of their masters. Most, if not all, of these men remained in the Northern states after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. [739] S. J. May, _Some Recollections of our Anti-Slavery Conflict_, p. 289. [740] _Narrative of William W. Brown, A Fugitive Slave_, pp. 106, 107, 108. [741] Letters of Mrs. Susan Crane, Elmira, N.Y.; letters of John W. Jones, Elmira, N.Y.; see also Still, _Underground Railroad Records_, p. 530. [742] Letters of Mr. Martin I. Townsend, Troy. N.Y., Sept. 4, 1896, and April 3, 1897. [743] Conversation with Mr. Poindexter, Columbus, O., in the summer of 1895. CHAPTER IX PROSECUTIONS OF UNDERGROUND RAILROAD MEN The aversion to a law for the rendition of fugitive slaves that early manifested itself in the North was perhaps foreshadowed in the hesitating manner in which the question was dealt with by Congress. The original demand for legislation was caused by the activity of kidnappers in Pennsylvania; but the first bill, reported from committee to the House in November, 1791, was dropped for some reason not now discoverable. At the end of March in the following year a committee of the Senate was appointed to consider the matter, but it accomplished nothing. At the beginning of the next session a second Senate committee was chosen, and from this body a bill emanated. This bill proved to be unsatisfactory, however, and after the committee had been remodelled by the addition of two new members the bill was recommitted with instructions to amend. With some slight change the measure proposed by the committee was adopted by the Senate, January 18; and after an interval of nearly three weeks the House passed it with little or no debate, by a vote of forty-eight to seven. Thus for nearly a year and a quarter the subject was under the consideration of Congress before it could be embodied in a bill and sent to the executive for his signature. On February 12, 1793, President Washington signed this bill and it became a law.[744] [744] M. G. McDougall, _Fugitive Slaves_, pp. 17, 18. The object of the law was, of course, to enforce the constitutional guarantee in regard to the delivery of fugitives from service to their masters. An analysis of the law will show that forcible seizure of the alleged fugitive was authorized; that the decision of the magistrate before whom he was to be taken was allowed to turn on the testimony of the master, or the affidavit of some magistrate in the state from which he came; and that trial by jury was denied. Persons attempting to obstruct the law by harboring or concealing a fugitive slave, resisting his arrest, or securing his rescue, were liable to a fine of five hundred dollars for the benefit of the claimant, and the right of action on account of these injuries was reserved to the claimant.[745] [745] _Statutes at Large_, I, 302-305. [Illustration: SALMON P. CHASE, of OHIO,