The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1888-11-14
State Aid to Towns.
FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

FOR BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION.
Eight years ago Isle La Motto, in the
county of Grand Isle, asked for state aid
for the construction of bridge to the main
land. Five thousand dollars were appro-
priated for that purpose. Again in 1882
that town asked for further aid in the con-
structon of the bridge and $1,000 were ap-
propriated. In 1884 North Hero followed
the suit of Isle La Motto and secured an
appropriation of So, 600 for a second bridge.
In 1886 Grand Isle in that county was a
sutton for state aid to the extent of $4,000
for third bridge, one connecting the north
and south islands. A bill appropriating the
money passed the senate but failed in the
house. This bill is before the present legis-
lature, has passed the senate and is pending
in the house.
FOR RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.
Mr.. Furman, the member from Swanton,
has introduced a bill which proposes to com
init the state to an application of the prece-
dent established in the case of the towns of
Grand Isle county to the towns of other
counties which have incurred debts for the
construction of railroads. The Furman bill
recites the fact of the aid such towns de-
rived from the direct taxation by the towns
of the railway property within their limits
prior to the enactment of the corporation
tax-law in 1882, and the further fact that
the provisions of that law deprived the towns
of the benefit of taxation of the very prop
erty they had helped to create. The bill
then proposes to appropriate money enough
to pay the towns in question ten per cent of
the amount of all the bonded indebtedness
created to aid in building railways, less any
railway stocks or bonds such towns may
have received in consideration of town
bonds or money furnished the railroads.
Each town is entitled to such share of the
money appropriated as its debt is of the ag-
gregate bonded Indebtedness. Five per
u, 1.n To-.
per cent January l. 1891 The aggregate of
this bonded Indebtedness is not known ex-
actly. 1t is probably somewhat less than
100000 1t may not exceed S1,750,OOO
Ten per cent of this sum is S175, O0O the
amount the Furman bill would appropriate
and distribute, if the estimate of the aggre-
gate bonded debt for aid of railways is
correct.
If TEN PER CENT, WHY NOT ONE HUNDRED
PER CENT?
Why should the state assume one-tenth
of the town railway debt? If it is right, if
there is any good reason why it should as
sumo ten per cent, why is it not right, why
is there not equally good reason for assum-
ing the entire amount? Is ten per cent of
right, ninety per cent of wrong, the full
measure of Vermont's standard of fair and
impartial dealing? Or is this simply the
first instalment of full reimbursement? And
if it is proposed to reimburse the towns
build railways, will the Legislature also
reimburse the individuals who before
bonding was devised contributed person
ally to the construction of the Vermont
Central and other of the early railways of
the state, and which brought financial ruin
on many too credulous or too enterprisng?
Will the state make flesh of the towns of
Grand Isle and exceedingly lean fowl of the
towns of Lamoile, Essex, Washington, etc?
LOGICAL SEQUENCE
There is hardly a reason that has or can
be given for helping the towns of Grand
Isle that does not exist in tenfold strength
in the case of the towns and individuals
that have burdened themselves and their
posterity to the third and fourth generation
to aid in the construction of railroads.
The convenience of the people at large, the
necessities of the localities along the routes
of the railways, the needs of travellers for
pleasure or on business, the development
of the resources of the state-its lumber
marble, granite, agriculture and manufac-
features, the contribution annually of over
100000 to the revenue of the state-these
very imperfectly and inadequately sum-
Marie the great array of benefits derived
by all the people of the state by the state
government itself, from the railways ere
ated by the aid of the towns and individual
citizens. What contribution has Grand
Isle county made to the general welfare
that her towns should be made the favored
and exclusive recipients of state bounty?
The full appraised value of all her property
is mere bagatele compared with the vast
aggregate of benefits accruing TO the state
from the burdens a few of its towns have
incurred. Now, if the state proposes TO con-
tinue to aid the towns of Grand Isle in pub
lie works which ale in fact of a purely local
and personal character, it will If it has not
already, establish precedent for the pas
sage of the Furman bill, and the final
assumption of the entire debt of towns and
individuals contributing aid TO railway con-
struction will be the logical and inevitable
sequence.
POINTS OF DIFFERENCE,
We have said that nearly every reason
for the aid given to the towns of Grand Isle
county applies with ten-fold force TO the
towns in other parts of the state which have
aided in building railways. An important
point in favor of the railway building towns
is this: The bridges built by state aid be-
come the sole property of the towns in
whose name the appropriation has been oh
tanned. The bridges are toll bridges, and
yield revenue to the towns owning them
AS an offset 10 their bonded debt, the towns
have in these bridges valuable property,
more valuable than the road-bed and track
of most of the railroads of Vermont The
state-the aX-payers of the state-pay half
the cost of these bridges, and pay in cash.
The towns for whose benefit the bridges
have been built issue their bonds for the
other half For this paper payment they
get the full ownership of the bridges-at
half their cost. 1t is not at all probable
that the towns will ever be taxed to pay
these bonds. They don't expect 10 have to
pay them This consideration has been
prime factor in all these schemes for bridg-
ing Lake Champlain's waters. These bridge
bonds stand to the towns that have issued