave on Brazilian, D 36.

      Ship-masters, Dutch, rewarded, A 21.

      Sims, Thomas M., case, Sec. 54; brigade, Sec. 54; court-house used as
      jail, Sec. 81; case, D 47.

      Slaves, conditions of life, Sec. 65; Mother's Farewell, extract
      from, Sec. 64; stealing of, A 77; abolition of trade in, Sec. 20;
      status of, in England, Sec. 22; question of damages, Sec. 30; must
      wear livery, Sec. 65; new conditions surround, Sec. 88; regulation
      of, A 49, A 54, A 55, A 60, A 64, A 67, A 70, A 71, A 72;
      extradition of, B 21; status on the high seas, B 20, B 23; of
      the Dutch, escape to the English, Sec. 8; escape to the forest, Sec.
      8; of rebels, resolutions on, Sec. 88; bill to free, C 52.

      Slaveholder, demand for legislation, Sec. 15; basis of, argued, Sec.
      16; complaints of, Sec. 19.

      Slave-hunters, how received, Sec. 72; insurrections to prevent, A
      68.

      Slavery, condition in the colonies, Sec. 11; interests advanced, Sec.
      16; justification of, Sec. 16; extinction of, Sec. 33; attacked in
      Congress, Sec. 89; abolition in the District of Columbia, Sec. 98, C
      62, C 65; studies of the institution of, E 3; studies of
      colonial, E 3; speeches upon, E 8.

      Smith, ----, on fugitive slave law, Sec. 20.

      Smith, Gerrit, in Anderson case, Sec. 23; in "Jerry" rescue, Sec. 58.

      Smithburg case, D 32.

      Society for the Abolition of Slavery. See Pennsylvania.

      Somersett case, Sec. 12, D 9.

      Soule, ----, on the fugitive slave bill, Sec. 31.

      South Bend Case, D 38.

      South Carolina, regulations on fugitives, Sec. 2, Sec. 3; difficulty
      in recovering fugitives, Sec. 8; constitutional convention in, Sec.
      15; regulations against runaways, A 43, A 47, A 58, A 62, A 64;
      regulation of slaves, A 54, A 64, A 69, A 77.

      Southern States, complain of Underground Railroad, Sec. 76.

      Spalding, ----, repeal bill, Sec. 101, C 80.

      Spanish colonies, interval of unpopulated country south, Sec. 1.

      Sprague, E., 55.

      State Jails. See Jails.

      State Officers, power discussed, Sec. 19, Sec. 20; forfeiture of
      office, Sec. 81; forbidden to act, Sec. 79, 81.

      St. Augustine, escapes to, Sec. 8.

      St. Luc, Sieur de la Corne, <DW64> servant of, 11.

      Staunton, General, in Sherwood case, Sec. 94.

      Stevens, ----, repeal bill, Sec. 101, C 80; motion of, B 30.

      Stevenson, ----, resolution, C 6.

      Stewart, ----. See Somersett Case.

      Story, Justice, decision in Prigg case, Sec. 25.

      Stuyvesant, Governor, in fugitive slave case, Sec. 11.

      Sumner, Charles, in Drayton case, Sec. 50; resolutions, Sec. 95;
      repeal bills, Sec. 101, Sec. 102, C 80; resolutions, C 36, C 43, C
      74; amendment, C 57.

      Suttle, Charles F., in Burns case, Sec. 55.

      Swain, John, suit for slave, Sec. 5.

      Swamps, as a refuge, Sec. 66.

      Swan, Captain, in Wisdom case, Sec. 94.

      Swedish colonies, along the coast, Sec. 1; regulations on
      fugitives, Sec. 2.

      Syracuse, "Jerry" rescue in, Sec. 58.


      Taylor, ----, on committee, Sec. 17.

      Ten Eyck, ----, amendment, C 51; report of, C 80.

      Thomas case, D 30.

      Thompson, ----, case, D 27.

      Treaty, of Hartford, fugitive slave clause in, A 14; of 1783, B
      2; with Indian tribes, Sec. 13, Sec. 16, Sec. 17, Sec. 22, B 1, B 3, B 5, B
      8, B 11, B 12, B 19; of Ghent, Sec. 22, B 12; proposed with Great
      Britain, Sec. 23.

      Tremont Temple, mass meetings in, Sec. 54.

      Trial, by jury, not admitted, in first act, Sec. 19; objected to,
      Sec. 20; denied, Sec. 30; proposed, Sec. 87; resolution demanding, C 77.

      Trumbull, confiscation bill, Sec. 91, C 30, C 37; bill, C 52;
      amendments, C 31, C 57, C 78.

      Tubman, Harriet, account of, Sec. 73.

      Tukey, Marshal, in Sims case, Sec. 54.

      Turc, escape of, Sec. 9.


      Underground Railroad, beginnings of, Sec. 25; how regarded by the
      South, Sec. 31; methods south of the Ohio, Sec. 56; use of, by John
      Brown, Sec. 62; incident at, Sec. 64; description of, Sec. 70; rise and
      growth, Sec. 71; stations on, described, Sec. 72; methods pursued, Sec.
      72; extent of system, Sec. 71; origin of name, Sec. 71; in the South,
      Sec. 72; in the North, Sec. 72;  agents on, Sec. 72, Sec. 73;
      prosecution of agents, Sec. 74; formal organization, Sec. 75; market
      women as helpers, Sec. 75.

