Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-12-30

evening session this committee (Mr. Stacy only
dissenting) reported bill providing that Mont
pelier should give security to pay - thou
sand dollars, one half in one year and one half
in two years leaving it for the House to fill
the blank, and not doubting, from the Indications
Of sentiment as to the true policy of the State,
that some reasonable sum would be inserted.
But, before the evening session last, desper-
ate attempt was devised and organized by the
friends of Burlington, which was to push Mont
pelier to the EXTREMIST offer, and clog the bill
with impracticable conditions, in order if pos
sible to defeat it, Accordingly, Mr.. Stacy re-
ported, as d minority of the committee, pro-
vision for Montpeler's giving bond to rebuild,
. with such alterations in the internal arrange
ments as the committee shall direct" And if
Montpelier did not furnish a bond, then Bur
lrgton might furnish bond TO build house
" equal in structure, proportions and accommo-
dations 10 The one destroyed by fire. "
1t is a remarkable fact, which somehow seems
to have escaped notice, that the offer Of Bar
lngton never went beyond building House
equal to the one destroyed. They never offered
to build one equal to the one now in progress
of erection.
Mr.. Powers thereupon argued that the State
must 90 forward and build
3" Mr.. Kittredge thought, he said, the bll
ought to embrace the offer of Montpelier,
saying;
g The gentleman from Woodstock proposes to
let Montpelier off. In that he might agree
But he wished to know whether Montpelier
holds herself bound by her offer. Ii 50, the
matter can be easily arranged in the bill !;
though he apprehended that after all it will
not BIZ convenient for any Of these towns to pay
what they agree to, and that the State will
have to relieve them
| Mr.. Merrill of Montpelier said that
As an Individual and as legislator, he was
decidedly opposed to allowing any town to
build on contribute to build State House he
would b. opposed to 1t whether the house is to
be at Montpelier, Burlington or any other
town, and he had Away 80 expressed himself
rhat us the representative Of Montpelier he
weull SAY, that Montpelier evaded nothing,
Withdrew nothing from its offer.
Mr.. Kittredge thought Montpelier should fill
the blank. :. For one be would vote against
making Montpelier or any other town build the
house"
Mr. Bradley, Of Brattleboro, said
g For his own ptrt he despiscd from the
bottom of his heart, and below the bottom OF
heart, this system of sponging the towns
But the State has got into the dirt; we must
roll it let us roll in it ittle, and fix some
sum. lie would fix " reasonable sum-
Mr. Kimball of Putncy, Jealous opponent
OF Montpelier, talked with loud clamor and
charged that there was equivocati)n and dodg-
lag, and called on Montpelier to carry out
their offer.
The excitement now ran high, and on consult
tAton it wlH deemed advisable to stop at once
this attempt to defeat the bill by Indirect and
hypocrltcal objections, and Mr. Merrill then
moved an amendment to strike out the words
requiring the payment of II certain sum, = one
half in one year and the other half in two
years, and insert Il provision for a bond to Sc
cure the paymento of the expense, (but from
hurry and nadvertence retaining the provision
for the payment of one half in one year, &c,
which OF course was nugatory and llundcr,
as it is of course impossible to ascertain the
| hair If m, ,,tEno,pu s1fyn \
This amendment was made solely in order to
have the location decided upon its merits by
having the offers equal, trusting to II future
Legislature to act dispassionately and wisely IN
regard to the time and manner Of enforcing the
bond.
On this amendment Messrs. Barnes of Rut-
land, Kittrodge and Spencer voted IN the n,ga-
atire.
On the 9th, the struggle was continued by
Offering amendments, the Uho}e and euident pur-
pose of which was to defeat the location at
Montpelier Mr.. Spencer moved an amend
ment requiring Montpelier to pay in from time
to time as necessary, the State never to pay
over 5000 in advance.
Mr.. Powers objected to this amendment because
the State should secure House independently
of any town.
Judge Kittredge (who was then Circuit
judge said he thought the courts would not
enforce the bond, because Montpelier has pai1
enough, and that the loss Of the property was
Prorideatai-not the fault of Montpelier.
The amendment was rejected by strong vote,
and the bill passed the House as it now stands
on the statute book.
Such is the history of the bond Burlington
began her tactics by making IN Offer that should
place her equal with Montpelier. In her des-
pcraton she made II higher Offer, in the vain
nope that Montpelier would quietly rest upon
her dignity and be beaten at this transparent
game The shrewd and ftr-sghted legislators
in the House chos, to avoid this false issue at
tempted by Burlington, by one Of those eX-
padents that now and then must be used us The
best weapons against such insidious attacks.
I9J us now tuTH W I!iC VI bHc COHtecl
in the Senate.
On the 10Th Of February, Senator Underwood
Of Burlington, introduced "a bill to locate the
Capital at Burlington, provided that town
should give site, and prepare and fit the s.me
and construct the foundations, and rtyall claim;
of Montpelier under t eat Of 1905, bat Barring.
ton have the right to remove all materials then
at Montpelier. This was the same as Mr.. Stacy,
of r in the House.
On the 23d 1t was offered by Montpelier, as in
the IIouse, to indemnify against any excess Of
expense Of rebuilding over $i5,800
Ga the 2jth, Mr.. underwood made the sam,
last desperate Offer for Burlington that was
made the same day in the House, that Is, to
build the State House, and Introduced bill nc.