"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 service 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 was agreed to, _nem. con._ After the phraseology had been somewhat altered, on Saturday, Sept. 15, 1787, in this clause (then Const. Art. 4, sec. 2) the term "legally" was struck out, and the words "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some one who thought the term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea that _slavery_ was legal in a moral view. In the Virginia Convention, Mr. Madison said:-- "Another clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated, by their laws; for the laws of the States are uncharitable (!) to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, '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 service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' _This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them._ This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States." In the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell begged leave to explain the reason of this clause:-- "In some of the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of our slaves," said he, "go there and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States; and, _to prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution_. Though the word _slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of slavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned." Gen. Pinckney, says Mr. Madison, was not satisfied with Art. 14, and "seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves." He thus, in the South Carolina Convention, expresses his satisfaction at this article of the Constitution:--