The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1862-11-28

|
Justices of the Peace in actions where fire inSur'
ance companies are parties.
Mr. Kirkland opposed the bill and Mr.. Cree
favored it.
On mostion of Mr.. Stafford a proposal Of
amendment was adopted, coufning the operation
of the bill to Mutuai Fire Insurance Companies
incorporated by this State, and the bill was raised.
Adj.
| HOUSE-.4Rerroon.
BY Mr.. Flagg for Select Committee, favo'ably
to chapter 81 of Revision, " OF the partition and
dis rlbution of real est .te"; third reading.
Mr.. Fletcher called up the resolution reported
by the committee on final adjournment, and
urged that the House should take action upon it F.;
after discussion it was again ordered 20 lie.
By Mr.. Chandler, for judiciary Committee, a
bill as substitute for House bill to pay Thomas l..
Powers The substitute provides hat Judges Of
Supreme Court may try the claim OF Thos. +.
Powers against the State, while the original bill
provides that the Governor, Lieut.. Governor and
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall
constitute board to consider such claim.
The House refused to maks such substitution.
The question then came upon ordering the orig
inal bill to third reading.
Mr.. Adams, of Colchester, moved to dismiss
the bill agreed to.
Mr.. Hunton, for Judiciary Committee, report
ed bill, entitled an act relating to election Of
members Of Congress third reading.
PERSONAL LIBERTY.
Mr.. Shaw for Select Com, reported against
Senate amendment. proposing to strike out sec
tons 10 and / of chapter 100 OF provisions
in relation to persons claimed as fugitive s'vves
and to prevent kidnapping These sections are
known as the personal liberty bill of Vermont,
and provide for trial 10y jury in the of at
tempted rendition of fugitive slaves
Mr. Shaw spoke at length in support of the
report of the committee, urging the position
which Vermont had taken upon tn subject, and
the importance of preserving the right OF trial by
Jury in the future al all hazards, in advocating his
view. He reviewed the history OF the law in YER
mont, and referred to the example Of Massachu-
sets in retaining simi!ar law upon her statute
books in the revision made IN that State in 1860
He believed that at least, the provision should be
retained until it had been decided by he Supreme
Court that it was unconstitutional. 1t WAS doubt
ed by good authority whether the fugitive slave
law itself was constitutional. Il was not wise to
re,race the steps that had been taken until the
question Of onsriluionaIity had been decide and
against the law. 1t had seemed to the commit
tee that the present was an unproptious tine TO
rccede from the position taken twelve years ago.
la view ct tac condition OF our national aF,irS it
was a time peculiarly unpropltous Tor The action
proposed by the Senate.
Mr.. BA!ch thought it would be very great
error for the State 70 m0w recedo from the posi-
ton il had taken upon tn,s question.
MrF!e.chcr of Cayendjsh believed it would be
J Ca al
as the present, the position whicn eAe had assumed
Iu the name OF her bar ed heroes he would pro-
test asains. yielding that prncipIe Of Liberty for
which they hat conteGded.
| The question was then taken AID the House,
BY an emphatic vote, refused to strike OUT the
sections or concur with tie Senate.
| The question then came upon agreeing with
the Senate in striking out Section II of the same
section, which makes still further provision in ref
eye &c to personal Liberty. The section provides
that any person entering the State, as Save, be-
comes tree. The Committee reported in favor oil
occurring with the Senate, and Mr.. Shaw argued
at length the position that the secien was beyond
doQot unconstitutional, aud should theret.te be
omitted in revising the Statutes.
Nj. BalCn on the other hand, held the posi-.
ton that the North had too long yielded to South
ern interpretation IF the Constitution and it was
hisn time to insist upon true Interpretation OF
that Instrument. 1t word not do now To lecede
from the position which the State had assumed in
ref rrncs 10 this section, any more than in refer
: eace to matter Of the other sections which the
House had refused to strike ont.
Mr.. Den>on vas glad the gentleman from Bur.
lington (SAaH) mad been bought o zee the un
Soundneas OF his argument III the support OF the
section which iLhau been voted TO retain. The
same argument" not to baCE down " was nov
turoed against himself, aad with about the same
proprely With which he had used ii. The simple
question in tHc case was whether tae section was
, right. Any other point need not, and should not
-, be discussed. 10 back down. or not to back
down, WAS no, the question, nor should this idea
even be taken into consideration. In his view the
section was wrong and should, therefore, be om,
ted in the revision.
Mr.. B,ch replied at length to the argument.
! Of the gentleman from Royalton, (Dennison) and
supported by statement and arguments his views
in favor of the law under consideration.
Mr.. Royce spoke at length in opposition tc
what he believed unconstitutional provisions If
the laws of Vermont. The Constitution of til,
United States had been interpreted by proper au
thority, and according to that Interpretation, thu
fugitive save law must be regarded a. cons,itu
tional, and the statutes of Vermont which oppo
: sed it unconstitutional. The decision of the Su
preme Court of the United States in reference t,
this question Of cossttutionaIity, was final, ant
Z should be regarded as such. 1t was the duty o
t Vsrnonters to uphold tn, Constitution of tn,
, United States and to remove from their statute
: books these provisions to which reference hat
D heen made.