Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-07-21

ton of il. Not to have said this,
would obviously have made the
Constitution, in ats workings. an
abolition compact. The convention
could not do this, and form a con-
stitution under which all the States
would unite. 1t was not done.--
They accomplished two great OBJ
jects dear to their hearts. They
terminated the slave trade at fixed
time. All territory, over which the
General Government should hold
control, they had just made free by
the ordinance of 1857. Here they
left it, fully believing that the ordi-
nance already passed, sustained by
the constitution, and the whole uni
Ted with good Sense, personal inter
ests, and an ardent love of liberty,
would soon do away with the evils
of slavery from the whole land.
When the constitution was dis
cussed in the ratifying conventions
of the several States, many thought
it necessary to add some explanaio-
ry and defining articles, and special
ly bill of rights to make Il COM
plete. Accordingly, tie first Con-
gress under the Constitution, which
met March 4, 1889, formed and
adopted twelve articles of amend
ment, in accordance with the pro-
vision of Article ", and sent them
out to the several States for their
ratification. Ten of them were
ratified and two rejected but two
other articles Of amendment were
subsequently added. Here two
things should be carefully observed.
An amendment added to written
instrument, already adopted, is ne
cessarily explanatory. 1t is added
to set forth more fully and definite
lly the sentiments of the trainers,
and the intention of the instrument
itself on some point. Again, it is
subjected to a closer examination
than if it had been one Of the origi-
nal articles. 1t is a distinct thing,
standing out by itself, which it is
proposed to add to high national
compact, already approved. 1t I'M
dergoes a rigid scrutiny. If 1t comes
in at all, it comes with special au-
Mority. as an admitted exposition of
what is intended by the instrument.
In the amendments of the Consti-
tuition, which were thus subjected
to the rigid scrutiny of Congress
first, and then of all the States, and
which came in as the authorized in
terpreters of tho ssntimeuts Of the
whole nation, and explanatory OF
what they meant by the Constitu-
ton, we find i'll Article V. this dec
laration: "No person shalt be de-
prived Of life, liberty, or property
,cithout due process Of lag" The
only two points on which a ques-
ton of Interpretation can possibly
be raised in this clause, are two
phrases, No person." and "icith-
out due process Of Lar" The
meaning of the second phrase,
" without due process Of law" is so
defined by the connection, it can
hardly be misunderstood. On read
ing the clause, it will be seen that
! it necessarily means, without being
legally tried and convicted of crime,
according 10 the course of common
law. One of the most eminent ju-
ristS Of the country, 10 commenting
on the Constitution, says this phrase
"prohiJits any id1o or act that ioouid
deprive cihsen IF the rights Of
person or property, without a regu-
Tar trial, according 10 the course and
usage Of the common lars" Story's
Commentary on the Constitution,
vol. Iii. p. P. Col.
The Interpretation of the phrase
" No person" requires more atteh-
ton. The question is, does ii in
ci,tde all persons of every race and
color or does it erciude the color
ed race q; In a word, are the indi-
viduals of the colored race persons
in the sense in which the term is
! here used ? The question whether
the Constitution, in its articles,
aside from its preamble, permits or
: prohibits negro slavery, out of the
old slave States, rests, and must for
ever rest, on the answer given to
this inquiry.
The rules of Interpretation re-
quire that a word or phrase shall
be taken in its common, ordinary
sense, unless something in the I'M
mediate connection, or in the writ
ing, where it is to be explained
shows that a new or peculiar mean
ing must be attached to it, Where
. nothing of this appears, no exposition
e can depart from the sense attached
q to it by common usage, without CIV
ing a false Interpretation. When
the writing itself repeatedly uses
the word or phrase in its common
acceptation, and nothing in the inn
mediate connection appears TO the
contrary, then we have double
S proof of its meaning first, common
!. usage, and then the usage of the
}, particular writer, or writers of the
h instrument. This is the stronges
n proof of the meaning of a word o.
: phrase, which the nature of the
e case ordinarily admits and such as
e no man, at all versed in the laws o.
is language, will attempt to evade.-