OCR Text |
Show 168 THE ORDINANCE OF 1787. amended as stated below,) and on the 13th it was read a third time, and passed by the unanimous vote of the eighL States present iu the CongTcss. On the passage Lhe Y cas and Nays (being required by Mr. Yates,) were as follows : Ayes-MassachuseLts, Mr. IIollcn, Mr. Dane; New York, :Mr. Smith, Mr. llarncy, l\1r. Yates ; N cw J er cy, Mr. Clark, Mr. ScburcJuan; Delaware, Mr. }(carn ey ; :Mt·. Mitchell ; Virginia, Mr. Grayson, Mr. lt. II. Lee, Mr. Carrington; North Carolina, Mr. Blount, Mr. Ilawkins; South Carolina, Mr. Kean, Mr. IIugcr; Georgia, Mr. Few, Mr. Pierce. Nays-None. Abscnt-N cw llam psb.ire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 1\faryland. It appears then that, instead of having 11 this ordinance under deliberation and revi sion for three years and six months," in FIVE DAYS it was passed through all the forms of legislation-the reference, the action of the committee, the report, the three several readings, the discussion and amendment by Congress, and the final passage. On the 12th of July (as above stated), Mr. Dane offered the following amendment, which was adopted as the sixth of the orticles of the compact: "Article the sixth. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is claimed in any of the original State , such fu giLivc may be lawfully reclaimed and con vcycd to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." This had in part been presented by Mr. J c.trerson, in 1784, and again by Mr. King, in 1785. The assertion that this clause, "as it now exists iu the ordinance," was 'rriE OHDJXANCB OF 1787. 169 u proposed and cn.rried hy Mr. King-, when neither J cll'erson nor Dane was prc:ent," is ~in gularl y in correct. In the proposition sub mitted by ~1r. l'"ing iu 17 !) (which was never aflcrwards called up in Cong-re: ·) there was no proVIslOn for reclaiming fugiti,·cs; and without such a provision it coulu not have been carri ell at n 11 : be.- ides, tltc clause, "as it now exists i 11 the ordi uaucc," was proposed by Mr. Dane on the 121 h of .J nly, 1 7 87, and carried by the unanimous vote of Congress when Mr. King was not present. Mr. King was a member of the Convention for framing the federal Constitution. lie was present and voted iu the Conveuiion on the 12th of July, 17 87. The whole of that day was occupied in settling the proportion of representation and direct taxation, which was then determined as it now stands in the Constitution, viz., "by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, lh?·ee-fiflhs of all other per-sons. The Congress and the Convention were both in session at the same time in Philadelphia; there was of course free intercourse and interchange of opinion between the members of the two bodies. To this may be attribntcd the adoption on the same day, of the clause in the Ordinance and the clause in the Constitution.* 'rhe accompanying copy of the Ordinance shows the * An additional 1·eason for the agreement of the Southern States to this restriction of slavery, mn.y be fom1d in the fact that the institution would not be likely to flourish to any considerable extent in that climate. They therefore gave up little ancl gained what waR far more impor tant to them, a recogn ition, in the arti cle itsc lf, of their right to captnre their fugitive slaves in that terri tory- a right they had not b fore possessed. This all occurred prio1· to the adoption of tho present Constitution, and seems to have been a compromise of sectional interests. 'I '1 |