Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-03-21
The constitutional Question.

" "wenk attempt to forestall public opinion"
Perhaps it was "weak" that is not for us TO
sav,-but it is certain that the Register took
ground in favor Of the main amendments
week ahead of our article The Register
was iceek-er-by one, exactly. Was the
Register "premature"? Did the Register
mean ITO forestall public opinion? We do
not so charge. 1t was the right Of the Reg
lister TO to take such ground as 1t pleased,
and when it pleased. It was our right to
take the opposite ground, at least one week
after the Register; and we shall not surrender
that right even to Mr.. Barrett. The press is
vet free in Vermont; though we are not
sure it will be free long, if future Councils
of Censors shall assume the power not mere
ly Of proposing amendments, bat OF making
amendments, by making the conventions
which are to pass upon them. The next
Council may attack the Liberty Of the Press
that would not be more surprlzing than the
present attempt to deprive the Towns OF rep
resen,a,ion without their consent. If this is
right, we see no limit to the power. The next
Council may limit the constitutional conyen-
ton to ten persons or to three, with as much
right as the late Council could limit 1t to
ninety; ard provide for an election by
plurality vote on a general State ticket, or
even for an appointment in any other way,
with just as much right as the late Council
had to prescribe the election of members by
plurality on a County ticket. THIS is our
honest opinion and if it is unpalatable to
the Council, we are sorry for that, but we
cannot possibly assent to what we firmly be-
lieye is wrong. Now we wish the Register
to observe that we have raised one question
only, and that question taking precedence
of all others. Has the Council ereeeded lis
popers? Our opinion is that 1t has, and
our reasons have been frankly stated. Was
it wrong to state this opinion and the reasons
at the earliest possible moment? We think
not The Address of the Council has not
yet been published and If anything we
have suggested deserves notice. it is not too
late for the Council to notice it in their nd
dress. If, Jas the Register asserts,l our sug-
gestions were really "weak" ard ridiculous"
why is the Register troubled about them p
1t really is troubled, it seems indeed 1t
makes serious charge against us-as fol-
lows:
"In one respect it the Watchman is in
credibly meaD-in trying TO deceive the peo-
pie by quoting an old Constitution, that was
distinctly repudated, long before the close
of the last century, and palming 1t of as If
it had real force and effect .Middisbuy
Register
We reply, that the Register is very wide
ly and wildly mistaken. With the excep-
ton Of the Preamble. every quotation made
by Us is in the erisiing Constitution The
Preamble, we believe, is now just as much in
force as 1t ever was, although it was not pre-
fixed to the Constitution Of 1893 in the
Statute books. This we stated plainly in
our article, so that nobody could be decey-
ed.n We repeat; epery quotation Of ours
bore distinct reference 10 the Constitutions
both old and neio ; every one, ercept The Pre-
dmble, is 10 be found in The eriSiing Consti
tuition and as 10 the Preamble, ace stated DIS
timely that il todS quoted from the First Con
siiiiiion, and is NOT 10 be found in the idtei
statute books. Now we submit 1t to the Reg
lister itself to answer, whether It's charge a
gainst us-of an Incredibly mean attempt {,
deceius"-is not utterly untrue and unjust
and "incredlbly mean" into the bargain, un
less promptly confessed to be the result o
haste, and not of deliberate intention It
do MS wrong, We leave ii TO the Registe
to settle that question, in perfect confidence
that every body else at least will award III
a verdict of not guilty.
Notwithstanding the unqualified assertion
of the Register, we have yet to learn, tina
the Convention of 1893, or any other Con
vention, ever repudlaied" the Preamble
That Preamble" was more than mere ex
preston Of the views of the originators o
the first Constitution. 1t was a defence o.
the Independence of Vermont--of her Sow
ereignty-of the Right of self.goyernment
1t was a formal, official, authoritative recori
of the great Wrongs which Vermont la,
endured, and Rights to which she was emit
tied. 1t was an essential chapter in her his
tory and it would be sacrilege to blot it out
We believe this work of the Fathers stand
unimpared. Why should their successor
"Iepudiate" it; What would be the effect
if they did A? The preamble would still stand
incon,royertibly, as an exposition of the puT
poses ana iHtents Of the founders of The Con-
stiiidiOn. We quoted ii as such we quotet
it for the simple purpose ofshowing that tn,
trainers of the Constitution did not desigl
to give unlimited powers To the Council b,
section Al Of the old aud 40 of the preson
Constitution, which are identical. Sector
43 still stands, us il was framed originally
was II unfair, was it " incredibly mean II
us to show, by contemporary act, toliai III
trainers Of section 43 intended byd2 Doe,
the Register deny that the preamble bear
upon section All Does it deny the justic
of our conclusion as to the intent and mean
ing Of the trainers Of The Constitution p
When tho trainers Of the Constitution dc
clared, in the preamble, that the origina
instrument should remain " forever undiierel
except in such articles as shall, hereafter, o
experience, be found TO require improve
ment, and which shall, BY fhe same auitorii
of The people, fairly delegated, as this fran
OfgoUepment directs, THAT is, by iolsn deli
gaies, as we think, be amended or impro,
ed"-does the Register undertake to sa
tina, this has no legitimate bearing upon sec
ton 10, which provides the mode of amenC
menii Certainly the Register cannot 50
this. The very teOrds just quoted painl
show that it was intended to have the Pre-
anible bear upon and qualify the Constnt
iionA power Of amendment; and The pra'