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

cOunIerslgned Dy the OecrelaIy, anu lDa'
one OF said duplicates be deposited in the
Office of the Secretary of State, to be en-
tered on record and preserved in the ar
chieves of the State; and that the other
of said duplicates be delivered to the act
ing Governor of the State, with dull y
certified copy of this resolution, to the
end that the adoption of said articles as a
part of the constitution of this State be
made known to the people by rroclama-
ton.
And the above resolution was adopted.
Mr.. Bartholomew of Washington of
fered the following resolution
Res0IUed, That the article of amend
ment numbered -, proposed by the
council of censors, be adopted by this con-
vention;
Which resolution was agreed to with
out division of the House.
Mr.. Harmon of Shelburn moved that
the blank in the number ofsthe article
last adopted be filed by inserting the
number ssseven"; which was agreed to.
Mr.. Iyford of Warren moved that the
vote adopting the seventh proposed artl-
Gle of amendment be reconsidered which
was disagreed to.
Mr.. Hyde of Castleton offered the fol-
lowing resolution:
Res0gged, That the thanks of this con-
vention are due and are hereby extended
to d. w. @. Clark, Esq, Secretary, for his
able, accomplished and efficient perform
ance of the duties of his office during the
session of this convention
Which was adopted unanimously.
The convention then resolved itself into
the committee of the whole, Mr.. Hyde of
Castleton in the chair, to consider the
sixth proposed article of amendment.
Mr.. Cleveland of Brookfeld said that
after having listened to the able remarks
on each side he felt that he would be but
pigmy among giants if he offered any
remarks on the subject. He strongly ia
vored the amendment. He did not think
the proposed amendment at all infringed
on the rights of the smaller towns. In
1857 a convention was called on a district
system, and even at this last council the
same proposition was made, and it was
defeated on account of the strong feeling
against a delegate system in any case.
This fact shows that our people every
where are opposed to changing the
present system of representation Of the
the amendment have been grounded on a
fear, either real or assumed, that the small
towns would be cheated by this amend
ment But the amendment Is most pro
per and beneficial. The Senate is body
which from its small number of speaker
and quick despatch of business has plenty
of spare time during a session to spend
upon the consideration of amendments
Hereby will be large saving of expense.
Now how safely will be the rights of al
people and towns protected by this amend
ment. After the Senate proposes an
amendment two years must elapse and
the House concur in the proposal be-
fore it comes before the people. He re-
ferred to the fact of so little interest being
taken and so few votes cast in the election
of the last censors, and argued therefrom
the propriety of abolishing the council
Moreover, he was we'll satisfied with the
substitute proposed in the amendment
He defended the honesty of the Council
and claimed that if any blame was to be
cast, it should be on the system and not
on the members of the Council. 1t is said
that this Council comes directly from the
people He denied it and claimed that
the Council merely come together by a
fortuitous concurrence of events. Some
claim that the second article having been
adopted, we should have a chance L
amend it back in seven years instead o.
twelve. But this mere difference of five
years should not affect the present ques
ton.
Mr.. Kellogg of Benson explained that
he did not design to misrepresent the
provisions of the amendment, but he
thought in the regular sessions of the leg
islature it will take until 1884 to make
any change in our constitution.
Mr. Drake of Royalton said he thought
the abolition of the Council of Censors
was matter of Indifference with the peo-
pie. They were opposed to any radical
change in our laws but if the people were
so much opposed to the Council of Cen
sors, and it was a "stench in their nos
trfls," there would have been a universal
outpouring of the people at the election
of the delegates to this convention, in
stead of the apathy we have seen. This
is great change, and if we adopt this
amendment we shall put the possibility of
another change great way off. But let
the council stand and in six years we
have a chance to return to the old
methods, if the new are not satisfactory
to the people. He thought the people not
prepared to take this position. He hoped
the amendment would not be adopted.
Mr.. Fletcher of Cavendish said it gave
him great pain to disagree with men in
this convention on so important matters as
are now before the convention, but he
must act in accordance with his conyic-
tions in this matter. sIIe had no such
fear as to the danger that WAS threatened
to the small towns. He did not believe
that there was any disposition on the
small towns of any rights which belonged
TO them. He was in favor of the amend
ment, and would vote for it.
Mr.. Buell. of Middletown said he should
like to see an amendment engrafted upon
the constitution, giving to the Senate the
right to propose amendments to the con-
stitution biennially; but he was opposed
to the adoption of any amendment that
would postpone any opportunity to amend
the constitution for so long a time as
would be necessary if we adopt this
He is therefore opposed to
the amendment.
Mr.. Olmstead of Dorset said he could
not satisfy his own conscience without
giving some reason for his vote on this
question. He was anxious to finish the
business OF the session, but we must do so
deliberately. If the vote had been tt ken
on this article without discussion, he
should have voted for it; but he had heard
the discussion and he had changed his
mind two or three times; and he had not
until very short time since decided how
he should vote. He believed that the
people of Vermont were higher than the
and would take care of their
rights, even in spite of the constitution /;
and instanced cases where the legislature
had taken the rights of the people into it's
hands and protected them in spite of the
constitution. He thought if an emer-
gency should arise at any time, the people
might demand and obtain amendments to
the constitution, and it would not be pro-
nounced unconstitutional. He objected
to the proposed amendment because it
only allowed that the Senate may, once
in ten years, propose amendments to the
constitution it does not say that they
shall. but only they NAV. and the rannla