The Columbia Democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1837-1850, 1847-02-13

a. session OF ie44j the actin view Of ~hph
the election Of lhs fall folloslag was heId
provided, ,hs, lhs new Building, should be
I'VE quote the words 'ofnot leIs size and
dimensions thin he county kui.dings
now at DanuiRc' The removal scI 90
passed in ls45, contains no requirement ss
70 size. To shsw with what public spirit
the building Committee have acted We need
~, menIion the fact that tho new COur,
House i' one third larger .hsn the cld ones
md thai by means OF fine porlico the ne.
cossiy Of large slsrwsys and sntin 10
llhe interior 10 avoided; and that . neat gal.
ery has bsen built in the court room 30 40
10 render all tho interior space available for
public use. in scl, much mors ,hun the
requirements of The Removal act have been
met by individuals; me. with spiri, and lib.
o'aIily and wilhou, grudging.
At the election in ls45 the ms sority for
Removal was 1884 in q poll Of 449S, being
a vote OF nearly two 10 one in lis favor.
There is not the slightest doubt but that is
would have carried by handsome majority
even if The removal bill had provided direc.
taxation TO pui up The buildings. MI. Suy-
der former Representative had supported
and voted a, t,D0 sessions for an act to au.
lhouze Ihsm D be built mainly by taxation
and coming home iD each case 10 his con-
sli'usD's, and putting his election solely up.
oh the Removal question, had bcen uium>
lphanlly reelected. More than CASH. was
well known in ,he county that if the remo-
val failed, new buildings would have to be
pu, up a. DanvlIIe BY taxation to reNpacs
he present old ones, unfl and unsafe as
shey are any longer for public use. But,
The Legislature passed the &C! requiring that
lnew Buildings. should be put up by sub
IsCription, & that &C, has been met.-mors
Than met by individuals. The old Build
lngs and the lots on which they are situate,
by the act are virtually given away 10 the
citizens Of Mshoning and they pay no psrt
of ,he 900 subscribed TO the new ones.
Is nat clamor and objection then from them
quite i'll timed and unbecoTingi Wben a
few weeks since, they applied for an ap-
|propris.on of 300, ou, Of Me county funds
fot . laudsble purpose no objection was
made, and all were ready /, assume their
share of The burden which that rghI(ul sp.
|proprIa'ion imposed.
A considerable portion OF the amount
now proposed 10 be appropriated, will ne
cessariIy be laid ou, by the county, even if
he acl before The Legislature should no, be
passed In part therefore the outlay is mere
Question OF time, question wbaher the
buildings shall be furnished, and have stone
work in front where exposed to weather,
now or hereafter. Shall the Courts, the
Icoun,y officers and he pablo suffer incons
veuiencs snI the exterior work in from, be
|of decaying mslerlsl, for a time; or shall eo
economy end common sense be consulted by
having necessary things done al once'--
| In regard TO fire proofs, lhe Removal act
did not require them 10 be built by SUBJ
scrip'ion. Tha, act was accepted and lis
obligations assumed, in view of facts that
were conclusive npon this pons. When
she bill was pending in the Serate on The
18Th Feb. ls45 an amendment, was offered
requiring (ss its main (eaure) that we
quote tbs words J good and sufficient fire
proofs for the safe keeping and preserua-
ton Of The public papers and records,
should be constructed and provided in the
buildings before acceptance. Tns amend.
mtnI was after discuss on, rejected. Yea
l3 Nays II, the friends Of lhs bill voting
against, and its oppouenls for the onend-
menI. see lsl Vol. Senate Journal, Session
of ls45. page 2l5. Again, in The House,
a, The same session, on the 18Th Of Feb. an
amendment was offered 10 insert N the
bill lhe words i've hundred as the majority
a, election, and thai the Offices in th4 new
buildings should be erected with 'go0d,con
vsnient and Sufficient safety vaults or fire
IproJ ciossts.' This amendment was also
rejected. Yeas, "a, Nays, 81. Sac House
journal. session of ls45 Vol. page a85,
lNow, it will not snswer for the opponents
of removal TO labor in the Legislature to
have such requirement inserted IN the bill
to offer amendments for that purpose