Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1851-11-07

better, more sensible, more paciiicatory, for the
Judiciary Committee of the Vermont Lcgisa-
ture to lei the uhoie matter rest ,chcre IL is, and
not assume" nor "argue" against the legi-
timacy of unquestionaby republican legislation
by our own State, and in favor of unquestion-
ably" harsh inexpedient and unjust" legisla.
ton by Congress? Dear Judge, if you have
time, will you please reply to this simple inter
rogatory7 We ask it without the slightest i'll
feeling, and only wondering how it should
happen that yonr g connexion with the New |
York press" which drew down upon you, from
the Castle Garden Committee, Whose toadylsm
you So eoqueuty dcscribe) the vehement sus-
picion Of abotionism," can be " adjusted" with
the purely Castle Garden view that you noc
take OF tho harsh, inexpedient and unjust
undeuiably, that the Castle Garden Committee
should dcnounce in your New York views,
what will give them unmitgated satisfaction
when expressed in Vernon, Castle Garden
holds the Fugitive Slave Law to be all right,
and the Vermont Habeas Corpus Law all
wrong. Holding the same opinion in your
" conncxon with the New York press" it is
somewhat surprising that you should have
made yourself liable, in that patriotic city, to
vehement suspicion Of abolilonism! -
but we are ncglccting the misstate
mcnts of facts" which alone procured us the
honor OF the foregoing communication. We
think we shall be able to show that our cores
pondcnt is unfortunate in his specifications
| We ask our readers to follow us through his
communication, and see if we misstatc or mis-
apprchcnd it.
|. The first alleged misstatemcnt is that the
Report of the Judiciary Committee expresses
incidentally favorable opinion CT the Fugitive
Slave Law. We have only to reply, that the
Report argues in tdror Of a law that its author
pronounccs to be "harsh, ineXpcdient and I'M
Just" and against IA law that has no such char
aCtcristics, nor is liable to any such grave OBJ
jcctions. The constitutionality of both has yet
TO be determined by the Supreme Court, and it
is our opinion that, if the Judges of that Court
p. should see Judge DAvIs's Report, they would
be likely t, think that it expresses at least sin
cid mtally a ,tdroraLie opinion of that beauty of
a law" Judge DAVIS thinks the Fugitive
Slave Law ri gIlt, and the Vermont lIabcus Cor
pus Law wrong; and whether he reaches this
conclusion one way or the other makes no diff
ference with our statement lie "favors" "a
E little more than "incidcntally,' too the former
and dstavors the lattcr,-thc consttutionallty
! of both, Except in his argumcntatve convic-
tons being undetermined by the only Author
ity competent and authorized to determine 1t.
he goes for the Fugitive Slave Law we 90
against it, and await the adjudication of the Con
stltutonal Authority. If we, therefore, express
intellectually" an urfrroraJie opinion of that
law, he is "on the contrary quite the reverse, OIL
/ we don't understand the matter. We care moth.
ing for Judge DAyIs's "argument," in the pre-
misses, nor for anybody clsc's,-bccause 1t is o
p no practical Importance. The question has tc
be DECIDED elsewhere, and while it remain,
undecided, he is, "lncidcntally" at least, in IA
vor of the law, and We are emphaticaiiy opposed
to it.
y, H. The Judge AYERS that he 'ncvcr saw no
pretended to scc' any "bcauty" in the Fu@i
= tive Slave Law. We never said, nor pretended
. to say that he did. SO that misstatcmcnt ma!
!. pass.
III. The third "miSStatcment" is that we SAT-
the Report was Cooked upon" as an effort tc
Wcbsterizc Vermont. To this Judge DAvI,
replies that Mcssrs. BowplsH and lIuBEELL
the Old Line Locotocos who agreed to the Re
= port, i'm opposition to Mcssrs. GnANpEY an'
= EvERrs, Why's rho didn'D cannot be reasona
l. bly, charged with any such intention. W
-. don't know about that McsSrs. IlUBBEL
: and BowDisu are shrcwd and astutc politician,
:, and would like to see the Wing party in Yer
mont dettqtc4 by any fair and honorable
. means they could assent to. They are rcgula
:, Compromise Locofocos, holding Whiggcry /
. especial and open disfayor, and our opinion
=. that the result Of the recent election in Penn
&c sylvanla would lead them to rink, at least, q
- any proceeding calculated to bring about
- similar result in vermont!
re But Judge DAVIS is neither Webster maj
rs true. But this does not at all prove that til
,e effort to repeal the llabeas Corpus Act is Il,
ct "iookcd upon," as We said. Does it A vari,
of ty of Webster men and Webster Presses, fro
r. Judge PnrLps in his obscquous Annapolis lie
lo tcr) down to less important people, have CRANE
n lloqucntly predicted that abom the first thin
y this Vermont Legislature would do would
ly to repeal the lIabeas Corpns Act of the Ia
# Session. Our friends ofthe .WdhcbWy Rcgi
So ter and Rutiand Union Uhig the latter carr
as ing the unconditional nomination of DAM
p. Webster for the Presidency at its mast he;
of this very moment are rather pledged to Il
be Country (cspcciallyto our Southern brcthre
lty for this repeal. Let the Law be repealed al
ith Vermont will be forthwith set down as a UcI
ion Ter State. Judge DAVIS ought to undcrsta
he all tns better than we do, but he don't seem t
W, ". The fourth misstatcmcnt is that we sa