Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1871-11-22

that the subsequent act passed In 1868, per-
hitting the town, with the consent of the
Railroad Company, to change the terms of
the subscription, the consent of the town, IN
a town meeting called for that purpose, hav-
ing been first obtained, was also unconstitu-
tional; that the commissioners acted fraudu-
lently in obtaining the assent of the tax
payers Of the town to a subscription, and
that in fact majority in number and amount
of grand list was not obtained on such in
strument of assent, which the commission
ers knew when they falsely and fraudulently
made their certificate that such majority had
been obtained The case was ably argued
by E. J. Phelps, ESQ, and B. Ii. Smalley,
Esq, for orators and by Fl. ). Royce, Esq
and Hon. L. P Poland for defendants The
full bench heard the case, and last Friday
Judge Peck announced the opinion of the
majority of the court, briefly stating the
points decided The court decided:
l. That it was not unconstitutional for the
legislature to authorize the town Of Swant0n
t. aid in the construction OF the Lamoille
Valley Railroad.
. That the act of 1867 authorizing the
iowa to furnish such aid is not rendered un,
constitutional or void on account of the par
ticular mode Of proceedings prescribed by the
act Tor the town, in renderiag such aid
The town at town meeting warned for that
purpose having voted, according to provl-
sion in the act, to accept the act, the vote tc
accept the act is an acceptance Of the provi-
sions relating to the mode Of the subsequent
proceedings under it.
3 That the proceedings Of the town and
the commissioners under the act were in ac-
cordauce with its provisions the act Of 1867
making the sworn recorded certificate Of the
commissioners conclusive Of the facts therein
stated, and 50 far as anything is shown in
the case the court 50 regarded it. If The
certificate can be impeachcl for fraud tho
court did not find the fraud established by
the proof.
j. That it was competent for the Lezisla-
ture by the act of 1865, as it did, to author
ize the town by vote Of the legal voters in
town meeting warned for that purpose. t,
modify or vary, by consent Of the railroad
company, the terms and conditions Of their
subscription that such notifications having
been made according u the provisions of that
statute, Ethe subscription on the terms Of tn,
contract. as thus modified is binding upor
the town.
The court therefore held that the orators
were not entitled to the relief prayed for and
dismissed the bill with costs to defendants.
Judge Blrrett di-sented from some point.
in the opinion Of the court. more especially,
as we understood hun, from the third point
as stated above. On this point we under
stood Judge Barrett to disagree with ti'
other members Of the court both as to the
conclusiyeness OF the certificate Of the com
missioners, and as to the fact whether ma
iority OF the grand list in number AMI amount
had been obtained He also express ID de-
eided disapprobltion Of the trick that seemed
to him to have been practiced upon the tax
PAYERS Of the town, bv first obtaining their
assent to a proposition u aid the road upon
conditions beneficial to the town, and after
wards, by the help Of the act Of the Legisla-
ture Of 1868, striking off those conditions By
a vote in town meeting. H agreed with
the court as to the c9nstitutIonality Of thC
law Of 1867.
Neither Judge Peck nor Judge Barrett
had prepared written opinions, owing tC
want Of time, bat they viii, of course, el-b-
orately discuss the questions decided in the
opinions which will be prepared for the VOL
ume Of reports.