Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

that Gen. Washington placed the most unbounded confidence in the Cab. inet and leading men in Vermont. It is a fact, that the commanding General of the American army was made acquainted with the necessity of the Cabinet Council of this State adopting policy instead of power, and that he virtually approved of the same. Approving of this policy, he withdrew many regiments of Continental troops from the northern department in order to aid the southern army in the capture of Lord Cornwallis, well knowing that the enemy, from seven to ten thousand, were in Canada and at Crown Point and Ticonderoga, ready to lay waste the northern frontier, and believing that the Cabinet Council of the Green Mountain Boys were capable of using deception to obtain justice from the hands of tyrants for the benefit of the suffering American Colonies. Yes, on the receipt of the news of the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, the commanding General of the northern department issued a general order for the discharge of fourteen cannon, one for each of the thirteen Colonies, and one in honor of the free and independent State of Vermont.

Whatever our fathers expended on account of the Revolutionary War, was done as an independent Republic, and in as independent a manner as that of France or Holland. Therefore I am of the opinion that this State ought not to ask of the United States any remuneration other than in that character. I do believe that the accompanying documents will sustain every important fact alluded to in the foregoing, and that we have an equitable, just and well founded claim against the United States for a sum exceeding five hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of interest, exclusive of property destroyed by their enemy, exclusive of military stores, more than three hundred cannon, tons of balls, barrels of flints, tons of powder, two hundred batteaux, and one sloop, containing provisions and military stores, delivered for the benefit of the Colonies. Again, for all these services we have received no compensation, and been honored with only one gun.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

I am, sir, your Excellency's obedient servant,

Barnet, Sept. 27, 1842.

HENRY STEVENS.

REPORT ON RESOLUTION FROM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO COMMISSIONER OF THE DEAF, DUMB, &c.

To the Senate now sitting :

The committee to whom was referred a resolution from the House of Representatives, as follows,-" Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives, That Henry Stowell, Post Master at Cambridge, was not constitutionally eligible to the office of Commissioner of the Deaf and Dumb and Blind at the time of his last election, and has had no right to perform the duties of such Commissioner the past year," having had the resolution under consideration, respectfully report,

That they are unable to find any reason for concurring with the House in passing the resolution. The committee suppose, from a report which is connected with the resolution, that the House directed any inquiry to be made by a committee of that body, to ascertain whether any persons holding offices of trust and profit under the General Government are also holding offices of trust and profit under the State of Vermont. This inquiry was made on the part of the House and not by the General Assembly of this State, and in which the Senate had not joined or taken any part or action. It would seem, further, that a report was made by a committee of the House, to the House, in which they state certain facts as the reason or foundation of the resolution. This report of the committee is now sent to the Senate, as the foundation of action of the Senate, and connected with the resolution under consideration. The committee believe this proceeding is novel, at least, in legislative proceedings, and that the Senate cannot well take the report of a committee of the other branch of the Legis. lature, in form as a report, as a substitute for a preamble to a resolution, or as establishing reasons or facts for the action of the Senate. But, to take the report made to the House of Representatives by "Joseph Baker, for committee," as establishing the facts therein set forth, still your committee do not see any occasion for passing the resolution, and cannot believe that it ought to receive the sanction of the Senate.

Your committee have been furnished with an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to by Jesse Sears, which states that Henry Stowell, according to his best knowledge and belief, is a Post Master in Cambridge, and has been for more than a year; and a certificate from E. S. Merrill certifies that Henry Stowell is Post Master at Cambridge; which papers your committee submit to the Senate.

Suppose that Henry Stowell was, at the time of his election as one of the board of Commissioners for the instruction of the deaf and dumb and the blind,ineligible to that place,your committee cannot perceive what,then, can be the object of the resolution. Is it to pass censure upon the Legislature electing him? or is it to condemn his election? or to establish a precedent for future action? Henry Stowell does not now hold a place in the Board of Commissioners for the deaf and dumb. Another person has been elected by the present Legislature in his place, and the committee are not

aware that any further duties or acts are to be performed by him as a Commissioner.

Is it proposed by the resolution to set aside his acts as a Commissioner, or declare them void? The committee suppose that he acted with the other members of the board, and the acts of a majority would be sufficient; and in that respect the acts of the board would be good, provided Stowell was not authorized to act. Your committee further believe, that the duties performed by him under his appointment, supposing that he was not eligible to the place, could not be vacated or annulled in this manner.

