the labor force when the men didn’t receive their pay in the spring of 1847. They surrounded R. Jones’s hotel day and night, and demanded their ‘pay’ of Mr. Bark- er and others who were boarding there, or they would take their lives. Noisy Irishmen would mount one at a time on carts or bar- rels, and deliver specimens of ‘Irish eloquence’ to the excited crowd; about ‘hard work,’ ‘want of provisions,’ ‘no money,’ ‘worse than high- way robbery,’ ‘miserable vagabonds cheating poor honest men out of their pay.’ Then there would be a murmur of applause … Barker had nothing to offer, and kept in the ho- tel, afraid for his life. “At length the militia arrived from Burlington, and took some of the leaders prisoners, while others fled to the mountains. But [ ] more powerful than the militia came, in the form of a Catholic priest, and they were soon all as calm as could be desired.” They were never paid, and the worked stopped until 1849. Work started in March and by November cars were running. Kennedy reports that seventeen Irish- men were killed working on the railroad in Bolton at this time. George W. Kennedy, Bolton, in ABBY MARIA HEMENWAY, 1 THE VERMONT HISTORICAL GAZAT-


TEER 483 (1867). 12


Trouble at the Ely Mines, VT. WATCHMAN, July


11, 1883, p. 4, col. E. 13


The Vermont Watchman’s reporter did not cel- ebrate that historic battle. He wrote, The Bradford company, Captain J.H. Watson, commanding, came ‘overland’ from that town during the night and go to the seat of war sometime before the rest of the army. They were put under the command of Deputy Sher- iff Solon K. Berry of Thetford, and under his brilliant leadership they marched up the hill. Divided into two storming parties by Berry’s generalship, they swooped upon the pow- der house and discovered four youths sound asleep who demanded in plaintive accents, upon being awakened, ‘What in heaven’s name was up now.’ They gave up the pow- der cheerfully, and finding the boys had some foot, still more cheerfully helped to eat that. Solon was immensely elated at his success, and in his excitement forgot to put any guard over the power and it was left unprotected for some time before anybody thought about it.


Trouble at the Ely Mines, VT. WATCHMAN, July 11, 1883, p. 4, col. E. The ringleaders were arrest- ed—sixteen in all, including the four found at the powder house, and they were jailed until Mon- day morning, when State’s Attorney Darling or- dered them discharged. Paul Donovan, our State Law Librarian, has written an excellent history of the Ely Mine, and spent time investigating the site by flashlight. http://www.pauljdonovan.us/mines/ely/ely1. html. The Elizabeth mine on Copperas Hill in South Strafford was worked until 1958. See also, COLLAMER ABBOTT, GREEN MOUNTAIN COPPER, THE STORY OF VERMONT’S RED METAL (1973); Ruth Henry Hubbard, Pills, Pukes and Poultices and A Doc- tor’s Account of the Ely Copper Riots, VT. HISTORY, Spring 1984, at 77-88; Johnny Johnsson, South Strafford’s Elizabeth Copper Mine: The Tyson Years, 1880-1892, 70 VT. HISTORY, Summer/Fall 2002, at 130-152. The official historian of Vermont in Watson’s time wrote up the story as official Vermont would re- member it. WALTER HILL CROCKETT, VERMONT THE GREEN MOUNTAIN STATE 131-134 (1922). He de- scribed Watson’s force as having “[c]aptured the powder magazine and arrested four armed min- ers who were on guard.” Eventually, the $4,000 was distributed to the men, and they left town for better opportunities. Gov. John Barstow, Farewell Address, Oct. 1, 1884, at http://vermont-archives.org/govhistory/ gov/govinaug/inaugfare.htm.


16


14 Frank Fish, John H. Watson, in 5 WALTER HILL CROCKETT, VERMONT THE GREEN MOUNTAIN STATE 176


(1922). 15


MICHAEL SHERMAN, GENE SESSIONS, & P. JEFFREY POTASH, FREEDOM & UNITY: A HISTORY OF VERMONT


371 (2004). 16


Id. at 372; Report of the Commission to Inves- tigate the Educational System and Conditions of


Vermont (1914). 17


In re National Guard, 71 Vt. 493 (1899). 18 William C. Hill, Vermont’s Judicial Crisis of


1914-1915, 38 VT. HISTORY 124-138 (1970). 19


“chief judge” to “chief justice.” 20


Hill, supra note 18, at 126.


21 http://vermont-archives.org/govhistory/gov/ Id.


govinaug/inaugfare.htm. 22


23 Sabre v. Rutland R. Co., 86 Vt. 347 (1913). 24 Id. at 390-391.


25 Hill, supra note 18, at 134.


26 In re James, 97 Vt. 362, 387-388 (1924). 27 Hawkins v. Vermont Hydro-Electric Corp., 98


Vt. 176 (1924). 28


29 Hill, supra note 18, at 137.


John H. Watson, In re Constitutional of 1777 and Its Declaration Forbidding Slavery, 1919- 1920 PROCEEDINGS OF THE VERMONT HISTORICAL SOCI-


ETY 227-256; 94 Vt. 501-525. 30


94 Vt. at 505.


31 Id. at 506. 32 Id. at 507. 33 Id. at 506.


34 Id. at 514; Selectmen of Windsor v. Jacob. 2


Tyl. 192 (1802). 35


Brigham v. State, 166 Vt. 246, 262 (1997) (“The framers, however, drew no distinction between ‘ought’ and ‘shall’ in defining rights and duties.”);


Hill, supra note 18, at 515-516. 36


37


son, 80 Vt. 249 (1907). 39


Watson, supra note 29, at 525. 1912, No. 13.


