Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1865-03-16
The proclamation of the Governor
WAS read

JObh bllCil sGhbos
By resolutiou'by Mr. Deane of Cav
endish, the clerk was directed to inform
the Senate that the House had convened
and is ready to proceed with the bust
ness Of the session.
By resolution by Mr.. Lynde of Will
Jamestown, the clerk was directed TO
deliver likesmessage to the Governor.
By joint resolution by Mr.. Kimball
of Putney, the joint rules and joint
standing CONS of the last sessionTwere
adopted for the present session.
BY resolution by Mr.. Soule of Fair
fax, the rules and standing CONS of the
last session were adopted for the present
session.
The Governor, by Samuel Williams,
sec. of civil and military affairs, com
municated the following message. See
Senate proceedings.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson of Wal
lingford, three hundred copies of the
message were ordered to be printed.
Mr.. Colby of Hartland introduced a
bill to ratify the proposed amendment
Of the constitution; which was twice
read and referred to the com on the ju-
dietary.
Mr.. Dorr of Rutland moved that a
select com of one member from each
county be appointed to report joint
resolution to ratify the proposed amend
ment.
Mr.. Dorr suggested that the mode of
ratification, authorized by the constitu-
tion of the United States and provided
for in the resolution of Congress, is "by
the Legislatures of the several States :"
and therefore that the most proper way
is TO proceed by joint resolution and
not by bill. There is a material diff
ference in the two modes, inasmuch as
a bill must be submitted to the Gov
ernor for approval; so that in case the
Governor of any state should happen to
disagree with "the Legislature" he
might prevent it from exercising it's
constitutional right to vote for the rati-
fiCatiOn of an amendment.
Mr., Colby said both modes had been
pursued in other states. 1t seemed to
him that the most formal and solemn
manner Of proceeding, and therefore the
most fit one on so grave question:
would be by bill However, if it be best
to proceed by joint resolution the ju-
dietary com can so report.
The motion of Mr.. Dorr was then
agreed to; and on motion Of Mr. Stew
art Of Middlebury, the House took re-
cess of half an hour to give the speaker
an opportunity to select the committee.
On reassembling, the speaker an
nounced the select committee as fol-
lows:
Rutland County-Mr. Dorr of Rut-
land.
Addison-Mr. Stewart of Middlebury.
Bennington-Mr Thomas of Airing
ton.
Caledonia-Mr. Billiard of St, Johns
bury.
Chittenden-Mr. BarstoW of Shelburne
EsseX-Mr. Sewell of Lunenburg.
Franklin-Mr. Wilson Of Bakersfield.
Grand lsle-Mr. Wheeler of South
Hero.
Lamoille-Mr. Collins of WalcOt.
Orange-Mr. Hebard of Chelsea.
Orleans-Mr. Cushing of Barton.
Washington-Mr. Ferrin Of Mont
pelier.
Windham-Mr. Waite of Brattleboro.
Windsor-Mr. Colby of Hartland,
MIR. Pratt of Woodstock asked leave
to introduce bill to repeal an act there
in mentioned.
Mr. Wilson of Bakersfield suggested
that the House should entertain no
business except that for which the leg
islature has been convened, and moved
that the bill be laid upon the table with
out reading; which was agreed to.
Mr.. Wilson then introduced q resolu-
ton excluding all business except on
the constitutional amendment.
Mr.. Stewart of Middlebury suggested
that the act of the last session to change
the venue of action in the case of the
raiders is unconstitutional in the opin-
ion of the supreme court, and therefore
that it may be best to repeal or change
1t.
The resolution Of Mr.. Wilson was re-
jected when he called up the bill of
Mr. Pratt, which was to repeal the act
of the last session in reference to closing
up the affairs Of the Franklin County
Bank.
MIR. Barlow said he had no doubt the
bank would redeem all bills held hon
estly, and he thought it not best to re-
peal the act. He moved to dismiss the
bill.
Mr. Stewart of Middlebury said that
| he had learned that the bank did not
elect directors in January, and that
there seems to be nobody who can be
held responsible.
Mr.. Barlow said no election had been
made, but still the directors previously
elected are responsible on their bonds.
He was sure that the bank is as sound
and safe as any bank in the State. The
clamor against it comes from brokers
and others who wish to speculate in the
bills.
Mr.. Human of Holland sad citizen
of his town had sent bills for redemp-
tion and the bank refused them.
Mr.. Barlow said that all it is necessa-
ry for any holder of bills to do is to
make an affidavit that he is bona fide
| owner.
Messrs. Wilson of Bakersfield and
Waite of Brattleboro had no doubt that
the directors are responsible on their
bonds, and the repeal of the act would
be an injury to the public rather than
the bank.
Mr.. Pratt of Woodstock said the di-