Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1874-11-25
VOL. 7O.-3554. NO. 6.

II 275 to incorporate tho St johnsbury Acad
| omy.
II l61 in amendment Of an act to incor, orat,
. the 81 Johnsbury Aqueduct company
] ". la2, 10 incorporate the Ascutney Mills
~ 2s for the better protection Of personal lib
crtv
Tho House also concurred in the Senate propos-
als Of amendment 10 the Joint resolution relating
| to reciprocity In trade with Canada.
/ ~, IN amendment Of section 70. chapter a,
general statutes TO committee on judiciary
/ y 81 in relation To the collection Of taxes; TO
committee on judiciary
;. l13, 20 change the name Of the Douglass
graded school district in Chelsea to committee
on education.
/ ; il3, to amend an act to establish the Nortl-
field graded school district IN Mortified to com-
mttee on education
s l2g, to authorize tho purchase Of land for the
vermont reform school TO joint committee on re-
form school
5. iol to incorporate the lIardwick & Marsh
hcld railroad company 10 committee on railroads
; 80, providing for the employment Of the in
mates at the reform school to joint committee cn
the reform school
The SPEAKER laid before the House commu-
nication FROM the Governor, returning II. LII, TO
incorporate l.. & 7 Fairbanks & Co.. without bis
approval and with his reasons therefor. The
question recurring, shall the bill pass notwith-
standing the objections Of the Governor the pas
sage Of the bill was reiused-ayes 0; NAYS 1885
THE Governor IN his veto message objects to
the provisions Of the bill forbidding the sale or
transfer Of the stock, except on attachment and
execution, or BY an administrator, and iorbidding
the deyisng Of the stock II the corporation choose
to take il at the valuation Of the Probate Court,
rs being pfeiudical 10 the rights Of third persons
lie considers the provision exemptng the stock
from taxation still more Objectionable lie saws
II the general law OF taxation Is just and proper
he can see no reason why any such snccia exefnp-
tion should be granted to this company. Such
exemption he considers unjust TO other manu-
featuring corporations and 10 other taN-payers,
unwise, aud establishing precedent Of special
legislation Of dangerous and mischievous ten
dcncy"l
Special oyder---lI iss, making provision for re-.
ulatng the rates for the transportation Of freight,
passengers or cars on certain railroads therein
named was taken up, the Qu stiou being on the
motion " MIR O'BHen, Of soatsburgh To recon-
slider the vote dismissing the hill
Mr HYDE, Of tasteiou, said the vote dsmissing
the bill was taken in a thin House, and several
members had expressed to him desire that the
vote might be rcconsidered lie then re-stated
the grievances " the slate and marble interests of
the West part Of Rutland county--how q corpora
tion owned and controlled entirely outside OF this
state had fixed such rates for the transportation Of
the products Of two Of the largest Industries Of
the state, as to completely cripple them They
had cudcayorcd to obtain redress from the Della
ware Hudson Canal Company, but had been un-
BILE 10 do so; and they had no other alternative
but to apply 10 the legislature for q redress OF
their grievances II 1t h. objected that this wopld
grievances are special, and can be relieved only
by special legislation. Mr. HYDE then reviewed
the testimony ~ taken before the committee on
railroads. showing that the rates charged by the
Delaware and Hudson Canal Company for tfans-
poItation Of slate and marble over a short portion
Of their road, IN this state is enormously higher
than is charged by the same company on that por-
tiun Of their road outside Of the state and very
much higher than Is charged for similar distances
over the roads Of other corporations in this state
lie said that unless the slate and marble interests
Of the state can have some relief from the oppres
sions Of this foreign corporation it will ruin these
business interests in the state. Before Mr.. Hyde
concluded. his time expired
Mr.. BARTLETT, Of Morgan, demanded the prt-
vi0us question, which demand was not seconded.
Mr. BAILEY, Of Iaifhaven said he was sent
to this Legislature from the midst Of this coniro-
versy, aud he dared not go back to his consttu-
ents without raising his voice against the oppres-
sions OF a foreign monopoly. We have in his
section q slate interest that IL valued at not less
than 81, 10000 which, If not oppressed by freight
charges as To entirely ruin 1t, is capable of be-
ing developed to an almost unlimited extent lie
thought the managers OF this railroad were mis-
taken in the policy they had adopted but il was
impossible 10 convince them that u proper reduo-
ton in their freight charges would result In
larger net income TO their road, by reason OF the
increased freghts that would be offered them
Mr.. BUELL., of Middletown, WAS opposed 10
singing out any one road ON which to fix a tariff
Of freights II We will reconsider the vote, he
would like to offer an amendment to relieve the
bill uf the objection Of special legislation.
Mr.. LADD, Of Alburgh opposed the motion to
reconsider, as he was oppOoed TO such special leg
islation and he thought there was no need OF any
such bill as this
Mr.. BATCHELDER, of Arlington, was opposed
to special legislation In regard to any railroad In
this state, and he should oppose the motion to re-
consider for the reason that he voted to dis
miss. lie thought there was too much special
legislation on all subjects and 1t would some day
give us trouble lie said IL had appeared on the
floor of this House that the Rutland county marble
interests do not now have to pay as high rates of
freights do the lenningicn iunty marble deal
ers and II We legisli1e in laVor Of the Rutland
dealers we are putting 1t In their power to compete
at great advantage In the Western markets for
their products. lie objected To any such special
legislation; he would favor general law to regu-
late the tariff on oil railroads, but could not vote
Mr. MUNSON, OF Manchester, said that he ui-
! derstands that the tariffs now charged by the
Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, are lower
than those charged by other roads, and hence
there no necessity for any legislation in re-
gard 10 this corporation. lie must therefore,
] vote against reconsideTing the vote
Mr. REED, Of Pawlet said that, as u farmer,
he was opposed TO this bill for he believed that it
would react to the detriment of the farming in
terests
MIR DAVENPORT, Of Wilmington, preferred
general legislation 10 special. aud II the motion
/ To reconsider can be reconsidercd, and the bill be
made general In It's application he should be
! pleased TO support it.
MIR GROL'f Of Barton, said he, as n member
Of the committee did not find the facts in regard
| to the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company, to
/ be as stated by MIR Munson. lie said that II did
appear before the committee that the discrimina-
tions on this road were greater than on other
roads in the state, and hence there might be more
| reason for legislation at this time.
Mr.. SMALLEY, Of Burlington, said this bill
stands simply In this position. here Is a complaint
Of oppression from certain interests on the Della
ware and Hudson Canal Company road, and the
! did, he did not believe we have the power "a
| remedy the evil complained Of.
Mr. LADD, Of Aburgh, demanded the previous
question, which was seconded by the House. The
. the bill be rcconsidered? MIR Bailey Of Fairhaveu
demanded the yeas and nays, which were taken
/ Ayes 2S, nays i6. so the motion to recon
slider was disagreed to-
ON motion ui Mr. PECK, OF Ira, adjourned.