The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1862-11-15
PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL.

| Kidnapping, win amendments. MI. cHa" tx
piainsd that the amendments simply restored the
law to the form heretofore existing and secured
the right of trial by jury in the case OF attempted
rendition Of fugitives. He believed the question
of the consti,utionaty Of the law had better b,
left TO the supreme court as the proper tribunal
and that the Legislature should not recede from
their will formerly expressed.
Mr.. Reed thought the proposed amendment
absurd The best legal authority had decided
that this provs on was unconstitutional He
thought the Committee were putting them
selves to unreasonable and unnecessary trouble,
and hoped the Legislature would not regard the
amendment
Mr.. Shaw stated that the Selec, Committee had
simply inserted sections Of the existing law which
had been omitted by the Committee on Revision.
| 1t was simply a question whether the Revising
Committee should be permitted to change the law
which the State had formerly decided should re-
main. The proposition of the Select Committee
was not absurd, nor had they taken unnecessary
| nor unreasonable trouble. That few leading
lawyers should think this unconstitutional, was no
reason why the peope of the State should recede
from their expressed will.
Mr.. Balch, thought the present no time TO
back down from the position which this State
had assumed in regard TO the personal liberty bill.
The mere opinion OF lawyers should not be al
lowed to stand in the way of the resolve Of the
people in reference to securing liberty to those
who may come within the limits of the State.
The will of the people in this matter had overrid
den any such opinion in reference to constitution
atty. 1t was not wise to Yield to the Revising
Committee who had seen fl, TO smugge out OF
sight the sections under consideration.
Mr. Denlson thought the alusion made to the
Revising Committee not respectful. Tha, ON
mit,ee had acted judc;ously and efficiently, and
should not be referred to as they had been.
He also thought the remarks of the gentleman
from Ludlow Baleh in reference 10 lawyers were
inappropriate. The lawyers of Vermont
among the best, and their opinions worthy Of res
pec,. He then reviewed the facts in relation to the
Personal Liberty Bills, and reached the conclusion
that the proposed amendments were unwise and
snn ecessary.
Mr.. Batch explained that he had not intended
TO speak disrespecltuIIy Of the Revising Commit
tee.
Mr. Cushman spoke briefly in support Of the
amendment.
Mr. Royce was surprised that the Select Com
mtlee, If they agreed with the Revising Commit
tee in reference the constitu,onal!ty of the sec.
lions, had reported them as an amendment to the
struck sympathetic chord, and perhaps no one
cou! do II better. Yet it was really no argu-
ment in his view in favor Of inserting in the Stat
utes provision that was undoubtedly unconslitu-
tiona!. Mr.. Royce referred to the fact that ha
had been a member Ct Congress at a time when
this very question was agHatst, and stated that
II had been found impossible for members from
Vermont to sustain this unconstitutional legislation
Of their State. he further referred to the diff
Guilty which Judge Colamer found in reporting in
| reference TO this matter IN the u. s. Senate.
Mr.. Shaw stated that the select committee
we're no; guided entirely by the opinions of the
revising committee, bpt had be believed their own
opinions, by which they were guided in making
their report.
Mr., Bach spoke at some length in support Of
the amendments, and Of free opinions and IDEAS
Mr.. Reed took occasion TO retract an express
ion he had used " of doubtful! consti,utom!i,v. 1"
lie would say that all the Iega! talent of TIE
stateS,-the loyal slaes,-had decided that such
a provision was unconstitutional. He felt some
pride as Vermonter in the consistency, proprie,y
aud constitutional ity Ct her laws.
Mr.. Miller of WilIis,on said ,het it had been
remarked that all the members of the louise were
not lawyers. Ho was aware of that fact, but still!
b-hevel that members were capable of perceving
what was right and appropriate. He hoped the
State would not recede from It's position, at least
until the supreme cour, ha decided adversely 10
The consttnlI0nalty of their position.
| Mr.. Shaw desired to say in reference to the
question Of conslitutionalty OF the provision in
question, that there was question back OF the
decisions and opinions referred TO. 1t might be
as Charles Sumner believed in reference to the
Jaw With which this legislation Of Vermont had
been declared to DE in conflict. Ii was not be-
You'd Question whether the fugitive slave law i.
constitutional.
Mr.. tenry believed that quite 100 much hac
been made o. the opinions of legal men, and h,
decision or courts. The decision Of tie Dire,
Scott case for instance, was after all decision fo
which gentlemen were not bound TO feel, and man,
did not feel respect The judgment OF .he Hous
should not be controlled by authorities Of hi
kind. There were, as had been referred to, mel
OF the best legal talen, who held the oppos
opinion to that which had prevailed in the cas-
a., referred TO-.
. The question was then taken upon the amend
ment, and Nj. lorrey demanded the yeas am
nays,-yeas l27, nays 46, and the amendment
! was adopted, and BIZ he was ordered TO ,hir
reading.
BY Mr.. Chandler, for Judiciary committee, fl
r Worldly to chapter 47 of the Revision, of lev
on execution
q Mr.. Adams of Colchester moved to insert
clause exempting from attachment one hors
worth $3.50. Bill and amendment, we're ordere
to lie on motion Of Mr. Shaw.
3 The House, on motion OF Mr.. Denison, ordere
h the printing OF 800 additional copies OF the A,
5 julaHt and Inspector Generals Report.