Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-10-24
Resolutions on Amendments
proposed by the Council of
Censors.


ReS0lred, That in the iHdg-
ment of this House, the trainers
of our Constitution did not
intend to give, and did not in
fact give, to the Council OF
/ Censors the power to prescribe
the districts or constituencies
entitled to send delegates to
the convention to be called by
said Council, or to limit the
number of such delegates, and
thereby deprive the towns in
the State from being represent
ted by their delegates And in
support of this judgment the
following considerations, among
others, may be adduced:
FjrSt,-The Preamble to the
Constitution expressly provided
that the constitution should
never be altered except by con-
vcntion called and composed as
was the first convention which
adopted the constitution, which
convention was composed of
delegates from the towns and
this preamble has never been
altered or repealed, although
said preamble, from considcra-
tons of policy and courtesy
probably, has not been pub
lished with the constitution
since the State was admitted
into the Union.
.Second,-The power of the
Council of Censors in calling a
convention has never been en-
larged or altered since the first
adoption of the constitution. and
therefore the same construction
must be given to said power,
whether said Preamble be re-
garded as now in force or not.
Ihird,-The contemporancous
and uniform constitution given
to this part of the constitution
during the whole period Of its
existence, a history of nearly
eighty years, has been against
any such power in the Council
of Censors and the repeated
decisions of our highest legal
tribunals, as well as the dictates
of sound craftsmanship, require
that a construction so given
should be held to be conclusive,
Foarth,-The power Of the
Council to call convention
is limited and guarded with
. great care, and expressly con,
fined tocases of "absolute neces
ity," and it is highly improbable
; that the trainers of the consti
] tuition should be thus guarded
, aud at the same time purposel,
| give an unlimited power as t.
the calling of convention
! a power that might readily b,
! used in a manner to decide TIN
4
| adoption of the proposed amend
: ments.
FYth,-Thc constitution or
ders the PRONUNCIATION of TIN
proposed NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
e at least before the day for tn
election of delegates, THAT tn
. people may have an opportu
: = nifty of instucting their dele
gates on the subject" Thi
provision evidently contemplate
: an instruction by the tow
: meeting which elects the dele
l gate. No other kind or mod.
of instruction has ever beer
known or recognized in tn,
Z political history Of the State
4 And such instruction, when tn,
: election is by counties, has nevc
been recognized or provided 70
by any law or usage, and il
fact is not practicable. Anc
therefore an election by countio
= renders this provision Of tn
g constitution nugatory.
j ReS0ired, That in the Jude
), ment Of this House, the recen
e action of the Council of Cen
: sors in calling a convention to b
}, composed of ninety delegate, t
: be elected by the freemen of tn,
h several counties, is clearly I'm
: constitutional and that tn,
l. manner Of calling said conyen
c ton is Objectionable, because i
y does not secure to the majority
S either of the people or of tn,
I towns, the right to decide up
S no the proposed amendments
y but gives the decision, to plu
Il ralities of votes in the seyera
|, counties, which pluralities ma
d be a minority of the people
c and because the distribution q
y delegates among the counties i
z manifestly unequal.
d Resolred That most of tn
amendments proposed hv sal,