service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due."

So far as this describes, or was understood to describe, persons held
to service or labor as slaves, it necessarily must also have been
understood to apply only to the original States. This follows from
what has already been shown. And it must have been so understood for
another reason, because it was only "in" and "under" the laws of those
States that persons could be held to service or labor as slaves. Under
the laws of the Territories and new States, their being so held was
forever prohibited. Hence, none but those escaped from one of the
original States could ever be legally liable to reclamation, according
to the understanding and intention of the original parties to this
compact. This manifestly was the meaning of "the fathers," when the
ordinance and Constitution were framed and ratified.

The two provisions must be construed together. That in the ordinance
was intended for the Territories and new States, and that in the
Constitution for the original States. If that in the Constitution had
been intended for the Territories, it would have read, "escaping into
another State or into the Territory," and that in the ordinance would
have been entirely omitted. The proviso to the prohibition in the
Missouri Compromise in 1820 is a striking confirmation of this. That
was copied, word for word, from the ordinance of 1787, or original
compromise, except substituting for the words "in any one of the
States," the words "in any State or Territory of the United States,"
as follows:

"_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same, from whom
labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original
States, such fugitive," &c. And in the compromise of 1820:

"_Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same from whom
labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the
United States, such fugitive," &c.

Why say "in any State or Territory of the United States," instead of
"in any one of the original States," as in the ordinance of 1787,
unless the Congress of 1820 understood the latter to limit the right
of recovering fugitive slaves to the original States, and meant by the
Missouri bill to extend it to all the States and Territories? They did
extend it, but in palpable violation of the "spirit of the compact of
the fathers," and of the "policy of 1787."

Or