Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1870-11-23
AFTERNOON.

SENATK-Pdssed-S. IS, relating to the
duties of town Superintendents.
Reports From com. on railroads, ii. ia,
to enable certain towns in Washington
county to aid in the construction of the Barre
branch of the Montpelier and Wells River
railroad; passed.
Special Orders. I3l. in addition to chap.
229, g. s., relating to schools Mr. Heath
pointed out what he regarded as some OF
the difficulties to be met not provided Tor
by the bill, and moved an amendment, which
was agreed to and the bill passed.
On motion of Mr. Bailey, adj.
HoUsE.-BiHs introduced and referred-By
Mr. Bisbee of Newport, in amendment OF
chaps ll3 and 100. z. 8, relating to crimes
and penalties to select committee.
By Mr. Wood of Fair Haven, relating to
the collection of taxes under suspension
of the rules, the bill was read the third time
and passed.
By Mr.. Bisbee of Newport, to repeal No
II Of the public acts of 1869, relating to lay
ing out and discontinuing highways and
bridges; to committee on highways, bridges
and ferries.
senate bills referred-S. 50, relating to the
duties of town superintendents; to COM
mittee on education
Eeep9vt@-From committee on banks. in
favor of ii. 252, In amendment of an act to
incorporate the Caledonia County Trust Co.,
with amendment, which We agreed to third
reading ordered.
From committee on military affairs, in
favor of 5. 100, providing for memorials for
the soldiers of the State of Vermont in the
war of 1861, with amendment limiting ex
pense to So 600, which was agreed to, and
the bill passed in concurrence.
Special Order-H. I6, to authorize the
formation of railroad corporations, and to
regulate the same.
Mr. Kellogg of Benson said he had always
believed that a general railroad law was nee
essary, and in drawing up this bill he had
sought TO present the question fairly and
squarely, without any prejudice to any road
or to any part of the State. He had no un-
friendly feelings toward any of the existing
roads of the State; they tend to enhance the
material interests of the State and ought to
be encouraged. But he believed we had no
right to give to one class of men rights and
privileges denied to other men let all have
the same rights under the law. The people
of one locality are as much entitled to the
protection of the Legislature as those of an
other locality and upon that principle this
bill has been drawn up He was opposed to
the class of exclusive legislation with which
our statute books have been encountered, and
explained in detail the provisions of this bill
-
He then gave the history of railroads in those
States where they have general railroad laws,
and argued the beneficial effects of such laws
upon those States. He answered the Obiec-
tions urged against this bill by the report of
the committee, and said that one of the
principal reasons urged against the bill
that it would authorize the construction of
parallel roads, and cited the case of the
" allOOmsac road which had been before the
asrIS 10 tr7ra f,rt tha nd
this year we have passed the bill without
opposition, and it creates parallel road to
the detriment of more than one other rail
road. The chartered railroads of the State
are opposed to this bill, as they very natur-
ally would be, and he believed that this re-
port was instigated by the railroads them
selves, if not drawn up by them He said
be was no enemy to railroads, and would
not be party to the breaking of any of the
contracts entered into in the charter of them;
but there are interests in Vermont of larger
magnitude than that of railroads, and in
W hieh the peopeTOf ths State are more a
rectly Interested, and yer we would not thiax
of giving to any class of men the exclusive
control of those interests. Railroads should
receive no greater protection than we ex-
tend to the other interests of the State of
equal magnitude. This bill makes provision
for long felt necessity in the State, and he
hoped it might meet with favor from this
House.
Mr.. Crosby of Brattleboro said he de-
sired to state the situation in relation to the
bill before the Railroad Committee. At the
second meeting the whole committee read the
bill carefully, and the majority of them were
against it. The gentleman from Benson had
objected to the report of the majority as
having been drawn up by an OF sider. He
would admit that it was prepared by law
yer, but it was carefully examined by the
committee before it was submitted to the
House. He then argued briefly for the re-
tention of the present railroad system.
Mr.. Page of Hydepark said he had nothing
TO say about the legal-the theoretical
part of this bill, but left that matter to the
superior legal attainments of the gentleman
from Benson. But in this matter all we
want is common sense /: and he did not be-
lieve the freemen of the two hundred and
forty-one towns in this State could be so
easily led by the railroad managers of this
State. lie could not support any such bill
as this, and he did not believe the people
demanded its passage and citeG cases that
would work hardship to the present railroads
of the State, among them the proposed La
moille Valley Railroad, and said this bill, if
it passed, would allow any set of men to
build parallel road, and thus prevent cap
italists from investing in said road. He be
lieved the bill unjust, and hoped it would
not pass.
Space is too limited for anything like
just abstract of the further remarks which
were made by Messrs. Ballard of Fairfax,
Bull of Hancock and Kellogg of Benson,
who moved to amend the 18th section of the
bill to obviate errors that had escaped his
notice In drawing up the bill, which were
agreed to. The bill was then further dis
cussed by Mr.. Fairbanks of st. Johnsbury.
Mr.. Slade of Middlebury moved the previ-
GUS question, which was seconded, and the
main question was then put, shall the bill be
read the third time? E? Mr. Kellogg of Ben
son demanded the yeas and nays, which were
taken, yeas 65, nays l3l. So the third
reading of the bill was refused.
On motion of Mr.. Amsden of Weathers-
field, adjourned.