Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-07-03

foy. a qioen purpose. Perhaps, it the
whole amount should not be expended in
a given year, the village might borrow
It. but, if so, it must be returned and, IN
the end, expended for the purpose for
aohich it aoas appropriated. 1t may be
something, but not exactly, similar to
the course taken by the town in refer
ence to the s'United States deposit
money" The money is given to the
town for specified purpose; the town,
as a town, borrows it of the town, as
trustee, pays interest thereon, and is LA
BILE to return it when called for. We
understand that these are not parallel
cases. but it illustrates the idea. 1t is,
however. common thing for State,
town or city, to borrow temporarily
from one fund, place it to the credit OF
another, always returningit to the first
fund when needed. We know not how
the unexpended balance of the highway
tax of 1912 was, temporarily, APP
piled, but it was the duty of the village
to return it to the highway fund, and of
the trustees to expend it upon the high
WAYS, at such times and places as, in the
exercise of their discretion, they should
determine.
We did not enter upon this matter, in
the first place, for the purpose of dis
cussion or, in particular, to defend the
trustees of 1928. 1t seemed to us that
there was a grave misrepresentation in
the public mind in reference to the ques-
ton of village expenditures, and the
personal liability of the trustees there
for, and we have endeavored, in "a
rambling way" perhaps, to explain the
matter as we understand it. AS we may
not deem it necessary or proper to refer
to this matter again, we will briefly
summarize the conclusions which we
have reached and endeavOred to estab-
fish, and which we believe to be settled
principles, applicable to these questions.
AS we have heretofore, stated, the re-
strictive ordinance, as it may be called,
is not absolutely prohibitory, and, even,
if it read as Mr.. SimOns mis-quotes it, it
would still be only directory. As APP
plicable to the expenditure for the con-
struction of the sewer, the money was
absolutely appropriated-in the very
meaning of the restriction ordinance a;
and if the question of fact was decided
against the trustees-that is that the
sewer was unsuitable, the expenditure
extravagant and the work performed at
the aoorSt possible season of the year, our
courts have decided that, in the absence
of fraud, the expenditures cannot be
| impeached and, as a necessary cOnse-
quence, no personal liability was in
Cured Further and lastly, that high
way or any other work can be paid for
out of the general fund of the village
that is they may be part of the cur
rent expenses, and paid for in part from
the funds derived from general not
special taxation. With the charter and
ordinances as they now are, the whole
matter of personal liability, on the part
of the trustees of 1912, for any of the
expenditures complained of, may be dis
posed of in the oposition-which we
believe, as a matter of law, to be un-
questiOnable-tha in the absence of
fraud, which, of course, would include
a fraudulent intent, there is, and can be,
no such responsibility on their part, or
on the part of any of them.