The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1859-12-07

The question being the passage Of |
the House bill appropriating $34 600 to
leIray the expense of furnishing the State
House. Senator Nash said He
should not vote for this bill, and won Id
briefly state his reasons. The bill invol-
we'd a principle he could not endorse The
bill might have the appearance of merit
sufficient to disguise its real import. That
it was popular in the Senate there were
clear indications.
He continued by what authori'y have
these debts been incurred ? Has he State
authorized any one, or had ary agency
in making a debt Of this amount lost
certainly not There is then .ool reason
to doubt the validity Of these c inns The
State made arrangements with Montpelier
us to the location and for the rebuilding Of
the State House. When the arrangement
assumed the form Of contract aud was
signed by the parties interested. the State
secured from Montpelier the sum oil $780,
600 to be appropriated for the specific plr.
pose Of rebuilding the State House. SO far
as the sum is concerned, it is not larger
than those proposed by other reliable par
ties Now has any part Of this contract
BEEN fulfilled? What has the State re-
ceived for granting to Montpelier what is
equivalent to an annual income Of 8 Is 200
to S20,0002 What in the way Of ac-
acknowledgement or recognition of a pledge
given to the effect that a tax should not
be levied upon the State for the purposes
indicated in this bill ? Montpelier has
not only disregarded that obligation but
has set IN motion agencies by which the
State is now charged with the reputation
Of debts, Was this to be expected 1t
has been intimated in this discussion that
it is desirable to dispose of an existing
difficulty between the interests Of this
town and the State. If this is true, why
do not those solicitous Of carrying
measure Of this character, introduce bill
for that purpose and one embra cling the
questions in ISSUE Had such bill been
introduced, those who cannot favor this
bill would then have had opportunity to
have given consideration TO bill based
on different principles and one involving
the merits Of the controversy
BY the passage of the bill before the
Senate, the predictions of Senators will
not be fulfilled. The bill calls for an APP
preparation of S34, 900, making with what
mas already been appropriated by the
State the sum of $4,000. This, taken
| from the estimated cost of the entire York
Of building and re-fnrnishing the State
House, leaves SUN too insignificant to
| justify protracted debate and yet taking
into consideration all the circumstances
| connected with the contract and the fact
that the State is in possession of the bond
| nothing less then embarrassment can be
anticipated when the question of final
settlement comes up. give my vote ON
| this bill uninstructed not one OF my
constituents has expressed to me his pre-.
ierences but | claim that they would he
fair and honorable in deciding this. or any
other measure; and yet, Sir, if this bill
passes and if the tax is levied, cannot
say they will not inquire, where is Mont
pelier? and what has become of her
| pledges?
This bill does not suit me. 1t is in
explicit. Endorse it and we may expect
another one, similar to this, as soon as
the interests of Montpelier and the pros
pect OF success may prompt its introduce
ton. This bill is connected with measures
incompatible with the interests of the
State. Now if Montpelier wishes to free
herself from her obligation to the State,
would she be less likely, Sir, to accomplish
it by making a frank avowal and letting
the State take into consideration measures
calculated to disspate influences, which
from their vely nature embarrass and
corrupt legislation, which, on this subject
as well as on every other should be I'M
trammeled?