Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-11-17

tent witnesses Tor or against each other, whether
Joined as parties or not in all cases except the at
testation OF Wills etc, and where 1t is evident to
the court that IL would be violation OF marital
confidence. An adverse report made by a
majority Of the Judiciary committee.
MIR SMITH Of st. Johnsbury advocated the bill |
He said that it had long been the law in New
Hampshire, and he had been assured that its
practical workings were beneficial.
Mr. HINCHLEY of Chelsea opposed the bill on
grounds OF morality.
MIR HARVEY OF Topeham offered an amend.
ment providing that one shall not be permitted to
testify about the same fact, or circumstance,
which has been testified to by the other.
Mr. CIRCUIT Of Newport opposed both the
amendment and the bill.
Mr.. COLBURN OF Springfield favored the
amendment, because he thought 1t would help
kill the bill.
MIR. TAFT Of Burlington traced the history Of
the extending of the law that parties in interest
could testify, and he thought this was simply an
other step In that direction. There would be no
trouble in families created on account OF allow
ing the wife to testify. The clause which pro-
hbted either husband wife from testifying
when It would be n violation Of marital conf
dence, was wise one
Mr. PALMER of Waterbury thought there
were strong reasons why this bill should not be
passed, and gave illustrations of cases where
snch law would create bitter enmities.
Mr. BRIGGS of Brandon hoped the amendment
would not be agreed to. lie thought the wife
should be allowed to testify unreservedly or not
at all. If the bill should pass, he thought there
would be large increase Of petty suits. He
hoped the bill would not pass but II it passed, he
hoped the amendment would not be adopted.
Mr. HARVEY of Topsham advocated his amend
ment.
Mr.. HINCKLEY of Chelsea opposed both the
amendment and the bill.
Mr.. TAFT of Burlington, and Mr.. PRIEST Of
Barre spoke for the bill.
Mr.. COLBuRN of Springfield and Mr.. BROWN
Of Grand Isle opposed the bill.
Pending the discussion, on motion Of Mr..
BROWN of Grand Isle, adj
House-Afternoon.
Husband and rife as icitnesses.-H. AZ, an act
to amend sec. 81, chap. 30, G. s. entitled OF depo-
sitions and witnesses, came up as unfinished busi-
ness Mr. Palmer Of Waterbury, Mr.. Thompson
of Irasburgh, Mr. IIinckley of Chelsea, MIR.
Fifeld of Montpelier and Mr. Grout of Newport
opposed the bill, and Mr.. Priest Of Barre favored
was then lost, and the third reading refused.
The Rutland County National Bank claims
II. III, an act to pay the Rutland County Ma
tional Bank the sum therein named (ill 2Sl
was taken from the table the special
order for this afternoon at haf-past two. Mr.
| Page of Rutland said that there was a senate bill
of the same character which would soon come
before the house, and he moved that the bill be
laid upon the table until the senate bill had been
considered motion agreed to.
1d0ptions and changing Of ndnleS.-H 12S, an
act relating to adoptions and changes OF names
was taken from the table, as the special order for
| nalf- nhst TWO ms afternoon. I'm motion OF MT
Thompson a verbal amendment was made to rem
der certain terms of the bill more specific. Mr.
Thompson then explained the bill. lie said it
was a general law to provide for adoptons and
| changes of names being made under the super
vision Of the probate courts. 1t was believed
| that 1t provided for every case and would save
any special legislation. Everything must be
| done under all possible safeguards and there
could be no roguery under the law 1t was be-
lieved. Mr. Butterield OF Nottingham opposed
the bill. The third reading ordered for
tomorrow morning.
Encouragement Of manufactures 10, an
act to encourage manufactures, was taken from
the table as special order for this afternoon.
Mr.. ALLEN of fairhaven offered an amendment
providing for not taking away from parties
special rights already secured to them, The
amendment was adopted. Mr. Shepherd of
Brookfied offered an amendment which provided
that cows used in the manufacture Of butter and
cheese should be exempted from taxation, and
that the clause in the bill which only exempted
investments of 81 900 or over from taxation. Mr.
Brainerd of st. Adams (the chairman of the com
mttee on manufactures, which reported fayora
bly, to the billy, Mr.. Coburn of Springfield, Mr.
Ilinckley Of Chelsea Mr.. Allen of Fair Haven
Mr.. Ely-Goddard OF Ely. Mr.. Fowler ef Randolph
Mr.. Howe of Ludlow, Mr. Smith of SheburDe anC
Mr.. Hubbard of Plymouth favored the bill aDt
opposed the amendment, upon the ground that i
would tend to develop manufactures and thereby
benefit the state Mr.. Richardson of Stockbrdg,
opposed it, Mr. Palmer of Jericho demanded tn,
previous question, which Mr.. Howe seconded
Mr. Shepherds amendment was lost. The bill
was then passed by vote of l42 yeas To % nays
The Rutland County National Bank claim, again
S. 10, an act to pay the Rutland County Nationa
Bank the sum therein named (s7ll.2S) was re
ported favorably upon by MIR. Leavens Of Berk
shire, for the com. on claims
Mr.. LEAVENS gave history of the crime upo
which this claim is based, which was the defaul
Of William Charles Brown, the teller of the Rut
land County National Bank, last May. The ban
then procured a requisition upon the governor o
Colorado, and the states attorney of Rutlan
county and an officer went to Denver and 90
Brown The present claim is for the expenses o
so doing. The expenses proper of the requis
ton are si3i 20; telegraphing, sl6I 30; pho
Biography, SCI. 81. There were other small items
and the committee allowed the sheriff pay 70
fifteen days at 50 a day, $40. The total amour
allowed was Sill %. The bank paid a rewar
of $500 but that the committee did not allow
The bank paid all these expenses itself, and m
state had paid nothing, and had received 81, 90
from Browns bondsmen
Mr.. HARVEY of Topsham opposed the bill o
the ground that the amount was too large. Tn
, expenses were too great and were for the pr
vale benefit of the bank more than for the state
Mr. HlNCKLEY of Chelsea said that the bi
was Just and should be passed.
Mr.. WHITNEY of Franklin said the capture q
. Brown did not inure to the benefit OF the bank
directly OF indirectly.
: Mr. PALMER of Jericho, Mr.. Howe OF LUDLOW
= Mr., Harvey of Topsham and Mr.. Ilinckley {
Chelsea further discussed the merits Of the CLAIM
y Mr.. HApGOOD OF Peru favored the bill
. Mr.. SCRANTON of Vergennes demanded III
y previous question, which the house seconde,
!, Yeas I15; nays, ~.
n The question being, Shall the bill be read Il
= third me? Mr. Page Of Rutland demanded II
:, a yeas nays, pending which, on motion Of NJ
Curt # Georgia, adjou Led.
. Thursday, November 11-Senate.
> The president pro tenn. in the chair.
IA Bal introduced and referrod.-By Senator WEE
y by request an in relation to the state priso
"a to com. ON state prison. The bill provides
4 any person employed in or about the state prise
\, rs officer, guard or employe, in whatever capa
r ity, shall willfully negligently suffer any pr
oner TO go at large, or be visited, conversed wit
~ conforted or relieved within the prison, or shi
a. convey to or from any prisoners any commune
= ton, newspaper, matches or any article witho
: the appreciation of the superintendent he shall
a punished, etc,