Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1870-06-16


a full expression to their will. lie
thought there could be no difficulty In
adopting the last section of the proposed
article, and doing away with the council,
without providing any other method and
cited precedents from other States where
the Legislatures have called conventions
for amending the constitution without
anv nartioular provision therefor in the
existing constitutions, at which conven-
tions radical changes had been adopted
and fully acquiesced in by the people.
He thought such methods better Ior
this State than the system OF councli
of censors, or the plan proposed by the
late council of censors, and which Is now
before us for adoption or rejection. Ii we
reject this proposition, he believed that
we should before long have convention
called by the legislature to submit articles
of amendment to the people, or even the
legislature itself might submit articles OF
amendment, and the people adopt them,
even though not in the exact manner in
which provision is made in the constitu-
ton for doing so. He referred to the re-
marks of Mr.. Powers of Morristown, made
this forenoon, in relation to the Magma
Charter, and proceeded to give history
of the adoption of that memorable instru-
ment. He then said that if we adopt this
amendment, we completely tie our hands
for the next ten years, and even then we
must have any proposition " filtered
through" a minority of eleven members
of the Senate. He said that he never saw
a Vermont Senate yet when he could not
come into the House of Representatives
and find thirty men just as able as the
thirty in the Senate. He wanted the
towns to have the right of initiating these
amendments; and he hoped never to see
the time when any town shall be deprived
of the right of representation on the floor
of the popular branch of the general as
sembly, and it was perfectly safe to trust
the people with the defence and mainte-
nance of their rights. He thought the
third section of the article under con-
sideration inconsistent with first section.
in that it empowered the House of Repre-.
sentatives to impeach itself, There is
another power in the constitution, to
order impeachments, and he thought this
section indicated little carelessness in
the council in examining the existing
provisions of the constitution. He wished
we might strike out of the constitution
everything pertaining to the Council of
Censors, but not by substituting therefor
this provision, which he regarded as much
more Objectionable than the Council of
Censors. Let us hesitate before we adopt
a worse thing than we already have.
Mr.. Phelps of Burlington favored the
amendment. The institution of the
Council of Censors has signally failed, all
admit it. Though having great personal
regard for Sle members of the last count
Gil, still its accession was in a grea-
measure failure. Looking at its forma-
ton it is elected by ridiculously small
vote. Now or sometime we must get rid
of this bungling council. The only ques-
tion is, what shall be the substitute for it.
Members wish quite different substi-
tutes. He claimed that the speech of Mr..
Walton was really an argument in favor
of the amendment and nothing so help
ed cause as a weak speech against it.
There is no more danger of the small
towns losing their representation than
of the destruction of the Christian relig-
ion. The process through which pro-
posal of amendment must pass can be
checked at any time by the representa-
tives from the small towns. How then
does this article at all abridge the rights
and power of the small towns 1t really
increased them. This talk about hostility
between large and small towns is a great
exaggeration and mere mischief making
to influence votes. Freedom and Unity"
Freedom depends upon unity. Unity is
the great aim of our people, unity of feel
ing, unity of interest. Do not try then to
stir up this jealousy. No one can really
tgaA,s mr.
small towns. 1t is the great safeguard of
our liberties and pure legislation. Coming
from the rural towns the representatives
arc unapproachable by bribery. It savoo ne
from the corruption of large legislatures.
The substitute proposed in this article
meets his views exactly. Some it does
not suit. But this is as fair a ground as
we could expect. 1t is as acceptable as
any could be. 1t is no objection to this
article that it allows a bare majority of
the House to propose an amendment, for
back OF that is a two-thirds vote of the
Senate. He denied Judge Kellogg's DO
sition that we could divide the article and
vote first on the rejection of the council
and secondly on the substitute proposed.
He claimed that it was opposed to the
clear logical deduction from the section
of the constitution relating to amend
ments. But the danger would be that
having abolished the council, we might
not agree on any mode of amending the
He protested against any
vote on parts of the article. What, then,
are we to do? Are we to retain a system
which all condemn, merely because we
are not all completely satisfied with the
substitute Let us all unite on this fair
proposed by the council
This substitute is no entering wedge NJ
to deprive small towns of their represen-
tation.
Mr.. Churchill, of Goshen, said that we
should take rights from the people, if we
adopt this article of amendment. The
Council OF Censors is composed of 13I
members, and the people have the right
to vote for each OF them; but if this
amendment is adopted, we are to put it
in the power of the Senate to propose the
amendments,-a body of men elected by
the freemen of each county, and not by a
general ticket by the people of the whole
State. lie thought this would be unjust
to the people and abridge their rights
lie hoped the good sepse of this conven-
ton would reject the amendment.
MT. w dlJon OF montpelier, Salu ne gave
the gentleman from Burlington credit for
the adroitness with which he had avoided
the real question, and attempted to an
swer arguments by sarcasm. Under the
present system, the delegates in the con-
to consider the articles of amend
rnents, and for no other purpose; there
can be no log-rolling-no mixing up mat
ters of amending the constitution with
the general legislation of the State. He
said the right of representation was a
compact entered into at the adoption of
the constitution, and was to be enjoyed |
by the towns forever; and we should not |
put it in the power of the large towns to
abrogate that compact. We are told
there is no danger of the right of repre- |
ever being disturbed; but he |
could see the germ of that proposition in
the ore now before US. If the council |
had proposed to substitute the Senate for
the council, as the proper tri bunal to pro-
pose amendments to be submitted to the
people, he would have acquiesced in that
change; but he protested against the at
tempt to interfere with the rights of the