Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1856-04-04
The Constitutional Question.

From The Nidlebufy Register Match 20
The Montpelier Watckman is in error, il
it means to say that we began to argue m IA
vor Of the amendments proposed by the Couu-
cil Of Censors one week before that paper
made its elaborate "argument against
them We have not only abstained from
arguing the question at all, but have express
ly disclamed an intention Of so doing, until
we have the official proceedings of the
Council before us. ~
We have not at hand the Trademarks for~
mer article, on which we made hasty com.
ment It's main drift we cannot have mis-
apprehended nor were we mistaken in feel
ing degree of Indignation at Mr. Waton's
attempt to palm off the "old Or. Jscob
for the genuine Townshend,n When the
old constitution was superseded, it requires
no argument and no evidence of " Journals"
to show tina, il became obsolete. (2)
We still think the attempt to prove that
the Council exceeded its powers was any
thing but strong argument. If the Lam
guago we used was offensive 10 the editor
of the W1ichmu,, we are perfectly willing
to substitute any mider terms consistent
with the truth. (3) We are not, however
to be drawn into discussion Of the amend
meuts proposed, at present, for reasons before
stated. (4)
Notes.
~ Feb. 9th, the Register pub lshed an
abstract of the proposed amendments, with
out intimoting an objection to any of them
March 9Th it published an argument of a
column and half by Judge Hammond, Of
which the Register of March 10Th said
we last week presented the views eX-
pressed in the Council, by one Of it's ables
members, in tduor Of the most radical chang
proposed;n and 10 this argument the Regis
ter took no exception. Thus it appears tina
as early as the 9th of Feb. the Registe
published the amendments without objection
and on the 9th of March the Register pub
lished an elaborate argument ain favor o
the most radical change proposed" Tn,
Waterman on the 9TH Of March copied tn,
amendments from the Register, and accom-
panied them with an opinion and argument
therefor, that the Council had exceeded
powers. This action of the Waterman
which was subsequent 10 the action of III,
Register, the Register stgmatzed as al
attempt to fofestal public opinion" No
until one week after the Register had pub
ished Hammond's speech, and five days af
ter the Waterman article appeared, did ii,
editor of the Register expressly dlsclain
an intention of arguing the question unit
it had the official proceedings of the Coun
Gil before it. Such are the facts common
is unnecessary.
~ Confessing that its comment on III,
Watchman's article was hasty,n and that j
"had not at hand the Watchman's forme
article" the Register still repeats its charg,
that we have attempted to palm of an ole
and I" superseded constitution for the gen
uine one-and this in the face Of our remiil
der, that every quotation Of ours, except III,
Preamble, was from the present erisii'ig con
siifuiion, and that, as to the Preamble, we ex
pressly stated that It was quoted from the
first constitution, and is =" not to be found ii
any late statute books.n The charge Of III,
Register was not merely "hasiy; !" il was al
so entirely unjust. We are sorry that III,
editor of the Register has failed to put him
self right. The Register now intmates III,
ground on which 1t charged that the pream
BILE Of the first constitution has been " dis
lincdy repudiuted . this was the Regis
ter's assertion :; and It's ground is, that III,
present constitution has superseded the old
So, then, there was no distiuc' reputation,
after all The Register changes it's ground
Now we suggest, that this ground Is good
as TO the constitution, but il is not good
as to the Preamble. The old declaration of
rights and frame Of government have been
superseded, because others have been adopt.
ed TO take their place Thus far the Regis
ter is right. But no neie Preamble has been
adopted 10 take The place Of he old there is
no substitution here-no,hing superseded
Neither IN form nor in fact,-neither by or
dlnance nor Inference, neither directly moi
construcuvely, as we have yet discovered. bs,
the Preamble ever been either "suoersedad
'repudiated,' or repealed. 1t has been n
mitied from the statute books; but to rebu
an inierentisl repeal, "repudstion, or super
seizure from that fact, we state that the Dec
laration OF Independence has been omitte,
and multiiudes of laws, such as charters an
private acts, have been omitted-yet the
are in force still. Now we insist that III
ground Of the Register is unlenable-thr
il Is bound to produce positys proof of so in