wfully
claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may
be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming
his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

This means that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except for the purpose of reclaiming such fugitives--and I
admit that slaves were intended--as are lawfully claimed in any one of
the original States. The very fact of the proviso implies that
Congress understood that the right of reclamation could not exist,
unless it was excepted.

And of course it could only exist for the purpose excepted. The
intention was to grant the right to the original States, but to limit
it to them. It is impossible to conceive of a measure for framing the
proviso as it is, if that had not been the intention. As the ordinance
itself made provision for the formation of new States, such States
must have been in the minds of members when acting upon it. If the
object had been to authorize the reclamation of slaves escaping to
this territory from other States than original States, it is certain
the word "original" would have been omitted. It was intended for the
purpose of limiting the right.

Now observe that this article, proviso and all, is part of an
unalterable compact to which the Constitution has given validity.
Nobody pretends Congress has ever had the power to alter it. Mr.
TOOMBS denies any such power in express terms. A law which Congress
cannot alter has substantially the force and effect of a
constitutional proviso. This, then, is the only law for the
reclamation of fugitive slaves in the five States of the northwest
territory; and there can be no other, the Constitution having made it
perpetually valid.

Such obviously is the meaning and legal effect of the fugitive slave
provision in the ordinance. And the meaning of that, derived as it is
not merely from the consent of the Federal and State conventions, but
from their concurrent action, necessarily fixes the meaning of the
provision on the same subject in the Constitution, and shows how it
must have been understood. As the two were parts of the same
compromise, of course neither was understood to be inconsistent with
the other. The provision in the Constitution is in these words:

"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