38 In re Comolli, 78 Vt. 337 (1906); State v. Wil- State v. Sartwell, 81 Vt. 22, 23 (1908).


40 Cook v. Howland, 74 Vt. 393 (1902). 41 State v. Shedroi, 75 Vt. 277 (1903). 42 Id. at 282.


43 State v. Rosenthal, 75 Vt. 295 (1903). 44 State v. Scampini, 77 Vt. 92 (1904). 45 Id. at 122.


46


Davis v. Moyles, 76 Vt. 25 (1903). Chipman’s decision in Paine and Morris v. Smead, 1 D.Chip. 56 (1791) is not referenced in the 1903 decision, but the parallels are startling in the two judges’


commitment to law over history. 47


State v. Peet, 80 Vt. 449 (1908).


48 Durkee v. City of Barre, 81 Vt. 530 (1909). 49 Doty v. Village of Johnson, 84 Vt. 15 (1910). 50 State v. Haskell, 84 Vt. 429 (1911). 51 Martin v. Fullam, 90 Vt. 163 (1916).


It was the constitutional amendments of 1913 that changed the names of the offices on the high court from “judge” to “justice” and from


52 Clement v. Graham, 76 Vt. 290 (1906). 53 Hazen v. Perkins, 92 Vt. 414 (1918). 54 Prouty v. Blanchard, 93 Vt. 206 (1919). 55 Oben v. Ducharme, 93 Vt. 211 (1919).


56 Dermier v. Rutland Ry, Light & Power Co., 94 Holton v. Hassam, 94 Vt. 324 (1920).


Vt. 187 (1920). 5


58 Cady v. Lang, 95 Vt. 287, 294 (1921). 59 Grout v. Gates, 97 Vt. 434 (1924 60 State v. Sartwell, 81 Vt. 22 (1908), supersed- ed by statute, Mack v. Jones, 129 Vt. 298 (1971); Boyce v. Sumner, 97 Vt. 473 (1924), superseded by statutory amendment, recognized in City of Winooski v. Matte, 125 Vt. 463 (1966); Johnson v. Chandler, 88 Vt. 137 (1914). 61 Estate of Girard v. Laird, 159 Vt. 508, 511-513 (1993); Laird v. Perry, 74 Vt. 454 (1902); Elling- wood v. Ellingwood, 91 Vt. 134 (1917); Johnson v. Chandler, 88 Vt. 137 (1914). Although Westlaw uses the word “abrogated,” the easing away of this rule by the decision of Justice John Dooley in Estate of Girard is so graceful you can almost miss it, if it weren’t for the red flags. 62 City of Barre v. Town of Bethel, 102 Vt. 22 (1929); Proulx v. Parrow, 115 Vt. 232 (1948). 63 State v. Drown, 85 Vt. 233 (1911); State v. Prouty, 94 Vt. 359 (1920); Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 642 (1914). 64 Champlain Realty Co. v. Town of Brattleboro, 97 Vt. 28 (1923). 65 Champlain Realty Co. v. Town of Brattleboro, 260 U.S. 366 (1922). 66 Russell v. Rood, 72 Vt. 238 (1900); Mobus v. Town of Waitsfield, 75 Vt. 122 (1902). 67 Taplin & Rowell v. Harris, 88 Vt. 15, 25 (1914). 68 Mobus, 75 Vt. 122; Gordon v. Deavitt, 84 Vt. 59 (1910). 69 Russell v. Rood, 72 Vt. 238 (1900) (Taft); Sabre v. Rutland R. Co., 86 Vt. 347 (1913) and Citizens’ Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Fitchburg Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 87 Vt. 23 (1913) (Powers); State v. Win- ters, 102 Vt. 36 (1929) (Slack). 70 Sabre, 86 Vt. 347. 71 State v. Winters, 102 Vt. 36, 65 (1929). 72 Woodhouse v. Woodhouse, 99 Vt. 91 (1925). 73 THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN (1651, 1886), chap. 26, 131. 74 Rogers v. State, 77 Vt. 454, 487 (1905). 75 Wallace’s Adm’r v. Fox, 81 Vt. 136 (1908). 76 Goupiel v. Grand Truck Ry. Co., 94 Vt. 337 (1920), overruled in part by Malloy v. Lane Con- struction Corp., 123 Vt. 500, 504 (1963) 77 Conroy’s Adm’r v. Nelson, 86 Vt. 175, 182 (1912). 78 Shum’s Adm’r v. Rutland R. Co., 81 Vt. 186 (1908). 79 Cart’s Adm’r v. Village of Winooski, 78 Vt. 104 (1905). 80 Dyer v. Lalor, 94 Vt. 103, 115-116 (1920). 81 See Pennock v. Goodrich, 102 Vt. 68 (1929); Cano v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 102 Vt. 161 (1929).


THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • WINTER 2012


www.vtbar.org


Ruminations: A Hero Once, a Judge for Life


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40