The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1910-12-08

real animal, black in color, and his
~depredations were committed in the
darkness of the night. He thought
every patriotic Vermonter should
favor the bill. He said SHRDL
favor the bill.
Mr.. whitney of Marlboro moved
to amend by making the bounty So
instead of $40. Mr. Cory of Mont
pelier opposed the amendment and
favored the bill. He said bears had
increased since the bounty had been
removed and were carrying off
sheep. He thought it one Of the
best bills before the House.
Mr.. Peck of Burlington thought
there was a serious side to the ques-
ton. This was a preventive measure
or it was nothing. He thought $40
a small bounty. Mr.. Ellis of Pitts
field said eight black bears had
been taken in the vicinity of his
home since the session opened and
he favored the bill.
Mr.. Guernsey of Rochester op-
posed the amendment and favored
the bill. He and his neighbors had
lost sheep as the result Of the de-
predations of bears and he told how
farmers had been driven out of the
sheep raising business on account of
the killing Of sheep by bears.
Mr.. Wells of Victory told of the
damage done sheep by bears. Mr..
Gfo ford ~ nrotf1nhAr +has,nbA
hunters would shoot bears for the
sport there was in it. Mr.. Eaton of
Hancock said he had lost fourteen
sheep by bears the past season. Mr..
Williams Of Peacham and Mr.. Clark
Of Morristown opposed the amend
ment-
Worse Than Worthless Dogs.
Mr.. Bond of Chester thought it was
the bear rather than the worthless
dog that was driving the sheep out
and opposed the amendment and the
amendment was thereupon lost.
On motion of Mr.. Pittredge the
debate was ordered closed and the
bill was passed. Mr.. Daniels of
wal Ch tdIlC Wy L. tLf, tldIlh6 W
appeal by taxpayers and towns from
appraisals. Mr.. Fisk of Barre Town
opposed the bill. He thought it was
a club for wealthy taxpayers to
hold over the boards of civil author
ity.
Mr.. Fletcher of Cavendish said he
hoped the question of prejudice
would not enter into the discussion.
The only question involved Ia one
of equity. He asked if an impartial
board Of equity would do wrong to
any town. Sometimes the majority
of such a board will refuse to act.
At times the selectmen would like
to appeal to such a board. The bill
provided for a disinterested board
of three persons in the town where
the trouble arises. Probably it would
be called into use seldom. He said
the bill was no innovation. Several
years ago such a board was in exist
enc being appointed by the assist
ant judges of the county court.
Mr.. Boyce of Waterbury favored
the bill. He said nearly all States
have such a board as a court of last
resort in appeals from listers. There
is often great difference in the ap-
praisale of the same kind of prop
erty. The selectmen should have the
right to appeal where appraisals are
too low. Mr.. Gatchell OF Charleston
said this bill was purely a matter of
equalization of taxation and h. ia
yored It.
Is An Important Bill.
Mr.. Wall of Dorset thought this
one of the most important bills Of
the session and because he believed
members were not familiar with the
full merits OF the bill he moved that
it be ordered to lie and it was so or
dered.
The following bills were read a
third time and passed: S. 76, relat-
ing to lights on automobiles and
motor vehicles; S. los, relating to
expectorating in public places; H.
SOC, authorizing the City of Burling-
ton to issue bonds.
Mr.. Chaffee of Rutland presented a
petition favori~ the passage of Fl.
241, the bill appropriating 100000
for good roads. On motion of Mr..
Wright of Westminster the House
adjourned at 5 O'Clock.