Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1871-04-19


| 10 the petitioners for a special session Of ms
Legislature, resident N me counties Of CAiten-
den, FranthH and Grand isie.
GENrLnEN
have carefully considered the subject submit
ted upon your petitions for an extra session Of
the legislature, and adopt this, as the most con-
yenient method Of conveying TO all interested my
conclusions, with a brief statement Of the rca-
sons which have led me thereto. Two reasons
are assigned for special session
| First, " that the committee Of the House Of
Representatives, appointed at the last session
to average and equalize the real estate appraisal,
reported n basis which discrminates unfairly
against the owners Of real estate in Chittonden,
Franklin aud Grand Isle counties.
Secondly, " that the action Of said committee
was illegal"
will notice these propositions in their order.
Our statute law reposes the duty Of averaging
and equalizng the list in committee Of the
House, and provides that the list certified By such
committee, and approved 10y the House, " shall
be the list upon which State taxes shall be made
for the succeeding five years" Neither the con-
currence Of the Senate nor the executive approval
is required or permitted
The subject is wholly excluded from Exccu-
tive interference. It is the duty Of the commit
tee to act and it is solely the prcrogatiyc Of the
House to pass judgment upon the action Of the
committee
The petitions DO not set forth in what consists
the unfair discrimination complained Of, norm
the view which entertain-is inquiry on that
point necessary 10 determine my action sim
ply leave the matter where the statute prescribes
could not convene special session for the
first reason alleged, unless satisfied Of its validity,
and ! cannot determine its validity without re-
viewing the judgment Of the House upon ques-
ton of discretion exclusively reserved by our
statute for the consideration Of that body.
The second reason alleged for q special session
concerns the legality of the list, and suggests a
question purely judicial in its nature, upon which
1t would be manfestly unbecomng the executive
to express an opinion.
may, with propriety, state that | have con-
ierred with the judges Of our Supreme Court, as
to my right to take their opinion upon the legai-
ty Of the list
They hold that this question is too remotely con
nected with the discharge Of any executive duty
to come within the spirit of the statute which
authorizes the Governor in certain cases to take
their opinion, and therefore decline to entertain
the question, save in the regular course Of judi
cial proceeding.
In the wisdom of their decision fully concur
am persuaded there would be an improperly
after the statute has gone into operation, and per-
sonal and public rights and interests of great
magnitude have become involved, in adjudging
this question in proceeding to which none Of
those affected are parties.
The present list has been recognized by the
great majority of the people of the State as legal,
and the larger proportion of the State tax levied
thereon has been already paid into the State
Treasury
II in the adjustment Of valuations wrong has
been inflicted upon any portion Of the State, the
responsibility must rest with that body whose
power over the subject was exclusive
If the list is illegal the courts are open for re-
dress, but cannot assume its illegaliy as basis
of official action without usurping function re-
served to the judicial branch of the government.
trust the views thus briefly expressed may
commend themselves to your good Judgment.
Entertaining myself a sincere conviction of their
soundness, feel constrained by strict sense Of
duty to deny your request.
remain very respectfully,
JonN W STEWART.