Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1857-02-13

! offered to give 100000, if the new State
| House should be erected in Burlington
Montpelier people offered $4,000 to have
it built in Montpelier. The Legislature de
termined to accept the latter offer, and hence
the terms of the act of 1882.
We say nothing of the reasons for theiI
decision-our only object being to show
that the legislature considered itself entire.
ly free to select such town for the location
Of the State House as their own judgment
should determine, without any breach OF
obligation or honor.
Some of those who in 1892 voted to re-
build at Montpelier, in after years admitted
that they misiudged, and since the building
was erected, legislative action has been had
which plainly enough implied that the sub
!ect was considered to be entirely within
legislative control-as indeed it Always must
be, from the very nature of the case.
There are minor points in the article OF
"C.' which we do not care to dwell
upon. We will allude to them in very few
hbluNs We tllt iHOltiotu SlpN W
and prosperity of Montpelier and the enter
prise and courtesy of its inhabitants, OF
which ''C.' speaks. No doubt much Of
the two former is attributable to the incl
dental benefit which has accrued to them
from the location Of the State House there
for nearly half ccntury,-though we
think they will be slow to admit that their
prosperity has arisen altogether from that
source. The reasons for keeping the State
House there, or for placing 1t elsewhere
must rest on altogether different grounds
from that consideration. rs for their en-
tcrprisc, hospitality and liberal spirit they
possess those qualities in common with the
people OF Vermont generally. We arc sure
the people Of Montpelier will not claim
more for themselves in those respects than
they will grant to others,
The notion Of " c that there is valid
claim for the continued location of The
State House in Montpelier, because private
property would suffer in its valuation by
the removal, will hardly bear an examina-
ton. On such ground as that, beneficial
changes for the public good would be eGoctu-
ally stopped, all over the world
" c says: ''no one would have seriously
urged the removal of the Capitol, or advo-
Gated the construction Of another any
where, 50 long as this should stand. Is the
principle changed by the fact of the burn
ing -
Is not the case a common one, where a
man finds out that under some misudge-
ment he had built an expensive house in the
wrong spot. of course he frets about it
now and then, but since he has it, he puts up
with the inconvenicnccs as he best can Sup
pose now from accident lis building is
burned. Does he say, to act consistently |
must rebuilt in the same place announcement
as it is BY no means but rather, " |
will now build where think can be better
suited. As for the stone and bricks which
remain, will turn them to the best ac-
count possible, either in making my new
house if can advantlgeously do so, or |
will sell them, if that shall be found most
for my advantage"
&C. says So far as sound policy. in
other words, State welfare, has any claim
in disposing of this SUI ject, it should be re,
garded.' Therein ro ugr.o with linn.
" State welfare" is the only proper point
of view in which the Legislature should
look at the subject. We have expressed
ourselves plainly on that point repeatedly
and need not to repeat our language in this
place.