Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1861-01-04
Congressional.
REMARKS OF HON. J. CoLLAMER, OF
VERMONT
Explanatory of the Vermont Liberty Lotcs, de-
iivered IN the Senate of the United States,
Dec 18Th 1860

In COIIAMTp. President, without entering
the thread Of the Senator'S remarks, with which gener
ally agree there has been good deal said about tne &C
ton Of Vermont recently, in relation 70 refusing 70 re-
napsrs Of the south wish that the truth Of
all known together The whole soty snuu ue tou
l shall not occupy long time The gentleman can have
i;,,ia pos, ril not occupy great while wish that
could succeed in obtaining snort attention OF
a,irrsn on the other side who seem suppose that
ye,y concerning the coored people the free States
smade against the fugitive slave law Ihey look a. u
In that lght and see thct the one ~ vermont Whieh
is quoted Is the act Of 1874. is quoted IN the
Constitution newspaper as being Of the number. When
Senators speak about their being in opposition to the f
guve slave law, undoubtedly gentlemen mean the ugi,
1.-Two slave law of 1850 Now will gentlemen bear in mind
very act Of Vermont made six years before
that law passed 1t had nothing in the world TO do
II should be remembered that in 1872 in the Of
Priggv The Commonwealth OF Pennylvania, inc gu
preme Court Of the United States decided that the owner
II fugitive slave had right to and reeaptu!s nun IN
the same way that man might reoaptute any otlei p
aferw,rds When a man takes a horse. suit can be
brought afterwards try the title. The supreme Court
decided that il would be Just like that, provided the man.
In so taking his slave did not violate any State law Now,
aav il % be borne in mind that the court recognized
Two modes Of retaining fugitive slaves One Of them is
according the fugitive slave law Of Congress- and the
other is the have just spoken or Now the laws
that made in any state, 50 far as understand hem
with rcgird to the recapturc reclamation OF slaves
have nothing whatever do with proceedings under the
fugitive slave laws they relate to this other branch TINS
other mode Of getting back slaves. The law was passed
before the present fugitive slave law enacted There
was fugitive slave law In 1888, but any man who VIII
read this Of Vermont that Is quoted ana read "
in the light Of what have now suggesedto nun W sec
that II docs not relate at all to any action under the law
Of COngrcss II goes upon the bass mat every S,Ae Is
bound 10 protect its czens It's people that are
residents Of the State; those who oommotant IN the
State, let their color he what it may. That, presume
no one will deny. Then. when it was said that man
had right To 20 and take his slaves in free State by
mere manucaptnn, without resorting 70 any legal pro-
cess whatever cannot any man have cand1r enough 70
that it utterly impossible to protect our ored
people against those persons who are hdnappers Hence
was that we did what in effect the supreme Court OF
ett ha mi Ike
suF laws rs would secure people in their rights a.
gn the assertion Of the rights Of those who go to take
Mr. JoaxsuN II Tennessee would ask the Senator
eire he concludes he has say, il the Legislature
fhis State did not pass additional law in lo5Sf
Mr. CoLLANER was about to remark That mere are
other laws but the which is quoted the one
which, relied upon
their laws generally the steps they have taken either
in former times recently, which come in conflict with
the execution OF that provision Of the Constitution winch
provides for the restoration OF fugitive slaves.
Mr. CoLIAMER. Before get through the gentleman
will hear all that have got to say on that do not
want t. occupy his time much but to complete my ex
PLANTATION, must say little more. l say that If any
man will read the law TO which have alludedhe
that Is quoted in the papersand read IN the hght 81
this decision, and in view Of the facts Of history as they
have transpired, he will that It was not dictated by an
enmity the fugitive slave law; because while it impo
penalties upon the taking away OF coored peo
pie and subjects punishment all who participate in
such transactions it goes TO provide in the as sec
ton it, that this statute shall not be construed to ex
tend to Judge OF the United States court OF TO any
nothing to do with the United states law. con
ceda hat there have been three laws passed since
the colnromise Of 1850, though have not examined
lgl nue. and they were produced patuehary tAe act
OF 1905 which IS referred by what people UNI
deTsood the Supreme Court to say, that coored man.
descendant OF an African is man without any nights
that any white person is bound torespect at all have
never examined these statutes fully It is
Hkey that there may be features in them that are ex
ceponable But, Mr. President is be borne in mind
t1st the peopaOf the free States have held the
doctrine that State can nullfy United States law.
