Inaugural address  of  Charles K. Williams  As it appears in the  Journal  of the  House of Representatives  October Session   1851  Saturday, October 11, 1851 Inaugural Address  Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives: The  period  has  now  arrived,  when  the  representatives  of  the  people  are  required  to  meet  in  General Assembly,  to  perform  the  duties  necessary  to  promote  the  general  welfare  of  those  whom  they  represent.  Having  all  the  powers  necessary  for  the  legislature  of  a  free  and  sovereign  State,  limited  only  by  such restrictions as are imposed by the fundamental laws of the General and State Governments, there is no reason to doubt,  that  they  will  exercise  that  power  to  promote  the  design  for  which  they  are  selected,  the  happiness  and prosperity of the people, whose agents they are.  I am happy to meet you at this time, and to co-operate with you in all proper and legitimate efforts to obtain this very desirable end. On  again  entering  upon  the  duties  appertaining  to  the  Executive  Department,  I  should  be  wanting  in  that sensibility and gratitude which I deeply feel, if I did not return my sincere thanks to the people, who have again honored me with  their  confidence,  and  assure  them,  that  I  am  sensible  that an  increased obligation  is  laid upon me  to  be  vigilant  in  discerning  their  interests,  to  be  active  in  endeavors  to  further  that  interest,  and,  in  humble reliance on Divine aid, to exert all the faculties and abilities I possess to serve them faithfully.  The  assembling of  the  representatives,  elected by  the people  in  their  legislative  and  executive  capacities,  to consult  for  the common good, and  to adopt  such measures  as  that good may  require,  is one of  those  interesting events,  which  are  often  witnessed  in  a  republican  government,  and  in  no  other.    The  honesty  of  purpose,  and integrity of heart which are, and have been, manifested in the deliberations and acts of the General Assembly of this  State,  afford  a  sure  guaranty,  that  they  will  not  easily  be  misled,  nor  very  often  mistake  their  duties  or obligations. If  it  is  true,  as  I  think  it  is  without  any  doubt,  that  all  political  power  emanates  for  the  people,  and  their agents  are  responsible  to  them  for  the  manner  in  which  they  discharge  their  trust,  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to discern,  that  the  real  conservative  principle  of  our  government  is  in  the  right  of  suffrage,  the  frequency  of elections, and the responsibility of the persons elected or appointed to discharge any public trust. It  is  common  and  frequent  to  hear  disparaging  remarks  of  legislative  proceedings;  the  propriety  of  their measures lightly spoken of, and their integrity doubted.  Such remarks, however, do not always carry with them evidence  of  their  correctness,  or  of  the  superior  intelligence  of  those  who  make  them,  but  more  generally proceed from vanity, and from a mistaken idea that it is a mark of great discernment and wisdom to criticize and cast reflections on the members of a legislative body.  The Holy Seer rebuked such boasters, when he tauntingly said, with  bitter  sarcasm,  “No  doubt  ye  are  the  people,  and wisdom  shall  die with  you.”    I  have  not  learned  to estimate  so  lightly  the  intelligence  and  integrity  of  those  selected  to  make  or  administer  our  laws.    Although they  frequently  err,  as  no  human  tribunal  is  free  from  error,  yet  their  errors  are  mostly  found  on  the  side  of virtue and freedom — and they are not more frequent than are to be found among those who perform higher and more  arduous duties,  in other  and more  elevated public  stations.    In  expressing  this  confidence,  I  assure you,  it arises from long experience, and observation, in noticing how much less frequently they err, how ready they are to correct their errors, and how careful they are to refrain from doing any individual injury or injustice, and how ready they are to recompense those whom they may have inadvertently injured. Having  thus  expressed  to  you my  entire  confidence  in  the wisdom  and  integrity  of  the  legislative  branches of  our  government,  it  renders  the  constitutional  duty  imposed  on  the  Executive,  “to  propose  such  business  as may  appear  to  them  necessary  to  lay  before  the  General  Assembly,”  easy,  and  of  little  practical  importance, inasmuch  as  they  are  familiarly  acquainted  with  the  wants  of  their  constituents,  and  of  the  proper  means  to redress  any  grievances  they  may  labor  under.    But  little  is  left  for  the  executive  authority,  except  to  take  care that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  and  to  expedite  the  execution  of  such measures  as may  be  resolved  on  by the  General  Assembly.    Both  duty  and  inclination must  of  necessity  prompt  to  the  performance  of  this  part  of the executive duty, as the laws, before they become such, generally receive his sanction and approbation.  