73.       Perhaps the best known incident is the 1822 joint committee led by Reverdy Johnson

which sought the cooperation of Pennsylvania. Johnson acknowledged the immorality of
slavery, but argued that so long as the institution was recognized by the law the rights of
the property holder must be respected. See Brackett, supra note 1 at 85-8. In 1839 the
legislature made it a felony to escape from the state into another state or the District of
Columbia, and provided that upon conviction the escaped slave would be sold to the
highest bidder with the proceeds going to the owner. The purchaser was required to
remove the slave from the state, so, in effect, the consequence of escape might well be a
sale south where conditions were worse, contact with friends and relatives ended, and
escape even more difficult. The law also provided the procedure for the governor to
demand the slave from the proper authority in the state to which the slave had escaped.
Maryland Laws 1838 Ch.63. Some courts in the north required proof that slavery was
lawful in the state from which a slave escaped and the legislature in 1840 responded by
"an act declaring Domestic Slavery to be lawful in this State" to provide a "convenient
mode of enabling such owners to procure a certified copy of a law proving that slavery
exists by law in this State." Maryland Laws 1839 Ch. 42.

74.       Id. See also. W. Wyne Smith, "Politics and Democracy in Maryland, 1800-1854," in
Walsh and Fox, supra note 2 at 239, 298 citing article at 66 Md. Hist. Mag. 333 noting
that fugitive slaves constituted only about 1% of the slave population.

75.       Van Ness, supra note 2, at 221.

76.       Laws of Maryland 1796 Ch. 67, § 29. The requirement came from the law of 1783, and
the two witness rule was strictly enforced. In Negro James v. Gaither, 2 Har. and John.
176 (1807), Gaither signed a deed of manumission in 1784 for all his slaves, to take effect
after his death. Although the deed was signed in the presence of a justice of the peace
and others, the justice of the peace said that it was not necessary for anyone else to sign it.
Gaither's will in 1791 stated his wish that "all my young negroes, born since my negroes
were recorded, shall be absolutely free at my death." The petitioner was bom prior to the
1784 manumission deed. Although the county court gave judgment for his freedom, the
Court of Appeals reversed. The Court held that the deed was ineffective because it was
not signed by the requisite two witnesses and that the will was ineffective because it
referred only to persons bom after the deed. Gaither was, in effect, overruled by Laws of
Maryland 1810 Ch. 15, which stated that a deed of manumission would be effective if
acknowledged and recorded as required by law, even though it was not evidenced by two
good witnesses. This provision was also contained in Laws of Maryland 1826 Ch. 235.

The recording requirement was also strictly enforced. In Wicks v. Chew, 4 Har. and
John. 543 (1819) Darnall signed and acknowledged a deed of manumission for the
petitioners in 1805. He died soon after the deed was given, and the deed was inadver-
tantly not recorded within the six month prescribed time. In 1817 Chancellor Kilty
authorized recording the deed, but the Court of Appeals reversed his decree.

203