Your committee have supposed that another view of the case might have been contemplated; that if Stowell was not eligible to the appointment, he should not be entitled to the compensation allowed by law for his services. It has been shown to your committee, that said Stowell has presented to the Auditor his account for service in the discharge of the duties as Commissioner, and the amount has been allowed by the Auditor against the State, and an order drawn on the Treasurer for the same, according to the provisions of law; and the order has probably been paid by the Treasurer. Could the State recover back from him the amount paid him for his services? Your committee think not; and at any rate that the passing the resolution would not aid such a result, and that it would be the appropriate business of the judiciary to pass upon such a question, when it should be presented to them. If the payment had not been made, would the State be under less obligation to pay Mr. Stowell for the services which he had performed and the expenses he had incurred, because he was holding another office incompatible with his being a Commissioner? Your committee do not believe that the Senate would withhold payment for this reason.

Your committee believe that it has always been the practice to pay the debentures of returned members of the Legislature, when it has been ascertained that the returned member was not eligible to a seat in the Legislature, up to the time his case was passed upon by the body to which he was returned; and the returned member has been permitted to act as a member until it was decided by the body, who have the power to pass upon the eligibility of its members, that he is not entitled to a seat as a member. If sums paid to returned members, in all cases where it has been correctly decided that they were not eligible to a seat in the Legislature, could now be recovered back from them, it would probably amount to a considerable sum.

It would appear to your committee to be singular legislation, for the Legislature this year to declare, that a returned member of last year was not eligible to an appointment in the Legislature. Your committee believe that when a person is performing the duties of an office, or claiming to hold an office, where his right to hold the office is questioned, whether it be because the person is not eligible to the office, or because his election was not duly made, the right to the office is determined upon a proceeding upon a quo warranto, before a judicial tribunal. In the Legislature the jurisdiction of the election and qualifications of the members is given to the house to which they are returned. Is the proceeding under consideration in the nature of a proceeding upon a quo warranto? Your committee believe it is not and cannot be likened to it; and further, that the Legislature have no such jurisdiction. The Constitution of this State provides," Nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the authority of Congress be eligible to any appointment in the Leg

islature, or of holding any executive or judiciary office under this State." The committee understand that the office of Justice of the Peace is a judiciary office; and assuming that the office of deputy Post Master is an office of profit or trust under the authority of Congress, yet the committee understand that the highest judicial tribunal in this State has decreed that the acts of a justice, appointed by the General Assembly of this State, and the same justice being also a deputy Post Master, his judicial acts and proceedings are not void. Such a decision your committee believe is founded upon principles of justice, reason and established precedents.The acts of a justice thus situated should not affect the rights of third parties, and if he was improperly exercising powers not belonging to him, he should be removed from his office by a legal proceeding. The proceeding under a quo warranto could not well be had after the person had gone out of office, and if it could be had, the committee are not aware that it would be competent to declare the acts of the justice void, before his removal.

Perhaps the object of the resolution is to have a declaration of the opinion of the Legislature, whether a deputy Post Master is eligible to the board of Commissioners for the instruction of the deaf and dumb and the blind.

Upon this question your committee have no hesitation in giving their opinion. Your committee believe that a deputy Post Master is eligible to the board of Commissioners. It has been too often decreed by the Legislature of this State that the office of deputy Post Master is an office of profit or trust under the authority of Congress, within the meaning of the Constitution, before recited, to remain an open question, or leave your committee at liberty to submit a different opinion; yet your committee, in justice to themselves, have to say, that if the question was an open one, and your committee were at liberty to form an opinion for themselves, they would hold a contrary opinion.

Is the appointment of a Commissioner for the instruction of the deaf and dumb and the blind an appointment in the Legislature, or is such Commissioner holding any executive or judiciary office under this State? Your committee cannot imagine any argument to sustain the affirmative of the proposition. Is the appointment of a Commissioner an appointment in the Legislature? A Commissioner is appointed by the Legislature, and his duties consist of a charge of the fund appropriated by the Legislature for the benefit of the deaf and dumb and the blind, and to designate beneficiaries to the Asylum and New England Institution.These duties are not in the Legislature. The construction of the Constitution, in this particular, heretofore given, has been, that members of either branch of the Legislature, was an appointment in the Legislature, and never has been extended to appointments made by the Legislature, and cannot with any propriety be extended to a case like that of Commissioner of the deaf and dumb.

Then is a Commissioner holding an executive or judiciary office? An answer in the affirmative would confound all definitions and distinctions which your committee are acquainted with.

Executive duties pertain to the execution of the laws or the precepts of courts of justice, such as the President, Governor, Marshall, Sheriffs, &c. A judiciary officer is one who is charged with the administration of judicial proceedings in courts of justice, &c.

Your committee therefore conclude that a Commissioner for the instruc

tion of the deaf and dumb and the blind is not an appointment in the Legislature, and is not an executive or judiciary office, within the meaning or intent of our Constitution.

E. N. BRIGGS,

THO'S BARTLETT Jr.,
SALMON F. DUTTON,

« AnteriorContinuar »