USA > Vermont > Records of the Governor and Council of the State of Vermont, Vol. V > Part 56
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74
And whereas the aforesaid resolutions were, on the 22d day of Octo- ber 1805, by a joint resolution of both houses, referred to the present session of the legislature:
And whereas also, it is the opinion of this legislature, that the good people of this State experience nearly all the inconveniences and evils expressed in the resolutions from the State of Kentucky; and that two independent courts, having no corrective over each other and holding jurisdiction over the same subject in controversy, cannot continue to exist within the same State without engendering seeds of jealousy and ill will, naturally tending to establish different and clashing rules of de- cision, and also forming two rallying points and erecting two standards for the resort of political partizans, and laying a foundation for that dis- cord which may eventually terminate in the dissolution of our happy Union; which, together with the great expence of the service of writs returnable at so great distance, and of witnesses attending courts, (no depositions being taken within one hundred miles of court,) and the fees of counsel above what is required in our state courts, induce this Legislature fully to concur with the legislature of the State of Kentucky in the aforesaid resolutions:
Therefore Resolved, That this house fully concur with the legislature of the State of Kentucky in the aforesaid resolutions; and that his Ex- cellency the Governor of this State be requested to transmit the afore- said resolutions to' each of the Senators and Representatives from this State to the Congress of the United States, and also to the executive of cach State in the Union.
The foregoing resolutions were adopted by the House and concurred in by the Council. \
PROPOSED AMENDMENT FOR REMOVING JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES' COURTS.
Oct. 10 1807, William C. Bradley introduced, on leave of the House, a resolution for "an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in such manner as will empower the President of the United States to remove any of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon address made to him for that purpose, by a majority of the House of Representatives, and two thirds of the Senate, in Congress assembled;" which was referred to a committee consisting of William C. Bradley, Dudley Chase, and Titus Hutchinson. Nov. 4, this com- mittee reported the following resolutions to the House, which were
'Sce printed Assembly Journal of 1806, pp. 29, 64, 180; and ante, p. 136.
419
Appendix B.
adopted on the 5th and sent to the Governor and Council for concur- rence :
STATE OF VERMONT. IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Nov. 4th, 1807.
Whereas there is no provision made in the Constitution of the United States for the removal from office of any of the Judges of the Courts of the United States, who are rendered incapable of discharging their offi- cial functions by reason of extreme old age, insanity, or other reasonable cause, not amounting to sufficient ground for impeachment:
And whereas it appears to this Legislature, that, unless some altera- tion shall take place, cases will continually occur, operating the suspen- sion of public justice, and the sacrifice of the public good; evils which, in our opinion, may be remedied in a manner equally securing all proper independence to the Judge and the distribution of justice to the citizen.
Resolved Therefore, That the Senators in Congress from this State be and they are hereby instructed, and our Representatives in Congress are also requested, to use their best endeavors to procure such an amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States as will empower the Pres- dent of the United States to remove from office any of the Judges of the Courts of the United States, upon address to him made for that pur- pose, by a majority of the House of Representatives, and two thirds of the Senate, in Congress assembled.
Resolved also, That the Governor be and he hereby is requested to forward the foregoing resolution to each of the Senators and Represent- atives from this State in the Congress of the United States, also to the executive of each State in the Union, that the same may be laid before their several legislatures for their co-operation in procuring said amend- ment.
Nov. 6th, the Governor and Council concurred, with amendments, to wit: by striking out the words in italic in the first clause in the pream- ble, and inserting the words " for any other cause than such as may sub- ject them to be removed upon impeachment;" and by striking out the . words in Italic in the second clause of the preamble and inserting the words " may occur "-both of which were agreed to by the House. March 1 1805, John Randolph of Virginia proposed to empower the President to remove any of the Federal judges " on the joint address of both Houses of Congress;" and on that day the Vermont members of the House voted as follows on a motion favorable to a consideration of the amendment: yea, Gideon Olin-nays, William Chamberlin, Martin Chittenden, and James Elliot. At the session of ISOS, the Governor communicated the rejection of Vermont's proposed amendment by Del- aware and Virginia. 1.
1 Printed Assembly Journal of 1807, pp. 36, 224, 231; and ante, p. 177; Benton's Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, Vol. III, p. 341; and printed Assembly Journal of 1808, p. 110.
420
Appendix B.
