Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1861-11-08

spouNbtity, referred to on page of the Report,
who claim that this article Of the Constitution,
upon fair and legal Interpretation Of its Lam
guagc, does not embrace slaves. These benevo-
lent casuists, starting with the generous maxim of
the common law, that the law shall be so construed
as most 10 favor liberty make much of these words
" may be dVc.' and enquire with not a little ex-
ultant confidence how eau these words, which
simply import an obligation in the nature Of an
indebtedness, something dUe. arising from a
contract or other sclfassuned relation be- regard
ed as dcnotng the condition OF slave. who by the
theory Of slave law, is only a thing. and. as such.
incapable of contracting or assuming an obliga-
tnnf Vow this argument OF these linen Of high
responsibility may bc all wrong doubtless il is
for it is clear that the Committee think 80 and
yet it seems scarcely fair, in dealing with the ar
gument OF an opponent 10 take from him. by mis-
quotation, the test upon which his argument is
founded
g. The substitution Of this false word beiongr
for the true words Biay be dine. has led the Com
mttcc into the of strangely inaccurate phrase
ology and fallacy Of argument throughout their
report, or else was itself the product Of pre-eN-
istng dclusion, so intense, as TO blind the commit
tee 20 even the true literal reading of the Const-
tuition. Treating this, for the noncc, as the CONE
mttce's point of departure, it will be seen that
the language of the Report throughout shapes it,
self to this false word " bciongn Hence the idea
Of property in the slave--that the slave under the
Constitution of the United States is property
runs through the whole Report and gives shape
10 its language. Thus the master is generally
styled the " slave otcHcr' On page it is asserted
that " the object OF this clause was to secure TO
the citizens Of the slave States their rights as
o'rRers of slaves in every State into which they
might escape, and thereby prevent the non-slave-
holding States from passing law. which should
have the effect TO obstri, fsem in the fiii enjoy
men' of their r'glts as such oyaegs"
Acting upon th. same idea, and what Lord
81 Il sf.
has styled " the Wild and guilty fantasy that man
can hold property in man. the Report proceedsto
direct criticism and condemnation of certain Lam
guage OF the Act. and Resolutions in question
which contains au Implication or direct denial Of
property iu human icsh--a beautiful truth Co thc
apprehension of the great English Chancellor, but
a rank hercsy TO thc Judgment and higher moral
sense of the Committee Thus, Oh page =. the
Report condemns this declaration in the Act of
lo5o-'' 70 person within this State shall be con-
sldered as property or subject, as such, to sale
dhrery.' Aud again, on page 10, the Report
condemns the language of the Resolutions of 1905
That property in slaves exists only by the posi-
tive law of force in the States creating it, and
g that the moment IL passes from under the opera
ton Of these laws, it is property no longert
Whence do the committee derive this wild and
abominabe notion that the Constitution OF the
United state. regards man, in whatever condition
OF iic placed, rs property: Certainly not from
the language of thr Constitution. in only three
places in the Constitution eau Il be claimed that
the slave is referred TO- and there oul, bv q iatug
perpRrnsis, and Is HaDct in no place-yiz in
Sec. OF Art. /. where hc may fall in the class of
% all other posoHs'; and in Sec. of Art. l. Qhc
importation clause where he is denominated a
'pTSoH'; and again u Sec. 2 of Act q, where
the expression is person held 90 service" II
this learned Committee had for themselves read
Madison Debates of the Convention which framed
the Constitution, instead oftaking at second hand
the modern judicial traycsties OF the Constitution.
they would have asccrtained that Sec. 9. above
named was debated, amended and fnall, framed
In such language as studiously aud purposcly 10
exclude the idea OF property In man Mr.. Madison
remarking in substance, that he thought il wrong
that there should be anything in the Constitution
from which 1t might be implied that there could bc
property in man. | lack the zeal of the Commit
where as on page of the Report they appeal to
" common Justice and religion in its support
or else perhaps | think too much Of -" common
Justice and religion" TO bring them profanely
into such companionship but think too well OF
the Constitution, evcn TO allow the imputation of
property in man 10 smgleh its fair pages, without
rebuke to the authors 81 such an afront.
Again, the Committee IN speaking of this fugi-
tive clause say, on page of the Report. This
clause as we learn ira1n the history of the adoI-
ton OF the Constitution, was regarded of vital
importance. and was resurted TO as matter OF COM
Committee studied, in which they find this fact re-
cordedy This is but serving up 10 us the cold .
meats OF the nauseating twaddle which political
Judges have OF late spread before the public. Had
the committee seen III 20 consult contcmporancous
history and the oulv HISTORY of the event referred
TO, viz. the Debates in the Convention, they would
have found that this rovison was adopted without
strife, opposition, debate, proposition of amend
ment or anything indicating that it was by way of
compromise of extreme claims Of opposing inter-
csts. Is 1t not time 60 have done with this arrant
nonsense, and scandal TO the great and good men
who, in order, among other things, TO establish
Justice, and secure 90 themselves and postcry the
blessings of liberty, framed that great charter Of
civil freedom, that they made that sublime event
all to hinge upon the secured privilege of negro
catching or, 20 express It as broadly the Com
mittee have upon the securing OF "tteir rights as
oirHers Of siares az erey state into which they
might Escape
Another remarkable thing in this Report is the
the rule of Interpretation adopted by the Commit
ittee (page y applicable 10 the clause in ques-
ton. Starting of with the historical error above
noticed, they say this language should be so con-
strued, (if consistent with its words it mag be).
as will eliectuate and carry out the intentions of
the framers,' &c and again, that such must be
the Interpretation, If the construction which the
language will fairly admit Of will accomplish it,
&c. Nay, but the law has more maxims than one.
Another is that construction shall be in favor Of
who shall decide against liberty Ii is submitted
that in all questions affecting the lives or the liber-
ties of men, the point with the Judge. who is at
the same time wise and humane is, not how far
does the language of the law admit Of my going,
how far may go against life or liberty bat how
far, by the stern words of the law, am so hedged
up, that | must 90.
But the most remarkable thing yet noticed in
this Report, is the utter Sinking of the duty put
upon them by the Legislature. Their commission
was TO examine and report whether certain acts
and resolutions and what ones, are in conflict
with the Constitution ofMe United States" I'M
der this commission, the Committee have very
earnestly argued, aud candor compels us 10 ac-
knowledge, have proved II too, that certain of
hose Acts and Resolutions are in conflict with The
Fagitire act Of 1850 Didno the Legislature know
his, and purposely intend it, when they passed
hose Acts and ResolutiohtY And didthey need
he aid OF a learned committee to advise them Of
his Nay, but say the Committee, the act Of
1850 has been decided to be constitutional by the
- Court of derner resort. and we refer you to the
rases cited, and such decisions must be received
rs binding authority upon inferior tribunals"
All that we knew when we commissioned you, the
Legislature may answer and you might have adj
led to your citations the Dred Scott case, the
greatest Judicial outrage Of them all but the State
Of Vermont is not an inferior tribunal of the
Court tribunal of IL in anV