The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1915-03-10
Favorable Action on Bill
Aimed at Commissioner
Hugh Henry
SUBSTITUTE FOR
WARES COURT BILL
To be Introduced at an Early Date
viii Leave Appointment of Judges
to Governor = Senate Considering
Perry Bill.
Especial to The Reformer.)
MONTPELIER. March

Perry Bill.
Especial to The Reformer1
MONTPELIER, March 10.
Practically the entire morning ses
sion was consumed on debate on H All. |
which seeks to terminate the office OF !
commissioner of weights and measures |
and consolidate it with that of commits |
sioner of agriculture, and the bill wa |
finally passed on a yea and nay vote
of IA to 81, demanded by Mr. Miller |
of Bethel. Mr. Foote of Cornwall |
opened the debate and said he hoped |
| for final action in the matter this |
morning He explained that eight
states handled the matter of weights
and measures through the department
Iof agriculture and quoted circulars is.
! sued by the present commissioner OF
weights and measures, urging influence
against the bill.
Mr.. Black Of Burlington strongly Oh
lposed the bill and stated that be did so
in view of the fact that the present
law does not allow local authority 20
enforce it and this axes it necessary
to provide deputies to do the work. Ii
the bill passed it would virtually do
laway with the department. of weights
land measures and put into the hands OF
1.-THE agricultural department. and two
deputies must under those circum-
stances do the entire work, Is the com
missioner of agriculture had state,.
that he could not give it his personal
attention, but must delegate man
at a salary of 5000 to do it. Mr. Black
stated he thought before passing such
Ia bill Commissioner Hugh Henry should
be given opportunity to be heard. He
lfhOnpbt ~
Etirely inadequate. Mr.. Jones of Shrews
bury said that it looked like good
chance for the state to save $4,000
, Mr.. Moore of Ludlow wanted to amend
the bill so as to remove the additional
= appropriation Of 5000 for the weights
2 and measures department. Mr. Taylor
t of Springfield opposed the bill, as he
did not believe in abolishino q depart-
? lment because the head of il might not
be satisfactory. He tried to have the
? bill recommitted to the general commit
tee, but it was refused by a vote of
,Il1S to 81.
. Before the roll call was taken M-.
Blanchard Of Nershirc inquired how
, many towns have equipment for test
i ing weights and measures as it had
=. been stated Burlington was the only
y one. This lead Mr.. Graham to say
: that his Office was next to the town
! clerk S office in Bellows Falls and the
only equipment there was a rusty tin
: dipper.
There is to be a substitute bill in.
| tr0duced to take the place of II 1O1
known as Ware district court bill
which was introduced by Mr. Ware oi
= Townshend. 1t is understood the Ware
bill will be followed in many partic
ulars, but that the substitute bill viii
&c provide for the appointment of the
proposed district court judges by the
government instead of by the superior
judges, as provided by the origina
- bill
4 Very little work. was done by tn,
I senate at the morning session beside
~ that of a routine nature and the pas
al sage of $ 32, to make uniform the Law
o. on bills of lading. The bill was favor
g ed by Senators Shaw, Cady and Lock
i lin and opposed by Senators Simonds
N Conant and Hinsman. 1t was fnall,
20 passed 13 to 10.
al The senate this afternoon will hol
IA the center of the legislative stag
Do with the Perry prohibition bill. as
H. special order.
OF Tax Bill Fails to Pass.
&c The taxation bill which places ga
be rate of sevente tenths of one per cent o
81 intangibles and allows - per cen
IL offset on personal property for debt
no owing came up as a special order YES
he Iterday afternoon ut 2.30 and after
70 long discussion III which about 10 o
o. the members expressed their varyin
ho views regarding offsets, intangible
hv FIVE per cent money and SO forth, tn
he bill was put to yea and nay vote upo
motion of Mr. Wilson of Chelsea an
: refused passage to the tune of l54
or 66. Mr.. Miner of Hyde Park starte
or the debate by a proposal of ameu'
> ment which would take bank stock OF
mt Iof the class of intangible property I
,or which the proposed fiat rate would a
Of lply, but this amendment was defea
,ct led on explanation by Mr.. Demeritt
he DuXbury that il would conflict wit
~ the federal law. Mr.. Soule Of Albul
IL sought to have the words 'and tang
81 ble' inserted in the section providir
for the fiat rate on intangibles and th
amendment was also defeated, as WI
the attempt of Mr.. Davis of ,JohnsC
RS. to amend the bill SO as to prevent o.
nd, sets of more than 81 900 in all case
as Mr. Hamblet Of Barton thought Il
18th proposed legislation was entirely
ice favor of the rich as the tangible pro
lcil