The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1913-10-22
Some at Council Meeting
Likened 1t to Wolf in
Sleeps Clothing
OTHERS CONSIDERED
1T BONA FIDE MOVE
Gospel Village Common"
Again Debated but With
out Definite Action

/ Around the real or implied purpose of
a petition for the Improvement of Cos
pei Village common, so-called, revolved
one of the most acrimonious debates of
the present municipal administration
last evening when.the city council came
together in regular session. To the pc
titlon, the signatures of threescore free
holders were attached and the signers
asked chat the three acres known
| through 10 decades as Gospel Village
common be converted to public uses and
| transformed into a park for recreation
purposes.
IL wasn't the first time that the com
mon had loomed up large in the delib-
| erations of Barre's city fathers and
among the councillors who participated
in the discussion last night there was
one who wasted no words in recognizing
the petition as an old friend. Alder
man Brown referred to it in the open
ing paragraph of his remarks as "an
old picture in new frame" S. Hol-
lister Jackson, who said he appeared as
citizen and not in the interests OF
the Congregational church, which society
now holds the legal title TO the prop
erty, emphatically declared the petition
to be anything but prototype of
.Esop's well remembered wolf in Sleeps
clothing, tabled character to which
allusion was frequently made during the
evening. Frank A. Walker, Alderman
David Dawson and Alderman Patter-
son were among those who Joined with
Air. jackson in resenting such an APP
pellation. Judge II. W. Scott was in
elined to agree with Alderman Brown,
insofar as he recognized good many
familiar features in the petition.
Twice the council had the opportunity
to record itself on the petition, for after
it had been tabled by an oral vote, the
mayor called the members to order
again and motion to take the docu-'
ment from the tab BILE was turned down
on yea and nay vote with the follow
ing outcome: Yeas, Aldermen Hoban,
Patterson, Dawson: nays, Aldermen
Bancroft, keefe, Brown and Mayor
Ward, Alderman Patterson took the
stand that the petition should be re-
ferred to committee for investigation.
1t was tabled ON Alderman Browns mo-
tion and the procedure was afterwards
sharply called in question by the mem
ber from ward two, who insisted that
the mayor was out of order.
More than once the spectacle obtained
of members rising TO point of order.
a recourse seldom sought by an admin
istrative body that has been notable for
methods of a parlor parliament. Alder
man Patterson limited, not vaguely, that
the gag rule had been the order of the
evening, and the mayor made a warmly
negative retort To the final motion not
TO take the petition from the table was
tackled an amendment instructing the
mayor to confer with the city attorney,
on The procedure to be followed, and to
report at the next meeting. The amend
meHt was occasioned by a question
which Attorney jackson raised as TO
the legality OF tabling petition 50
largely signed without preliminary
hearing. II was on this point that the
council rcconvened.
Though the land in question is held
by the Congregational church, citizens
of every denomination as well as pro-
fessional hue appended their names to
the petition. II was read by the clerk
and Mayor Ward was the first to air his
views. He didn't think the city finances
would warrant the expense of improv-
ing the property, as the various depart
appropriations were already
overdrawn. Apropos the petition he
pointed out that many of the signers
were the very men who were CRITICS.
ing the administration for alleged ex-
The same attitude was later assumed
by Alderman Bancroft, when he ven
tured to waive the technical aspects of
the question by emphasizing the pres
ent inadequacy of the citys finances.
a majority of the councillors
would likely Join the petitioners in de-
string improvements ON the common, he
circumstances made it highly
circumstances beyond the
control of the council, he intimated.
Things began to move when Alderman
Patterson moved that the petition be
referred to a committee to investigate
and report when the finances would i'm
tite favorable consideration. The mo-
.ion was not seconded, but Alderman
Browns motion to lay the matter on
the table was seconded by Alderman
Bancroft. At the same moment he arose
10 a point of order, allowing that the
notion was not debata Bile.
Almost simultaneously Attorney Jack
,on received permission from the chair
% speak. In substance, he said:
Church Has No Ulterior Purpose.
1T has been said that the Congrega-
ional church has an ulterior motive in
elling the property. 1t is not so. Per-
onalIy | am appearing as a citizen and
rot as representative of the church,
md | am opposed TO church selling
property and devoting the proceeds to
Is current expenses. Yet you must re-
member that when church sells it's
property. the money finally goes back
o the public good. | am satisfied that
he church (Congregatlonai) has the IT,
lie to the common and that you can
axe it by condemnation procedure such
S YOU would use in creating public
Highway. Here is the question: Is it
worth while for the city TO own the
ommon. with its unparalleled opportu-
titles for development? There is only