But the very boldness of the effort drew attention and opposition. Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, the learned jurist and excellent man, at once objected: "This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it at the public expense." Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, "saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse." Under the pressure of these objections, _the offensive proposition was withdrawn_,--never more to be renewed. The article for the surrender of criminals was then unanimously adopted.[161] On the next day, 29th August, profiting by the suggestions already made, Mr. Butler moved a proposition,--substantially like that now found in the Constitution,--for the surrender, not of "fugitive slaves," as originally proposed, but simply of "persons bound to service or labor," which, without debate or opposition of any kind, was unanimously adopted.[162] [161] "Agreed to, _nem. con._," are Madison's words. [162] "Agreed to, _nem. con._," are again Madison's words. Here, palpably, was no labor of compromise, no adjustment of conflicting interests,--nor even any expression of solicitude. The clause finally adopted was vague and faint as the original suggestion. In its natural import it is not applicable to slaves. If supposed by some to be applicable, it is clear that it was supposed by others to be inapplicable. It is now insisted that the term "_persons bound to service_," or "_held to service_," as expressed in the final revision, is the equivalent or synonym for "_slaves_." This interpretation is rebuked by an incident to which reference has been already made, but which will bear repetition. On the 13th September--a little more than a fortnight after the clause was adopted, and when, if deemed to be of any significance, it could not have been forgotten--the very word "service" came under debate, and received a fixed meaning. It was unanimously adopted as a substitute for "servitude" in another part of the Constitution, for the reason that it expressed "the _obligations of free persons_," while the other expressed "the condition of slaves." In the face of this authentic evidence, reported by Mr. Madison, it is difficult to see how the term "persons held to _service_" can be deemed to express anything beyond "the obligations of _free persons_." Thus, in the light of calm inquiry, does this exaggerated clause lose its importance.