ca qpp " in hp
that State nulify United States law, think that
here is an attempt to nullif law Of Congress Our
people have held such doctrine in the world -
The profession have paid very little attention to these stat
ues at any rate We look upon them just in this light
that there any OF them which in way incon
sten with the provisions Of the United states Gonstu
ton, they are simply waste paper and void, We deny
that State, by passing unconstuonalaw, can take
itself ont OF the Unions and deny, too, that It one
state passes such law II justify another State in
going out Of the Union Such laws simply void IN
ger he constitution That Is our view OF H. aud there
fe they are treated before courts, whenever they
come before them, they would be treated anywheLe
deity
Now Mr. Presasat a.a -w5fd IN relation to the recent
proposition for their repeal which have seen mentioned
gentleman in the State Legislature presented bill for
the repeal OF these personal liberty bills, so far as they
inconsistent with the United States Constitution or
something that effect. II referred to committee
OF which he made chlifman-a special committee.
They made report 1t lay upon the table, and was not
called up When they had had their usual session and
came to the last day but one OF the sitting having al,
ready fixed day to adjourn, he called up his bill What
was the resuf ought here TO state nrher thatlt Is
the practice Of the State Of Vermont about once in TWEEN
~ years. to have careful revision VI her statutes Inc
time had come to have it the twenty years had passed
since the last revision In the OF the session, the
Legislature had appointed upon it three gentlemen, a,
good furnish and do not know that 1t would
be much arrogance TO saw a. good State could fur
nish Two ofhem judges Of the supreme court tho
other very distinguished lawyer formerly member o
Congress-men holding no places, wanting none-men
of high position and ability These gentlemen ap
pointed revise On thelast day Of the
sSm, when the bill TO repeal the personal liberty laws wa
taed up, The gentleman who presented 1t made Ions
argument uP'n "u' thete was no ,'he 70 ellsiu
They wanted all their statutes revised and considered
motion made in the House to dismiss the bill, and
was dismissed. The senate immediately. on the SAINT
duy took and passed resolution referring all Of thes
statutes thar said to be exceptional by people abroad
to that board Of revision to report to the next session
the Legislature il any Of those laws were in any way in
consistent with the United States Constitution, or tn
Uui ed States laws passed according to the Constitution
1t was passed, all saying we desire no uEconsuutiona
statues on our books we will endure none we shAl
have them examined by a competent body, and we hav
just raised one The Senate passed the proposition
unanimously they it to the House in the shape Of
lantTesoution i: was there passed UNANIMOUSLY; an
candor, this dealing with the subject fairly and can
didIy, and on our own mohoni 1t !. no foundation 70
ground of objection abroad that the State of Vermont
dealing unkindly or unfairly or uncaudldy.
Nix. JoHNso', Of Tennessee Mr.. President think
rather unfortunate to-day. In the first instance
gave way for hour, aud in the next place for quite
lengthy speech to be injected into mine. However,
wish to ask him If he believes the law passed ~ 1908 b
the State OF Vermont in reference to persons OF color il
that State is constitutional or unconstitutional!
Mn. COLLAMER The gentleman puts 10 me ques
ton aud he is entitled have that sort Of canded an
which take It the putting " question implies.
Y said when | up before that ] had never examine
Y those laws much myself never have do not kno'
precisely what their condition is what their proVi
ions may be exactly. have this however, to say abou
be- after all, that though upon its face some
its provisions may look eNceptionable, they may NJ
fealy he 1t comes to this believe that statute dc
clares in effect that all persons held to slavery who com
into Vermont, voluntarily or Involuntary, who CON
there Of their accord brought there by the
shall he considered and regarded free person
rather think that is the amount Of according to m
recollection. Now, what is the reason for that? hal
already suggested that the Supreme Court have intimate
people understand the Chief Justice. that colore
persons have rights that the white man is bound
respect al all
MRBsSJANIS. VIII the Senator from Vermont pc
n init me---
Mn CoLLAMER. | have heard the gentlemau's el
plsnaton Of that several times.
hR. Bg'JAMIs. win the Senator tell US that AT
man W New England honestly believes the supren
Court dia dicide that Does he know any man who b
leyes il :
Mr. CoLLANRR can say that believe the body
them honestly nay that they read It IL reads Just
Mh BINJAEiN Does the Senator say that that d
cision reads 30
Mr. CoLLAhRR The opinion. The gentleman al
myself as lawyers understand the difference betwe'
opinion and a decision. The opinion of the Chi
Justice IN reoiung the history Of the Declaration Of
dependence and OF the Constitution and the condition
society at the time when those instruments orme