The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1862-10-30

I
moor man might be compelled to yield rs "tie
home TO ,h- possession Of his wealthy and
scbeniug neishbgr, and much wrong might De
done uraer preteuces which this law "ouidiln,>
Mr. Underwood Of Negbury could not see any
improperly in the amendment. lie believed the
question that should be considered here wa "hA'
the object was OF taking tie lands, had net i"l9
whose possession they come. Ii the object for
which the lands were to be appropriated was
public one, that was all that should be caimeG
This principle had often been recognized IN legs
Iation in the State. In the case Of railroad cor
porations It was recognized, for, while they were
private associations, their object was puOHc one,
and hence it was forwarded by the legislation OF
the State. The prime pie was clear one, and one
that had not been disputed in other cases.
Mr.. Cushman of Rochester could not agree
with the gentleman from Newbury Underwood
in the opinion that the same principle was IN
volved in this amendment, that had been recog-
nized in former legislation There was a grea.
difference in his opinion between approPriating
private property for private purposes and private
property for public purposes lie believed the
necessity never had, and never would occur, TO
appropriate by law, private properly Tor pubic
use. 1t was dangerous precedent.
Mr.. Henry OF Chester, thought there was no
difficulty in the case, but that the fact that the
ectmen decided in reference to the propriety of
approprarng the lands, rendered the question Of
public advantage the main one; and the mere
fact that they entrusted the ownership or care of
these land, to private individuals, did not at all
lessen the public character OF the transaction,
far its utility was concerned.
Mr.. Balch Of Ludlow opposed the amendment
at length. That the sentiment OF the people was
against granting such privileges to select corpora
lions he fully believed. He was certain that it
would not be regarded by them as just, to so far
disregard the fundamental principles of COVE n
ment as to allow private rights to be invaded rath
er than protected, and that merely for private adj
vantage.
Mr.. Shaw believed that the taking Of lands for
bura! purposes should be allowed, as being quite
as proper as the taking of lands for various other
purposes, some oil which la been referred to.
He cited the taking Of sites for school houses, in
addition to those lha, had been mentioned He
! thought the amendment under consideration con.
,empated taking lands for purposes Of really, and
even empha;ically public importance. The en-
largement md oeauti!ying Of cemetery grounds
was quite as desirable in public view, as the
other objects for which lands are granted to cor
pora,ons. The sentiment which respects the
resting place OF the dead, and which seen in the
prevalent practice of ornamenng cemetery
grounds should be encouraged !. was hlgly APP
propriate tina; i. I'D be fostered by Legislative
action.
Mr.. BaIch replied briefly to the gentleman
from Burlington, (Shav) and moved that the
amendment be laid upon the table, and made
special order for Monday morning next at 10 10
O'Clock, and that 300 copies Of said amendment be
printed.
Mr.. Reynolds thought the question had been
fully discussed, and opposed postponng action
upon it.
Mr. Fletcher Of C4vendish, also believed thai,
there was no necessity for further delay.
Mr. B4lch asked leave TO withdraw his motion,
and did so withdraw it.
Mr.. Chandler stated that the other provisions
Of the BILL beside the one under consideration,
gave the righ; Of appeal to the County Court, in
case private rights were supposed TO he invaded
by the proceedings un Ter the act There were
Their safeguards which rendered it on the whole
quite sure that private individuals had full pro-
lection against Injustice. He further stated fully
aid ftteetuA'iy the argument, that the uses for
winch cemetery lands are appropriated are public
n their character. In reference to the motives
that had been alluded To as likely to govern the
action OF private corporlton,, he urged that cor
poratlonS should not be regarded as necessarily
ANU te>thA!dlE NiSNoNe>l ana nalClOuS. Inc
amendment he had offered, had in view those c,st
where individuals refused TO grant 10 cemetery
associations, at anything less than an exorotaul
price, lands which were required by them.
Mr.. IubbeI said that the first constitutional
question was whether II was allowable to Le.ega; g
10 The Se!ectmen the right to appropriate lands
for cemetery purposes. Ia answering this cues.
ton he cited the power delegated to selecmen to
decide in reference to the laying out and discon-
tInulng ofn'ghways and other similar powe,s where
the rights O! individuals have to Yield to the pub.
lie good. He enquired whether, although the
selectmen have the power to Law road through a
mans dooryard, they could upon the whole be
said to abuse that power. lie believed their ex.
ercise of the rghts delegated to them were il
the main grun'ed TO be fair and just. lie did moi
believe they would change their course of action
and with reference 10 Cemetery grounds endeavol
to do all the harm they could, and be manifest,
and grossly unjust. He knew of no safer hand
in which to place the power in question than il
those OF the board OF selectmen He further
examined and approved the principle of tn,
ame ldment under co sideration.
Mr.. Cushman of Rochester, further sustained
his New,-that appropriatng lands for private
Gem terry associations, was introducing new
principe o. Legislation. There was coupin.
together Of the two propositions, relating to pub
. nc aud private corporations, in the arguments O
those VINO favored tbs amendment, that Mystic,
, the question but did not prove ANYTHING. II
further explained his yew,--that the amendmen
, proposed an invasion of private rights, and iha
=. for private advantage only