The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1861-04-19
OF AUGUSTA,

OF AUGUSTA,
T IN REGARD TO TIE LEGISLATIVE ACTION on TIE
PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL.
In the House Of Representatives on Friday, March
18th. on motion Of Sir Dyer. OF Calais, the House
resolved itself into Committee OF the Whole,
with the pending question In regard TO the Per-
sonal Liberty Law, referred " the same. Mr..
j Dyer In the Chair
Mr.. Blaine, Of Augusta, (tho Speaker Of
the Iiouse) then addressed the Committee rs
follows:
Mn. CHAIRMAN object in taking the
floor at this time is, that in 30 far as my lin.
tied influence shall extend, may aid in ar
resting result in our Legislative action
which will be rs unseemly as IL will be indie.
fensiblc. And desire. therefore, in the out
set of the remarks | shall make, to call the
attention of the Committee to the exact po-
sition of the question before us, so that we
may act understandingly in the votes We
shall record. Several days since the Senate
passed bill repeating the SD section OF the
S0th chap. of the Revised Statutes and sent
it to the House for concurrent action. The
House yesterday took the bill up. refused to
concur in the repeal, but submitted bill
amending the section in dispute. When this
J action of the House was communicated to
the Senate, that body refused to secede from
its vote repeating the section, but decided to
adhere thereto. The House thereupon in
the morning session Of the day, refused to
recede and concur with tho Senate, but re-
| a., ;ts nm and
point conferees. The vote proposing con.
ference was transmitted to the Senate, and
that branch, by large majority, refused tc
confer and repeated its vote ot adherence =
The question now before the House is that
upon the motion Of the gentleman from Gar
diner, (Mr. Perkins,) to reconsider tho vote
whereby the House this morning refused to
rccede and concur in the action of the Sen
ate. II the House refuses to reconsider, all
action Is at at an end, and the subject goes
upon the files of the House as fixed and
permanent disagreement. between the two
branches.
The gentlemen who oppose rc-considcra.
ton (Mr. McCrillis, of Bangor, Mr.. Fox, OF
Portland, and Mr.. Milliken, OF Cherryiield)
have tho frankness to tell us that they would
rather have the Legislature adjourn without
doing anything to remedy the admitted un'
constitutionality of the section, than for the
House now to reccde and succumb to the
Senate. wish the Committee TO observe
that these gentlemen have based their argu.
ments on tile low plane of u question ofptucl
and spunk between the two branches OF the
Iegislature-a question Of no more interest
to the State at large, and Of no more weight
in the political history of the day, than a
quarrel between school boys OF row between
two pugilists. And yet these gentlemen Mt
tempt TO influence the House and imper'l the
harmony and law-observing character OF the
Republican party by holding up the idea
that it would be q surrender OF dignity On
the part of the House to yield to the Senate.
compared with which the palpable violation
of the Constitution Of the United States and
Of Maine would be an alternative to bc pre-
ferred and readily accepted. For my part
can assent to no such display Of pluck and
] say away with your spunk and backbone and
your stubbOrnness when they stand in oppo'
sition to constitutional duty When
took my seat rs member of the House OF
Representatives, subscribed q solemn oath
to observe the "Constitution. of the United
States and of this State,' and 80 help me
Heaven | will discharge that obligation with
out waverng, to tho end.
A word, now. Mr.. Chairman, in regard to
the Personal Liberty Law, so called, as EN-.
bodied in the S0th chapter of the Revised
Statutes. When the question OF its repeal
was first mooted In the past autumn, ! ex'
pressed myself very strongly against IL in the
columns Of the paper with which l have some
connection. may say, without undue ego
tism. that spent as much time and labor ~
any man in tho State in vindicating that law
as it stood, from the charge Of being either
mschieyous or unconstitutional and when
this House assembled, perhaps no member
was more ineradicably opposed to the repeal
of the law than was myself. Well, as
time wore on. it became evident that there
was quite difference OF opinion in the ranks
of the Republican party in regard to the
question, and that difference developed itself
very rapidly among the members OF tho Leg
islature-so that at one time It was generally
believed that majority OF both branches
were for an unconditional repeal. In the
Senate the result was certain, and In the
House il was generally presumed. Believing
and foreseeing that trouble would arise IRON
hasty action Of this kind, quite q number oi
gentlemen in either branch, interested In the
harmony and welfare Of the Republican par
ty, agreed on the 18th OF February to refer
the question to tha Supreme Court under that
clause of our State Constitution which au-
thoriEcs the Senate or House to call for the
opinion of the Court "upon important ques-
, fions of la,o and upon SOLEMN OCCASIONS. y
Personally believe the law to be entirely
constitutional as 1t stood on the Statute
Books but other gentlemen, to whose judg'
ment might well defer, believed just the re-
verse, and the question was how shall we rec
oucilcshis difference? Well, We agreed to
do Il ON the old.fashioncd, long tested, well.
approved constitutional mode Of referring
the question to the Supreme Court-agreeing
mutually and fairly to abide their Judgment
If tho Court declared the law constitutional
those who were for repeal were to cease their
efforts and if the Court should pronounc,
the law unconstitutional, those who had beer
, opposed to repeal land was among the mum
bcr) should ut once waive their objections.
That, Mr.. Chairman, was the agreement
distinct, unrcserycd, unqualified, as l under.
, stand ii. and having made that agreement,
am here to fulfil my part Of IL, in letter a,
well ms in spirit. understood the gentle
man from bangor, (Mr. McCrillis) and the
gentleman from Cherry6eld, (Mr. Milliken)
, 70 consent TO this agreement in specific terms.
, Nothing was said about amending the law ID
,s 10 try 10 mako II constitutional or any.
thing Of that kind. Tho agreement va.
} that II the law was constitutional, IL should
be maintained; II pronounced unconstitu.
tional, the law should berepeaied. 90 not