There are certain subjects which occupy so large a space in the public estimation, that they force themselves irresistibly on  the mind of any one, who has  the prosperity of our  republican  institutions at heart, and appear  to have  been  a  necessary  part  of  every  annual  executive  message,  as  though  they  were  directed  by  a  rubric,  the most prominent among which is the subject of education. I need not say any thing in relation to Common Schools, as the benefit derived from them is so apparent.  To them we are all indebted in the first instance, for such information and intelligence as we may possess, to enable us  to  discharge  the  duties  we  have  assumed.    The  high  and  the  low,  the  rich  and  the  poor,  equally  receive  the benefits derived  from  them, and  there can be no danger of  their  failing  for want of support and encouragement,  Indeed, it may be deserving of consideration, whether any further pecuniary assistance would be beneficial. The  higher  schools  of  learning,  the  Colleges  and  Universities,  have  equal,  if  not  stronger,  claims  for  our attention  and  patronage,  and  I  cannot  recommend  them  too  strongly  to  your  favorable  notice.    The  statesman, the  civilian,  and  the  messenger  of  the  Gospel  of  Salvation,  who  have  received  their  education  at  the  Colleges and  University  of  this  State,  and  been  there  trained  for  usefulness  and  distinction,  have  carried  our  name  and fame  to  every  part  and  portion  of  this  Republic,  and  foreign  nations  have  witnessed  the  labors  of  those  who have been educated among us, and who have shown  the brightness of our star, both  in  the west and  the east.    It is  to  be  hoped  that  it  will  continue  to  shine,  until  others  shall  come  to  its  light,  and  to  the  “brightness  of  its rising,” and I hope  that what you can do, you will do,  to afford  them encouragement, and give  them  the benefit of  your  patronage.    I  feel  confident  your  constituents  will  not  feel  that  you  have  imposed  an  unnecessary  or useless burden upon them, by making an annual appropriation for their benefit, to be increased or diminished, as their exigencies and the developed resources of the State will warrant. I must again mention the subject of the Militia, upon whom all free States should rely for defense; who may be  employed  for  the  protection,  and  cannot  be  employed  for  the  destruction,  of  the  liberties  of  the  people.    In these days, when  so much  is  said on  the  subject of constitutional duty, and obedience  to  the  laws of  the United States,  I  am  sorry  that  those  laws,  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia,  have  received  so  little countenance from the legislative acts of this State, and that all endeavors of its officers, to raise the militia to the standard  of  those  laws,  should  have met  with  so  little  approbation  for  their  fidelity  to  their  duty  in  urging  this subject for consideration.  No returns have been made to the adjutant general of the United States since the year 1843,  and  we  have  to  rely  on  the  returns  then  made,  for  our  quota  of  arms  annually  furnished  by  the  United States. I must also remind  the Legislature  that  the amended Constitution of  this State requires  them  to provide, “by a  general  law,  declaring  what  officer  shall  act  as  Governor,  when  there  is  a  vacancy  in  both  the  offices  of Governor and Lieutenant Governor.” I  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  criminal  code,  and  suggest  whether  some  amendment  of  the  same, relating  to  fines  and  costs  of  prosecution,  might  not  profitably  be  adopted.    The  power  of  pardon,  and  of discharging  any  person  from  jail  for  not  paying  a  fine  and  cost,  is  vested  in  the  Governor.    This  should  be exercised  as  an  act  of  clemency,  founded  on  the  merits  of  each  particular  case,  taking  into  consideration  the merits of  the  individual.   An  idea seems  to be prevalent,  that  the poverty of  the person  thus  imprisoned, and his inability  to  pay  either  fine  or  cost,  entitles  him  to  the  clemency  of  the  Executive,  and  a  remission  of  the sentence.    It  is  obvious  that  this  sentiment  is  erroneous.    