PROPOSITION FOR TIIE REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES SENATORS FROM OFFICE.
Nov. 3 1SOS, Gov. Tichenor sent to the General Assembly a resolution of the legislature of Virginia, adopted Jan. 13 1808, proposing an amendment to the federal constitution so
That the Senators in the Congress of the United States may be re- moved from office by the vote of a majority of the whole number of the members of the respective state legislatures by which the said Senators have been or may be appointed.
This proposition was not considered by the legislature of 1808, but in 1809 it was rejected, as follows:
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Oct. 26, 1809.
Whereas his excellency the Governor of this State has communicated to this Assembly a resolution adopted by the legislature of Virginia, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States: that the Senators in Congress of the United States may be removed from office by the vote of a majority of the whole of the members of the re- spective state legislatures by which the said Senators have been or may be appointed:
And whereas, in our opinion, the Senators in the Congress of the United States do not hold their offices during a period of sufficient length to render such amendment necessary: therefore,
Resolved, That we do not concur in recommending the amendment proposed by the resolution aforesaid; also,
Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit copies of the foregoing resolution to the executive authorities of each of the United States. 1
PROPOSAL TO LIMIT THE POWER OF CONGRESS AS TO ACTS OF EM- BARGO.
Oct. 20 1809, Gov. Galusha sent to the Assembly a proposal of Mas- sachusetts, the nature and the rejection of which appear by the following resolution of the Vermont Assembly:
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Oct. 26, 1809.
Whereas his excellency the Governor has communicated to this As- sembly a resolution adopted by the legislature of Massachusetts. which has for its object an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, so as to prevent the passing of any law for laying an embargo, or for prohibiting or suspending commerce, for a longer time than until the expiration of thirty days from the commencement of the session of Con- gress next succeeding that session in which such law shall have been enacted. And
Whereas it is obvious, that the Congress of the United States, within thirty days after the commencement of any session, can repeal any law laying an embargo for a longer period than thirty days after the com-
'Adopted on motion of Titus Hutchinson .- See printed Assembly journal of 180S, p. 110; and of 1809, p. 71.
421
Appendix B.
mencement of such session, if its longer continuance shall have become unnecessary, or can revive and prolong any such law, which would ex- pire within thirty days as aforesaid, if its longer continuance shall be- come necessary; and that in this plain view of the subject, said amend- ment would be altogether nugatory; therefore.
Resolved, That we do not concur in the amendment contemplated in the foregoing resolution, so adopted by the legislature as aforesaid: also,
Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit copies of the foregoing resolution to the executive authorities of each of the United States. 1
PROPOSAL FOR A TRIBUNAL TO DETERMINE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE GENERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS.
At the same time with the foregoing proposal, the Governor sent to the Assembly an amendment proposed by Pennsylvania, which is set forth in the following resolution of rejection adopted by the Vermont Assembly:
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Oct. 26, 1809.
Whereas his excellency the Governor of this State has communicated to this Assembly certain resolutions adopted by the legislature of Penn- sylvania, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that an impartial tribunal may be established to determine dis- putes between the General and State Governments: and
Whereas such disputes are not so frequent, nor of sufficient magni- tude, in our opinion, to render such a tribunal necessary: therefore,
Resolved, That we do not concur in recommending the amendment proposed by the resolution aforesaid; also,
Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit copies of the foregoing resolution to the executive authorities of each of the United States.2
PROPOSAL TO PREVENT CITIZENS OF THE U. S. RECEIVING OFFICE OR EMOLUMENT, &C., FROM FOREIGN NATIONS.
Oct. 17 1811, Gov. Galusha sent to the General Assembly an amend- ment proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the United States, which is fully set forth in the following extract from the Assembly Journal:
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Oct. 22, 1811.
Whereas his excellency the Governor has communicated to this house a resolution, passed by the Congress of the United States, proposing an
'Adopted on motion of Titus Hutchinson. - See printed Assembly Journal of 1809, p. 70.
? Adopted on motion of Titus Hutchinson .- See printed Assembly Journal of 1809, pp. 46, 71.
422
Appendix B.
amendment to the constitution of the United States, in the words fol- lowing, viz.
" If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without consent of Con- gress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument what- ever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them."
Therefore, Resolved, That the foregoing amendment, proposed by Congress aforesaid, be, and the same is hereby (on the part of this State) agreed to, ratified and confirmed.
