[Illustration: JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS, M.C., who kept a room in his house in Jefferson, Ohio, for fugitives.] [Illustration: CHARLES SUMNER, THE CHAMPION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.] [Illustration: RICHARD H. DANA, Jr., COUNSEL FOR COLORED REFUGEES IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.] The group of enactments just considered together with many other early measures relating to the subject of fugitives makes it clear that the question of extradition of runaway slaves had also arisen in colonial times. A stipulation for the return of fugitives had been inserted in the formal agreement entered into by Plymouth, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Haven at the time of the formation of the New England Confederation in 1643,[858] and may be supposed to have remained in force for a period of forty years. In the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation adopted in 1781, no such provision was made. This omission soon became serious through the action of the states of Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island between 1777 and 1784 in taking steps toward immediate or gradual emancipation; for the first time the question of the status of fugitives in free regions was now raised. [858] _Plymouth Colony Records_, IX, 5; Marion G. McDougall, _Fugitive Slaves_, 7. When, in 1787, the question arose of providing a government for the territory northwest of the Ohio River, the difficulty was felt; and the Northwest Ordinance included a clause for the reclamation of fugitives from labor. A proposition made by Mr. King in 1785 to prohibit slavery in this region without any provision for reclaiming fugitives had gone to committee, but was never afterwards called up in Congress. In the discussion of 1787 an amendment was offered by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, the first clause of which excluded slavery from the territory, and the second clause provided for the rendition of fugitives. The previous delay and the prompt and unanimous approval of the compromise measure of Mr. Dane give force to the contention of a special student of the Ordinance, that the stipulation forbidding slavery could not have been adopted without the provision for the recovery of runaways.[859] [859] Peter Force, on the Ordinance of 1787, in the _National Intelligencer_, 1847. See also E. B. Chase's volume, entitled _Teachings of Patriots and Statesmen, or the "Founders of the Republic" on Slavery_, 1860, pp. 155, 160, 161, 169. About six weeks after the incorporation, by the Continental Congress, of the fugitive slave clause in the Northwest Ordinance, a similar provision was made a part of the Constitution of the United States by the vote of the Federal Convention at Philadelphia.[860] In the case of the Constitution, as of the Ordinance, the clause was probably necessary for the acceptance and adoption of the instrument, and the action of the legislative body was unanimous.[861]