Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1866-05-10
Important 10 Legislators.

in the Massachusetts, House Of Repre-
sentatives, which is OF much interest to
legislators, If not to the public at large,
The subject before the House was bill
TO equalize soldiers bOunties, and the
Speaker ruled that members who served
in the army, and would be entitled to
receive bounties if the bill became a
law, would not be permitted to vote,
and gave an elaborate opinion in sup
port Of this ruling, citing authorities in
English as well as American parliament
AIRY practice, all bearing upon the sub
ject. After long debate, the ruling
was sustained by vote of l34 to So,
Eight members who would be pecuni-
arily benefited by the bill disclaimed any
intention to receive any Of the money,
and this being entered on the journal,
they were allowed to vote. The en-
grossment Of the bill was then ordered
by vote Of 10 yeas to IS nays.
The bill will be stoutly opposed in the
Senate, and its fate may be regarded as
somewhat doubtful. But the question
as to the rightfulness or propriety Of
members of legislative body voting on
a measure wherein their own peCuniary
interests are directly involved, would
seem to be one particularly worthy of
attention by all classes.
How would it do to bring the subject
before Congress Wouldn't it be an at
Tactive question for discussion among
the members of that body, whether this
or that one had any pecuniary interest
in the passage Of this or that measure?
In looking over the debates in the
Massachusetts, House we find the ruling
of the Chair strongly resisted by sew
eral members. Mr.. Baker of Beverly
stated that similar question arose in
1910, when Judge Allen remarked that
the interest required was a naked, pri-
vate one. Now, Mr.. Baker contended
that the bill was one-Of public interest
that there would be no opposition to
stockholders in the Western Railroad
voting as members Of the House for the
proposed loan to that corporation, which
would increase the value of the stock
and put money in their pockets; and If
they could vote on such proposition,
he could not see why one of 10000 SOL
diers in the Commonwealth could not
vote. Another member said he was di-
rectly Interested in the bill but believ-
ed his interest was identical with thou
sands of others of his fellow citizens,
and could not,see why he or they should
be dsfranchised. Other members spoke.
taking similar views.
Mr.. Jewell OF Boston, a lawyer, sus-
tanned the ruliag Of the Chair. 1t was
a principle of common law, he said, that
a man could not sit in judgment on a
matter in which he was interested. He
said be was directly interested in the
bill, but should sustain the decision of
the Chair, and vote against the bill not
withstapding. he wanted to see men,
bers vote without bias and show to
their constituents that they are not even
TO be tempted to dc wrong if the oppor-
tunity does present ITSELF To do so
would be setting corrupt precedent.
Another member said the point was
formed on a precedent established two
hundred years ago, and thinge have
changed since the old English practice
was adopted.
1t is quite probable that this subject
may come before the Vermont Legisla-
ture, next fall, and it would be well to
have the authorities looked up and the
matter investigated.