Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1874-12-11
MORE ABOUT THAT VETO.

luz CHtOH ID paper pIluteu ~ liJuuVu,
on true democratic republican principles.
Il. & T. Fairbanks & Co. advertise in the
Union nearly as literally as they do in their
Official Bulletin at the head Of the Avenue.
They used to advertise in che FARMER, but
the FARMER wouldn't obey the dictates Of
the St. Johnsbury ring any better when we'll
patronized with advertising than it did with
out said patronage, so their patronage has
been judciously withdrawn, aud put "wherc
it would do the most good"
Week before last the FARMER was so un-
mindful of its duty to "the powers that be"
10 st. Johnsbury as to speak in disrespect-
ful language Of an attempt which was made
at Montpelier to pass law giving this COM
pOny exclusive and unjust privileges in re-
gard to taxation over "other corporations
and other tax payers" as stated clearly by
Judge Peck in his veto. The bill was
found SO Objectionable that not single man
was there who would vote in favor of pass
ing it over the governors veto in the House.
In the same article We stated that the Fair
banks firm were "noted for honor and public
spirit" and copied an article from another
paper in praise of their numerous charitable
and philanthropc works. We did this in
Justice to the members of that firm, but we
also exposed the trick which had been at.
tempted, in justice to the people Of YER
mont Last week VIC printed the bill aud
the veto, that all might Judge for them
selves. This the Union and other ring pa
pers did not do. But the Union actuated
by pure love of country, and by its woll-es-
tablisbed republican democratic principles,
aud of course not by its fiat take" of adver-
Using aud other patronage from the company
and the ring charges us with being "willing
and anxious to presume" that that firm at
tempted ito avoid its just share of public
burdens"
We are much obliged to the Union for
its patriotic aud friendly admonitions, but
we still fail to see the beauties of the bill in
question, or to believe that Judge Peck was
stupid old fool when he refused his sigma
ture to the bill.
We understand, however, that the princi-
pal reason Judge Peck objected to the bill
was the provision forbidding the devise of
the stock of the company, but compelling
the heirs OF any stakeholder to sell all stock
he inherits to the other stockholders if they
wish to buy. 1t is pretty generally sup
posed in st. Johnsbury that this pro-
vision was intended to meet one particular
individual case and keep an individual out
side the company. That provision was
stricken out of the bill as passed.
In order to give all sides of the question
we copy the following from the Argus,
which belongs to the party to which the
Union claims to belong, which party being
in the minority of course the Argus would
not put any too good construction upon
the action of the House. We are credibly
|
and voted the question was asked, "Werc
you within the bar when the roll was called ?
and they answered in the affirmative, they
having gone out after their names were
called, but came back to vote when they
found there was not a quorum voting. The
ArgtS'S statements should be taken with a
grain of allowance, we presume. Here they
are
The next matter of moment that came NJ
was the Grand List bill, struggled into the
House illegitimately on Monday, in violation
of the rules, known rs the Fairbanks bill. II
favored the exemption of theirs and Other
corporations property from taxation, ant
was intended us II general law. This bill !:
said to have been drawn by Judge Ross,
: who came over from st. Johnsbury on Mon
day evening with Horace Fairbanks, anC
got it before the committee on the Grand
List without its being first introduced in the
House. 1t contained the same exemption
clause embraced in the act Incorporating the
Fairbanks company, on account OF which
Gov. Peck vetoed that bill, This bill haC
been dismissed in the House OH Tuesday
afternoon, after full and free discussion
by some ten majority. In the meantime, 1t!
friends had been iudustriously lOg-rolling Ia
get reconsideration, and its passage, n
this late hour, was accomplished in u very
questionable manner. The newly elected
Speaker-Major Grout, of Newport-beng
III the chair, the yeas and nays were called
on its passage. There lacked eight votes o
enough for II quorum, and Speaker Grou
withheld the announcement of the vote SOM
fifteen minutes. In the meantime the friends
of the bill brought in four or live who wer,
not within tho bar when the roll was called
and consequently had no right to vote. Ye
they were allowed SD to do; and between
the Speaker, Clerk and attorneys of the bill
the whole number was swollen to III. which
still lacked one of being II quorum. III
Speaker mt this point announced that the bill
had passed. Objections being made, he SAT-
the Speakers vote would make n quorum
Great dissatisfaction was expressed all ovel
the House ut this manner of making up
quorum to pass favorito bill.
A portion of Hon. Horace Fairbanks
letter may be found in another place.