"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 services or labor in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape; but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor."
which passed in the affirmative (Ayes—11; noes—0.)
It was moved and seconded to strike out the two last clauses of the 17 article[580]
On the same day when the question came up again:
Mr. Butler moved to insert after art: XV. "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the U—States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, 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:[581]
The Committee of Style reported:
No person legally held to service or labour in one state, escaping into another, shall in consequence of regulations subsisting therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.[582]
On the thirteenth of September,
On motion of Mr. Randolph the word "servitude" was struck out, and "service" (unanimously) inserted, the former being thought to express the condition of slaves, & the latter the obligations of free persons.[583]
Two days later:
Art. IV. sect 2. parag: 3. the term "legally" was struck out, and "under the laws thereof" inserted (after the word "State,") in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term (legal) equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view——[584]