Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1902-12-11
ATTORNEY BROWN SPEAKS.

! City Attorney Brown said If the Cham
plain Transportation COMPANY had any
rights on King street this bill, didn't af-
feet them. Whatever property they have
there IS devoted to public utility and We
could not conhscate it without a specific
act After the matter was talked over
, our city council voted not 10 consider
this point. We only ask to invest $4,000
in this dock property and it isn't prob
able that the city would ever ask for a
special act. The Central Vermont have a
dock at the foot of College street and
they not Directing to this measure.
| The only theory upon which we could
ever take away the docks of the Cham
plain company would be upon the ground
that the purpose for which we needed
them was a greater public utility than
theirs If 1t ever comes to that the party
having the best claim ought to have the
property. If the public good demands that
Burlington have IT, then they will get
| it. And they can't get it any other way
| Mr.. Jones said if the company has vested
| rights we must show that we have ex-
| hausted all other means before we dis
turb them. There is no intent to take this
property, but if it was excepted in this
| bill it might affect the law: they might
be able to show it was unconstitutional
He saw no reason for including the King
street exception in the bill.
LAWYER BURNAP'S SPEECH.
w. l.. Burnap explained the ground on
! which the indictment was ba sed There
is no question as to the right of Bur-
| lnGtou to build a dock. He said they
were willing to put into the bill that
pending litigation should not be affected
| He said to make an exception on the
part OF King street would be an injustice
If it he found that the Champlain Trans
portation company has acquired the right
to that ill they made they don't need any
! i. ,l.s, Lii.
settled as to all such matters. Property
cannot be taken anay by eminent do
main. only by specific act. They never
| have given a single reason Tor having
this in.
MIR. WH1TTEMORE AGAIN.
Mr. .Whittemore said the boundaries of
the city have been extended since this
| dock was built They were then ri2ht
| along the shore of the lake at low water
mark. If the city dosen't want to hurt
the rights of the Champlain Transporta-
| ton company, why not let this amendment
| be made. He didn't believe the citizens of
Burlington wanted to take this dock If
| this amendment doesn't affect the bill at
| all, why do they object to it? They have
other streets at the foot OF which they
| can build the dock. He could not sec why
| they had singled oIt the Champlain
| Tra nsportation company in this prosccu-
ton. lie knew the people would like to
| have the Champlain Transportation com
| panys dock remain just as it Is. In case
We are defeated he said the result would
be n fine for obstructing the streets. Clti-
| zcns would have to leave their carriages
! on Battery street and walk down to the
| dock He urged that amendment in ques-
| ton be left In the bill. He admitted that
| il the city should get this power and it
| turEed out that its use for the property
| was greater than that of others il could
probably take 1t.
| lie referred to another indictment that
| nothing was said about namely against
| the Shepard & Morse Lumber Co. which
| is a private corporation. The State pro-
| poses, he said, to give away certain rights
| in street to the city of Burlington, after
| they have started this prosecution, and he
| Indicated that the aldermen had insisted
| that these two amendments were accep-
| able
| OTHER REMARKS.
In reply Alderman Wood explained that
| whatever may have been the informal eX-
| preston Of the aldermen it was voted at
| A formal meeting that these amendments
| he put in This was embodied in a petit
| ton brought here signed by over 200 bust
| ness men
Attorney Brown denied that anybody
| had been specially singled out. He asked
| Mr.. Whittemore how he, as a lawyer,
WI ef the chi n nIlST <~;.s do ,,o.. ,u