Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1871-01-06

that Chittenden county is disposed to presen
their case fairly, and fears not the verdict Of th
people, providing they understand all the facts
l have some regard fo- truth and the rights O
the people, therefore please allow NE to correc
/ each and every statement made il the RUTLAND
| Herald by one signing as ''one Of the majority
and purporting to be in reply TO my formei
letter These statements, to be sure, are Of verl
little Importance, but DO not propose to allow
true and correct assertions to be made to appea,
70 the people Of other counties as incorrect.
have once presented the facts, 60 far as possible
without personality and over my own signature
and ! still insis: on the correctness Of the same
Isl. l still insist that no explanation has beer
made or can Be made that viii justify the presen
equalization on any principle Of e4Hiiy or Ustice
notwithstanding the various articles that hav'
appeared. That the great inequality exists II
evident !; cluno; be denied. This inequality Is
unjust. unconstitutional and therefore Illegal
NoB let any person account for any unjust
illegal &C; by any principle Of equity or justice
if he can.
u The writer states that " Mr. Whittemori
occupies over s column in an ingenious effort t,
make IT appear th.t Chittenden county had stood
before the committee al . very high appraisal
and that her lands were very poor pine plains
&c For the benefit Of that gentleman, if he
has any disposition to deal with the facts and
figures, will agan state that Chitteuien county
sppesred before the committee al greater IL
crease than any other county IL the State by far,
and highel per sore than any other county ex-
cept Grand Isle, ard that it appeared in evidence
before that committee tAa: Il irss not The most
valuable county Let him deny this if he can.
He cannot The dles st the Secretary Of STATE g
Office show it, Then why add 30 per cent to
this county and deduct DO per cent from others
l never sisted that the lands Of Chiueuieu
county were " poor pine plains ala state,
however, that lit was the poorest farming
county west OF the mountain sui that no one
Of thsle counties has one half the proportion OF
sandy pine plain and marsh lsad that Chitten-
den has Instead Of accusing me Of this d" iH-
grEi5us af5rt'' why does he not openly deny my
assertion, and adduce at least one argument 70
show that Chittenden county vs. no, the highest
Why does he not endcavor to show that these
pine plain and marsh lands 10 not erif in the
proportion ! stated instead OF attempting 70 con-
vey the impression tac, have miss,atei fsets.
3D. He says I could uuthfaliy have said
that Chittenden county was returned at
not over Il per cent In reply, never asserted
thst it was returned al 66 per cent as the
appraisals Of the listers show to the contrary. ]
DO site, however. that this county, although in
my opinion returned q. less than SO per cent,
vas still higher according to the value than any
other county and ask and earnestly beseech
every candid man and every man Of Judgment
to examine the present equalization, and see # il
is not so.
The question is, are other counties appraised
at g. TO - per cent, as testihei TO before the
committee Vas addison county appraised al
&c PEI cent. as stated before the committee,
when its lands were listed at only slS57 per
acre or Bennington al &c TO IS per cent, listed
at -. IS per acre. OF Caieiouia At 3 per cent,
listed at SI2.sO per acre or Rutland al - per
cent. listed at SlA00 per acre or Washington
al o. per cent. listed a. Sl236 per sere or
WiHdham at 70 per cent, listed al sli.9G per
acre; or Windsor at Sc per cent; when listed
At sI3.73 per acre
These were the rates yer cent. upon which
hose counties equalized al their respective eoun-
" conventions, as testified 5etore the committee.
Not a witness was put under oath, however and
Inc question is, are these statements correct
9Th. I did not state that au ill-fseliug was
towards Chittenden county by any
member Of the committee referred to members
# the House, as any one will perceive who reads /
II stated in regard to the matter and who mas
ny disposition 70 construe justly. So far as / .
IN aware. the members Of the committee we're .
ersonally friendly, although we Offered in .
pinion many times
9TH. In regard TO the resolution Of Judge .
'arks, will repeat ny former statement-there
las unnecessary haste. At the opening OF the
cry first meeting sitter ;he testimony WAS con-
luded, the resolution vas presented and was
5opted by the committee without any oPportu-
ity to compare notes in committee and the
hole process Of equalization occupied not to ex-
red 5 or 20 minutes This wss On Monday
.orning, and the Legislature was not to adjourn
ntil the following " eiuesday morning.
5th As to the importantly of certain mem
n, the writer states he knows nothing"
1fioe it to say, do.
It'll. In regard to the eleven signing the ma
rity report, allow me to state, in proof Of the
rrectness Of ny remarks, that it is provided by
ecial act Of Legislature in 1867 that the
Hartman Of the committee shall sign the re-
ut Of the committee.
The Chairman only, Of this same committee,
IS heretofore signed the reports; then why send
the House Of Representatives for certain of us
call Immediately at the Office Of the Secretary
State, and upon our arrival there request us
sign the report which the msjority had a.
ady signed, and all this before 1t iras decided
return a minority report? In fact, upon my
fusal to sign the report, and jus; as l was
out 10 leave the Office, some one ask
me if I proposed to bring in 2 minority
port; 1 replied in the negative. On ezami-
ton Of the acts Of '67, however, ascertAiasd
at it would be possible to bring in minority
port this was our.only alternative. did this
E next morning and both reports were then
nsidered together. These names were secured
en-, when no minority report ras erPecied.
committee the members from bennington, I
ledonia, Lamoille, Rutland, Washington,
and Windsor counties, at once arose J
4 voted in favor Of the report, making out !
IA. The member from a certain other county,
er some hesitation, having previously voted
At Chittenden stood at 20 per cent, voted in
7or Of this report whereby it was to be raised
per cent, thus making majority bare :
,iori.y," as the gentleman from Fairfax cor
,tly stated the last evening Of the session. This
,uber of the committee last alluded to explain
his action by stating that his county wa, left 7
changed by the resolution; but that 90 it was =
ugh on Chittenden county" OF words to thst
ect II is not a; all surprising that it was {
desvored to get all the names possible attached
the report with such majority as this Three ]
the members not voting in favor Of the reso- !
ion, signed the report when they did not know Z