CONGRESS, U. S. 



251 



question never was intended to embrace slaves, 

 but apprentices." 



Mr. Sumner: "The Senator misunderstood 

 me. I did not doubt that the persons who 

 drew up that clause meant slavery, but I in- 

 sisted that, according to all just rules of inter- 

 pretation, which neither the Senator nor myself 

 are at liberty to disobey, the language they em- 

 ployed cannot be interpreted to mean slavery ; 

 for" according to those rules slavery cannot 

 stand on inference. It requires a positive text 

 to sustain it." 



Mr. Johnson : " I do not know what the hon- 

 orable member supposes to be the limited effect 

 of inference. I suppose when we are called 

 upon to construe words, we are to construe 

 them according to their intent. Xow, I under- 

 stand the honorable member to say that the 

 intent of the persons by whom those words 

 were used was to embrace slavery, but he says 

 they have not carried out their intent." 



Mr. Sumner : "As occurs very often in a will 

 or contract." 



Mr. Johnson: "But wills and contracts are 

 not made by such men as composed that Con- 

 vention. The brightest intellects that ever shed 

 glory upon the world were to be found in that 

 Convention. Every clause in the Constitution 

 was carefully penned in the first instance, sub- 

 mitted to the most careful criticisms through- 

 out, and not adopted until every man in the 

 Convention knew what every other man in the 

 Convention meant. If there was any member 

 of that Convention who supposed that these 

 words would not comprehend slaves, and he 

 kept that to himself, he did not deal fairly with 

 his compatriots. "Why do not the words include 

 slaves ? Why is it a matter of inference ? Do 

 they not include apprentices? They include 

 somebody, some class of people ; and if they 

 do, what class is included? Are apprentices 

 included ? The honorable member will admit 

 that." 



Mr. Sumner : " And redemptioners." 



Mr. Johnson: "And redemptioners; and 

 why ? Because they are held to service. Is 

 he who is held to service for life less held to 

 service than he who is held to service for a few 

 years ? The honorable member may assail the 

 laws of the States and deny that there can be 

 any law in any State which can make one man 

 the servant of another for life ; but, assuming 

 the validity of those laws (and the very object 

 of repealing this act of 1793 and the act of 

 1850 is because it is assumed that the laws 

 would operate upon them), then it would fol- 

 low that slaves are included within the term 

 'held to service,' unless it be true that he who 

 is held to service for life is not held to service 

 equally with him who is held to service for a 

 month or a year." 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky : " "Will the Senator 

 from Maryland allow me to call his attention 

 to the third clause of the second section of the 

 first article of the Constitution ? It is in these 

 words : 



Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor- 

 tioned among the several States which may be in. 

 eluded within this Union, according to their respec- 

 tive numbers, which shall be determined by adding 

 to the whole number of free persons, including those 

 bound to service for a term of years, and excluding 

 Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. 



"TTho are meant by the words 'three-fifths 

 of all other persons ?' " 



Mr. Johnson: "lam obliged to my friend 

 from Kentucky for his reference to that clause. 

 The language of the particular clause in ques- 

 tion is this : 



Xo person held to service or labor in one State, 

 under the laws thereof. 



" All we have to ascertain is, is there a law ia 

 Maryland which gives me a right to the service 

 of a" slave for life ? If there is, then according 

 to the words of the provision if he escapes he 

 is to be returned to me. But if there could be 

 any doubt, looking to the terms themselves 

 which are to be found in this clause, that doubt 

 would be removed by the particular clause re- 

 ferred to by the honorable member from Ken- 

 tucky. The question between the honorable 

 member from Massachusetts and myself, and 

 between him and "Washington and every mem- 

 ber of the Convention, all the State Legislatures, 

 every State court, every district court of the 

 United States, and the Supreme Court of the 

 United States, with Marshall at their head, is 

 whether the term, 'held to service,' as used in 

 what is called the fugitive slave clause, em- 

 braces slaves." 



Mr. Sumner: "The Senator will pardon me. 

 That is not the question. The question is 

 whether the whole clause is applicable to slaves. 

 The Senator will observe that there are still 

 other operative words. The clause is as follows : 



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. 



" The Senator will observe this clause speaks 

 of a party, not of a thing. It speaks of a per- 

 son held to service or labor, not of a thing ; of 

 a person held to service or labor pursued into 

 another State where he is claimed by one to 

 whom such service or labor may be due. All 

 that implies contract. It does not imply a con- 

 dition of slavery. Xo service or labor is due 

 from a slave to his master ; of course not." 



Mr. Johnson : "I do not expect to satisfy 

 the honorable member. I do not think any- 

 body could satisfy him. I knew exactly what 

 his reading of that clause was, and whatever 

 might be urged he would bo 'of the same 

 opinion still.' He says now that it applies only 

 to a person who is under a contract to render 

 service to the party from whom he has escaped. 

 "Where does he get that meaning ? The words 

 used are, ' any person held to service or labor 

 under the laws of a State,' not under contract, 

 and the apprentice would be included, and the 

 indented servant would be Included, not be- 