Also, Resolved, That his excellency the Governor be requested to transmit copies of the foregoing resolution to the President of the Sen- ate and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to each of the Governors of the several States.1
1 Adopted on motion of Charles Rich, yeas 184, nays none .- See As- sembly Journal of 1811, pp. 56, SS.
APPENDIX C.
-
STATE-CAPITALS, AND STATE-HOUSES.
Until 1791 there were no places fixed by statute for the meetings of the legislature, or, as in the act of 1791 it was phrased, no places of " residence of the legislature." Previous to the passage of that act, the legislature met at Windsor in March and October 1778, February and April 1781, June 1782, February 1783, October 1785, and October 1791; at Bennington in February 1779, October 1780, June 1781, January 1782, February 1784 and 1787, and January 1791; at Manchester October 1779, 1782, and 1788; at Westminster March 1780, October 1783, and 1789; at Charlestown, N. H., October 1781; at Rutland in October 1784 and 1786; at Norwich in June 1785; at Newbury in October 1787, and at Castleton in October 1790. The Governor and Council also met in spe- cial sessions at Bennington in June 1778, November 1779, July and Au- gust 1780, and June 1790; at Arlington in April and December 1779, February, June and July 1780, March and April 1781, May 1782, and April, May and June 1783; at Windsor in July 1779, March 1786, and May 1801; at Manchester in January 1780; at Shaftsbury in March 1782, and April 1784; at Rutland in August 1788, and March 1799; and at Fairhaven in March 1789.1
RUTLAND AND WINDSOR STATE CAPITALS FROM 1791 UNTIL 1797.
Nov. 1 1791, an act was passed declaring, in the preamble, that "great inconvenience and expence have arisen to this state by reason of having no fixed place for holding the sessions of the legislature," and that "no place near the center is sufficiently settled to accommodate the same:" and therefore designating Rutland for the session of 1792, and after that Windsor and Rutland alternately for the space of eight years; also pro- viding that the then next adjourned session should be holden at Wind- sor, and after that alternately at Rutland and Windsor for the like space of eight years .? Accordingly the regular October sessions of 1792, 1794,
1 Vermont Legislative Directory, 1876-1877, pp. 169, 170.
2 See Vol. IV. p. 16, note 2, for the act in full; printed Assembly Jour- nal of 1791, p. 34; and printed Acts of October Session of 1791, p. 19 .-
424
Appendix C.
and 1796 were at Rutland, and of 1793 and 1795 at Windsor. This cov- ered five years only, instead of eight; and the only adjourned session was at Rutland in February 1797, instead of at Windsor, as the act of 1791 provided it should be. This was caused by the repeal of the act of 1791 in 1796. Oct. 26 1795, the House passed a bill repealing the act of 1791, yeas 81 to nays 54, and sent it to the Governor and Council for concurrence; that body nonconcurred, whereupon the House again passed the bill and and sent it to the Governor and Council, when it was suspended until the next session. Nov. 8, 1796, the House again passed the bill, yeas 71 to nays 55, and it became a law, as follows:
AN ACT repealing an Act entitled " an act to establish the residence of the Legislature of the State of Vermont, for the term of eight years." passed November 1st 1791.
Whereas said act is found to be inconvenient and expensive, therefore,
It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, that the act to establish the residence of the Legislature of the State for the term of eight years be and the same is hereby repealed. Passed Nov. S, 1796.
Why it should be more inconvenient and expensive, other than at some place near the centre of the State, can be conjectured only. In fact, Rutland and Windsor were subsequently selected as the places of the meeting of the Legislature, but not exclusive of other towns. The record of sessions, until the final permanent location at Montpelier, is as follows: at Rutland in February 1797 and October 1804; at Windsor in Oct. 1797 and 1799, and January 1804; at Vergennes in 1798, Middle- bury in 1800 and 1806, Newbury in 1801, Burlington in 1802, Westmin- ster in 1803, Danville in 1805, and Woodstock in 1807.1
MONTPELIER THE STATE CAPITAL SUBSEQUENT TO 1807.
IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, Oct. 19, 1803.
On motion [of James Fisk, then of Barre. ] Resolved, That a Committee consisting of a member from each county be appointed, to join a com- mittee from Council, to take into consideration the expediency of the measure of establishing a permanent seat for the legislature, and re- port by bill or otherwise.
