The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1890-11-26

Adjourned
HOUSE-MORNING.

Purity Of EleciOnS.-S. 152, to purify
elections, came up as unfinished business
and Mr.. Marshall made an explanation OF
some of the features of the bill.
Mr.. Croft thought there was no call for
the bill 1t is cumbersome and irksome.
Mr.. Taylor Of Fletcher thought the bill a
useless one.
Mr.. Croft moved to amend, making it APP
plicable only to towns of over 1900 inhab-
itants.
Mr.. Darling of Chelsea opposed the amend
ment, as did Messrs. Robbins, Mann En-
right and EMERSON, and the proposed
amendment was disagreed to.
Mr. Mann proposed to amend by making
it applicable of towns of $1,000 inhabitants
unless in smaller towns a petition was pre-
sented asking for the system.
Mr.. Houghton of Stamford opposed the
amendment He wanted the small towns
to have the benefit of the system.
Mr.. Moloney questioned Mr.. Mann, and
objected to the amendment He said it was
easier to get purity of elections now than
thirty days before election by petition as
proposed in Mr. Mann's amendment
Mr.. Brown of Nottingham told of some of
the experiences at elections in his town.
He opposed the amendment, and il was dis
agreed to.
Mr.. Billiard, speaking on the main ques-
ton, said this was not a revolutionary
measure. We have always in theory
wanted, and indeed had, a secret ballot;
and if we can change the theory into prac-
tice, IL is wise TO pass such law
Mr. Chamberlin of Bradford proposed an
amendment, which was opposed by Mr..
Marshall, who said the provisions of the
amendment were provided for in the bill,
Amendment lost.
Mr. Abel, speaking on the main question,
opposed the bill. He thought this bill in
terfered with the freedom of voters instead
of giving freedom. The bill compelled the
voter to vote for some name on the vote,
whereas by the old system he could vote for
whomsoever he chooses to vote.
Mr. Humphrey disagreed with the gentle
man from West Haven. He said the old
system admitted of the old game of setting
watch upon the movements OF the voter.
The present system defes freedom of ballot,
This bill gives it, and this is argument
enough in favor OF the bill.
The rules were suspended and bill read
third time.
Mr.. Thompson removed objections relat-
ing to cases where no choice was made on
first ballot, by saying that the bill did not
change our election laws but only the man
ner of casting the vote.
The gentlemen from Clarendon, Corn
wall and Royalton spoke upon the main
question.
Mr.. Miller of Shelburne did not believe in
putting so much expense upon the small
towns as this bill requires
The bin passed in concurrence,
The Educational BM,-H. ALB. taken up as
special order, and after various minor
amendments the main question came up
and the yeas and nays were called for =
yeas, 1874; nays, 10.
Bureau Of In,nligrdtion.-S. 161, providing
for bureau of immigration, appropratinl
sum not to exceed $1,000, was taken up.
Mr.. Proctor of Fair Haven moved &c
amend the bill by striking out all after the
enacting clause and inserting a single sec
ton repeating the law of 1888 upon this sub
ject.
Mr.. Buffum opposed the bill. He though
the work done by this commission ought u
be done by private enterprise.
Mr.. James favored the bill on the grounC
that the abandoned farms must be adver
tised