      Underwood, ----, amendment, B 30.

      United Colonies, treaty with New Netherlands, A 14.

      United States, reward offered for John Brown, Sec. 62; in Seminole
      trouble, Sec. 22; in Anderson case, Sec. 23. See also Acts, Bills,
      Fugitives, Resolutions, Runaways.

      United States Hotel, slave hunters at, Sec. 69.


      Vallandigham, C. L., amendment, C 25.

      Van Zandt, aids fugitive, Sec. 50, D 25.

      Vermont, personal liberty laws in, Sec. 79, Sec. 80, Sec. 82.

      Vigilance committee organized, Sec. 41; in "Jerry" rescue, Sec. 58.

      Villeinage, ceased in England, Sec. 12.

      Virginia, regulations on fugitives, Sec. 3; rewards the recovery
      of a fugitive, Sec. 8; slaves escape, Sec. 8; constitutional
      convention in, Sec. 15; Governor of, action in "John" case, Sec. 17;
      demands arrest of abettors of a fugitive, Sec. 47; regulation
      against the entertainment of fugitives, A 6; regulations
      against runaways, A 7, A 13, A 16, A 17, A 18, A 20, A 22, A
      25, A 27, A 30, A 33, A 35, A 37, A 52; reward for the capture
      of runaways, A 21, A 36; on English runaways, A 22; in county
      of Glocester, A 24; repeal law, A 44; amends law, A 48;
      amended, A 66; against ferriage of runaways, A 74.


      Walker, Jonathan, aids fugitives, Sec. 50, D 31.

      Walton, ----, amendment, C 67, C 74.

      Washington, President, asks for the return of a fugitive, Sec. 35,
      D 13.

      Washington case, Sec. 39, D 42.

      Washington, jail, resolutions on, C 32, C 34, C 38, C 39, C 55.
      See also Jail.

      Webster, Daniel, in Creole case, Sec. 24; introduces bill, B 30.

      Wellington. See Oberlin-Wellington.

      West India Company, regulation of, Sec. 2; execution of regulation
      Sec. 7; ordinance of, A 1.

      Whipping, motive for flight, Sec. 64.

      Whipple, ----, in kidnapping case, Sec. 35.

      White, ----, on committee, Sec. 17.

      White slaves. See Redemptioners, Servants.

      Whitman, ----, on the fugitive slave bill Sec. 19, Sec. 20.

      Williams case, D 17.

      Williamson case, D 59.

      Wilkins, Frederick. See Shadrach.

      Wilson, ----, on Butler's proposition, Sec. 15.

      Wilson, Henry, on confiscation, Sec. 90; bills, Sec. 98, C 42, C 48,
      C 54, C 56; resolutions, Sec. 95, Sec. 97, C 32, C 33, C 47, C 55, C
      61; amendment, C 71.

      Winthrop, ----, amendment, B 30.

      Winthrop, Governor John, in fugitive slave case, Sec. 11.

      Wisconsin, personal liberty laws in, Sec. 80, Sec. 82; Supreme Court
      decision, D 85.

      Wisdom case, Sec. 94, D 66.

      Woodbridge resolutions, Sec. 23, B 21.

      Woods, as a refuge, Sec. 1, Sec. 66.

      Wright, ----, presents Maryland Resolution, Sec. 21.

      Writ, of habeas corpus, in Somersett case, Sec. 12; allowed, Sec. 20;
      advisability of, Sec. 19, Sec. 20; refused, Sec. 23; issued, Sec. 42; of
      personal replevin, sworn out, Sec. 44.


      Yulee, on the fugitive slave law, Sec. 31.




[Transcriber's note: _Underscores_ indicate text in _italic_ font;
=equal= signs indicate =bold= font. Original spelling varieties have
been maintained; footnotes were renumbered. The index was changed to
refer to section numbers instead of page numbers. Abbreviations and
references changed for clarity: Sec. 11.: o'selves--> we could not promise
ourselves from you; w'ch--> which are shortly like to be nearer
neighbors; O'tres--> vpon the receiving of these Outres; p'ties--> the
demand of the parties interessted; p'sons--> compell such other persons.
Sec. 29., Footnotes 158, 159: "Appendix B, Nos. 68., 83., 84." not found;
see Appendix B, No. 30.--"Sec. 84" not listed in the original.--Sec. 101.,
Footnote 366: "Appendix C, Nos. 104, 106." not found; see Appendix C,
No. 80. Sec. 103., Footnote 384: "Appendix C, No. 116." not found; see
Appendix C, No. 83. Appendix A, No. 9.: appr'ntices--> apprentices;
w'th--> with; fr'o--> from; pr'euenting--> preuenting. Appendix A, 31.:
ag't--> against; Satisfacc'on--> Satisfaccion; reparac'on--> reparacion;
Lord Prop'ry--> Lord Proprietary; publicac'on--> publicacion;
Informac'on--> Informacion. Appendix A, No. 66.: goalers--> Fees of the
gaolers given. Appendix C, No. 80: "See No. 84" not found, linked to No.
83. Appendix E, No. 9.: reminscences--> the reminiscences of
participants.]





End of Project Gutenberg's Fugitive Slaves, by Marion Gleason McDougall

*** 