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

tee Of every Council except the last, and Of
every Convention from the beginning fully
confirms this Interpretation. Now VIC arc
perfectly willing to leave the question just
where we left it at frst--with the lawyers
indeed we are inclined to submit it to Mr..
Barrett himself, on the sole condition that he
shall decide 1t as iaigyer
Such is our position, assuming that the
Preamble to the first constitution has been
"repudiaied.' But-has ~ We challenge
investigation. We are pretty sure the Reg
ter will never be able to show that either
the Convention Of Y3, or any subsequent
Convention, has been guilty of so foolish an
act as to "repudote' the preamble Of the
first Constitution. As well might it rcpudi-
ate" the declaration Of Vermont Indepond-
ence-or the National Declaration Of July
4, l776,-or the glorious victories Of Ticon-
deroga and Bennington And If this should
be done, the Register would be no more wor-
thy Of ridicule thun 1t now u.s. if 1t should
complain of somebody for citing those docu-
menis and those events as evidence Of the
patriotism and heroism Of the Green Noun
tain Boys, and Of their glorious compltriots
in the Revolution Again we ask as The
Preamble been "repudinied| The Register
says it has VIII the Register pr0ue It's as
sertion2 The Preamble has been formally
adopted twice when was 1t ever repealed?
The record shows that It was IN force up TO
the sitting Of the Constitutional convention
of 1893 aud that the Council which called
that Convention submitted no proposition 10
respect to the Preamble. The statute books
since have not contained the Preamble. -
Now the question Is, Did tho Convention OF
l7g3 repeal or act at all, on the Preamble
We say frankly that we do not know: we
cannot find the Journal Of the convention Of
1913, and will pay any body who can furnish
it-and thank him into the bargain Our
conjecture is, tina, the convention took no ac-
ton on the Preamble; and that it was omit
ted simply from the succeeding statute
took perhaps for reason, as ont Of court
esy to Now-York, whose bad conduct figures
largely IN the Preamble perhaps without
reason That the convention Of 1913 de-
signed Il repeal Of The Preamble, and a con-
sequcni eniargemento Of Hepoper Of The Coun-
ell Of Censors, is a theory Inconsistent with
the fact that the constitution itself was left
entirely unchanged in respect to the powers
Of the Council. It's absurd TO suppose that
the men of'93 were either cowards or "artlul
dodgers" We conjecture rather that the
Preamble sul stands in full force; but it
has been omitted from the Statute book. So
has been the Declaration Of american hde-
ptndence viii brother Barrett insist thut
Vermont has "repudiaied' the Declaration Of
independence! Brother Barrett has more
than once harmed HIMSELF within the period
Of our acquaintance, but we really do not
think he is prepared to run his face on that
proposition.
The Registers structures are IN bad temp
err, and entirely unwarranted by the subject
or the occasion. Our article, we thinS, de-
served a fair and calm reply, rather than an
effqsion of spleen and personal abuse, aud
we advice Mr.. Barrett to try his hand at
serious reply, backed by authority as potent
as we have given him on the other side
We assure him that this matter cannot be
embraced within the scope Of miserable
editorial skirmish, nor fifty discussed with
Incredibly mean epithets. Let US have
something better.