Bellows Falls times. [volume] (Bellows Falls, Vt.) 1856-1965, 1867-11-08
NOVEMBER 8, 1856
Bonding Towns.
DEBATE IN THE HOUSE.

subject OF bonding towns for the purpose
of building railroads, and as this policy is
likely to be the leading feature of the ses- 8
sion we give the debate, as reported in
Wal,on's Daily Journsl, as follows
Special Order.-H % to enable the
towns therein named to aid in the con-
struction of the Lamoille Valley Railroad,
was taken up, the question being upon the
amendment proposed yesterday by MI,
Brigham Of Hydepark, which was agreed
to.
Mr.. Hubbard of Stockbridge said those
members of the house who proposed to
vote in the affirmative on this bill were
assailed from within this House and from
without with the assertion that they pro-
pose to do thing which is not constitu-
tional, in that they propose to take private
property for public uses without adequate
remuneration but he could not see that
it eonficted more with the bill of rights in
this particular case than in all cases where
money was voted for town uses, which |
often promoted private interests at public
expense. He should favor the passage OF
the bill. believing that the interests of the
State demanded that every facility should
be given to all portions Of the State for
developing its resources.
Mr.. Glazier of Stratton, thought he had
proper regard for the interests of the
State, and was willing to leave the ques-
ton of coiastitutionality with the courts.
But he WAS opposed to the bill on the
ground of its oppressive character, and
spoke at length against the provisions Of
the bill, preferring that railroads should
be built by private capital and that if any
aid is to be given TO them, it should be
given by the State, and not by particular
towns, that method being less oppressive
Mr.. Converse of Woodstock, said he
took it for granted that the bill was as wei
as it could be. He had questioned wheth
er we should allow towns TO raise money
), for any purpose except for strictly tow
r purposes but in looking over the acts 0
l. the past few years, we find acts whic
Y would come under the same objection; al
D, for instance, the act of 1862 allowin
ot towns to raise money to pay soldiers, |
1868 to raise money to pay drafted so
rs diers, and to build monuments to decease
le soldiers in 1864 to allow towns to rails
< money to pay substitutes, and to rails
I'll money to prepare soldiers records; j
1866 providing that every town may bull
lowing towns to procure libraries. ii
10 never heard of man raising objections
at these bills and yet they were g enablin
10 acts " as much as the bill under consid l
IL alton. Now were we wrong in passin
a these bills? If so lie, us stop it, and set
good example. If we were not wrons
why object to this bill ? If we ever allo'
in towns 10 raise money, when and for whs
IF shall such privileges be granted My rul
is, where town asks privilege to max
Sc an appropriation, and if it is to be benet
". cial to the towns, grant them the privilee
-. ask ed.
u Will this bill be damage to the tow
,o asking it 1t is not for me, away down
ed Woodstock, to say to these towns, althoug
No in ordinary business transactions you al
e shrewd enough, yet in this matter you a
w. fools. No man can say but railro'
of Though the fertile valley of Lamoille w
an be a great benefit, and he was willing thu
should have one. He answered the arg
- ment that such bill would be oppressi
90 to minorities, and that if done at all
to should be done by the State, by sayil
oh that in that case even majorities must ri
the minorities. He hoped the bill won
en pass, and the towns be allowed the priv
ITO lege asked by themselves.
,sr Mr.. Rounds of Chester, rehearsed d
;tb history of the passage of the bill thus
IN through the House, and stated that in &
dv outset it was referred TO committee OF
,aa friends, who would of course report in
h yor of it. 1t has not been considered
~. any other committee than such as ha
n, railroad on the BRAIN" My opposite
o to this bill comes from no desire 10 cripI
.t the development of the resources of t
o,- State in the least, but desire to see t
,ha best interests of the State promoted.
% referred to the legislation since 1862, er
no, bling towns to raise money, and said
40, 81 per month paid by the State was rig
,od. He always opposed the bill allowing tow
one to raise money to pay bounties, and h
90, whenever the subject was before the lee
,,.v lature for consideration, urged to the
of his ability that the towns should
- limited in the amount of money that
Son outburst of patriotism then allowed tn
you, to raise. He cited cases where lal
II of sums had been paid to furnish men to
vino ouotas of towns where the money wa;