Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-11-13
Watfbman s. State Juiirnol
E.P. WALTON, .,sroR.
vhirsday. -,ov. NJ. 1851.

fhursdny. rx0v. III, 1851.
Rather Zoo Fast In reply to an article in the
North Star, endorsed by the Vermont Patriot,
we remarked the other day that if the fugitive
slave law suspends the privilege of habeas cor
pus in Iernsnf Courts, it is, to that extent, un-
constitutional and void. The Uiadsor Journal
thereupon takes upon itself the task Of defending
the fugitive slave act against what it seems TO
think is murdcrous assault on our part, and
gravoy argues that the act does not suspend The
hsbeas corpus in the .federm Courts Of Vermont
Now we have to suggest to the editor of the
Windsor Journal, that if he had kept perfect
ly cool and carefully observed what we have
said upon the subject, he might have avoided at
least an exhibition of bad temper. First, our
words "a Termont Courts" plainly embraced
State Courts as well as federal; we therefore
said, most certainly we intended to saw that
Congress could not constitutonally suspend the
habeas corpus in the State Courts Of Vermont:
and the fugitive slave act is void II it has that
effect Again we used that word " If" We did
not say that the fugitive slave act does suspend
the habeas corpus act in am Court, state or
federal. We agree with the Windsor journal,
that ii does not suspend the right in federal
courts. We also 90 beyond the Journal, and
hold that the act does not suspend the right in
The STATE Courts, if that right is claimed in time
This was apparent from the article which arous-
cd the ire Of the Journal man. He failed to see
that, and we suggest that the fault is his alone.
The provision Of the act is, that after The case IS
decided andt The order Of removal is giren ty The
federal court or commissioner, the claimant csn
take his man without Interference by any pro.
cess from state court. The act does not cx
cIude state process before the order of removal is
given; and inasmuch as the law of Vermont con-
templates prompt action before an order of re-
moval can be given, we hold that the Vermont
act is not inconsistent with the fugitive slave
act. In short, we believe the fugitive slave act
is not so bad as the Windsor journal would make
it, and that Congress cannot consttutionally
nuke Il so bad, if it should try.
The Journal appears to be distressed because
we discuss the matter at ALL We have not
sought discussion. The Journal has failed IN
observe that we have not offered one word of
discussion except in reply to arguments of oppo-
nents of the habeas corpus act pubEshed Ia our
columns. Perhaps it would be agreeable to the
Journal if we would publish only on one side
Of this question,-and that against the rrht of
the state to protect It's own free citizens against
manstealers We cannot accommodate our ami
abe friend in any such way. If the Journal dis
likes discussion let it invite the opponents of The
la m rpf~ iron, =
it discussed, let it conduct the discussion in a
candid and gentlemanly way We believe all
concerned will, at least, d us the Justice to adj
init that we have treated the subject fairy
Our political opponent of the North Star is far
more just than our political friend of the Windsor
journal. The Star admits that our commentary
was candid. The Star also sells an excellent
example to the Journal, by giving US a candid
reply. The Star objects that the state and fed
eral laws conflict with each other; of course the
state law is nullty We think they do not
conflict. The Star seems to think that the ques
ton whether the prisoner Is bond or free is to be
tried by federal authority, and of course the
Vermont act is at least unnecessary. We
think the Star is mistaken in The fact here Also
Both points were discussed few days ago in
reply to "lustlcc" the Star will see. We
care not to multiply words about them. The Star
argues that a decision Of the u. S. supreme court
adverse to the Vermont act would not affect
the right of our courts to issue habeas corpus,
snd therefore sees no good ground for awaiting
decision. Others however, deny even that pow
er of the state courts and others still who ad-
init that power, like the Star, deny the ngh, Of
the state to make that power eGcciuai to prevent
the extradltion of freemen We should like to
see decision of both questions