Litchfield enquirer., 1873-04-03

FO0klyn claimed they could and would
 nediately construct a railroad from D Danielsonyille to Brooklyn-a distance oi 1 fsur and half miles-and presented to the Legislature petition for the incorpo. l ration of . railroad company so be known l as the Brooklyn and Killingly railroad company.
 This petition, with resolution, came before the raiirOad committee in. due time and prominent citizens of Brooklyn and Killingly were heard in aid of the peti-
 ton. All represented that If the charter was granted hework would be commenced immediately and prosecuted to early completion. The committee agreed to report in favor of the petitioners, and handed the resolution to the parties to print.
 After the printed copies were distribut- ed in the house, and before the original had been reported to the house from the committee. several gentlemen from the county interested ill the court house con- test, some of whom were members of the legislature, called my attention to the fact that the terms of the resolution gave the parties proposing. to build his four mile railroad five years in which to com plete 1t. They claimed that such time was unreasonable, and longer period by two years than the legislature granted in it's charter to the Boston, Hartford and Erie railroad company, whose line extend cd across the entire state; that this reso- lution, if passed with that provision, even If the road was not constructed, would be . standing argument against further legis- lation upon the court house question for term of five years; that the convenience of the county demanded that if the road was to be built at all it should be built speedily, as promised by the petitioners in their evidence before the committee, and therefore the resolution should be reconsidered by the committee before it was reported to the house, and shorter time fixed in which to expend the money and complete the road.
 Before reporting the resolution to the house called the attention of the com- mittee to the objections made to this part of the resolution, which objections seem ed to me reasonable, as they did to the other members of the committee present, and by the direction of the committee the resolution was amended so that the con- pany should expend $25, 900 in one instead of three years, and complete the road in two instead of five years.
 When the resolution came up in the house, as chairman of the committee explained it's provisions, and in the course of the explanation stated that the origi- nal resolution had been amended in the particulars above specified. Before the passage of the resolution in the house an amendment to this very clause of the sec fiOn of the resolution under considera- tion was offered by a member of the house requiring the expenditure of 10000, in- stead of $25, 900, in one year, and adopt ed. This amendment was either stated by the speaker or read by the clerk in con- nection with the manuscript resolution which had been amended by the commit tee. This circumstance would seem to show that in addition to the statement that had already made, the house had knowledge of the fact that the manuscript resolution had been amended by the com nlittee, because that clause of the section, when now proposed to be amended in the house, must have been read by the clerk or stated by the speaker before a vote s5sas taken npon it by the house.
 ~-e While the resolution was pending in the senate Messrs. Martin, Gallup, Stod- dard and myself had consultation, dur ing which We had in our possession uS when it was agreed, at the re- quest of Messrs. Martin, and Gallup, that MT. Stoddard in the senate should move to reject the amendment to the res- olution made in the house requiring the expenditure of $40, 900 in one year, and thus leave the resolution as left by the committee requiring the expenditure of $25, 900 in one year. With this amend ment the gentlemen expressed themselves as perfectly satisfied with the resolution. Nor have heard anything to the contra " till very recently. Mir. Stoddard made the motion as agreed, and the senate hay ing rejected the house amendment, the resolution then came to the house for a concurrent vote. Even had the resolution in its amended form passed unnoticed in the first instance, at this time the friends of the resolution were perfectly we'll aware of its shape, as they had examined the manuscript resolution, and either of them had full power to make any amendment or alteration they desired by motion, as the whole matter was again before the house for any action it might choose to take in reference to it.
 The above is a correct statement of the circumstances attending the passage of the resolution in question, and of my con- nection herewith, as recall them. It will be seen that the charge that was guilty of any unfairness in this matter is entirely unsupported by the facts.
 Trusting that those papers that have So conspicuously advertised the charges will have the fairness to publish my statement in reply, I remain, yours truly,
 JOHN M HALL.
 Willimanfic, March 24th, 1873.