Lamoille newsdealer. [volume] (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1860-1877, 1867-12-11
TO me PEOPLE OF THE LAM0ILLE
VALLEY.

this Bonding project This is we'll. Tho
interests involved are common to oil the
people: therefore, each has right to
speak upon it. if he win do so SecOhing-
ly, and, both ty the honor OF the editor
and the claims of the public, is cntitled
to a fair and candid hearing 1t is only
thus that self.respectiDg men viii, take
part in such discussion. 1t is, therefor,
with disappointment and some pain
have to complain on this point. Last
week sent Communication, and; tho
: it was published fairly, yet, in reviewing
it, the editor, apparently to make me
odious to the community, picked out sew
eral Of my phrases from their natural
connection. changing the form Of some OF
them, and then linking them together by
words of his own, grouped the whole,
putting it forth as my intimation. Thus
was violated towards me a rule held ga.
cred by tho conductors Of public journals,
VIZ tho editor guarantees fairness to his
correspondent.
u Unconscious myself Of any intent to be
captious or unfair, | shall expect to be
treated in similar spirit by any who
may controvert my views. proceed now
to the general subject.
In my last. l asked the gentleman who
framed the Bonding Bill, if my views Of
that law were erroneous. to please correct
me, and he, or some writer, pointed out a
difference between my views of the, atteu
dant penalty and that of the law. But,
as this discrepance in no way affects the
merits of the question at issue. no notice
need be taken of it here The law makes
it the duty of the selcctmeu to furnish
the bonds to the Railroad Company in
exchange for their stock, and, of course,
this must DO done, if not in thirty days,
in some reasonably short time.
The point which made prominent (or
intended to make prominently was--do the
towns in open meeting, by a ballot vote
decide to bond, or not 10 bond--do they
fx the sum and the conditions of boud
ing? The writer above referred to says
they do and seems out Of temper with me
because thought otherwise. These are
his words--"Thc object Of this section
(the first was, first, to give the town an
opportunity, at meeting legally warned
for that purpose, not only to consider the
act itself, but to discuss and consider the
merits and dement's Of the whole paoicct,
in open town meeting and then vote
upon the matter, as they do every other
question that comes before the town"
Now, as we know the town decides all
money questions in this way, then, he
thinks, they will this money question,
and, of course. all the conditions Sup
posing the town is to fix all these, is it
to do 80 in this first open meeting?
will be glad if it be SO. but if so. why
these Nords-"Such contract, q @ may
be made by any Of said towns, when the
assent thereto in whiting of majority
o % shall be obtained by an
instrument of assent" lin the hands of q
Justice of the peace, obtaining each sigma
ture separately The meaning here, to
my mind, is this-that whatever power
the town is to have in the money matter
it is not to be exercised III this irst open
meeting. Well, is there to be second
open meeting to determine this sum
: The law makes no provision for such
: meeting and says-"Such instrument o
assent shall set forth The substance of thu
of the contract or purchase to be made b,
such town, and the conditions on which
the same is to be made" Now did tn,
town vote this instI ument. thus fuIn shcC
: with the.contract and conditions Of bond
ing? think not and | SO said in my
last. The Railroad Company prepared
; it thus furnished. There is, therefore, t,
be no second town. meeting to determine
such contract, and if not. is not my in
depreciation of the Act the natural one
viz: that they who supply the ustrumen
furnish it with the sum. Commissioners
&c? 1t is possible the law designed tn
L towns to fix the sum to be inserted in th
= instrument, and then to assent to tn
= bonding if q majority of its voters, &c.
I assented. privately, to the same; bu
: nothing Of that sort seems intimated i,
the Act itself Let US then have thi
matter cleared up, that we may kpo,
what we are to be required to DO iii
> be, as | intimated in my last, that til
majority have no power to name, or {
!, modify the sum and if the three Com
missioners have no such power, and
the law does not give that power to tn
: town in opea meeting, we should kno,
: it A VOTER.