Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1878-04-26
(Fini-l
Town Bonds.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
The last number of the Bennington Banner
brings the full text of the recent decision of
the Supreme Court. in the case of the Town
Of Bennington against I. W. Park. In this
case the town sued Mr.. Park, or " brought
a bill in equity against him, claiming that
the assent Of the majority Of the taxpayers
Of the town to bonding the same for the con-
strucron OF the Harlem Extension Road was
never duly obtained; and praying that be
be required to surrender to the town the
bonds held by him, and to account to the
town for the bonds sold by him. The case
was heard at Montpelier, before Chief JUS
tice Pierpoint, and Judges Barrett, Royce.
RedGeld, Ross and Powers. 1t was argued
by Messrs. A. B. Gardner and C. N. Dayen-
port, for the orators and by I. W. Park.
in person, and Z. j. Phelps, for the deien-
dant. The opinion Of the court was deliver
ed by Judge Powers.
Taking up first the question of the consti
tutionality Of the act under which the town
was bonded, the court takes the position
that railroads are public Improvements.
which promote the general welfare Of the
public, or Of some special locality, which isa
part OF the general public. Money raised in
their aid by public tax is therefore raised for
public purpose, and no provision of the
Constitution is iniringed by such taxation.
The question, says Judge Powers. az to
the right Of the Legislature to empower
municipalities, to aid in the construction of
railways which are thought to be of pre-
spcctive benefit to them, has long since pass
ed from the region Of debate to the domain Of
authority and fixed law.
In this case counsel coDcede the existence
Of the general power in the Legislature to
authorize municipal aid to railroads, but con-
tend that it can be exercised only by the
consent Of the towns affected, expressed in
open town meetings, and only in favor of
railroads within the State. In my judgment.
tho concession that the power eIists at all in
the Legislature yields the whole ground OF
debate. and answers both objections made in
the case.
1t IL difficult to see how the Legislature
could more eflectually guard the rights of
voters, than it has in the act in question. II
it he said that fraud was practiced in pro
curing the assent of the voters, it may be
answered that it might be under any mode
Of voting which the wisdom of man has yet
devised. Ballots in town meetings may be
miscOGntcd or uncounted, Illegal votes may
be cast, voters may DO intim dated, cheated
OF bOught-hut in the hands Of honest Off
cials, vote taken under the provisions Of
this act, is much more likely to photograph
the public wish, than one taken in town
meeting. The opportunities for fraudulent
voting are much lessencd by the formality
required.
The suggestion made in the argument that
towns in Vermont. especially Bennington
and her sister towns, whose charters ante
date the formation Of the constitution, have
certain chartered or natural rights which
were never surrendered in the delegation of
sovereignty to the State Government, and
which exists as sort of civil birthright, in
New England society, among which is the
inalienable and invaluable right of deiberat
ing upon and discussing in town meetings
all questions affecting town interests, ad
vances new theory OF political rights. never
before evolved in the study of Constitutional
law.
That no such paramount right is vested in
towns chartered by the State must be sprar- !