Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1857-03-06

whcro-sccnory-s For these we must
do away with moral obligation. with centrali-
ty of location. with general convencncics. and
disregard the action Of our fathers be treated
these as triling reasons. Mr. H. then con-
sidcrcd the matter of convenience of access to
the capital, concluding that Montpelier is on
the whole easiest Of access the argument as
TO the morality Of towns, saying that if he
could not trust his son n one place, he could
not in another and the objection Of the want
Of o snowy location at Montpelier. which he
thought never occasioncd any great dssatis-
faction with the people.
Mr. Ranslow of Georgia, questioned the
moral obligation 60 remain at Montpelier lie
did not suppose that it was the intention to
shut tine door 60 improvement and too iastcn
the capital i'm amy ono location If the obli-
cation goes TO this cxtont, it goes to far. and
would prevent the change Of any public in
sttution. The expense to the State hc be-
icved would not bo materially different in
case of removal The legislature can be
brought TO various places with nearly equal
convenience The morality and virtue of
different locations is not materially different:
and 81 Montpelier has suffered, it may be due
to the fact that the Legislature has been here
for half a century. lie had no preferences in
personal feeling or in his particular location.
and he intended to look to the public good
Burlington has advantages which have not
been mentioned such as facilities for print
ing-daily reports of the egslatare--more
bookstores, and the college library The
superior beauty and fitness of Burlington for
the location were insisted upon; and the inn
proprcty Of constructing a beautiful build
ing at Montpelier was ilustratcd by suppos-
ing Buukor-hill monument to be built by the
side OF q mountain
Tho question recurring on the motion to
dismiss the resolution, which declares that
il is cxpeiicnt to rebuild or repair the State
House at Montpelier was put and decided
in the negative.
Mr. Hunt of Wcst Haven said he had
heard that the profits of the Pavilion were
$4,000 during the last session; and, if
true, ho thought the fact would 20 to rcbut
the argument of obligation.
Mr. Merrill remarked that the fact cannot
bo as stated in reference to the Pavilion.
On motion of Mr. Spencer, the resolution
was laid on the table.
Tho Committee rose and the House ad-
iomnod
WEDNESDAY, Feb 25.
\
Prayer by the Chaplain.
The Senate won't into a Committee of the
Whole
Mr.. Royce was called to the chair.
Mr.. Warner said that he did not intend to
occupy the time of the Committee in the dis
cussion of the question of removal. He wish
ed to deprecate any influence said to be ex-
ortcd by the College at Mddlebury relative to
tl,, d. IL
he in part represented had been holden, and
an opinion of the county was expressed in
favor of the town of Middlebury, Induce
monts were offered for the General Assembly
to remove to that town. If the removal was
to be made, they wished it to be located at
the town of Middlebury. His county acting
ON selfish principles, could be better accom-
modated at Burlington than at Montpelier
He did not wish to discuss the subject at all
at the present time.
Mr.. Benton wished to explain more fully his
remarks yesterday in reference to colleges
He thought that was the seat of government
to be located at Burlington it would act in
iuriously to the interests Of Middlebury Col
ege.
Mr. Cahoon considered Montpelier in the
light Of defendant consequently it was not
for that town to urge its claims, but It was
for its opponents to oHor greater inducements
in favor of other towns, and Co show sufficient
reasons for the removal. The internal ar
rangemcnt of the state-house had been COM
planned Of lie agreed with the Senator from
Addison in reference to this. Yet what rea-
son was this for change, Could not that
be rcmodicd here as well as elsewhere; SO
in reference to the 'pGghtcd faith Of the
State to the Town OF Montpelier supposing
there would be no violation of plightcd faith
in removing 10 Burlington, vet was that
reason for removal Was Montpelier favored
with the boasted advantages Of Burlington in
point of scenery alone, no one would think
of removing the capital. So that it was
mere question of TASTE Of beauty. Of scenery.
Yet he could not regard this as sufficient
cause for removal. The location of the state
house should be regarded in reference to what
the public good requires. He did not believe
that Burlington was the most accessible point
to all parts of the State. The whole line Of
travel indicated Rutland or Bellows Falls
If III members passed in the immediate vi
cinity Of Burlington in getting to Montpelier,
where did the rest Of the members go lie
did not regard ease of access as having much
to do with the question. The great good and
best interests of the whole State was to be
regarded, and not the mere question of access
alone What the general harmony of the
whole interest of the State demanded was to
be considered. The doctrine of equivalents
was to be duly regarded Not every thing
was TO be yielded TO the western part Of the
State A balance was to be presumed. If
no more reasons could be given than had all
ready been adduced he could not think Of re-
moving.