Note 46 — SECOND CONGRESS.—SECOND SESSION. (continued 2)

The bill came down from the Senate where debates were not published, and seems to have passed the House without debate, and almost without division, there being but seven votes against it, and two of these (Messrs. Mercer and Parker) from slave States. Nor does it appear to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, for both classes of fugitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed on a message from President Washington, founded on a communication from the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugitive from justice who had taken refuge in Virginia, and because it was necessary to have an act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the constitution. There was but little necessity in those times, nor for long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive slaves. The laws of the free States, and still more the force of public opinion, were the owners' best safeguards. Public opinion was against the abduction of slaves; and if any one was seduced from his owner, it was done furtively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner, and to a greater extent than the act of Congress did, or could. In Pennsylvania there was an act (it was passed in 1780, and only repealed in 1847) discriminating between the traveller and sojourner, and the permanent resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before his slaves would become subject to the emancipation laws; and, in the case of a federal government officer, allowing as much more time as his duties required him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying in time, which was nine months. While these two acts were in force, and supported by public opinion, the traveller and sojourner was safe with his slaves in those States, and the same in the other free States. There was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1793 did not grow out of any such trouble, but out of the case of a fugitive from justice. It was that case which brought the subject before Congress; and, in the act that was passed, the case of fugitives from justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to the other—all brief and plain, and executable without expense or fuss. In the case of a slave the owner was allowed to seize him wherever he saw him, by day or by night, Sundays or week-days, just as if he was in his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached to any person who resisted or obstructed him in this seizure. The only authority he wanted was after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that purpose, the affidavit of the owner, or his agent was sufficient. This act was perfect, except in relying upon State officers, as well as federal officers to execute it, these State officers not being subject to the federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a subject of political agitation.