Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1867-11-07

particular towns, that method being less
oppressive.
Nj Converse OF Woodstock said he
took 1t for granted that the bill was as
well as 1t could be. He had questioned
whether we should allow towns to raise
mony for any purpose except for strictly
town purposes but In looking over the
actsof the past few years we find acts
whieh would come under the same OBJ.
lection; as, for instance, the act Of 1862.
allowing towns TO raise money to pay
soldiers; in 1868, to raise money to pay
drafted soldiers, and to build monu-
merits to deceased soldiers; In 1864, to
allow towns TO raise money To pay
substitutes, and to raise money to pre-.
pare soldiers records; In 1866, providing
thai every town may build jails; and at
the present session, bill allowing towns
TO procure libraries. He never heard OF
a nan raising objections TO these bills,
andyet they were enabling acts" as
much as the bill under consideration.
Now were we wrong in passing these
bills2 If so, let us stop it, and set a
good example. If we were not wrong,
why object to this bill? If we ever al.
low towns to raise money, when and for
what shall such privilege be granted ?
My rule is, where town asks a privi-
lege to make an appropriation, and II 1t
is TO be beneficial TO the towns, grant
them the privilege asked. ..
will this bill be a damage to the
towns asking it 1t is not for me- away
down in Woodstock, to say to these
towns that, although in ordinary 6usi-
ness transactions you are shrewd en-
ough, yet in this matter you are fools.
No man can say out railroad through
the fertile valley Of Lamoille will be a
great benefit, and he was willing they
should have one. He answered the ar
gument that such bill would be op-
pressive to minorities, and that if done
at all it should be Gone by the State, by
saying that even in that case msjorities
must rule the minorities. He hoped the
bill would pass, ard the towns be allowed
the privilege asked by themselves.
MI Rounds of Chester rehearsed the
history of the passage of the bill
thus far through the House, and stated
that in the outset it was referred to a
committee of its friends, who would of
course report in favor Of it. 1t has not
been considered by any other committee
than such as have railroad on the
brain" My opposition to this bill comes
from no desire to cripple the development
OF the resources of the State in the least,
but a desire to see the best interests OF
the State promoted. He referred to the
legislation since 1862, enabling towns -
gs5ss money, aDSa said stie 81 per month
paid by the State was right, aud every
dollar paid to soldiers ought to have
been paid by the State. He always op-
posed the bills allowing towns to raise
money to pay bounties, and had, when
ever the subject was before the legisla-
ture for consideration, urged to the best
Of his ability that the towns should be
limited in the amount of money that our
outburst of patriotism then allowed
them to raise. He was always willing
to pay the soldiers 1--WE can never pay
them in dollars and cents), but he ques-
toned the legislation that had been had
on that subject, He explained the bill
he hadIintroduced the present session to
allow the town of Chester to pay SUBJ
stitutes that it was the case of very
worthy man, and he had been promised
the 81 per month by the selectmen, and
in good faith to the man the town of
Chester simply asked the legislature to
allow them to keep good faith with the
soldier. He thought this bill oppressive
upon the poor, who, although their
property is enhanced in value, it was no
benefit to them, for they wanted it as a
home to live in, that they might die and
be buried with their kindred, and the
fact that the property is enhanced in
value furnished them no better home
than before it was so enhanced. He
thought thete should be some limit to
the amount allowed to be raised. Rail-
roads had nCver yet paid in this State,
and the morny drawn from these towns
was so much sunk in building them.
The manner of obtaining the assent OF
the towns he also thought very objec-
tionable, and had always opposed that
provision in all bills Of this kind. There
would be corruption under it, and the
only true course was to have the matter
fully discussed in open town meeting.
He was opposed to the bill both in de-
tail and in principle.
Mr. Allen of Irasburgh, said it is
claimed that we must pass this bill
because the towns through which il
passes ask for it. He thought that argu.
ment amounted to just nothing. The
raising of money to build railroads was
entirely different from the case where
money was raised for public uses, fol
railroads are private corporations, anc
the raising of money for them would in
volve the same principle as though
towns were asked to build factory OF
mill in their midst. He thought every
man should be allowed to do what hi
liked with his own. 1t is true he haC
property in Lamoille valley, and hi
opposed the bill for that reason, but hi
also opposed it on principle, and believed
it wrong to allow towns to tax them
selves for such purposes.
Mr. Ferrin of Montpelier said thtt tht
arguments that had been raised agalns
the bill had but confirmed him in th'
opinion that it was not only right, bu
that it was the best method of accom-
plishing the object. He conceded will
i hv oaptlEpp !