Upon two constitutional points the opponents of the bill made a stand. Mr. Sergeant wished to change the bill materially, by making "the judges of the State in which ... slaves are seized the tribunal to decide the fact of slavery, instead of the judges of the State whence the fugitives escaped," but this was negatived by a large majority.[100]
Another objection to the bill, raised by Mr. Whitman, is noteworthy, since some years later it was the point made most prominent in Judge Story's decision in the Prigg Case.[101] Mr. Whitman disapproved of the provision making it a penal offence for a State officer to refuse his assistance in executing the act. He did not believe that Congress had any right to compel State officers to perform this duty; they could do no more than authorize it.[102]
A vote was taken, January 30, 1818, in the House, and the bill passed by a vote of 84 to 69.[103] It was ordered that the title be "An Act to provide for delivering up persons held to labor or service in any of the States or Territories who shall escape into any other State or Territory."
For the first time since 1793, amendment of the act seemed within reach. The Senate showed itself in other questions more inclined than the House to consider the claims of the South; but although Dagget's amendment to strike out the elaborate provision for the return of fugitives by executive requisition was not adopted,[104] the Senate first voted to limit the bill to four years,[105] and then added other amendments. The result was a non-concurrence with the House, and the failure of the bill,[106] March 13-16, 1818. A last attempt to take the bill up failed, April 10, 1818.[107]
[Sidenote: Period of the Missouri Compromise.]
=§ 21. Period of the Missouri Compromise (1819-1822).=--The loss of the bill of 1818 seems not to have discouraged the friends of amendment of the act of 1793. December 17, 1818, a resolution of the Maryland legislature was laid before the House, calling for protection against the citizens of Pennsylvania who harbored or protected fugitives.[108] A committee was appointed, January 15, 1819, which promptly reported next day, but the bill was not considered.[109]
The question of fugitives came incidentally into the great debate of the next session on the admission of Missouri. The region which sought admission as a slave State was flanked on the east by free territory, and was therefore peculiarly difficult to protect. A compromise, which made Missouri a slave State, prohibited slavery in all other territory gained from France north of 36° 30'.[110] In the prohibitory clause, however, it was provided "that any persons escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."[111] During the immigration into Missouri which now began, large numbers of slaveholders took their slaves with them, and on the passage opportunities for escape were often found. In one instance, at least, recorded in Ohio, the public sympathy was so strongly with the fugitives that they were successfully protected from their masters even in court.[112]