Solomon Wright of Pownal, Samuel Porter of Dummerston, Samuel Shaw of Castleton, William Perry of Hartford, Amos Marsh of Ver-
The act of 1791 located the sessions at Windsor and Rutland on condi- tions that those towns should, " at their own expence, furnish good and sufficient houses for the reception of the legislature," &c. The records show that at Windsor a " meeting-house " was used, and at Rutland a " state-house."-See Vol. IV, p. 63, note 1. The building at Rutland still stands as a dwelling-house.
'See Vol. IV, pp. 100, 102, 123; printed Assembly Journal of 1795, pp. 152, 162, 168; printed Laws of Vermont of 1796, p. 49; and Vt. Legisla- tive Directory, 1876-77, p. 170.
425
Appendix C.
gennes, Thomas Porter of Vershire, Udney Hay of Underhill, Reuben Blanchard of Peacham, Benjamin Holmes of Georgia, Samuel C. Crafts of Craftsbury, and Daniel Dana of Guildhall were appointed the com- mittee on the part of the House, and Noah Chittenden of Jericho, James Witherell of Fairhaven, Eliakim Spooner of Weathersfield, and Lient. Gov. Brigham of Norwich were joined from Council. Nov. 7, the com- mittee submitted the following report.
To the honorable General Assembly now sitting.
Your committee, to whom was referred the resolution relative to a permanent seat of government, Report, That in their opinion there ought to be appointed a committee, consisting of a member from each county, to be nominated by the several county conventions, as county officers are, for the purpose of examining and fixing upon the most proper place for a permanent seat of government, and to report at the next session of the legislature. PAUL BRIGHAM for Committee.
The representatives of each county accordingly met in county con- vention, with the following results :
The committee nominated by the members of the several counties, in convention assembled, to report on the business of a permanent seat for the legislature, and the erection of a work-house1-and appointed to that duty by the house, made report: that they had chosen, for the purpose of consulting on the business of establishing a permanent seat for the legislature, and for receiving proposals for the erection of a work-house, the following gentlemen:
Counties. Permanent Seat.
Bennington,
Jonas Galusha,
Windham,
Arad Hunt,
Arad Hunt,
Rutland,
Arunah W. IIyde,
Arunah W. IIyde,
Windsor,
Benjamin Emmons,
Alden Spooner,
Addison, John S. Larrabee,
Gamaliel Painter,
Chittenden,
Noah Chittenden,
Thaddeus Tuttle,
Orange,
James Fisk,
Josiah Dana,
Caledonia,
James Whitelaw,
John Cameron,
Franklin, Stephen House,
Benjamin Holmes,
Essex,
Orleans, Timothy Hinman. Daniel Dana,
Samuel C. Crafts, Daniel Dana.
Which choice was concurred in by the house.
Work-house. Solomon Wright,
Nov. 12 1803, a bill entitled "an act appointing [the above named persons on a permanent seat] a committee to fix a place for a permanent seat for the legislature," was read, passed without a division, and was ordered sent to the Governor and Council for revision and concurrence or proposals of amendment; but the bill went over to the adjourned session as unfinished business.2 At the adjourned session, Jan. 26 1804, the Governor and Council returned the bill to the House, with a recom-
1State prison. A committee of one from each county had been ap- pointed on this subject, and of course it recommended and the House ordered the committee above named, but nothing but this report, to that effect, has been discovered in the journal of the House.
2 Printed Assembly Journal of 1803, pp. 50, 208, 253, 271.
426
Appendix C.
mendation to refer its consideration to the next session of the General Assembly; and the House concurred therein.1
Oct. 22 1804, the bill was called up and referred to a committee con- sisting of William C. Harrington of Burlington, Elihu Luce of Hartland, and Daniel Chipman of Middlebury; who, on the 6th of November, re- ported a new bill "appointing a committee to ascertain the most con- venient place for a permanent seat of government;" which, on the, 8th, was referred to the next session.3
Oct. 15 1805, the new bill was referred to a committee of one member from each county, to wit : Edmund Graves of Sunderland, Lemuel Whitney of Brattleboro, Nathaniel Chipman of Tinmouth, Pascal P. Enos of Windsor, Reuben Saxton of Salisbury, Jedediah P. Buckingham of Thetford, Nehemiah Perkins of Stowe, William Chamberlin of Peacham, John White jr. of Georgia, Samuel C. Crafts of Craftsbury, and Ilaines French of Maidstone. John White of Georgia and Nathaniel Niles of West Fairlee were joined from Council. Oct. 26 this committee made the following report:
The committee to whom was committed a bill referred from the last session of the legislature, entitled " An act appointing a committee to fix on a permanent seat for the legislature," made report, that they are unanimously agreed on the expediency of the measure of fixing a per- manent seat, and that they have also agreed on the town of Montpelier, as being the most convenient place for the accommodation of the state at large, and therefore recommend to the legislature to appoint a com- mittee of three to draft a bill accordingly.
