The daily Green Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1861-1865, 1863-10-27

10 stCtlUn % OF tEap'tf q Oh ut OtHttdl otdL-
uies, relating to fare and tariff on railroads.
providing for uniform rates referred to Commit
lee on Roads.
By Mr. Carpenter IF Waterford, an act to
amend cnapter / 10 of the General Statutes, re-
lating to the enrolled militia r ferred to Com
mit'te On Military Aff.rs.
By Mr.. Fisher Of Cabot, an act to repeal sec.
ton ten Of chapter 10 of the General Statutes,
Of exemptions ," referred TO the Committee on
Miln.ry Ati,irs.
PETITION.
BY Mr.. Chandler OF Woodstock, @! Thomas
4, Powers Tor pay for experimenting the con-
struction Of The State House referred to Com
miltee on Claims
REPORTS
BY MIR. Howard, for Committee on Military
Affairs, against providing for the introduction of
Shorts patent knapsacks among Vermont soldiers
BY Mr.. Marcy, for the Committee On Roads.
that the ESSEX COUNTY RAILROAD BILL should
not be further proceeded with because due notice
OF said bill was no! given ID strict accordance
with the requirement of the law. The report
stated that By error of the printer, the notice had
been omitted one week in the CdtedOnidR.
Mr.. Shaw of Burlington, moved to recommit
the bill to The Committee 18th instruction to Ie-
port upon the merits of the bill, as the law re-
curing notice had been substantially complied
with.
Mr.. Wilson of Bakersfield, thought the Legis-
lature had no right to disregard their own rule
requiring due notice to be given, and spoke at
length in opposition to The motion.
MIR. Marcy chairman of the Committee on
Roads, stated in reply to inquiries that the notice
given was considered by the ma jority of the Com.
mittee substantially good and such notice as is
contemplated by the law.
Mr.. Chandler believed that the motion to in
sruct the Committee to report upon the merits
Of the bill should prevail. The fsure with refer
ence to the notice was very slight. In the North
Star the notice had been in strict compliance with
the law. In the Caledonian there had really
been no failure to give sufficient notice, but only
a disregard Of technical requirement. He fur
Their cited cases where the Legislature had pro.
ceeded in simillr circumstances without even
pretence OF notice where the public good plainly
required 1t. There was no such inevitable neces-
sity with reference to notice as had been repre-
sentcd.
Mr.. Houston of Victory, stated that when he
learned that notice had not been given in precisely
the form required by law, he had taken the trouble
as friend of the bill to ascertain by reference to
the journals Of the Legislature, whether there
lie learned from others, and from the Journals,
that the Legislature han passed very lightly over
any tihng objections in reference to notice. Of
this kind. lie cited from the Journals OF previous
years cases to substantilte his position. Reason.
able notice in accordance with the spirit of the
law had been given il this CASE, and there ought
not to be any objection to The bill on the ground
Of mere technical omission.
Mr.. Wilson Of Bakersfield, thought the bill
could not be entertained without violation Of
the statute. The Committee mad reported that
there had not been compliance with the statute.
The Committee, he supposed, meant what they
said. There had been real failure to comply
with that which was essential in the case. With
reference to the argument that Legislatures OF
previous years had proceeded without due regard
to the statute, he thought it was only argument
that because previous Legislatures had done
wrong, this one should do wrong also.
MIR. Shaw of Burlington, stated that there were
two ways OF constituting the law; one In accord
ance with its literal reading and the other in ac-
cordance with its spirit and the intention of those
who framed the law. The hitter was undoubted-
ly the true method of constituting the law. Ac-
cording to this method of Interpretation the law
had been complied with. To defeat bill on the
ground of technical objections, which had grown
the friends Of the bill.
Mr.. Dorr of Rutland, thought that the obiec
tions urged against the notice were not sound. 1t
was even doubtful whether strict rendering of
the law would exclude the bill. 1t appeared that
notice had been given for three weeks in the Cal
edonidn, as required by the law The only de-
parture, or supposed departure, from the law was
that these publications were not for three success
sive weeks. The law required q" three weeks sue
cesSively." 1t was, IN his opinion, doubtful wheth-
er he phrase Just quoted could not mean other
than three successive weeks He cited cases to
show that such strict rendering of the statute
with reference to notices had not been heretofore
insisted upon by the Legislature
Mar. Sewe Of Lunen burg, spoke briefly in favor
Of the interests of his constituents of Essex
County. The notice given was substantially goo d,
anc he hoped The bill would be re-commlted, as
had been moved.
Mr.. White Of Coventry, thought it best to
obey the law. That notice had been given in
fact, was not enough the notice should be given
according TO law. The law was iuhexible while it
stood upon the statute book. The Legislature
had power to repeal the law, but had no right to
set it aside without repeal That other Legsla'
lures had done so was no reason why thi, should
do so. In reference to the fne-spun theory which
made difference between three weeks successive
ly, and three successive weeks, he would say that
he could not see the propriety or force OF such a
theory. Ii there was any meaning in successvely
as here employed, it must have The free of max.
iug The weeks successive.