The  Executive  ought  not  to  have  the  power  of dispensing  with  the  law,  and  has  no  means  of  knowing  the  circumstances  of  aggravation  or  palliation  of  each case,  or  to  decide  why  one  should  be  released  from  the  consequences  affixed  by  law  to  a  conviction,  and  not another,    I  submit  whether  it  would  not  be  better  to  empower  the  court,  before  whom  a  conviction  is  had,  in their discretion, when they impose a fine, to ascertain the ability or inability of the person convicted, and in case of  such  inability,  to  limit  the  time  the  person  convicted  shall  remain  in  prison  if  he  fail  to  pay  the  same,  or  the costs  of  prosecution;  and  whether,  in  all  cases  of  imprisonment  for  non-payment  of  fine  and  cost,  the  sheriff might not employ, in some useful or active labor, the person convicted, until he had earned sufficient, at least, to pay the cost, if not the fine, and thus render our jails places of industry and useful labor, instead of the abodes of indolence,  and  its  consequent  vice  and  wretchedness;  and  whether  he  might  not,  in  some  cases,  employ  them out of the walls of the prison. I would  also  suggest, whether,  in  all  convictions  for  criminal offences, where  exceptions  are  taken,  and  the cases  passed  to  the  Supreme Court,  sentence  should  not  be  pronounced  by  the County Court, who  have  all  the circumstances before them, but delaying the execution of the same until the judgment is affirmed, leaving to the Supreme Court only to fix the time for the commencement or execution of the sentence.   In  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  an  act  entitled  “an  act  to  provide  for  compiling  the  laws  of  this  State,”  I appointed  Charles  L.  Williams,  Esq.,  of  Rutland,  to  perform  the  duty  therein  required,  who  has  made  the compilation.  The Secretary of State has procured them to be printed and bound, and five hundred copies are, or will soon be, subject to such distribution as the General Assembly may direct. On  the  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  for  appointing  a  Committee  to  consider  and  report  upon  the financial affairs of the State, I appointed John N. Pomeroy, Waitstill R. Ranney, and Timothy P. Redfield, Esqs, whose report will be  laid before you, and I hope  the Legislature will  take some effectual measures  to  lessen  the expenses of  the State, and arrest  the  tendency  to  increased and extravagant expenditures,  that  they may  thereby be better enabled  to afford aid and encouragement  to such  institutions as will advance  the honor and  interest of the State. The  increasing vice of  intemperance may  require  that we should profit by  the wisdom of our ancestors, and adopt  either  their  laws,  or  something  equivalent  thereto,  which  subjected  common  drunkards,  who  publicly annoyed  the  peaceable  citizens  of  the  State,  to  confinement  in  the  house  of  correction.    Until  a  very  recent period, this was the law of the State.      It  will  be  necessary  for  the  Legislature,  at  this  session,  to  divide  the  State  into  districts  for  the  choice  of Representative  to  Congress.    The  election  is  to  be  made  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  September  next,  and  by  the apportionment we shall be entitled to only three Representatives, instead of four, as we had before.  I  trust  you  will,  in  all  your  deliberations,  bear  in  mind  that  legislators  are  not  only  responsible  to  their constituents, but are also subject to a higher law, and higher power; and unless they feel and act under a sense of this  subjection,  the  oaths,  which  they  take  at  the  commencement  of  their  political  service,  would  be  but  a mockery.     To be  just and  fear not, and  to act  in subjection  to  this power,  is  the duty of every person whatever; and legislators and rulers cannot exempt themselves from this obligation.  I should consider myself very unfit to take upon me the duties of the office to which I have been elected, if I did not feel that the oath I have taken laid me under an obligation  to discharge  the duties of  it  in  the  fear of Him, before whom  the nations  “are  as  a drop of  the  bucket;  and  are  counted  as  the  small  dust  of  the  balance,”  and  who  “taketh  up  the  isles  as  a  very  little thing.”    It  is  with  unpleasant  feelings  I  have  witnessed,  that  subjection  to  this  law  has  been  made  a  subject  of reproach or ridicule, or that listening to the dictates of conscience, and seeking its direction, should be treated as fanaticism, or  an  exploded  idea of by-gone  times.   The  laws of our Maker,  and  the  teachings of  an  enlightened conscience,  instruct  rulers  to  do  not  injustice,  and  all  to  be  submissive  and  obedient  to  lawful  authority,  and cannot  be  made  a  pretext  for  oppression,  or  of  resistance  to  the  requirements  of  law.    This  sentiment  is  so general,  that  I deem  it almost  idle and  superfluous  to mention  it.   The people of  this State are better acquainted with  their  rights  and  duties  than  is  supposed  by  many.    They  entertain  no  idea  that  they  are  absolved  from obedience to law, because it does not conform to their views and wishes.  This latter sentiment, I have no reason to  believe,  pervades  any  considerable  portion  of  our  fellow  citizens,  and  I mention  it with  a  view  to  assert my disbelief of any such sentiment existing among many of the citizens of this State, and not to controvert or show its fallacy. If  it were practicable,  it would be desirable  that every act of a  legislative body should be accompanied with such  evidences of  its necessity  and utility  as  to  ensure  a  ready  acquiescence  in  the propriety  and wisdom of  its provisions,  and  thus  commend  itself  to  the  hearts  and  affections  of  the  people,  and  not  require  the  coercive power  of  government  to  enforce  it.   