Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-03-20
BARGE TERMINAL
BILL IS PASSED
CONTINUED from pnRe one)
DEBATE ON FELCH BILL

ing on the bill relating to the Anna Felch
case. Mr.. Hall of Essex led off with a
plea for the bill. Mr.. Reade Of South
Hero then proposed his amendment strik-
ing out section 2 and making the bill
effective January 1, 1920.
Mr.. w of Londonderry thought
the zeal of those who favored the bill
had outrun their judgment. He main
tanned that the act of the Legislature of
1912. which had been so much talked
about. had no bearing on the Fetch case.
but that had been taken care of by the
companion bill H.. 252, which was killed
last week. He went through the whole
matter at some length to prove his point.
Mr.. Writer'S Intercepted Mr..
Is to whether, if II. 251 were passed, it
would not prevent a person from being
tried twice on the same charge. Mr..
Cudworth said that it would, land that
is the object for which we are striking
said Mr.. Writer'S, who proceeded to out
line the rights of those tried as criminals
under the common law. He declared that
there are reasons why the state should
not nave the same rights of appeal on
exceptions which the respondent has.
THE State does not have to stay in
Jail while waiting for n new trial." said
the gentleman from st. Johnsbury, but
the respondent does"
Mr.. Austin of Highgate called for the
yeas and nays which resulted In the
passing of the bill. 19 to 9S.
The House passed Fl. 2S7, the motor
truck bill, after it had been further
amended. on motion of Mr.. Taylor Of
Hardwick, ordered nine bills to a third
reading. and rejected three, adjourning
at $40 o'clock. on having completed a
long calendar.
BARGE TERMINAL DEBATE.
Mr. Aiken of Putney led the fight
against the barge terminal bill. He
was supported in his stand by Mr..
Writer'S of st. Johnsbury. Mr.. Wilson
of Rutland City, Mr.. Dwinell of New
port City and Mr.. White Of Georgia.
Mr.. Hopkins of Burlington made an
other long speech In favor of the bill.
and Mr.. Taylor of Hardwick, Mr.. Goss
of Danville, Mr.. Belknap of Rocking
ham,. Mr.. Sleeper of STAFFORD. Mr.. o.
Doud of Brunswick, Mr.. Tracy of
Johnson and Mr.. Alexander of st. AL
bans City advocated it's passage.
MI. Aiken opposed the measure on
the ground hat it was not practical
at this time, that it would not be a
paying proposition and that the
State could not afford it, anyhow. with
all the other Indebtedness at the
present time. He also emphasized the
fact that 1t would not help the farm
ers and the small towns one bit.
Speaking of getting in grain for the
farms by water, he said.
That little pond is frozen over the
greater part of the winter. when the
farmers get their grain. Then how are
you going to get 1t. draw 1t across
on a hand-sled or get il by freight"
"A short time ago. said Mr.. Aiken,
there was an editorial in n Burling-
ton paper. They did not say we the
small towns) were hogs. but they in
simulated it,
Mr.. Aiken maintained that the term
inals in New York and New Hampshire
are practically on the seacoast and have
salt water coming into their harbors,
so that the water is not frozen part OF
the year. He said that the next Legis-
lature will be able to amend the law 30
that an extra appropriation of $4,000
may be voted to carry on the work,
and he urged against making the first
step which would start anything of that
kind.
Burlington is not giving one single
cent of money to the State for this
terminal said the speaker. She is
simply lending it,"
Mr.. Aiken referred to the fact that
the government is taking over the
waterways to n large extent, and ne
thought it would be better to wait and
see what they are going to do. FER
haps they would decide to build a barge
terminal at Burlington.
Mr.. Hopkins. in his reply. accused the
gentleman from Putney Of always being
on the side Of destructive rather thar
constructive legislation. He reviewed
- in the Gl Win y
ON grain. He told what Burlington now
nays into the State in taxes and outlined
the ways in which aid to Burlington
meant aid to the State. and OF Bur
lington's place in State affairs.
The speaker maintained that the
barge terminal is purely a business
proposition and should be considered as
such. He told of the mistake whicf
Burlington made some 20 years & II
not taking the opportunity which II
had to purchase the gorge at W1noosk
and of the results of thai mistake II
the difficulties of securing lighting IA
~cilities in Burlington at present. Ht
maintained that the mistake would
prove even more disastrous to th'
state if it allowed this chance t.
go by.
The waterfront at Burlington, sale
Mr.. HOPKINS, two years from now will
be dotted with many small terminals
and will not be ~purchasable at a rea'
sonable amount. Now Is the time Il
take advantage of the opportunity.
Mr.. Writers interrogated Mr.. Hopkins
about the terminal at Pittsburgh, ant
asked hin if he did not think that Bur
ingto would get as much out of tn
Vermont barge terminal as the re
snainder of the State. Mr.. Hopkins
replied that he did not think Burling
ton would derive equal benefit with al
the rest of the State together.
Mr.. Writers told of the rapid growth
Of the State expenses since 1903 anC
stated that the present deficit in thu
State is 81, 296, 900, and that the eX
penses had increased $50 per cent. il
the last nine years. He said that h,
was not opposed to the barge termina
measure If the State could afford 1t
but he did not think it could.
He declared that If the terminal wa
going to be such a paying proposition
and if the people from Burlington VIII
were favoring II thought it would
they would want to get in on 1t an,
own 1T themselves and he did not thinl
the State should deprive the city o
Burlington of the opportunity of MAX
ing n good thing but of the barge ter
minal.
Mr.. Wilson of Rutland city called at
tention to the canal at Whitehall. onl
20 miles from Rutland, which was no
aver considered in connection with tn
great marble industry.
1.-THE Howe Scale Works, the Lincol