Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-01-14
The Personal Liberty Bill.

MR. EDITOR III discussion may be dis
cussed, the late Legislative discussion on Mr..
Needham's Personal Liberty Bill calls for some
examination. The shyness and evasion with
which that Bill was opposed, is an interesting
comment on its merits. When trout plays
about the hook without touching it, catch him
if you can
MIR Little thought the Bill " would place YER
mont in false position, and in collision with
the Federal Government. This was more eau
tlous and less true than to say the Bill conflict
ed with Federal despotsm. He was uufortu-
nate in his application of history. If, by some
unknown means, he has learned that there
was once certain set of Israelites who, with
great zeal, sought to lead the people out of
bondage" but did not succeed, such fact does
not authorize the, Federal Government to inter
iere against the. people's escaping from worse
bondage, when they choose; nor does it show
that State Governments have right to with
hold protection. from the escaped victims of tyr
amy. The Bill did not seek " to lead the peo-
pie out of bondage" but to protect them against
being forced back into it. Mr.. Little has ap-
pealed to Scripture partly fictitious and partly
true. How would he apply the Scripture pre-
cept, " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master
the servant that escapeth from his master unto
thee?" Since he touched the subject of Egyp-
tan bondage, hcjnight more naturally have re-
ferred to the command to let the people go, to
the fate that ogstsok the Egyptians pursuing
fugitive slaves, and to the case of the two wo-
men who put themselves "in collision " with
the Egyptian Government by not drowning the
Hebrew children.
Mr. Bradley, if correctly reported, said =
!, :" We are not to put our feelings into the stat
ute book-that is the place for practical laws"
Did he mean to affirm that a feeling of patriot
ISM, feeling of impartial justice, love of gen.
eral liberty, zeal for the public good, should
not be impressed upon practical laws?" Oh
no, he meant no ouch thing. What then did
he mean? Why, if you have feeling of abo-
lition, if you claim for the outraged slave the
same protection which you claim for yourself,
and insist that his rights should be respected as
much as yours, that feeling should not be per-
mitted to blemish the statute book. So far,
think understand him. But he says further ::
A struggle is to COME" and advocates taking
firm ground on which we can defend our rights
successfully. Does Mr.. Bradley refer to the
struggle in behalf of the slave? If so, that
struggle proceeds on the ground that all men
have rights, and that Government is bound i'm
partially to protect all. Does Mr.. Bradley re-
ject this ground, and choose to stand on some
other? Is he opposed to having the slave re-
garded as his equal in rights? If 50, why will
he not say 50 in so many words? Truth de-
lights in clearnes; but when men take posi-
ton evidently false, they are apt to keep in
cloud as much as they can If Mr.. Bradley is
opposed to giving the slave the same govermen-
tai protection which he claims for himself, we
want him and others of his mind to speak out
like honest men who are not ashamed of their
IT..
views
To know Mr.. Merrill of Montpelier is to res
pect him. But one needs good acquaintance
with human imperfection, and perhaps hum
bling measure Of selfknowledgc not to be sur
| prised at the Aosition which he took on Mr..
Ncedham Bill Tie is reported thus "Mr.
Merrill said thek he admired this effervescence
for liberty it Is better than stagnation. But
when we come to legislate, we should do it with
dignity and calmness, and avoid all that is de-
clamatory. Vermont has suffered from neglect
of this precaution heretofore and now, though
he might lose in the good opinion of some Of
his friends, he should for this reason vote to
dismiss the Bill" If l understand this sur
prising speech, it nsinuatos that tho Bill is de-
clamatory and wanting in dignity and calmness.
Now, when | put the Bill and speech side by
side, to see how their dignity and calmness COM
pare, | can only ask where were Mr.. Merrill S
characteristic "dignity and calmness " when
he so far forgot parliamentary propriety as to
defend his vote by an indiscrcet and groundless
reflection on the gentleman who presented the
Bill? see nothing in the bill to suggest his
charges. | cannot say this Of the speech. If
it is whit better than so much defamation, if
it was intended to contain any argument at all,
the author must have felt constrained to content
himself with small quantity. What injustice !!
The bill was in its aim above narrow party in
terests. 1t was such as could be expected only
from men who can break the shackles of usage
and precedent when evident right demand de-
Walton from the beaten track. Its effect would
DO to visit with disgrace and ineligiblity to Of
fee the wretch who could aid in robbing an
other of his rightfal liberty.
The ground of natural law taken by Mr..
Prindle in defense of the bill, was the most dig
niied that could be chosen on any question:
What high ground did Mr.. Merrill take?-
He did not even attempt to meet the question.
Are all men equal with regard to rights? Is
Government bound to protect all impartially
Is our Constitution adapted to government Of
impartial justice? These were the questions
thrown in Mr.. Merrill's way. Did he touch
them? Anybody can cry fanaticism, undgni
fed but the higher mans intellect, the les
likely he will beto icsk such questions in thu
face negatively No wonder then that in OPP
posing the Bill, Mr.. Merrill felt compelled t.
I,@ao.> -, 4lo r 80, I'D.
1t is remarkable that the three speakers OF
whom have commented so freely, were all il
conflict with what they would seem to support
Mr.. Little, to avoid false position of the STATE
Government, favored false position of the Stat
and Federal Governments; for when is Govern
ment in false position, if not when it supports
oppression? Mr.. Merrill, on the ground of dig