Which report was read and ordered to lie on the table.
Nov. 5, Lewis R. Morris of Springfield, John White jr. of Georgia, and Dudley Chase of Randolph were appointed a committee to bring in a bill agreeable to the foregoing report, and on the 6th they reported a bill entitled " an act establishing the permanent seat of the legislature at Montpelier," which was read and ordered to lie on the table. . On the next day this bill was passed, without a division of the House, and Nov. S it was returned from the Governor and Council concurred in with pro- posals of amendment, which the House agreed to,3 and the bill became a law, as follows:
' See Vol. IV, p. 400; and printed Assembly Journal of January ses- sion, 1804, p. 13.
2 Printed Assembly Journal of October session of 1804, pp. 127, 305, 359.
3 The amendments are not stated on the journal of either house. These may have been merely verbal; but it is conjectured, from the com- mittee's report, that the bill of the House embraced only the first and second sections of the act, and that the Governor and Council proposed the third section.
427
Appendix C.
AN ACT establishing the permanent Seat of the Legislature at MONT- PELIER.
SECTION 1. It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, That Elijah Paine [of Williamstown, ] Ezra Butler [of Water- bury, ] and James Whitelaw [of Ryegate, ] be, and they are hereby appoint- ed a committee to fix upon a place in the town of Montpelier, for the erec- tion of buildings for the accommodation of the Legislature of this state, and to prepare a plan for such buildings.
SEC. 2. And it is hereby further enacted, That if the town of Mont- pelier, or other individnal persons, shall, before the first day of Septem- ber, which will be in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight, erect such buildings on the place designated by the aforesaid committee, to their acceptance, and shall compensate said committee for their services, and also convey to the State of Vermont, the property of said buildings and the land whereon they shall stand, and lodge the deed of conveyance, duly executed, in the secretary of State's office, then. and in that case, said buildings shall become the permanent seat of the Legislature, for holding all their sessions.
SEC. 3. Provided nevertheless, and it is hereby further enacted, That if any future Legislature shall cease to hold their sessions in said town of Montpelier, those persons, who shall erect said buildings, and convey the property of the same, aud of the land as aforesaid, shall be entitled to receive from the treasury of this state, the full value of the same, as it shall be, then, fairly appraised.
Passed November 8, 1805.
A true copy, Attest, DAVID WING Jun. Secretary.1
THE FIRST STATE-HOUSE AT MONTPELIER-1808 TO 1835.
A town meeting of the freemen of Montpelier, legally warned for and held on the 25th of December, 1808,
Made choice of THOMAS DAVIS, GEORGE B. R. GOVE, and EBENE- ZER MORSE, a Committee to receive subscriptions and donations for a State House, and to superintend the building of the same, at the ex- pence of the subscribers, the town in no sense to be liable either to pay for said building or to compensate the said Committee for their services.
In town meeting, Sept. 24 1806: Voted to discharge George B. R. Gove from serving as one of the State-House Committee at his own re- quest, and made choice of Dr. JAMES II. BRADFORD, PARLEY DAVIS Esq. and Capt. DAVID HARRINGTON, in addition to the former Commit- tee to superintend the expenditures of subscriptions & donations for building said House.2
The individual subscriptions received and expended by the committee amounted to $6,138.88, the most of which was paid in produce, neat stock, materials, and labor; 3 but in the spring of 1808, it became abso-
1 Printed Assembly Journal of 1805, pp. 36, 104, 161, 163, 173; ante, 95, 97; and printed Laws of Vermont, 1805, p. 215.
2 Montpelier Town Records, Liber I, pp. 188, 228.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.