Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1880-11-12

States Attorney can file an information and that he
| shall do hen ordered by The court. The House
| refused IL concur III all the proposals Of amenl'
| ment.
The Election of judges Mr.. Taft OF Burlington
called from the table the joint resolution providing
for Joint assembly to elect Judges Of the supreme
court this Afternoon at two O'clock, and moved 10
amend the resolution 50 as TO provide that joint
assembly be held for that purpose on Saturday
| next, at ten O'Clock.
| Mr. Thompson OF Irasburgh moved to amend the
amendment of Mr.. Taft 50 AS to make the lime for
| holding the joint assembly two weeks from to-day
| Mr.. Colbnrn OF Springfield moved to amend Mr..
| Thompsons amendment so as to make the time
THURSDAY November lin ", al al half-past ten a. m:
ment Of Nr. COburn. Tn, sesolution as amended
| was then adopted.
on motion OF Mr. Fuller of Randolph adjourned.
oUSE-AFTERNOoN
Special orier-H. IA, to repeal the Insolvency law
| OF is.6 came up special order and on motion Of
Mr.. Howe of Ludlow was ordered TO lie.
RepOrts-From committee Of members from
Washington county. 10y Mr.. Priest in favor OF II.
1874, Ian act 10 lay tax on the county of Washing
ton THE bill LAYS tax Of ten cents ON the dol
lar of the grand list of Washington comfy for the
| purpose of paying the county Indebtedness.
On motion of Mr.. Chaplin of Middlesex, the bill
was amended 50 as 10 provide that the treasurer OF
the county shall credit each town constable with
lie part Of the sum contained in his warrant
Third reading was ordered for tomorrow morn
ing.
The insolvency law-Mr Howe of Ludlow. called
from the table II. H. ian act To repeal an act 10 es
tabli5h courts of insolvency. ETC.
Mr.. Thompson of lrasburgh, said that he might
be accused of favoring the retention Of the insOlv
sncy law because he was Judge of Probate. For
his own part he was willing and even anxious that
all improper fees which Judges Of Probate received
should he cut of, and he would assist in doing it.
In regard to the act, IL was strong argument in
Its favor that almost every civilized nation In
Europe had an insolvency lgw-E gland, Holland,
France, Begium-every State in the Union and
even Canada.
Mr. nf SaiI AZ tha al Inuas
was whether the insolvency law was good for the
common people. lie reviewed the history OF the
national bankrupt laws and said that they were
abolished because the people demanded their re-
peal.
Mr.. Palmer OF Jericho, was in favor Of repeal.
He said that insolvency, or bankrupt, laws were
intended for emergencies, to deliver people from
the effects Of Immense losses caused by great
disasters, such as the Chicago aud Boston nres,
great etc, and after the emergency had pass
ed. the law should he repealed.
Mr.. Palmer. Of Waterbury, said that the court OF
chancery could set aside number OF kinds Of con-
tracts, and gave illustrations, and dwet upon the
example OF IN eXpectant heir which the court OF
chancery would set aside because the sale OF an
eXpectant Interest of an heir was unequal
Mr.. Hubbard Of Plymouth, thought the business
interests of this STATE would not allow the repeal Of
this law.
great stress upon The word grab" II q man owes
some money and the creditor attempts to en-
the grab" was on the other side when the debtor
grabs 30 per cent and pays the creditor 10 per
cent under such law this. lie thought We had
exempted" enough articles already without Eek
empting' the debtors from paying their creditors,
Mr. Brown Of Grand Isle, believed that the in
sovency law was humanitarian in its designs and Its
working. Ii relieved unfortunate men from the
load of debt under which they were staggering and
allowed them 10 start anew in business.
Mr.. Booth of Morristown, said the question
turned upon one point. II there was a necessity
for the law when II passed, did that necessity
exist now. He beevednot.
Mr.. Rogers of Waterville, moved the previous
question, Mr.. Howe seconded the demand. On
the question whether the main question should
be put, Mr.. Howe Of Ludlow, demanded the yeas
and nays, which WAS taken-yeas l42 nays ~.
The man question being shall the bill he read the
third time. Mr.. Horton of Chlttenden demanded
the yeas and uays which Were taken. as follows
yeas e., NAYS l25 50 the third reading was re-
fused.
Mr.. Buiierdeii Of Nottingham, moved that the
house reconsider tho Vote refusing the third read
ing in order ihGt there might he full and fair and
free understanding OF this question and said that
he had changed his vote ;" that he might move d
reconsideration.
Mr.. Howe of Ludlow, said that he had moved
that the hill lie ON the table IN the afternoon be-
the gentleman who introduced the bill was
absent and aftcrwadS there being no business he
had called il up and not hearing from the gentle
man who introduced 1t, supposed he did not want
to speak.
Adjourned.