Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-12-15

II.
to pay the Rutland county national bank the sum
therein named. Mr. Leavens said that no addi-
| tional evidence had come before the committee.
| He had not changed his mind from what he
thought when the bill was up before 1t was
large sum but he thought the bank should be re-
paid this sum. The money had been paid out in
| good faith
Mr. PALMER of Jericho thought it dangerous
precedent to pay states attorney for going off
with the officer at such an expense az Ia this
| Mr.. HINCKLEY gave his reasons for voting In
| favor OF this claim. He thought that the state
should not refuse to pay 500 when it had re-
ceived $500 IL was a matter OF prudence for the
officer TO take another person with him in going
over 1000 miles after the teller. Who would look
after the prisoner while the officer slept? and the
officer must sleep in going that distance. It was
| also eminently proper to have Vermont lawyer
| to assist the officer in case OF hdbedS corpus,
which was threatened.
Mr.. ALLEN Of Fair Haven favored the pay
ment of this claim, and said, II there had ever
been just claim before this house this was one
The state, even after paying the whole claim,
would be in about 81, 800.
Mr.. HARVEY OF Topsham spoke against the
| bill and said he thought the house had forgotten
about the bill. The simple question is Shall we
do better towards this bank than to private in
dvidual?
Mr.. CoLBURN of Springfield hoped the report
of the com. would be adopted.
| Mr.. HAPGOOD of Peru inquired who signed
the report, and was informed by the chair that 1t
was the gentleman from Topsham. Mr.. Hapgood
then said that was what he thought, and It was
because the gentleman from Topsham was in
| favor of the claim, that he had been selected by
| the chairman to make the report.
| Mr.. PALMER Of Waterbury inquired IL the
committee had adopted any different rule here
than in cases Of individuals, and was informed by
Mr.. LeaveDs that they had not.
| Mr.. WHITNEY Of Franklin explained the rules
| that governed the committee in their considera-
ton of claims Of this sort and gave the reasons
that induced the committee to report as they did.
Mr.. HOWE of Ludlow said he hadn't changed
| his mind from what he thought before He called
attention to bill to pay the widow OF George K.
| Chapman, of which the committee had allowed
one-half, and he proposed, II the house refused
the amendment to move to allow Just one-half in
this case
Mr.. PRIEST of Barre followed in opposition
| The question being, viii the house adopt the
amendment recommended by the committee, to in
sert in the blank S1ll.2S. 1t was decided in the
negative yeas 40, nays III
Mr.. HOWE moved to amend by filling in the
blank with s355 g.
Mr.. PAGE of Rutland said that the bank
thought that this whole claim was Just, and he
was authorized to ask that it be dismissed unless
the house was willing to allow what was right.
Mr.. HARVEY here interrupted the speaker and
asked who was to judge whether the claim was
right?
| Nc PAGE answered 1.-THE committee, who had
unanimously reported in favor Of it by the gen.
| tleman from Topsham."
MIR. HINCKLEY moved to dismiss.
| Messrs. WHITNEY of Franklin, Palmer OF Jer-
icho, Hapgood of Peru and Leavens of Berkshire
discussed the question"
Mr.. THOMPSON OF Irasburgh moved the pro-
yious question, which was seconded by the
| house.
| The house then refused to dismiss the bill and
adopted the amendment to allow S355,6i, and or
dered the third reading for tomorrow afternoon
Change Of reference. BOOTH, In behalf OF
the general CON-, moved that the consideration
OF H. 81, an act relating to divorces, be with
drawn from the general com. and referred to
| vyQa 40 rdn
On motion Of Mr.. KENT OF Bristol, adjourned
Friday, December IO-senate.
House bills reterred-H 30 an act to nay the
brothers and sisters Of Henry Wells the amount
OF state pay due him to com on claims.
II. 276, an act to legalize the grand list OF Cas-
| Teton for certain years; to com. on grand list
ii. 325, an act to incorporate the Canaan Aque-
duct company; to com. on judiciary.
| ii. :52, an act in relation to telegraph compa-
MES; to general com.
II. 1856, an act to amend sec. "a, chap. As, g. $. !;
| to com. on Judiciary.
| II. 40S, an act relating to estates of wards in
other states or Countries to com. on judiciary
| Third redding.-H go, an act approprating
money for the purposes OF the house OF correction.
Senators Bridgman and Dana made inquiries as
to the purposes of the appropriation called for,
and were replied to by Senator Peck. Senator
| Fuller proposed to amend by inserting provision
that no part OF the appropriation shall be used
! without the unanimous consent OF the directors
and the approval Of the governor. Senator Dana
thought the amendment unwse and unnecessary.
| Senator Fuller spoke in favor OF the amendment
and Senators Peck and Geed against it. Senator
Dunton explained the necessity of the work shop
| for which the appropriation was called. Senator
Brdgman thought that this was not the question.
| The directors had exceeded their authority and
the legislature should not endorse their conduct,
whether they had acted In good faith or not
Senator Fuller was Of the same opinion. Sena-
tors Peck and Start spoke against the amend
ment In answer to questions by Senator Gleed:
Senator Peck said that Governor Proctor had
nothing to do with the contract for labor in the
work house except to furnish stone below the
market price TO person who contracted for
the labor Except for this arrangement the men
confined in the work house would have been
without anything to do. Senator Fuller modified
his amendment by striking out the word " unan-
nous !" before the words I" consent Of the direc-
tors" Senator Cook continued the discussion
| Senator Dana demanded the yeas and nays upon
the amendment, which were taken, as follows;
yeas, Senators Bridgman, Brown, Cook Dwinel
Fuller, Gleed, Lane, Robinson and Weed-0;
nays. Senators Blodgett, Dana, Darling, billing
| North, Paul, Peck, Stafford, Start, Sykes
| Thatcher, Woodwork and Woodhouse-18; SO
the amendment was lost.
=, Special Orders: 197, an act relating to the
| Vermont reform school and children ordered to
be confined therein. The question was upon
Senator Gleed's amendment fixing the payment
| by towns at fifty cents per week for children
committed s under fourteen years Of age Senator
start discussed the amendment Senator billing
ham, for the committee, in answer to inquiries,
stated that there were now, with three exceptions
named, no children In the reform school who
were not formally committed for offences against
the law, and the board OF these three were paid
for at the rate of 81. 30 per week and they prop
erly belonged in the reform school. After some
discussion by Senators Gleed Fuller and Paul,
Senator Gleed withdrew his amendment, and
Senator Paul withdrew the amendment proposed
| by him yesterday and proposed another, provid-
ing for the payment Of fifty cents per week for
children fourteen years OF age committed 10 the
reform school by towns from which such children
are sent, leaving the sum TO be paid before that
age at 81. 90 per week. Senator Dana proposed
10 amend so that towns should pay fifty cents
per week for persons committed to the work
house from such towns; ordered TO lie TO give