Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1874-11-11
VOL. 7O.--3552. NO. 4.

ond classs Of actions. Without this amendment
such persons are forever shut ont from tho ear of
the court. and must forever remain in iail JIe
| did not believe that the man holding funds In a
| hduciary capacity, and nisapplying those funds
was any more criminal than the man who will
| iully stole the same amount from his ncighbor
| And yet he Il put under heavier penalties In the
mrs, case than in the last and to relieve himself
| nf the heavier penalties Of appropriating money
| held IN tduciary capacity to his own use he had
| better 60 and steal the amount necessary 10 nav
the creditor In the one case and suffer Tho t,cr-
| aity oi theit This bill but put an unfortunate
| class Of men In a position where they can make
| statement of the facts in their case and IN they
/ the Jail
Mi DAVENPORT of Wilmington thoupbt
/ there was undue effort to PASS this bill fbe
/ House had once deliberately decided against it,
| passage, and he protested against this constant
reconsideration Of questions. lie was opposed
10 the bill and read from the statutes that there
was provision in the law a. Il now exists TO cover
all these cases and Il was unnecessary 20 legisla,e
any further. He spoke at length against the bill
saying that We are passing bills here every day
70 pay men to catch rugueS, and now We are asked
10 pass this bill TO enable these same rugues TO
get out Of jail through the ear Of the court We
better act consistently and kill this bill at once
Mr. HYDE Of Castleton, said that in regard 10
The statement made here this morning, that the
House passed similar bill 10 this, over Governor
hllingham's veto but we were not told that the
Senate refused TO pass the bill over the veto lie
so much is said and he believed this bill was
very much IN the same class as the back pay"
Of which We have heard much II is retruact-
i've in its provisions, which is against the policy Of
the state, and such legislation j. objectionable in
every particular.
Mr. MuNSON Of Manchester in explanation a
the case of which somuch had been said, read from
the advance sheets Of the case rs published in the
reports of the decisions of the supreme court and
To give the House the whole case he read the full
report and decision Of the court about 10 be
published lie then suggested that those gentle
men who are 50 urgent against the passage Of this
bill, were afraid to have the debtor In this particu-
lar case brought before impartial Judge lest jus
tice should be done and the debtors request he
granted. lie did not believe there was any more
crmnality IN this case than In thousands Of cases
where crminality could be alleged lie hon
ored this man that he refused to sign deed that
would take away from his wife the property Of
which she was possessed before she married him,
TO satisfy the greed Of grasping creditor, when
there was really no criminal intent on his part in
not being able to pay his debt. This bill is just in
rs provisions and should he passed II is better
that we should put the term for which creditor
Is to he incarcemted in the hands Of an impartial
judiciary, rather than To- leave an unfortunate
debtor 20 the mercy of a graspng creditor.
Mr.. MILLER, Of Ryegate, demanded the pre,i-
Gus question Withdrawing his demand twice to
accommodate MIR Grout, Of Barton and Mr. Mum
son, OF Manchester, who desired to make personal
explanations in regard to certain statements made
in the course of debate but declining to withdraw
again TO permit Mir HYDE Of Castleton, to make
an explanation The demand for the prcyiou.
question was seconded by the House, and the
main question was ordered VIII the House re-
consider the vote refusing the passage OF the bill?
On this question Mr. DAVENPORT, demanded
the yeas and nays which were taken--ayes lii,
nays 50 So the House rccousidered its vote re-
fuTing the passage Of the bill The question then
recurring Shall the hill pass?
Dir. ABBOTT, Of Cabot, moved that the House
adjourn and pending the motion to adjourn, Mr..
Grout, Of Barton, asked Mr. Abbott to withdraw
the motion To adjourn 10 enable him to introduce
bill which request MIR Abbott granted; but the
speaker decided that the motion to adjourn hay-
ing been withdrawn, the question required shall
House bill, No 63, pass? Mr. Abbott seeing that
the withdrawal Of his motion to adjourn did not
effect the object which he designed, renewed the
motion TO adjourn, which was disagreed to--ayes,
90; nays 0S
ihe question then being shall II GO be passed?
Mr.. Abel, of West Haven, moved that the hill be
laid on the table and be made the special order for
next Monday, at three O'Clock in the afternoon.
Pending this question Mr.. ABEIL, Of West
Haven, moved that the House adjourn, as there
appeared To be no chance for the gentleman from
barton to introduce his BILL which motion was dis
agreed to-ayes, Is; nays, l22.
The question again recurred, shall II. G3 pass?
MIR HENRY, Of Chester, demanded the previous
House, and the main question was then put.
MIR DAVENPORT, Of Wilmington, demanded
the yeas and nays, which were taken-ayes III,
nays 50 so the bill was passed
Bus introduced and referrei-By Mr.. CIRCUIT,
Of Barton, in amendment Of section Of No. ~ OF
the acts Of lS4g To incorporate the village Of BEN
nington, and relating to Bennington school dis
trict TO committee ON corporations Mr. Grout
explained that this bill was to take the place Of
the original which had been lost in committee
BY Mr. KENNEDY, of Fairfield, defining the
duties of justices Of the peace in regard TO the
payment OF witnesses and otl or fees; to commit
tee on judiciary.
on motion Of MIR. sMALLEY, of Burlington, adj
iourued