Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1862-12-05

tue 'TttSOndt LlDcTty LAW OF TINS otatesoF
striking out ertain sections supposed to be
in violation Of l,Constitution Of the Unit
House On &c 27tn ult. Tie following re-
port from Walton's Journal will give the
substance Of the debate, and the action Of
the House on the subject
Mr shaw, for select Committee, reported in
favor Of agreeing with the Senate in striking out
all the sections proposed to be stricken out except
sections 10 and II OF ch l09-provisons relative
10 fugitive slaves and Kidnapping. Tho House
when they passed tie BILL inserted all the sections
Of tie law Of ls5s, which the commissioners bad
unanimously reported unconstitutional. The
amendment Of the Senate was to strike these sec
tions out together with the lOth and llth sections
Of the revision.
Mr. Shaw thought it was time to back down,
i. we could get plausible argument in its favor
though it might be unconstitutional. He there
fore hoped that these two sections proposed by the
Senate TO be stricken cut would be retained. Some
distinguished jurists had supported these sections
they had been on the statute book for eleven
years
MIR Balch thought these sections should be re-
tanned. 1t vas no time to give up any Of these
sections.
III I -tLcuGI OF AaANLAlrus Nar AAA+AANA ~ tA4N
action Of the House when they considered this
question before. lie trusted they had not changed
their minds
The House refused to concur with the Senate in
striking out the sections
The committee recommended that the other
sec;i rs embodied ia ,Lc law OF ISIS, oe stricken
cut
Mr. shaw said the committee lil So because the
Committee were clearly of the opinion that these
sections were unconstitutional. and ss the senate
had raised this question. ard refused TO pass them
he thought the House had better ucur iu the
amendment lie read from the ssctioas aud show
ed clearly by argument that t-e-e sections were
une titu;ional. The committee thought the law
was not only unconstitutional, tut unnecessarily
offensive, and while there was no occasion tlr
these 20 be retained for any purpose. be thought
IL best that thav BE STRICKEN ont
Mr. Bslch thought al least enc more section, the
18th should be retained. lie thought tina: there
was 10 law IL the south that held -laves. The
SHAREHOLDERS held slaves without authority of law
in the slave STAT e. Therefore our Law was not Ia
conflict, because these slaves were Lot held by tho
laws thereof. lie argued in favor Of the law 20
considerable length.
Mr Deuiscu said the question was, Is the law
rish2 Thi w-s foI US 20 answer; if it Was wrong
It vas never too late to back down. if IL was right
let Us stick 10 it.
[Nir Baleh adnite el this was good grouuil
lie then read sections Of the law and Of the
Constitution. " hat did the section, persons held
70 labor OF service mean What were the fra
mers Of the constitution thinking Of, when this
section framed what were they talking
about Not apprentices only but also slaves
No other construction was ever put upon it, eX-
cept in attempts 70 back up inst uch perfectly
ri Jealous alt unconstitutional laws as this
Slaves called persons al over the United states
Now this section that the gentleman wishes 10 re-
tain, provides that persons coming 20 d Is State
vg1f no uufff O. Of fhrfr I'd
owners shall be free. Now IL this does not con-
f!cr with the constitution, what two passages in
the language are there that DO conflict,
bir Falch replied, the time the constitution
was f,rmed, south Carolina AMI Georgia divided
equally, were the only states who planted them
selves firmly On the Same ground now claimed by
the gentleman from Royalton, (Mr Denison) that
the Constitution should provide for the return O.
slaves. lie attempted to reply at length and With
great earuestness 10 the position taken by Mr.
Deuison. lie thought if we erred at all, It should
ue on the side Of liberty and humanity. He re-
specied the egal profession, their wisdom and in
tegiity, and il he believed that the provisions
were unc Institutional he should favor their being
stricken out. But he judged from the light he
had and in his judgment, the Constitution did
no, include slaves In tn section. IN person held
to labor &c.
Mr Royc ,IeIiev,d that a slave vas person and
was 20 held q nth and south. 1t had been So held
Ia all the States in their courts and in the courts
OF the United States. u was possible still that
the gentleman from Ludlow, (Mr Bllch) might
be ight and everybody else wrong. Il has been
said before in discussion that the opinion Of the
supreme Court %. the United States was Of no ae-
count, and that We should have another that would
correct the law. lie believed II the rights Of the
geutlama1 ct Ludlow were ia question be would
appeal 10 that court as soon any other man, and
that they would be respected. Ii would be sad
time fer the people # these states when tie deci-
sions Of our courts were disregardei. He had
Travelled South and when be had spoken Of Il
unconstitutional laws Of South Carolina, he had
been pointed % Vermont. she, too, had uucousu-
tgtiona Jaws. What could be say in reply -
Nothing, believing he did that these laws we're
uncoustitutio al. lie beleyed that ninety nine out
Of every hUuired that lad made law profession
snd constitutional Law study, agreed with him
that the e laws were unconstitutional. lie vas
10 sUpporter Of slavery, 20 more in favor Of It
than the gentleman from Ludlow, as bitterly op
posed 20 IL as he was; but he would oppose L. in
ls-itimate and constitutional IL inner. Ia his
opposition to slavery, he would Mt violate that
constitution he had 50 often sworn 10 support.
Mr. Fletcher Of Cayeniish replied at length fully
endorsing the gentleman from Ludlow (Mr Baich)
in his remarks in favor Of The bill. lie gave a
history Of the Personal Liberty Bu at the time II
was passed 10 1858. lie vas stouishct that men
so much rather interpret the Constitution in favor
Of slavery than against it.
Mr. shaw said Il was a matter OF principle Wlt1
the committee 10 their report. They had report
ei what they thought right lie read from the
laws OF Virginia pIoyiiilg who should be slaves,
how made slaves, and various other sections, rela-
live to slaves. He dii this inasmueh as the gen
Jleman from Ludlow mad quoted from Mr. Mason
Of Virginia, that laws making slaves did not exist
in the south.
Mr Balch said be meant 10 be understood that
the laws authorizing slavery In the frst place. did
not exist, and this on the authority Of Mr. Mason, +,
also of Mr. CASTOR Of North Carolina,
The discussion was Continued by Miller Of VIII
lision, who opposed striking out the sections
Mr. Fletcher moved that the ill be oriere to
lie; disagreed to.
Nr Henry called for a division Of the question,
first, on striking out the l3, a, Is and ls sec
tiOns
Mr. johnson Of Newark, demanded the yeas and
nays-yeas 81. nays O., and the amendment was
thus concuTred in.
Mr. Henry then moved to propose to the Sen
te 10 modify the l7th section so that every per-
son who with the consent Of his master comes into
ihe st ate or is in the state, who may have been
held as 4 slave, shall be free.
The question being put showed no quorum pres
ent it being about Is minutes past the usual
honr for aojoarnmentj But upon another call CT
the House, a quorum was found to be present.
The House refused T. propose to modify, but con-
CURED in the proposed amendment of the Senate,
striking out the Il III section also