Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1912-12-18
SOLONS AT MONTPELIER
Taxation, Publicity, Mileage and Other
bills Hold Center of Stage at
Capitol.

Taxation is occupying much time at
Montpelier, but between discussions
of this subject in its various phases,
other work has received consideration.
Several weeks of work is ahead and
long session is bound to result. Ad-
iournment will take place the last Of
this week until after Christmas and
possibly until after New Years. BY
rising vote, and without single mem
Der in opposition, the House ordered
to third reading bill appropriating
$40, 900 for transporting to Gettys-
burg, for the 50th anniversary of the
battle next July. Vermont veterans of
the Civil War. The Governor has en-
powered a commission of three to have
charge of the expenditure and he de-
tails in connection herewith. The
House passed the bill providing for a
census Of the maple sugar crop. Mr..
Hewitt of Plainfield explained that
Ohio has a similar act and that State
was our closest competitor in the
production of maple sugar. Yer
mont's annual crop is worth about ST.,
900, 900 and it is estimate that not
more than half the available maple
trees are tapped. The purpose is to
get an idea of the number of maple /
IL CSo ClldC Sc1II NC CoEpSo az q pAOAASs
The bill carries no appropriation.
The house occupied nearly all of !
{ Thursday in consideration of the taxa i
ton bill and rejected the proposal of
amendment to abolish offsets by a vote
of 14l to 81. The galleries were we'll
flied with spectators and many mem
/ bers of the legislature Of 1910 were
present and occupied seats on the floor
and galleries. They were in Mont
pelier to attend the reunion off the leg
islature of 1910. This taxation bill is
Il. 374, an act to regulate the taxation
of personal property, and to establish
"a uniform rate on certain classes
thereof 1t was called up by Mr..
!tComings of Riehford and the eight
proposals of amendment were reject
ed. Mr.. Comings said that he had the
utmost confidence and respect for the
gentlemen from Rutland but he be
lieved that he was wrong on his
amendment. He believed they could
stand by the committee bill and do the
business they were elected to do and
for which they were paid. When pro-
posal nine was read Mr.. Cook of Lyn-
don called for the yeas and nays.
This proposal abolishes all offsets.
Mr.. Wright of Westminster interro-
gated Mr. HuIett of Rutland to ascer-
. tain if the change would harmonic
with the present law. Mr.. Hulett
confessed he was not positive in view
of the fact that the hpuse killed the
other amendment. Me- Cook of Lyn-
don believed they could settle the mat
; ter of offsets now. MIR. Ryder of
, Rockingham agreed with him. MIR.
Comings urged the passage of the
original bill. He opposed the amend
, ment. He stated that While the bill
: did not meet with all his ideas, he felt
it was give and take measure. He
criticised t as a compromise law.
Mr.. Miller Of Bethel opposed tie en-
tire abolishment of offsets. He felt
that there were a great many people
who needed the present offsets and it
would be an Ing ustice to them to de-
prive them of the offsets. Mr. jose of
Johnson favored the doing .ay with
the Offsets and it would be a great
benefit to the larger number. Yer
mont, he said, was unique on this Sub
.ject and their neighbors wondered how
they stnod it. Mr. Martin of Benning-
ton believed in the offsets and opposed
the claim made by some that all who
secured offsets were dishonest. He
, favored the offsets as under the pres
| ent law. They should encourage in
dustries to come to Vermont and not
drive them away. Industries needed
money anG under the offset clause they
could borrow it without danger of
doeable taxation.
Mr. Hayes of Strafford favored the
, bill and a limited offset, although
, personally he was in favor of the en-
tire aboIishment. Mr. Cook of Lyndon
opposed the offsets and favored the
proposal of amendment. The grand
) list o. his own town. he said, would
be almost doubled. It would get taxes
from the men who could afford to pay
taxes. He favored the intangible bill
if that also abolished the offsets. Mr.
= Wright of Westminster said the ques-
E tion was not new. In 1888 the legis-
lature adopted joint resolution for
= the governor and council to consider
= the subject of offsets. He said he
would vote against the proposal of
amendment as he believed this legis-
= lature ought to do something with the
: taxation question. Mr.. Thomas of
Salisbury favored and Mr.. Wright of
Williston said he did not believe in
I halfway measures. Mr.. Hulett Of
q, Rutland supported his amendment.
He said that any extra tax by the
: merchant could be added to the ex-
. pense of his business. 1t would make
,. no difference to him. The farmers and
the customers would pay the taxes
= Mr.. Blanchard of Windsor would abol-
|, ish all offsets or none. Mr.. Jose of
y Johnson interrogated the member
from Rutland as to the location of the
law in the Massachusetts statutes
- where goods in warerooms were not
taxed. Mr.. Hulett replied that he hac
said that the merchant would be likely