The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1911-02-02

after the opening of the session in the
morning of Saturday. January q. As
it was probable that there would be no
session of either house in the afternoon,
and since the bill had been handed me
for the purpose Of getting it introduced,
saw that it would have TO be intro
duced during the morning session in one
house or the other in order to have it
printed BY Monday. As the House had
forbidden the further introduction OF
bills by individuals or committees ex-
cept of revenue bills from the committee
on ways and means, | saw no better
way of getting it into printed form than
to introduce il in the Senate. The com
mittee on banks, to which had been re-
ferred the Scribner bin, declined to in.
tr0duce it as a substitute. Ii it had
been offered by senator, 1t would have
been delayed by going through the hands
of the revision committee. To avoid any
constitutional objection, ] tried to get
it introduced in the House. I met the
House committee on ways and means
Tuesday. They were divided on the
question of supporting such a bill and
said that they did not want to take it up
in the House unless they knew how the
Senate stood They then agreed that. if
the Senate would pass the bill and send
1t to the House, they would LET il lie and
introduce a copy OF il as a House bill to
obyiate the constitutional objection Of
its origin So far as the committee
is concerned it kept its agreement, but
some House members outside Of the COM
mittee caused delay by referring the
constitutional question to the judiciary
committee. For such reasons the bill
did not reach its passage in the House
until Saturday afternoon, the day OF adj
iournment 1t came to the Senate at
its evening session. X was then discoy-
cred that there was a slight conflict be-
tween ii and House bill 900 in respect
to bank deposits nj excess OF $4,000,
i. &, If d man had $500 in a bank on
April /, 1912, be would have to pay 7-l0
of one per cent on $500 for that wear.
This would be no great hardship, for his
$500 would then pay only a rate Of lao
against the average rate OF lIA for the
whole state. The Senate could have sent
the bill hack to the House with an
amendment removing the objection. But
on consultation il was decided that this
would result in the death of the bill by
its friends. since SO many OF the repre-
sentatives had left town that an attend
ance Of constitutional two-thirds of
the House could not be obtained to act
upon the amendment.
The Senate. therefore, passed the bill
IN the form in which it came from the
House. It's friends did not regard the
conflict between the two bills as one
from which any serious impairment of
our revenue was to be anticipated and
they were in as good a situation to Judge
present privilege of scattering deposits
IN different banks Is sufficiently broad
to accommodate all depositors except a
very few. The average deposit to-day
is little over 1882 The removal of
the limit entirely cannot greatly in-
crease our revenue. The few people
who have large amounts to deposit will
generally prefer to distribute them among
different banks as a matter OF precau-
ton
But the governor evidently thought
that there might be grounds for the fears
of the opposition and vetoed bill that
would have tended to remedy some of
the crying evils of our present situation
and would have produced greater and
more benefcient results than any law
enacted by the legislature of 1910. The
favorable vote of the House tT6 to CO.,
upon the veto shows that the friends
Of the bill had a firm conviction Of its
wisdom conviction not born, as some
think. of hasty action, but Of as much
mature and intelligent consideration as
any measure that became a law How
many more legislatures will meet and
adjourn without. doing anything to solve
our tax problemg
John W. Gordon.