But  as  obedience  and  submission must  be  yielded  to  the  supremacy  of  the laws, and a resort to compulsory measures must be had, if necessary to ensure this obedience, it is incumbent on a  legislative body  to  consult  the general good,  and not unnecessarily  sacrifice  the  interest  of  one  portion  of  the community to that of the other, nor wantonly injure the feelings and views of one, to conciliate and gratify those of another.  When there is this conflict of interest and opinion, the voice of the majority must prevail. In  a  republican  government,  having  a  written  constitution,  there  are  two  tests  to  which  all  legislative  acts must be  submitted.   One  is public opinion, and  the other  is  the provisions of  the Constitution.   The  former may compel  a  repeal  or  alteration  of  any  acts or  laws passed by any  legislature,  and  the  latter will  try  their validity.  To  the  formation  of  a  correct  public  sentiment,  and  to  influence  it,  the  utmost  latitude  must  be  allowed  of speaking and publishing  the sentiments and views of every  individual.   The merits of public men and measures must  be  subject  to  be  discussed  freely,  in  order  to  obtain  that  remedy,  if  any  is  necessary,  which  the representatives of the people in their legislative capacity can alone give.  Every attempt to repress this liberty of speech  and  of  the  press,  and  to  silence  an  inquiry  into  the  propriety  or  wisdom  of  public  men  and  measures, whether  by  law  or  the  exercise  of  patronage,  by  appeals  to  the  passions,  the  fears,  the  avarice  or  ambition  of individuals, must  be  futile  and  vain,  and  can  obtain  no  permanent  favor  of  the  thinking  and  intelligent  citizens of the United States.  For myself, I can adopt the language of an eminent individual, that “to speak my mind and act as my conscience dictates, are two branches of liberty which I can never part with.”  I am sure the people of this  country  will  never  consent  to  part  with  this  liberty,  however  much  it  may  be  desired  by  some,  to  avoid  a scrutiny of  the acts and merits of  themselves and others; and no danger  is  to be apprehended  from  the abuse of this liberty, while men are under the superintendence and supervision of the law, and amenable to public justice. To  the  other  test  all  legislative  acts  are  also  subject,  and  it  is  the  province  of  the  judiciary  department  to determine, when  the  law and  the constitution are antagonistic, that  the former must yield, and  the  latter prevail.  This power of  the  judiciary was  formerly denied, but  is not doubted  at  this day.    It  is  the  right  and privilege of any one,  affected by  any  act of  the  legislature  in his person or property,  to bring  the  act  to  the  consideration of the  judicial  tribunals,  who  will  pronounce  it  valid  or  void,  as  it  conforms  to  or  conflicts  with  the  fundamental law.  In order to ensure confidence in a judicial decision on this delicate and difficult subject, the citizen should feel  that he  can present his  views,  that  he will  be  heard with  patience,  and not be  embarrassed by  any previous expression  of  opinion,  not  required,  uncalled  for,  and  extra  judicial,  and  not  a  decision  of  the  question submitted.   No  individual,  or  state,  should  be  discouraged  from  resorting  to  this mode  of  trying  the  validity  of any legislative act.  I  need  not  speak  to  you  of  our  attachment  to  the  Union,  or  our  reverence  for  the  Constitution,  or  our unwavering  obedience  to  all  its  requirements.    A  recurrence  to  our  history  will  show,  that  we  voluntarily  and unhesitatingly  sought  admission  into  the  Union,  and  ratified  and  confirmed  its  constitution,  and  have  never, even  when  invited  by  those  in  whom  we  placed  in  confidence,  asked  for  any  important  alteration  in  its provisions, and have manifested no wish  to disturb  the  ration of  representation; nor have we  joined with others in  any  acts  or  measures  which  might  be  considered  as  tending  to  a  violation  of,  or  resistance  to,  its  authority.  We make  no  loud  and  vociferous  professions  of  attachment  to  the Constitution,  as  such professions  sometimes indicate  that  there may  have  been  reason  to  doubt  that  attachment,  and  an  uncalled  for  profession  of  faith  and reverence for the Union and Constitution, might imply that we had heretofore been wanting in that reverence. Allegiance to the government of the United States depends not upon our will; we cannot, while we enjoy its protection,  absolve  ourselves,  nor  can  any  state,  or  any  combination  of  states,  absolve  us  from  that  allegiance.  