Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1862-12-02
fCcntinued from I'd page.


in view CT the condition of our national affairs, II
was a time peculiarly unpropltious Tor the action
proposed by the Senate.
Mr.. Balch thought it would be very great
error for the State to now recede from the posi-
ZION IL had taken upon this question.
MrFleteher of Cavendsh believed it would be
degradation for Vermont to yield at such time
as the present. the position which she had assumed
and noby maintained for the last twelve years.
In the name of her buried heroes he would pro-
test against yielding hat principle Of Liberty for
which they hac contended.
The question was then taken and 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 Il Of the same
section, which makes still further provision in ref
erence to personal liberty The section provides
that any person entering the State, asa slave, be.
comes tree. The Committee reported in favor Of
concurrng with the Senate, and Mr.. Shaw argued
at length the position that the secten was beyond
doubt unconstitutional, and should therefore be
omitted in revising the Statutes.
M. Balch on the other hand, held the posi-
sion that the North had too long yielded to South
ern Interpretation Of the Constitution, and it was
high time to insist upon true Interpretation Of
that instrument. 1t would not do now to recede
from the position which the State had assumed in
reference to this section, any more than in refer
ence to matter OF the other sections which the
House had refused to strike out.
Mr.. Denison was glad the gentleman from Bur
gington lShsu) had been bought 10 see the I'M
-soGp3ness Of his argument in the support OF The
section which it haG bsen voted 10 retain. The
same argument, not 10 back down " was now
turned against himself, and with about the same
propriety with which he had used it. The simple
question in TIC ease was whether the section was
Fight Any other point need not, and should not
be discussed. To back down, or not 10 back
down, was not the question, nor should this idea
even be taken into consideration. 10 his view ths
section was wrong and should, therefore, be omit.
ted in the revision.
Mr.. BAch replied at l.ngh to the arguments
of the gentleman from Royalton, Qennison) and
supported by statement and arguments his views
10 favor OF the law under consideration.
Mr.. Royce spoke at length in opposition tc
SHAT he believed unconstitutional provisions il
aEe laws OF Vermont. The Constitution Of th,
United States had been Interpreted by proper su
shorty, and according TO that Interpretation, TIT
fugitive alave law must be regarded az constitu
tionsl, and the statutes Of Vermont whichoppo
ssd it unconstitutional The decision Of the Su
prsme Court of the United States in reference t.
This question Of consttutonality, WAS final AM
should be regarded as such II was the duty o
Wsrnonters 10 uphold the Constitution Of tn
United States and 10 remove from their ststut
books these provision, 10 which reference Ia
been made.
They could not otherwise consstsntly find f.sl
with States Of the South for ps'siag uncon'ti,s
,ionsl acts.
he would wish for the credit OF that State Q
wheh he was proud that no unconst tutionsl pro
vision should remain among her statute laws
Mr.. Fletcher Of Cavendlsh, argued Al length
airport Of the cen.tituIionaty of the laws i
qssston. He believed himself justified in inter
ipreiing the Constitution, in accordance with tn
known character and designs Of those brave mel
who framed the Constitution. lie fully ynpa
,biIsd with the position taken and assertion
made by the gentleman from Ludlow, (Bach) il
'selston TO the Interpretation OF the Constitution
made by South'rnsr, and TOO long submitted l.
by tb, people ofthe North.
Mr.. Shaw explained that the gentleman iron
Royslton, (DensoD) had fallen into error ia sur
posing that bis argument (Shaw') hal bee
turned agsins, himself. The point he had rsslI
m de was, that it would DO unwise To recede iror
aposition for the eonsttuonality Of which ihsr
vas good authority.
Mr.. Miller, of Willi.ton WAS not in favor Of n
tanning the section under confederation althengh b
asd favored other section, Of the Personal Libe
" bill, He approved of the bill asa whole, an
did not bslieve he was bound TO yield his opnio
IN interpreting the constitution, TO that Of an
court or any person.
Mr.. Henry called fora division Of The questio
and the question was divided, and frat taken uI
on striking out sections 10, a. Is and Is, an
not with re ferenee TO section II, which contain
the point chiefly under debate. Mr.. Johnson,
Newark, demanded the yeas and nays. Yeas s
nays Ga, and the House Ooncurred with the Sci
ate in striking out said sections.
The question then come upoa conourring
striking out the 18th section.
Mr.. Hsnry moved to propose to the Senate
modify the section so amended so that it shout
read, that slave shall be free if coming into tn
State with the consent Of the master or mistre
instead of reading as originally, either with
without the consent, &c.
Mr. Reed OF Montpelier, hoped the motion I
dnody would not prevail, but the question be /
ken on the section as ii was. There WAS no n,
cessity for any such law upon the statute book
Mr.. Denison also believed there was no neces
i,y for such statute, although il the law We
TO be passed he would prefer it with the anen
,ment.
Mr.. Deming hoped the gentleman from Ro
alton would vote for the amendment GU the pri
cple so often acted upon,-tha, Of persectng
bad thing and then aboshlng it,
The question whether the motion of the &c
tleman IRON Chester, (llenry) was in order "
at this point raised by the Speaker, and after
custom the Chair decided that il was not strict
in order, but as several members differed from /
Chair, the Chair decided to put the question
the motion u modify.
Ga the vote being taken, it appeared that the
was no quorum present.
Mr. Denson moved call of the Hous