House concurrent resolution commemorating the 250th anniversary of the March 13, 1775 Westminster Massacre
H.C.R. 35 is a commemorative House concurrent resolution marking the 250th anniversary of the March 13, 1775 Westminster Massacre. The resolution recounts the historical events leading up to the confrontation at the Westminster courthouse, including disputes over the Articles of Association, tensions between Whigs and Tories, the attempted closure of the court, and the shooting that killed William French and Daniel Houghton. It also notes the subsequent recapture of the courthouse by local militia and places the event in the broader context of Vermont’s pre-Revolutionary history.
The resolution does not create or amend any statutes, establish new programs, or appropriate funds. Its operative provisions simply direct the General Assembly to commemorate the anniversary and instruct the Secretary of State to send a copy of the resolution to the Westminster Historical Society. Its legal effect is therefore symbolic and ceremonial rather than regulatory, with no direct impact on state law beyond the formal legislative recognition of the event.
H.C.R. 35 has no substantive effect on Vermont statutes, agency duties, or private rights. It is a concurrent resolution of historical commemoration that formally recognizes the Westminster Massacre and directs transmittal of the resolution to the Westminster Historical Society. The only practical state action referenced is the Secretary of State’s ministerial duty to send the resolution, and the only affected parties are historical and civic institutions associated with preserving the event’s memory.
The available context suggests broad, noncontroversial support for the resolution, consistent with its commemorative purpose. The bill is framed as an acknowledgment of an important event in Vermont’s revolutionary-era history, and the listed sponsors include members from both chambers and multiple districts, indicating bipartisan and geographically broad interest. No committee testimony or recorded votes are provided, but the absence of opposition in the available materials suggests the measure was treated as a routine historical observance rather than a contested policy proposal.
There is little apparent contention in the bill itself because it is ceremonial and does not alter law or spending. Any potential disagreement would likely be historical rather than legislative, such as differing interpretations of the Westminster Massacre’s significance, the characterization of the participants as Whigs and Tories, or the framing of the event as the first bloodshed of the American Revolution. No specific objections, amendments, or opposing viewpoints are included in the available record.