And should any state, or any number of  inhabitants within any other geographical  limits, attempt  it,  the  laws of the United States  and  its Constitution would  still  be  in  force within  their  territory,  and would  only  be  rendered ineffectual,  by  the want  of  ability  and  power,  in  the  authorities  of  the Union,  to  enforce  obedience.    I  have  no reason  to  doubt  but  that  the  necessary  power would  be  found,  and  the  aid  afforded,  to  compel  a  submission  to law and authority.   For  this  reason  I have  regarded, perhaps  too  lightly, all  threats of a dissolution of  the Union as  futile,  and  have  noticed  with  surprise,  in  the  resolutions  of  public  bodies,  and  in  executive  messages,  a declaration, or even an  intimation,  that adherence  to any acts or measures of  congress,  is  to be  the  condition of their fidelity to the Union, as though this allegiance depended upon their will and pleasure alone. I  hope  that  the  cry  of  danger  to  the  Union,  like  the  cry  of  danger  to  the  Church  in  the  country  of  our ancestors, in other times, is not to be made the pretext for arbitrary and oppressive measures, or humiliating and degrading submission. In an extended territory, like that of the United States, the different sections will have different interests, and legislatures  will  be  influenced  by  their  local  situations.    Hence  they  will  be  liable  to  the  imputation  of  being governed by sectional and not national views.  This was the complaint against those laws which were enacted in favour  of  a  protective  tariff,  and  which,  at  one  time,  came  very  near  involving  the  county  in  a  civil  war.    It should  be  remembered,  however,  that  what  advances  the  interest  of  one  section,  in  a  measure  advances  the interest  of  all.    The  protection,  which  has  heretofore  been  extended  to  the  manufacturing  interest,  has  also benefited  that  of  agriculture  and  commerce.    An  abandonment  of  this  interest  was  truly  a  sectional,  and  not  a national  measure.    We  ought  not  to  look  with  jealousy  or  envy,  on  the  wealth  which  may  have  been accumulated,  in  consequence  of  this  protection, when  it  has  been  so  liberally  expended  in works  of  usefulness and  benevolence,  extending  to  every  part  of  this  republic.    We  hope  that  we  shall  again  witness  a  resort  to  a protective  tariff,  and  that  the  doctrine  of  free  trade  will  be  given  up  as  a  sectional  and  narrow  feeling,  not adapted to the wants of the whole Union.  Sensible, however, that in our government a majority must determine what measures  shall  be  adopted,  even  if  our  wishes  should  be  disregarded,  and  a  policy  still more  fatal  to  our interest should be pursued, we shall endeavor to seek redress in the Union, and not out of it. There  is  another  subject,  connected with  the  action  of  this  State, which  I  ought  not  to  pass  over  in  silence, inasmuch as our State has been most unjustly calumniated by those who have officiously intermeddled with our concerns.   Some of  the States  in  the confederate republic, our equals, and not our superiors, have undertaken  to sit  in  judgment, and  reprove and  reprimand our  legislative  acts, as  though we were accountable  to  them. Those of  our  own  citizens, who  have  either  approved  or  condemned  any  acts  or  proceedings  of  the  Legislature,  have but  exercised  the  right  of  expressing  their  own  opinion,  and  endeavoring  to  influence  the  opinion  of  others, which  all undoubtedly possess;  and  so  far  as  it  evinces  an  anxiety  to keep  rulers and  legislators within  the pale of  constitutional  authority,  or  to  protect  the  natural  rights  or  liberties  of  man,  or  to  procure  the  repeal  or modification  of  any  law,  whether  of  the  state  or  general  government,  it  cannot  be  a  subject  of  censure,  but merits approbation.   Those belonging  to other States, and other governments, who have reflected  injuriously on the  legislation  of  this State,  are  not  entitled  to  this  charitable  construction  of  their motives  or  acts.   We  are  not bound to consult their wishes, or conform to their views, when we legislate for ourselves.  It is no time for them to complain until we violate their rights. These  remarks  are  elicited  from  a  consideration  of  the  law  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  on  the subject  of  fugitives  for  labor,  and  the  act  of  the  Legislature  of  this  State,  relating  to  the writ  of  habeas  corpus, and  the  view  taken  of  them  by  others.    Of  the  former,  I  have  no  disposition  to  enter  into  any  discussion,  and shall  not  speak  of  it  in  the  language  of  reproach,  and  certainly  not  of  approbation.    