mon functions of citizenship, without property by inheritance or otherwise, and without (in the words of the Constitution) "some profession, calling, trade, or farm, whereby he (they) may honestly subsist," they became freemen of the State, having the same standing before the law as those who had had the benefit of the rights and advantages guaranteed by the organic law to all persons within the realm of its power. When we think of this condition of part of the people of the State as constant for well-nigh the first century of its sovereign existence, can we fairly and reasonably come to any conclusion other than that a construction of the clause (of the Constitution) permitting it, is so repugnant to the general spirit of that instrument as to justify a construction making it an exception? The spirit of the Constitution, collected from its words, is to be respected not less than the letter. Manifestly, this was the construction given by the General Assembly in 1786, when it was stated in the preamble to the Act noticed herein, that "Whereas, by the Constitution of this State, all the subjects of this Commonwealth, of whatever color, are equally entitled to the inestimable blessings of freedom, unless they have forfeited the same by the commission of some crime, and the idea of slavery is expressly and totally exploded from our free government." This was a contemporaneous construction of the Constitution by the Legislature, and is in itself entitled to great weight; and when it is remembered that in reaching the decision in the case of In re Dinah, the Supreme Court of the State-tacitly acquiescing in and accepting as correct such contemporaneous construction by the Legislature-declared itself to the same effect, in equally positive and unqualified terms,-which decision has now stood for more than a century without criticism,-it should seem that such construction ought to be considered as conclusively established. 15 15. State v. Stimpson, 78 Vt. 124, 62 Atl. 14; Pollock v. Bridgeport Steamboat Co. 114 U. S. 411, 29 L.. ed. 147. There can be no doubt, therefore, that, rightly understood, the prohibitive clause is subject only to such commonlaw limitations and restrictions as are incident to the relation of master and hired servant, and of master and apprentice, except as bound by the consent of the latter after arriving at the age of majority, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like; and that by the self-operative force of that clause, all persons in slavery, within the State, irrespective of age, were immediately freed from bondage, and in like manner slavery in the State thereafter rendered legally impossible. In writing this paper, no attempt has been made to give the questions an exhaustive discussion; but the aim has been to reach conclusions based on facts concerning which there seems to be no material difference as historically recorded, and on well understood principles of law. If the result is to make reasonably clear some of the questions on which doubts have heretofore existed, or as to which there has been a misunderstanding, the labor expended will not have been in vain. We love Vermont. We are proud of her history. Though small in area, her efforts have been great, her deeds, mighty. May histories yet to be published give her credit where credit is due, accurately, and in full measure! JAMES WALTER BROCK. James Walter Brock was born in Barnet, Vt. May 11, 1839 the son of William S. and Mary (Wright) Brock. His education was gained at the district school in his native town and when seventeen years of age he removed to Montpelier where he ever after made his home. In 1857 he entered the employ of Scott & Brooks who conducted a general store. At the outbreak of the war in 1861 he entered the army and for eleven months was with the Second Vermont. Then he entered the Quartermasters Department of the Army of the Potomac where he remained until November 1, 1864. In 1865 he became one of the founders of the firm of Lane, Pitkin & Brock in which he continued until 1881. This firm was engaged principally in the manufacture of saw mill machinery and is now known as the Lane Manufacturing Company. In 1871 he was one of the incorporators and founders of the Montpelier Savings Bank & Trust Company, in 1877 he became Vice-President and in 1899 President, which office he held until his death. He was for many years also President of the Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company and at the time of its organization and for some years the President of the American Fidelity Company. He was as well, one of the builders of the Montpelier and Wells River Railroad and was long one of its directors. He represented Montpelier in the General Assembly of 1884 and was a Senator from Washington County in 1892 and he was for twelve years a member of the Republican National Committee and attended every National Convention from 1872 to 1912. For four years he was Sergeant-at-Arms at the State Capitol, he went through all the chairs in Masonry and was |