against the claimant on any of the matters submitted to them, "the person so claimed as a fugitive shall be forthwith set at liberty and shall never thereafter be molested upon the same claim; and any person who shall thereafter arrest, detain, or proceed in any manner to retake such alleged fugitive upon the same claim, or shall by virtue of the same claim remove such alleged fugitive out of this state under any process or proceeding whatever, shall be deemed guilty of kidnapping, and, upon conviction, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not exceeding ten years." The district attorney was required to render his services to the alleged fugitive, or counsel should be appointed by the court. There were other incidental provisions, some imposing severe penalties for disregarding the terms of this law designed to protect the rights of the alleged fugitive. Before the writ of habeas corpus should be granted, the applicant was required to give a bond in the sum of $1000 to pay all costs and expenses, and $2 weekly for the support of the alleged fugitive while in custody, and if the jury should decide against the claimant, to pay the expenses of the alleged fugitive.

Chapter 375, in laws of 1840, being "An Act more effectually to protect the free citizens of this State from being kidnapped or reduced to slavery", required the governor "to take such measures as he shall deem necessary to procure" that any person kidnapped, etc., be restored to his liberty, and returned. He might appoint agents to effect such restoration, who might perform journeys, take proofs, legal proceedings, etc.

The last act, for many years, directly on the subject of slavery, was chapter 247 of laws of 1841, which repealed § 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, of tit. 7, ch. 20, of the first part of the revised statutes. These sections allowed slaves to be brought into the state, to pass through the state, etc. The repeal extinguishes all privileges of slave owners, and all ownerships in slaves within the state.

The antislavery feeling in the state was not, however, satisfied merely with having extinguished slavery within its own borders. It was as hostile to its existence elsewhere in the United States, but did not seek to interfere with it where already

established or permitted by law. But it did propose that the evil should not be extended beyond those limits. The expression of that feeling is found in the "concurrent resolutions" passed by the senate and assembly of the state from time to time. In 1847, during the Mexican war, with the prospect before their eyes that Texas and other territories would be added to our Union, they resolved "That if any territory shall hereafter be acquired by the United States, or annexed thereto, the act by which territory is acquired or annexed, whatever such act may be, should contain an unalterable fundamental article or provision, whereby slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever excluded from the territory acquired or annexed." And in 1848, by concurrent resolution, the senators in congress are requested to use their best efforts to insert into any act or ordinance, etc., provisions excluding slavery; and in 1849, to the same effect.

In 1852, by concurrent resolution, the senators and representatives in congress are requested to use their best efforts to have a joint committee appointed to prepare a compendium of the first and subsequent enumerations of the inhabitants of the United States, showing in separate columns the whites, the free persons of color, and the slaves, by sexes, etc. and the representation under each enumeration, etc.; all of which indicated pretty clearly an intention to prepare for a vigorous attack on slavery in its relations to representation in congress.

In 1855, the legislature by concurrent resolutions declared that the bill, in congress, organizing the territory of Kansas and Nebraska and repealing part of the Missouri compromise prohibiting slavery, etc., was a gross violation of good faith. It demanded of congress the enactment of a law declaring that slavery shall not exist except where it is established by a local law of a state, thus restoring by positive statute the prohibition of slavery in the territory of Kansas and Nebraska. They declared "that the people of the State of New York will not consent to the admission into the Union of any state formed out of Kansas and Nebraska unless its constitution shall prohibit the

existence of slavery within its limits." They denounced the fugitive slave law of 1850; and demanded the right of free discussion, etc.

The intensity of feeling at that period is shown in the concurrent resolutions of Ap. 16, 1857: "That this state will not allow slavery within her borders, in any form, or under any pretence, or for any time however short.-That the Supreme Court of the United States, by reason of a majority of the judges thereof having identified it with a sectional and aggressive party, has impaired the confidence and respect of the people of this state." The governor is requested to transmit a copy of the resolutions to the respective governors of the states of this Union.

Ap. 12, 1859, they resolved: "That this legislature and the citizens of this State look with surprise, mortification and detestation upon the virtual reopening, within the federal union, of the slave trade; that against this invasion of our laws, our feelings, and the dictates of christianity, we solemnly protest here, as we will protest elsewhere, and especially at the ballotbox;" and call for the punishment of those engaged in the slave trade; and the governor is "required to transmit a copy of this resolution to the legislatures of the several states of the Union and earnestly request their cooperation in arresting this great wickedness."