I  early  learned,  in  the resolutions  of  the General Assembly  of  this State  in  the  year  1799,  in  answer  to  certain  resolutions  transmitted to them by the State of Virginia, that “it belongs not to the State Legislature to decide on the constitutionality of laws  made  by  the  General  Government,  that  power  being  exclusively  vested  in  the  judiciary  courts  of  the Union;”  and  from  that  year  to  the  present  time,  I  have  never  seen  any  great  practical  good  from  passing resolutions  on  subjects  not  immediately  connected  with  legislation,  as  the  Representatives  and  Senators  are usually  sufficiently  acquainted with  the wishes  and  feelings of  their  constituents, without  the  aid of  resolutions and instructions. I may  remark  for myself  individually,  that whatever other powers Congress may possess,  in order  to  insure domestic  tranquility  and  promote  the  general welfare,  to warrant  the  passing  of  the  law  in  question,  I  have  not been  able  to  find  it  in  that  clause  of  the  Constitution,  in  relation  to  fugitives  from  labor,  and  have  rather coincided with  the opinions of  the  learned chancellor of New York, and of a  judge of  the Supreme Court of  the United  States,  and  of  some  of  the  distinguished  statesmen  of  that  portion  of  the  Union  who  are  the  most sensitive on  this subject,  that no  legislation by Congress was authorized or  required.   But upon  this, as upon all other  similar  subjects,  I  have  endeavored  to  conform  my  own  views  to  judicial  decisions,  considering  all decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  upon  a  point  directly  in  issue,  as  final  and  conclusive,  though  I  have  not yielded  the  same  authority  to  the  reasons  which  they  may  express  for  coming  to  such  decisions,  which  are frequently  given  by  the  way  of  illustration  or  explanation  only.    I  should  have  much  preferred  to  see  the authority  in  Congress  maintained  from  the  words  of  the  Constitution,  and  not  from  cotemporaneous  history, which  I  have  never  been  able  to  find,  and  from  acquiescence,  when  those  who  were  the  subjects  of  its provisions  had  no  other  way  by  to  acquiesce,  and  had  not  the  means  or  ability  to  try  the  validity  of  any  acts passed  by  Congress,  on  any  question  of  constitutional  construction.    I  am  not  insensible  that  others,  whose opinions  are  of  very  high  authority,  have  different  views.    Those  who  think  Congress  are  under  any constitutional obligation, by  the  article  referred  to,  to  enact  laws  to  carry  the  same  into  effect, may be  justified in passing this law, and will probably have to resort to other measures more stringent and effectual. Those  of  the  Representatives  and  Senators  in  Congress  who  neither  voted  for  the  law  in  question,  nor proposed any alterations or amendments, I have no reason  to believe, had any such views of constitutional duty or  obligation.    But  I  have  no wish whatever  either  to  discuss,  agitate,  censure,  or  approve  the  law  in  question, and will only add that it is no reason with me, either to withdraw my confidence from any administration, or any men  who  think  differently,  or  to  withhold  it  hereafter,  if  they  were  honest  and  upright  in  their  convictions  of duty.    Unanimity,  or  a  perfect  coincidence  of  opinion  is  not  to  be  expected  in  any  legislative  body,  on  every question  before  them,  either  of  ordinary  legislation  or  of  constitutional  rights  or  duties.    Nor  can  I  hesitate  to express my approbation of the Executive, in carrying into effect, either this or any other law passed agreeable to the  forms  of  the Constitution.    Indeed,  it would  be  an  anomaly,  and  a  dereliction  of  duty,  for  any Executive  to refuse  or  to  neglect  to  execute  a  law, which  has  passed  the  legislature,  and  received  his  official  sanction.    It  is not,  however,  a  matter  of  much  importance  what  may  be  my  opinion  in  relation  to  the  law  in  question.    It  is sufficient on  this occasion  to  say,  that of  the  constitutionality of  the  act, both  in  the whole,  and  in  its particular provisions,  very  great  doubts  have  been  entertained.    The  President  of  the  United  States  withheld  his approbation, until he had obtained  the opinion of  the Attorney General.   Others, not convinced by  that opinion, still  continue  in  the  belief  that  Congress  had  assumed  powers  not  delegated  to  them,  and  had  disregarded  the principles of civil liberty, and the Constitution.  One branch of the Legislature of this State, without any apparent dissent, had pronounced the act a violation of  the  principles  of  civil  liberty  and  the Constitution,  and  set  forth  the  reasons  for  such  an  opinion.    The  other declared  their  disapprobation  of  the  act,  and  urged  its  repeal,  or  such modifications  as would  protect  the  rights of our own citizens, thereby implying that those rights might be in danger.  