doing, and we believe this distinction was noticed at the time. But when the expression, "to whom such service or labor may be due," was added, it gave to the expression "held" all the meaning of the word "bound," or, otherwise, there can be no sense to the expression; consequently we should give the same meaning to both words. But, to say a slave owes any thing, we must give up the principle he is a slave, because, according to the laws of slavery, the slave cannot own any thing, and, consequently, cannot owe any thing: he is a thing; he owns and owes nothing. But, if it is said this paragraph was inserted in the Constitution in reference to slaves, we answer, we have no doubt those who held slaves attempted to introduce an article whereby they could reclaim any of their pretended (we say pretended) bondmen, let him flee to what part of the Union he might ; but they were foiled in their attempt; they could not, in this instance, get the convention to grant them their wish. The person alone to whom service was owed was permitted to reclaim a runaway, even as we now permit a person to reclaim the service of any one who is bound or held as an apprentice, or had contracted for a certain amount of labor for a certain compensation; and that this language might and should be so construed, is somewhat evident by the similar language in the article alluded to above. We therefore think nothing in favor of slavery can be made out of this clause, according to the true principles of interpretation. It only shows how hard

some persons tried to mar the face of the Constitu tion without being able to succeed. And that this was the meaning intended to be attached to this phrase we think there can be no doubt; for it should be borne in mind that "Conditional servi tude, under indentures and covenants, had from the first existed in Virginia. The servant stood to his master in the relation of debtor, bound to discharge the cost of emigration by the entire employment of his powers for the benefit of his creditor; "1 and though there was more or less oppression under this system, and many Englishmen, Scotch, and Irish were sent here in opposition to their own wishes, yet they differed from slaves in the "duration of their servitude," and "the laws of the colony favored their enfranchisement."

It has been said the amendment that was made to this article goes to prove that slaves were meant, and that its bearing is now different from what it was as originally introduced; but we do not perceive it alters the force of the construction of the passage as we have given it; that is, that it was people that owed service, and not slaves, that were meant ; and, if so, it explains the reason (and we cannot ac count for it on any other) why Franklin, and his associates, who did all they could to oppose slavery, let this section pass without opposition. But it may be objected, as we have said, that the sentence "held to service or labor" has a different meaning from the expression "bound to service," and that the com

'Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. i. p. 176.

mittee of revision made the alteration in the original article for the purpose of making the slaveholder more secure, and that their striking out the words "justly claiming " renders it more certain. But, when we consider the words "to whom such service or labor may be due" were added, they place the subject on its true basis, that is, of debt; and a debt cannot be contracted without the consent of both parties. Consequently they did not succeed in their wishes, though the slaveholder afterwards proceeded, and the magistrates in the free States very unjustly, as we think, have allowed them to pursue their unlawful and vile purposes, without ever bringing up this question of debt, the very question on which their whole claim can constitutionally rest.

According to the Madison papers, Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney, from South Carolina, moved "that fugitive slaves and servants be delivered up like criminals: " this being objected to, Mr. Butler moved to insert the following: "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such labor or service in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor; which was agreed to nem. con."

But when the Constitution came to be revised, this resolution, besides the other amendments made to it, had the words "rightfully claiming stricken out, and the words "on claim of the party

to whom such labor or service may be due" added; thereby, instead, as we have seen it asserted, of retaining the point of the original resolution, nullifying its effect when applied to one held in bondage against his own consent, and placing it, as it should have been placed, on account of debt consequently, no man should be given up, unless the debt of service or labor is proved.

Section 4th of the same article has this expression :

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application of the legislature or executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence."

A question here arises: what is a republican form of government? Its usual acceptation is, when the people make their own laws, through or by their representatives. The question recurs, then, is the colored man of this country represented, or can he be, in a slaveholding State, by conforming to any laws or rules the legislature of any of these States prescribes ? We believe not; he, as we have said before, is considered a thing, and therefore is thrown without the pale of citizenship, and is under a most tyrannical government. He is denied this republican form of government, which the Constitution guarantees to him; and consequently the laws of these States, which impose these disabilities, are null, and should be of no effect. Let it not be said Greece and Rome held slaves, though they had a

republican form of government, and therefore it is competent for the American citizen to hold them, and yet continue their republicanism. To this we object, as those only, and their descendants, were slaves who were taken in war; they were made slaves rather than to destroy or imprison them ; they were considered enemies to the state: the negro has never been a prisoner of war to this country, neither is he considered its enemy. But, after all, has the Christian American citizen no better model for his conduct and his mode of government than pagan Greece and Rome? We think he has, or ought to have.

Article 7 of the amendments: "In suits of common law, when the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reëxamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Now, admitting a person can be held in slavery, if his value is considered above twenty dollars, he certainly, according to this article, should have his case tried by a jury, instead of being delivered up simply by a hearing before a magistrate, as has been universally the case when he has been claimed; which would be, if it was merely a question of dollars and cents, most clearly a violation of the Constitution, and which ought not to be suffered. How much more, then, ought it not to be suffered, when a man's liberty is involved!

This closes all, so far as we can conceive, that