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

Of session OF iSA4; me act in vi'w Of whih
the election of The fall following wes he's
provided, that ,he new Buildings should T.
1--WE quote the words 'of not less size and
dimensions hdn The county Lu'.dings
noU al DanUtHe The removal act rs
passed in lS45. contains no requirement, as
- size. To shew with wha, public spirit
,he building Commuee have acted We need
vi, mention the fact ,hs, the new Cour,
House is one third larger thsn the old one;
md that by means Of fine porIco the nes
crsshy Of large slalrways and entries in
line interior 10 avoided; and that a neat gals
,pry hiss been built in the sour, room so ~
So render oil the interior space available fnr
public uss. IN lAct, much more than the
Requirements Of the Removal act have been
me, by individuals; met with spirit and lib
eraIily and without grudging.
At the election in ls45 the majority for
Removal was 1884 in poll Of 4403, being
a vote Of nearly Two to one IN It's favor.
There is not the slightest doubt but that It
would have carried by handsome majority
even if HE removal bill had provided direct
taxation to pui up the building. MI. Sny-
der former Rel rcsenlalive had supported
and voted at tpO sessions for an ac, to au-
thorI2e them ~ be bull, mainly by taxation
and coming home in zach case TO his con-
Il nj. Ii,
Oh the Removal question, had been ,iium>
phanhy re-elected. More than thls,u was
we'll known in :he county that if the reno
val failed, new buildings would have 10 be
put up al Danville By taxation to reepIace
the presen, old ones, unfit and unsafe as
/ shey are any longer for public use. But,
the Legislature passed the Ac, requiring that
Iuew Buildings should be put up by SUBJ
scripuun, IL that act has been met. more
than me, by lndivIduaIs The old Builds
Iings and the lots on which they are aitua,e,
! By the &c, are virtually given away to tho
Iriizens Of Mahonlng and they pay no part
Of ,he 8 | GEO subscribed 10 the new ones.
Is not cIamor aud objection then from them
quite i'll timed and uubecomingl H'hen p
few weeks since, they applied for an ar
IprOpraliOn Of 800, out Of the county lunlt
for IaudabIe purpose no objeG,inn was
made, and all wsre ready - assume lhe.r
share Of the burden which thal rqhful op.
IproPua'on lmpossd.
A considerable portion Of the amount
now proposed 10 be appropriated, will ne
icessaflly be laid 90, by the county, even If
ths act before the Legislature should aol bs
Ipaased In pant therefore the outlay is a nero
question Of time, a question whether the =,
huiIdinQs shall be furnished, and have stone
work in front whore exposed to weather,
aoW or hereafier, Shall the Courts the
caunly ofirers and he pablic suffer ncon.
venence and the exterior work in front BE-
Ioi decaying material, for a time; or shall O.
economy and common sense be consulted by
having necessary lhings done al onesl-
IN regard to fire proofs, The Removal act
ibid not require them to be built by subs
scrlpion. Tha, act was accepted and its
obligations assumed, in view Of facts that
vera conclusive upon This point. When
Ih7 bill was pending in the Seraie on the
3ih Feb. le46 an amendment was offered
requiring (as lis main fea,ure) hat,' I'VE
quote the worls,) good and sufficient fire
pro9fs for the safe keeping and preserva-
tion Of The puJHc papsrs and records,
should be constructed and provided in tho
bui'dingS' before acceptance This amend.
menI Was after discussion, rejected Yeas )
3 Nays II the friends of the bill voting
against, and It's opponents for tho amend
menl. see lsi Vol. Senate Journal, Session
OF l815. page 2l5 Again in the House,
at HE same sess on. on the 18Th Of Feb. an
amendment was offered 10 ins4rl ~ the
bill the words FIVE hundred as the maorlty
AZ election, and that the Offices in me new
buildings should be erected with 'goOd,cop
Usnieni and sufficient safety vauiis or fire
proJ closets This ameL Gmenl was also
rejected, Yeas, "a, Nays, 81. Sac House
journal. session Of ls45 Vol. page 900,
Now, il i'll not answer for the opnopentg