The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1853-12-28

Danv;llc, to repeal the Maine law as
also a number of bills By other members
of the House, to amend it; all which
bills were referred to a select committee
OF nine. Two. think. uf said commit
tee, were for an unconditional repeal of
the Maine law, 50 called three in favor
Of new law and four in favor Of a.
mcnding the law Of last year, may not
have di,idcd the committee precisely as !
they stood. hut the committee was in.
tended 10 be raised. so that majority
Of at least one, should be favorable to
the measures submitted to their consid-
Grafton WIN the Citizen of BRISTOL
pretend that was unparliamentary2 | can
tell him. that had said committee been
arranged so that n majority had been
opposed TO the measures submitted to
them. il would have been in violation Of
the rules of legislation aud contrary to
universal custom and practice.
The committee were divided in opin
ion, ana in their reports. The majority
of the committee reported in favor of
the bill introduced by Judge Davis. to
repeal the law of last year and should
the law be repealed, then they proposed
to report another bill in its stead The
minority Of the committee made a re
port adverse to the majority, and while
Judge Daviss bill was under considera-
ton in the House, Mr.. Washburn from
Woodstock one Of the minority Of the
committee, moved to amend Judge Da-
vs's bill by striking out all after the en-
acting clause, and inserting his amend
mcnts, which were rejected and all a.
mcndmcnts which were proposed: were
lost. Then came the question on the
passage of Judge Davis bill.
Now, | ask. in case Judge Davis bill
had been lost on its passage, was there
any probabiit, that the law of last year
would have been amended None,
think. at all So thought many others
I voted, together with some fifteen 9th
ers, for the passage of Judge DAVIS bill
So that it might not BIO lost, but sent tc
the Senate to be amended. The bill
I passed the House by over twenty major
ity, was sent to the Senate which bod,
j. it was well understood would propose a
8 mendmcnts which would be more accept
u able TO the House, than those propose,
e IN the House The Senate passed til
bill with proposals of amendments, whc
amendments with an amendment propo'
ed to the Senate's amendments, by MI
Miner, in the House, were concurrcd i
by The House. l supported the amcn(
mcnts proposed by the Senate. and CAV
!. my reasons for voting for the passage {
!. Judge Davis bill, and also fer supper
ing and voting for the amendments {
the Seuate.
'' Now. sir, | do not expect that "A CT
). LEA Of Bristol will be satisfied with :
n expi. uat ton Of my vcte on the licln
10 law. for TIC reason thar lave exp ,ss'
in relation to his rtatc Of mind-'hat
malice and revenge; hut | would 50
30 a Citizen of Bfi>tU., maj u.
% Judge Davis's bill been dcltatsd = Il
# House. there would have been 80 anu
>, ments to the license law f iast y.a
commonly called ihc Name law. q q 3.
IL Temperancc cause would have suii a
i! loss. lIOKATlO NEED!lAM
ID Bristol. Dee 2 1865
ia giving place 10 the - o
communications We Go not drsl IN to IA
- tcipatc, personally. IN 'be cou;rovor'
to which il relates. a Citizen OF Dri
-, tot" is fully competent to take care
his own case. His communication W
-, unsolicited and unsuggested, Oh OF
ii part but knowing the wrltcr-who is
,s fellow -townsman and political friend
Mr.. eedham-to be man OF integri
and character, we deemed it his right
be heard Whether the foregoing c
:. plantations are satisfactory, we leave
those interested to judgc.-Ed. Reg