Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-09-22
VOL. 80, NO. 3.-WHOLE NO. 1927.

then? Tie also refers to the act ITSELF tn provo
thai AUDITOR IL incorrect md upon such reiereuces,
backed with his egregiousiy unqudYtsd asSer-
tlnns. he relies for propi of his charge. WIN this
proof zoe nre not satisfied We pretend, in the
words of his writer to he in n slight "degree
acquainted with the history of ihs proceedings IN
he Legislature nj thu time of the passage OF the
act OF 1920" aud va say that q has adj anred
nothing to sustain his derlaraiou at NIL, aud in
court o. Justice he would hear verdict against
him OH his own showing. He hns not begnn 10
make ont his proof nor can he. The fmt j.. that
the declaration of Auditor which G. charges TO
be inc rect, is true to the letter. We happen TO
know something of this business. and do not
speak unadvsedy When we make the Insertion
friend Of ours, who wa' pra5eti' NJ n session
with u.s. though not u member, confirms us III "ur
statement, and says It WINS supposed tha all 'ro'l-
bile about the remains Of that bank, nud The p'tI-
lions Tor the money helOnging TO 1t, were buried
Nv pnssug that act. Ii II not probable, that Hll
who voted for The act Of 1925 had the saue mo-
tive and it would be most absurd to suppose
that within the resolutions or acts on the shhJrrt,
it should have been stated that the object oi The
at was to save the money irum The grasp ct a
fork ni petitioners. {" Sed fas es docere 40 hosie."
W. thank this writer, or another who slgIs
Tor coming TO our nId IN this emergency. THIS
writer says " there were arllIrations made Tor
grants If his property tn different Uses" hgnin
this wriler says. sat the time of establishing this
srhUu fund, there WINS opposition aud nplalnis
from applicants for this properly of the State,
and their friends IN respect tn the disppSIion nnde
tor the ultimate diffusion of common ehnratinn.
We see the Legislature were he-lrgrd with ap-
pIicnton' Tor the curol ofihis money, aud firm,
that our statement was strictly true as We und-r-
stand the mater. But the question is. ought the
! fund low to he abolished? Whatever the pun
pose Of the Legislature might have been ii the act
were an inprovIdeut one and dangerous TO our
free institutions, or if the fund can now he shown
TO be unwise, and that the public good requires It's
repeal, il is not important what particular mo-
ves might have actuaed the members OF the
Legislature in its passage.
We have said is substance that the fund will
never benefit any of the preseut generation ut
men ;-hat the collecting of il is at a certain loss
OF 81 OH every hundred, and probably S,0;-that
the fund will never reach The object contemplate ed
in the act aud that all the money put mo ii Is so
much lost - that, IL ever collected it wound bo
dangerous 10 government aud taal To liberty; that
it would have disastrous effect Oh ehucar0n IL
self TINT it was neither necessary or duslrahle-
aud that it was unjust TO TAX the present geneta-
non, the found, rs of the institutions ut the cUuh-
ry, those who have borne ihe burden and beat OF
the hav, that II generation some THY years hence
might be exempt from paying Sch0ol taxes.
Now we ask, where are The men, who IN this
view of the case, would bud such II burden, ms
The collection 81 thus tuUd implies npou their
fellow cizeno? who would eu,ail upon pO1Ierity
such II system uC debt and who, in short, for The
sake of party, would endauger the eXlsenre O
our Tree institutions Let such STAN iUrIh from
theIr lurking PAGES TO public execrann.
AUDITOR.