Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1843-01-27

rico IN new discussion Of the question:
Messrs Chipman. Eaton and Jenison sup
ported the amendment, as dong away WIN
useless form and saving expense. MT Jen-
;son SUGGESTED that the certificates OF the
number of votes were not required by the
Constitution. but by statute, and if the con-
stitution was altered, leaving the certificate
only to be returned, the returning officers
would be more cautious. Messrs. Fleld OF
Newfane, Dutton, Colby, Fullam and Need
ham opposed, referring to numerous instan-
ces where the votes had been counted, when
for want of formaity or on account oferrors,
the certificates had been rejected. Mr..
Field also cited cases Of recent occurrences
in Massachusetts, where the returns would
have defeated the will Of the people, had
there been no means Of correcting them
Mr.. Dutton opposed the reconsideration on
the ground that it was frivolous thus to stir
up question which had just been deliberate
~ aud decisivcly settled by the conventions
Mr.. Eaton somewhat humorousIy APP
peaIed to the mercy Of the convention TO
save at least one of his children. He In
troduced the ten resolutions.
Mr.. Lyman of Bennington confessed that
he was at first touched by this appeal to his
senslbilty, but upon moments reflection
he remembered that the gentleman from
Enosburgh had himself participated in the
murder of his children. He could have no
pity upon so unnatural father.
The question was then taken: ayes ga,
noes $50; so the convention refused TO re-
consider the vote rejecting the ninth amend
ment.
Future Amcndmcnts TO the Constitution.
On motion Of Mr. Langdon. the commit
tee Of the whole was discharged from the
10Th resolution, and the question required on
adopting this resolution, which declares it
expedient TO adopt the tenth amendment,
providing for submitting future amendments
to the decision of the people, instead of a
convention
Mr.. Lyman of Bennington opened the de-
bate, in favor Of giving to every freeman OF
the state hereafter an equal voice in the de-
cision of all constitutional questions. 1t
seemed to him monstrously unjust that a
single freeman of small town should have
fifty times the power Of a freeman in the
largest towns, and he asked opponents OF
this amendment TO explain and defend the
reason of this injustice if they could. He
said he understood that some of the dele
gates from the large towns would go against
this amendment: he warned them that this
would be powerful argument why the del
egates ofthe smaller towns should go against
the amendment; they would say that they
we're under no obligations to yield TO the
popular rights, when they were not even
invited to do it. To the smaller towns he
appealed to grant equal privileges to the
people. h,a
MIR Barlow said he came here against this
amendment, but occurrences here induced
him to change his views. 1t was safe 10
trust the people, and it was not competent
for him to Judge over them and say that the
people will not do right. He was not in ia.
vor of altering the system Of representation
that he would leave to the people, conf.
dent that they would do better justice on
that and all other constitutional questions
than body like this. The people, he
thought, would adopt amendments which
had been rejected here
Mr. Galusha opposed the amendment, in.
sisting that it must be, as it is, the policy oil
all good governments to take care of the
weak. This is done now by our constitu.
ton, in the provision for representation &C.
cording TO population in one branch, and by
corporations in the other.
Mr. Colby briefly supported the amend
ment, as the only equal and just mode Of
getting the popular will.
Mr. Cahoon said he was satisfied there
was something concealed in this amendment
Heretofore direct propositions had been
made TO change the basis of representation
and this amendment proposed indirectly to
do that very thing. He was utterly opposed
to it. The result would be to destroy the
admirable checks and balances of the con.
stitution both branches would be represen-
ted by population; the larger towns having
more power than the small, the practical eli.
feet would be that the small towns would
have no power at all. 80
Mr. Parish said he was instructed on this
question, and in the name Of his constitu.
ents he asked that their rights should be re.
garded. II was not right that small mi.
nority 'of the people, through convention:
like this, should have complete control Of
the organic law ofthe state.
Mr. Clark of Middletown admitted that
representation was unequal. So it was in
that most admirable work of human wisdom
the constitution of the United States. And
it was right: for forty years, this had pro-
tected the state from an aristocracy oI
wealth, from the otherwise overpowerinp
influence Of the large and wealthy towns.
Mr. Howard said it was hardly right to re.
gard this as proposition to change the
mode of representation. 1t was but sim.
pie proposition, whether the people Of the
whole state should or should not, have the
right TO make their own constitution. He
thought they had the right to do this, aud he
would confde in their disposition TO exer.