Not having any reason to doubt that they were sincere in the belief of these opinions expressed by them, the passing the law in relation to the writ of habeas  corpus,  and  extending  its  provisions  to  persons  claimed  as  fugitive  slaves,  cannot  be made  a  subject  of reproach.   The  law of  this State  is probably  the first act of any Legislature, designed  to give  the person claimed as  a  fugitive  from  service,  the  way  and  the  means  of  having  his  claim  to  freedom  established  by  a  judicial tribunal,  and  proffering  the  professional  aid  of  the  State’s Attorney,  to  defend  him  from  any  unlawful  seizure, not warranted  by  the  law  and  the Constitution.     Of  the  necessity,  propriety,  or  expediency  of  such  an  act,  it  is not  for me  to  decide.   Never  having  heard  that  such  an  act was  in  contemplation,  until  the  evening  it  passed,  I nevertheless  examined  its  provisions,  and  though  I  had  doubts  of  its  necessity  or  expediency,  I  had  none  of  its constitutionality, and gave it my approval. As early as the year 1786, this State found it necessary to provide against free persons being transported out of  this  State,  and  sold  as  slaves,  and  our  permanent  laws make  such  practices  highly  penal.    I  can  see  no  good reason why an  inquiry may not be had, on  the  return of a writ of habeas corpus, whether a person  is arrested or imprisoned by lawful authority, or is about to be sent out of the State without such authority.  Instances have not been  wanting,  where  persons  have  assumed  to  act  as  commissioners  without  any  authority,  and  where,  in  a summary manner,  they have  taken  jurisdiction over  a person not  a  fugitive,  and not  subject  to  their  jurisdiction or authority.  The habeas corpus act passed by the Legislature of this State, in the year 1814, met with the same objection  and  opposition  as  the  act  of  the  last  Legislature,  and  yet  no  attempt  was  made  to  procure  its  repeal, and its provisions have since been incorporated into the Constitution of this State. It  is  not,  with  me,  among  the  objectionable  provisions  of  the  act  of  our  Legislature,  that  it  provides  for carrying the subject, by appeal, to the courts of law, where, from the decision of the highest of this State, a writ of  error  will  lie  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States;  nor  would  it  have  been  objectionable  if  they  had made  the  writ  returnable,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State.    It  is  declared  by  the Constitution  of  this  State,  that  “the writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  in  no  case  be  suspended;  it  shall  be  issuable  of right,  and  the  General  Assembly  shall  make  provision  to  render  it  a  speedy  and  effectual  remedy,  in  all  cases proper  therefore.”    It  protects  the  citizen  from  all  unlawful  imprisonment,  and  it  matters  not  how  obscure  the person illegally detained, or how high the pretended authority who claims to detain.  Congress, in the plentitude of  their power, cannot suspend  it, nor can  they direct how a  trial shall be had  in  the same, before what  tribunal, or at what time. If, as I remarked before, the Legislature were sincere in their convictions of the unconstitutionality of the act of  Congress,  or  even  if  they  had  any  reasonable  doubt  upon  the  subject,  they  took  the  method  least  liable  to objection,  when  they  made  provision  to  refer  it  to  a  judicial  tribunal,  whose  decision  was  still  liable  to  re-examination  before  the  highest  courts  of  this  State,  and  of  the  United  States.    That  there  is  nothing  novel  in referring  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  for  relief  against  any  act  of  Congress,  supposed  to  be  against  the provisions  of  the  Constitution,  I  may  refer  to  the  expressed  opinion  of Mr.  Jefferson,  whose  authority  will  be listened  to  in  some  of  the  States  which  have  manifested  hostility  to  the  law  of  this  State.    Writing  to  a distinguished  foreigner,  who  was  liable  to  be  removed  by  virtue  of  an  act  of  Congress  called  the  “alien  law,” and  inviting  him  to  the  State  of  Virginia,  he  says:  “that  should  you  choose  it  for  your  asylum,  the  laws  of  the land,  administered  by  upright  judges,  would  protect  you  from  any  exercise  of  power  unauthorized  by  the Constitution  of  the  United  States.    The  habeas  corpus  secures  every  man  here,  alien  or  citizen,  against  every thing  which  is  not  law,  whatever  shape  it  may  assume.”    Having  the  same  high  confidence  in  the  intelligence and  integrity  of  the  judges  of  this  State,  I  have  no  doubt,  that  in  the  administration  of  this  law,  they  will  not contravene  the  Constitution,  either  of  the  United  States  or  this  State;  that  they  will  not  hesitate  to  inquire  into any  assumed  authority  of  commissioners  or  others;  will  protect  all  within  their  jurisdiction  from  unlawful seizure and imprisonment, and remand any one, brought before them, who is held by lawful authority. An  interesting  and  important  question,  on  the  subject  of  fugitives  from  justice,  is  under  discussion  in  the State  of Maryland,  in which  they  have  directed  their  Attorney General  to  set  such  proceedings  on  foot  as may bring  the  same  before  the  Supreme Court  of  the United  States  for  its  adjudication.    