Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1857-02-20

that he was surprizcd that the gentleman rom
Montpelier had suggested the topic. Having
thus stated the question on the ground of
mere equality. be reserved the right TO make
further propositions in behalf of Burlington
when the question should come in different
form
Mr.. Marsh of Brandon inquired whether
Burlington proposed to offer any thing more
than site.
Mr.. Stacy replied that what he proposed
was merely to place Burlington and Montpe-
lier on equal terms as to dollars and cents
and he proposed to put Burlington equal with
Montpelier in reference to grounds and ioun-
dation. lie would add, that Burlington
would, in addition, respond in any amount
which the State should require Mr. Stacy
then further alluded to the action Of 1888,
and asked for the reading of the reply of Bur
MISUNDERSTANDING that in this instance, as
in every other Burlington did not, and never
did, institute any efforts for removal from
Montpelier The report of the Committee
who visited Burlington in 1858, was read
and Mr. Stacy said that Burlington now is,
as she always has been, ready to do whatever
is required by the State.
Mr.. Marsh of Brandon said it is claimed
that the State now owns from 100000 to
100000 value of property in Montpelier,
and he understood that the gentleman from
Burlington offered that Burlington should
contribute equal to this amount, or whatever
the value Of the property at Montpelier is
lie differed from some of the estimates as TO
the value of the property at Montpelier.
On the call of Mr.. Kittrcdge, the act Of
1905 was read.
Mr. Merrill then read the report of the
Architect employed to examine the State
house and estimate the cost of repairs, show
ing that the house can be restored TO as per-
feet condition as il was when new, for the
sum of $4,000.
Mr.. Cheney of Barnard inquired of the gen
tloman from Brandon what his opinion is as
to the value of the building
Mr. Marsh replied that in his opinion the
value of the walls viii not equal 500, 900,
though he was neither an architect nor me-
chanic. If the property was his, he should
take the walls down and rebuild. Archi-
tects sometimes make strange estimates. He
knew of case where one took Job estima-
ted by himself at $1,000, which cost over
$1,000
Mr.. Hubbard Of Stockbridge, proposed a
resolution. that each member proceed to vote
by ballot, designating the place he would
prefer as the capital
Mr.. Kittredgc thought this would be no
vufe, as fifteen or twenty towns might be voted
for
Mr.. Green Of Waterbury, suggested that
oven if twenty towns are voted for. one may
have "a majority. lie objected TO the resolu-
ton of the gentleman from Fairhovcn. for that
decides nothing. If majority votes that it
is incxpodicnt to repair at Montpelier so "a
majority might vote against Burlington, or
Rutland.
Tho Chair ruled the resolution out Of order.
on the ground that the committee must report
either for or against the resolution.
Mr.. Bradley thought the committee should
have full liberty The resolution before the
committee is an abstraction, and an unfair
one 1t can decide nothing except for the
time being. lie thought that the committee
was bound to know accurately all about the
value of the property here, and not act upon
the disagreeing estimates Of members here.
lie wished to know more about the whole
matter, and to have all the propositions in.
though he would not object to an informal
ballot as proposed by the gentleman from
Stockbridge.
Mr.. Hubbard of Stockbridge, said that it
was evident from the various propositions
made, that members had some opinions or
preferences lie wished to have am informal
expression of these opinions and he pro-
posed to amend the resolution before the
committee, by substituting his proposition
for ballot
Mr.. Kttredge thought the effect of this
amendment would be simply to carry the
question back to the House on the question
whether it would ballot, instead of adopting
hn ft,ot
iucxpedient 1t had been objected that moth
ing would be accomplished by adopting his
resolution but he thought it would decide
whether it is expedient to repair. On that
question he was not prepared now to vote. as
he wanted more information. Neither was
he prepared TO go into the by-plav OF ballot
ing, for the same reason and that play. TO-
would amount to nothing unless it should
happen that Montpelier has the majority.
Again he invited propositions from other
towns, for although he repudiated the idea
that the State should go a begging among the
towns, believing that the state should
build its own house, yet he supposed the
committee would act in some degree in refer
ence to the propositions As the capital is |
located now, it will be located forever and
he hoped it would be located in accordance
fR.
The chair ruled the amendment of Nh.
Hubbard out of order, inasmuch as il was
not strictly an amendment, but proposed pres
ent action.
Mr.. Woodward of Westford feltsthat he
must act as juror, and was therefore sur
priced that his friend from Stockbridge should
propose TO ballot before the facts have been
ascortained. He could not vote for any town
until we have the facts.
Mr.. Albeo of Westminster moved TO amend
the resolution Of Mr. Kittrcdge by substitut-
ing ~
That the House proceed NJ take measures
for designating suitable place for the cree
ton of a state-house that in designating
such place each member name the place by
ballot and that the place having majority
shall be the capital
Mr.. Kimball of Putney said that the com
mittee was proceeding to ascertain the very
facts necessary to enable the House to decide
the question presented in this amendment
Mr.. Albee said that the very object of his
amendment was, first to get at all the facts
and then to designate the place by ballot. in
a manner perfectly fair to all, and which
would not shut out one town by COMBINING
The friends otall Others against it,