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

III. 3O5, in addition to an act to incorpo
rate the Vermont Horse Stock Company
passed.
Reports-Mr. Partch of Hinesburgh called
up Ii. $40, in relation to the assessment OF
taxes and the equalization Of the grand list.
Mr.. Hinckley of Chelsea hoped this bill
would not be summarily disposed of, as 1t
provided in part a remedy for the evils COM
blamed of in regard to the grand list.
TThe vote on it's passage was doubtful to the
chair. and a count had been callod for. He
thought there were provisions in the bill
that ought to be carefully considered and
adopted by the House.
MIR. Brown of Richford said there seemed
to be. disposition here to pass every bill
whether it was right or wrong. He object
ed to the second section of the bill, as a
blind to cover up the defects of the existing
law, and thought it would be poor remedy
for what is really needed. He said he was
opposed to the bill in every form, but
mainly because it allowed every property
holder to list his own property just as pleased
him best.
Mr. Slade of MiddIebury moved to amend
by striking out sections ,, ), and .; and
other sections needed to be amended before
they are adopted. He did not regard the
oaths as of much account, as men did not
1
ts=cs.fe -asatd to tiIcIT, U'NrI pvSunisssy PruAs
/ ~ Hinukley said the sections objected to
90 moro fully to carry out the provisions oil
/ the present law. lie was willing to take
the oath prescribed in the bill, and wanted
his neighbors to do the same and if man
took the oath and made false return of his
property, let the responsibility rest upon
him and not on the listers. He argued that
One-thrd of the taxable property in the
State did not 20 into the grand list now,
and this made it necessary that every man
should be placed under oath and in this
respect no discrimination should be made.
He did not believe this bill would work any
hardship, and that the list would be increas-
/ ed two OF three times its present amount
| Let us not do away with the principle en-
bodied in this bill because there would be
danger that a certain few would commit per-
jury 10 shield themselves from bearing their
just proportion of the burdens of taxation.
He hoped the bill would pass
Mr. Jones of Dover said there is great in
equality in our lists,-some being appraised
at its full value, and others at half its value,
and some of the listers have gone 60 far as
+ to make oath 10 their lists. A large major
/ ity of the com. were in favor of this bill as
tending TO remedy the evils complained Of
/ He objected to the amendments proposed by
Mr.. Slade, tending to weaken the force
and effect of the bill. lie thought the list
ers had generally been very careful about
/ perjuring themselves in regard TO the lists
/ He thought the objections raised by the
gentleman from Richford had but little
force in practice though he (Mr. Jones) dit
not approve all the provisions Of the bill {;
but it is a great Improvement on the present
plan, and he hoped 1t would be adopted.
Mr.. Carpenter Of Burlington said he de-
sired TO expose the effects of our existing
listing laws, and had taken pains TO gather
some information on this point which had
confirmed obvious defects of the system In
some towns the listers dared not sign their
appraisals on account of the glaring errors
| they contained. He ascribed the defects in
the present method TO the lack of principle
and system. lie had found that in one town
the appraisal was very nearly equal to the
fair valuation; in another town the proper
" was entered at a little over one-half of its
real valuation, ard tie listers did not ven
ture tO.sign the list. lie gave other instances
of the unequal operation of the present stat
ute. lie believed that every part of the
State was equally troubled in this matter
lie then notes4 the difference in the listing
/ of bank stocE Of ~dfferent banks. In one
town it was rated at 40 per cent, in another
town at 100 per cent, and in another at los
per cent. He did not believe that were the
in the first section of the bill, they would
utterly disregard the obligation it i'm
poses and he thought they would hesitate
long before refusing TO execute the provisions
of the law. lie hoped we should conclude
TO try the experiment presented in this bill
and see whether it would not accomplish,
either in whole OF in part, the desired pur-
pose.
Mr. Brown of Richford, in reply to Mr..
Carpenter, said that when country produce
is at a certain price in a large town like
Burlington it was worth very much less in
the back towns The same is true in regard
TO the land and all other real estate. He
did not believe this bill was calculated TO
benefit the people In any respect.
Mr.. Carpenter explained that the property
he had referred to as having been put in the
list at SO much less value than the actual
sales of the same property, was not in
back town, but in town on one of the pub
lie railroads of the State. He also cited in
stances of the injustice of the workings of
the present law, and thought it incumbent
upon this legislature to remedy the evils
complained of. This is one of the most i'm
portant matters before the legislature, and
be hoped that we shall properly mature some
Just law different from the present loose
method of listing the property OF the State.
Mr.. Slade of Middlebury said the listers
under tie present law were not required to
take an oath before entering upon the dis
charge of their duties. lie thought they
had never been placed under any obligation
to make oath to their appraisals. He thought
the provision of the bill requiring persons
to make oath before some officer that the
list given by them is true statement of all
their property liable to taxation, would in
volve good deal of unnecessary trouble.
and he thought that, under the cireumstan-
ces, there would be many omissions, though
doubtless unintentional. He further object
ed to the BILL that it made the board of list
ers little inquisitiOn, and making every
citizen an inquisitOr in relation to the pri-
vate business of his neighbor. We should
have man arrayed against man, neighbOr
against neighbor, and one section against
another, and hence the operation of the law
would be anything but beneficial. He ia
vored the amendment, but was by no means
anxious for the passage of the bill even if
the amendment should prevail.
Mr.. Hnckley of Chelsea said that some
men are opposed to this bill who now get off
with list Of 81 1000, when if this bill pass
es, they will be obliged to put in list of
SO. coo. He did not know but the gentle
man from Middlebury was in that fix. de
was opposed to the amendments proposed,
sweeping out whole sections Of the bill, but
would like an amendment so as to allow the
listers to administer the oath If this bill
has defects, lei US perfect it, and make such
a change in the matter as the people de-
mand.
Mr.. Walworth Of Coventry thought there
should be new appraisal Of real estate of
the State to obviate the inequalities that evi-
IDENTIFY existed.
Mr. Page of Hydepark explained that the
committee were not unanimous in this bill,
but reported it as the best that could be
done at this late day, and let the House
take such action on it as they thought
best.
The bill was further discussed by Mr.. Nor