e effort drew attention and opposition. Mr.
Wilson, of Pennsylvania, the learned jurist and excellent man, at once
objected: "This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it at the
public expense." Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, "saw no more propriety in
the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse."
Under the pressure of these objections, the offensive proposition was
withdrawn,--never more to be renewed. The article for the surrender of
criminals was then unanimously adopted. On the next day, 29th
August, profiting by the suggestions already made, Mr. Butler moved
a proposition,--substantially like that now found in the
Constitution,--for the surrender, not of "fugitive slaves," as
originally proposed, but simply of "persons bound to service or labor,"
which, without debate or opposition of any kind, was unanimously
adopted.'

Here, palpably, was no labor of compromise, no adjustment of conflicting
interest,--nor even any expression of solicitude. The clause finally
adopted was vague and faint as the original suggestion. In its natural
import it is not applicable to slaves. If supposed by some to
be applicable, it is clear that it was supposed by others to be
inapplicable. It is now insisted that the term "persons bound to
service," or "held to service," as expressed in the final revision, is
the equivalent or synonym for "slaves." This interpretation is rebuked
by an incident to which reference has been already made, but which will
bear repetition. On the 13th September--a little more than a fortnight
after the clause was adopted, and when, if deemed to be of any
significance, it could not have been forgotten--the very word "service,"
came under debate, and received a fixed meaning. It was unanimously
adopted as a substitute for "servitude" in another part of the
Constitution, for the reason that it expressed "the obligations of free
persons," while the other expressed "the condition of slaves." In
the face of this authentic evidence, reported by Mr. Madison, it is
difficult to see how the term "persons held to service" can be deemed to
express anything beyond the "obligations of free persons." Thus, in the
light of calm inquiry, does this exaggerated clause lose its importance.

The provision, showing itself thus tardily, and so slightly regarded in
the National Convention, was neglected in much of the contemporaneous
discussion before the people. In the Conventions of South Carolina,
No