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 colored 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 negro 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
Propositions from 1817 to 1822.
§ 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 colored 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 colored 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
Period of the Missouri Compromise.
§ 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° 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