I mention  it,  only  to  show, that questions arising under the Constitution of the United States, on the subject of fugitives, whether from labor or  justice, and of  the powers and duties of  the executive and  legislative branches of a State government, are not of  so  easy  solution,  as  to  warrant  the  imputation  of  hostility  to  the  Union,  or  Constitution,  or  treasonable disaffection  to  the  Government,  in  any  of  those  whom  may  entertain  different  and  discordant  views  of  these questions. I do not look with disfavor on any attempt to try the validity of a law of Congress, or of a State Legislature, by  appeals  to  the  judiciary,  while  I  wholly  discountenance  all  attempts  of  forcible  resistance;  but  I  have  not formed  so  low  an  opinion  of  the  stability  of  the  Union,  or  the  authority  of  the  General  Government,  as  to suppose  that  either  can  be  materially  affected  by  any  violent  outbreak  of  popular  indignation,  or  the indiscretion,  even  of  large  bodies  of  the  people.    Nor  am  I  willing  so  to  confound  the  distinctions  between crimes, as to magnify them to the crime of treason, the highest which can be committed in a state. Called out,  in  the early part of my  life, with a detachment of militia  to enforce  the  laws of  the Union, I  then witnessed  instances  of  resistance  to  the  authority  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  by  bodies  of  armed  men; property seized under the authority of the United States rescued by violence, and by men armed for the purpose; soldiers fired upon, wounded, and some of them shot down in the discharge of their duty; professional ingenuity taxed  to  the  utmost  to  screen  the  offenders,  and  to  render  the  laws  ineffectual;  and  although  some  of  the offenders were  convicted of murder  and manslaughter  in  the courts of  this State, yet  I was  taught by  the courts of  the United States,  that no  treason was  committed.   The  integrity  of  the  union was  not  destroyed  or  impaired by such violent and lawless acts, although they were constant, and continued for a long time.   I was then taught a  lesson  of  reverence  and  submission  to  the  laws, which made  a  lasting  impression on my mind.   A  resistance, and  particularly  a  resistance  by  force,  and  by men  armed,  and  by murderous  assault, was  not  acceptable  to me then,  nor  is  it  now;  and  I  hope  the  majesty  and  supremacy  of  the  law  will  ever  be  vindicated.    But  I  have  no fears that the government will be seriously affected by any such tumultuous and popular commotions. It  is not with pleasure  that  I have  felt  it necessary  to  say  thus much on  the  laws of  the United States  and of this State: — a respect, both for the Union and for this State, would not permit me to say less. I have  received  several  communications  from other States,  and  from  constitutional  conventions, which will be  transmitted  to  you.    A  communication  from  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  also  one  from  the  State  of  North Carolina, were  so  disrespectful  and  offensive  to  this  State,  that  I  deem  it  not  consistent with  the  respect  I  bear the Legislature,  to communicate  them  to you, except at your request, and  the Governors of  these States were so informed. At the expiration of the political year which has just commenced, my official relation to the Legislature and People  will  cease,  nor  shall  I  again  be  a  candidate  for  the  office  to  which  I  have  been  elected.    I  have  been called  into  the  service  of  the  State  at  a  period  of  much  excitement,  and  when  her  character  and  conduct  have been  most  unjustly  assailed.    I  hope  that  I  have  never  been  insensible  to  her  honor  or  interest,  or  wanting  in confidence  in her  integrity and wisdom.   My  thanks are especially due  to  the People and Legislature, who have reposed  such  confidence  in me  hitherto,  and  I  assure  them,  and  all my  fellow  citizens,  as well  those who  have expressed a preference for me as those who have not, that I shall part with my official relations to the State and the people with the most respectful and kind feelings to all, and shall never be found among the calumniators of her institutions, her laws, her legislators, or her people, of whatever party or sect. I  assure  you  that  I  shall  join  with  you  in  all  laudable  attempts  to  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  hope, through the blessing of the Almighty, such attempts will be crowned with success.  }          Executive Chamber, Montpelier          October 11, 1851.   CH. K. WILLIAMS.