Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1857-04-10

anu Wiueiy spreau sentimen' III i"Noi VI
moval" was we'll known. The first ques
ton then which should have been settled
was this I" is there any positive or implied
obligation on the part Of the State to keep
the seat of government at Montpelier, so
that removal would bring reproach on the
faith and honor of the STATED" There was
q small show of attempt to make out that
the State was bound to rebuild at Montpe-
lier, but it was only show. We believe
every speaker of any weight admitted that
such @ position could not be maintained on
any ground whatever; and though now and
then a member would continue to weave
into his argument halfway implication
that there was a sort of foundation for such
O claim, it was plain enough that no such
consideration had any real weight in the
conclusion. That O removal would effect
reverson of ownership of bit Of land, now
in the possession of the State to private in
dividuals. every one knew and acknowledge
ed. If it would bring with it any other just
claims for damages to individuals, the State
ought to respond and would respond.
The right. to remove being settled, the
next question in order would be, is it best
for the State to have its seat of government
elsewhere than ut Montpelier. That ques
ton ought to have been discussed and de-
cided on it's own merits. The question Of
cost, either to the Sta te or to individuals of
one vicinity or another, in reality ought to
have had nothing to do with its determine
ton, The State ought to have its capital
in the best place for IL +. because that would
be best for the legislation of State; best
for the concurrence Of the peopie-not for
one year or for twenty years only, but for
an indefinite time to come best also for the
| honor and influence Of The State aJroad-a
very important consideration, which we
| think was scarcely alluded to, except by
| two or three, and not dwelt upon ut all ., as
its Importance demanded. No question of
cost, little or much-whether to be met by
drafts on the Treasury of the State, or by an
appeal to the generosity or selfisbness of in
dividuals-ought to have been consi dere of
any account, whatever, in comparison with
having the capital in the best place for it
in the State. The first question should have
been" where isthe best place for the capital -
| That was decided, the next one would be
I" what shall be the maximum cost - and
whether the building was to be at MGntpe-
lier Burlington, or any other place, the last
point to BIO considered properly would be
g shall the people of the vicinity be put to
part or all of the expense of the new struc-
I ture-and if to part, what shall that part
| be-
But such natural and systematic way
Of reaching result, was the last thing
wished for by the leading men in the Mont
pelier interest the consequence, was that
in the House q ridiculous tumble Of reso-
lutions, discordant, and even directly con-
dieting, were thrown all together into the
committee of the whole-to which heap of
confusion were added, as the Session went
on, sundry bills for building the State House
at sundry places, and the Governor !
Message, and the whole mass was tum-
bled over and talked about in hurley
hurley style, day after day for IL week with
on. the least regard to any definite ques-
ton, or, so far us the dictates indicated, any
approach to any point whatever
The prominent reasons given for retaining
the State House at Montpelier were the fol
lowing
First, il was said that to remove
it after it had been there almost fifty years,
would be detrimental to the people of that
place and though there might be no legal
obligation to rebuild there, there was some
sort of moral obligation to do So All the
shapes which this argument took and all
the illustrations used to enforce it, showed
that the effect Of removal on n few hotels
and boarding houses, which had larger &C
commodations than they could need if the
legislative session were to be held elsewhere
was the chief injury thought Of The talk of
Invested capital which would be destroyed, -
evidently regarded those concerns and none
others. So far as that argument had weight
1t was by subjecting the pujl,c benefit, to
the Interest. of Il rery fer indiriduaLs -
Second, Fitness Of location. We think
no one ventured to say that if the State
House had not been at Montpelier, that
place would now be selected tor its location
The geographical centre reason was
often brought forward as reason for keep
ing 1t there; but we think no one was bold
enough to say that had the decision of
location to be now made for the FIST time,
that reason would be strong enough to carry
II Tor Montpelier. An intelligent member
OF the Senate from the East side of the
State said to us, "there would not be ten
votes in the State for placing the State
House at Montpelier, if i. had not been
there"
Though something was done IN the way
OF comparing Montpelier with Rutland,
Bellows Falls, Castleton and Brandon, in
reference to fitness of location, the real
effort Of those at work for Montpelier was
to prevent union of votes in favor of
Burlington. They had no fears about the
other places. They knew that the question
really 10y between Montpelier and Burling-
ton They were glad to do all they could
to keep alive the hopes of few who from
local position would like to have one or
other OF the places selected for the capital
because it gave them time to operate out of
doors When the victory should be secured
for their side by means of these diversions
oil few votes for Rutland and still fewer
tor the other places, they would have ample
opportunity to laugh at the ease with which
they had made these small parties work for
their benefit.
The natural advantages OF Burlington for
the Capital OF the State were obvious, and
to weaken and peryert their influence was
important The means used to effect
this, we will mention hereafter