Jan. 11, 1865, by concurrent resolution, the legislature instructed their senators in congress to secure a resolution submitting a proposition to amend the federal constitution by adding thereto art. 13, prohibiting slavery in the United States; and February 2 following they ratified, by resolution, the 13th amendment that congress proposed. April 22, the same year, they passed a law ratifying the same amendment, probably on the theory that ratification by resolution was insufficient, or at least not sufficiently formal.

The next, and last, act of legislation of the state in any way affecting the subject of slavery was passed Feb. 20, 1883, (ch. 36), and was in these words: "Title seven, chapter twenty, part

one, Volume one of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed," thus wiping out the last vestige of slavery legislation from the statute books of the state.

INDIAN SLAVES

Frequent reference is made in the colonial records and laws, not only of New York but also of other colonies, to Indians as slaves. Indian slavery in some form existed in all or nearly all of them. We know that the Indians of the West Indies, from an early period, were made slaves; that the Spaniards made slaves of captives from the continent to some extent; that the Indian tribes made slaves of their captives in war, and sometimes sold them to the whites.

In Massachusetts, in 1637 and after, many captive Indians taken in the Pequot war were made slaves, and were sent to the Bermudas and there sold. Hugh Peter wanted "some boyes for the Bermudas" from these captives. Domestic Indian slavery existed at the same time, and the statutes of the colony made constant allusion to the fact.

In King Philip's war, 1675-78, numerous Indian captives taken were disposed of as slaves. In 1675, 112 men, women and children of the Indians were, by the council of Plymouth, ordered sold, and they were accordingly sold. A little later, 57 more were sold. In all, in 1675-76, 188 were sold for £397 13s. The "Praying Indians" themselves did not escape the common fate of captive Indians. They all went, when captured, into West Indian slavery. The lawfulness of the slavery of both Indians and negroes was recognized by the "Code of 1650" of the colony of Connecticut. Indian slaves were imported into Pennsylvania from Carolina and elsewhere.

In Virginia, by and act passed in 1676, all Indians taken in war were to be held and accounted slaves during life. In the same year it was enacted that Indian captives taken by soldiers in war should be the property of such captors. The Indian captives of neighboring Indians were sold to the whites as slaves; and this was made lawful by an act passed in 1862.

Turning to New York, the evidence is not conclusive that Indians were enslaved during the Dutch period, within the province at least. It is probable, however, that the Dutch sometimes made slaves of Indian prisoners.

In a communication of the "Eight Men ", from Manhattan, to the Amsterdam chamber of the West India company, in 1644, they say: "The captured Indians who might have been of considerable use to us as guides, have been given to the soldiers as presents, and allowed to go to Holland; the others have been sent off to the Bermudas as a present to the English governor," presumably as slaves.

During the English period, there is frequent reference to Indian slaves. "According to the Minutes of 1679, it was resolved that all Indians within the colony were free-nor could they be forced to be servants or slaves-and if they were brought hither as slaves, a residence of 6 months should entitle them to freedom." But this rule did not prevail at a later period in the English colony, as is evident from both documents and laws.

In the narrative of grievances against Jacob Leisler, appears this: "The same night (Dec. 23, 1689) an Indian Slave belonging to Philip French was dragged to the Fort (New York) and there imprisoned."

The colonial act of May 1, 1702, is the first act mentioning Indians as slaves. A tax is levied "upon every Negro or Indian Slave Imported in this Province from their own Countries." The next is an act passed Oct. 21, 1706: "Whereas divers of her Maties good Subjects, Inhabitants of this Colony now are and have been willing that such Negro, Indian and Mulatto Slaves who belong to them and desire the same, should be baptized," etc. The same act declared "That all and every Negro, Indian Mulatto and Mestee Bastard Child & Children who is, are and shalbe born of any Negro, Indian, Mulatto or Mestee, shall follow ye state and Condition of the Mother & be esteemed reputed taken & adjudged a slave & slaves to all intents and purposes whatsoever." An act of Sep. 18, 1708 speaks of "Negro, Indian or other Slaves."