Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-06-26
THE RUTLAND HERALD
THURSDAY, JUNE 90, 1878.
THE SEWER EXPENDITURE.


With the questions of fact connected
with the building of sewers, we nave
nothing particularly to do we take IT,
however. that certain facts are conceded
II was remarked, in what Is called de
structive speech" Saturday evening"
that the owater would flow into the vii
lage rather than out of it. If this is so,
whose fault is it? In reference to this
question there is no doubt. The fault,
If any there be, is with the trustees OF
1s70-71, who first established the sewer
system, and left its terminus in School
street so situated that the continuation
thereof, to the river, couldnot have been
constructed with a greater descent than
il now is. The trustees of lo'2-'3 are
not responsible-pecuniarily or other
wise-for the action of their predeces-
sors. Fault is, also found with the trus-
tees for the time of the year in which
the sewer is laid. 1t is enough for us to
saw, that, as yet, 1t has not proved de-
fective or unservicable. We may, how
ever. 90 further and say, that 1t was
built by contract, so that the village lost
nothing by the shortness of days, as has
been alleged, and that the contractors
were responsible to the village for their
work. 1t is, also, claimed by men ia
miliar with that kind of work, and who
are not interested in this particular
sewer, that the work could not have
been done in warm weather, and that
The season of the year in which the
sewer was built, was the only proper
time for such work So far as the per-
sonal liability of the trustees is con-
cerned, it might have been the height OF
folly and extravaganza to have under
taken the work except in summer, and
vet the village would have no claim
upon them. The Supreme Court OF
Vermont held, so late as 1871, that ex-
penditures by towns, school districts,
etc, could not be impeached "because
in the opinion of court and jury, a
less sum would have answered the inn
mediate necessities of the corporation,
or the money might have been more Jul
dicieusly and economically expended.
This decision disposes of the question OF
liability on account of extravaganza.
1t must be conceded, and we will not,
therefore, discuss the question, that the
trustees are bound to keep the sewer ir
repair, even if no tax is voted for that
purpose. This stands upon precisely
the same grounds as the duty to repair
damages to highways and bridges caused
by sudden treshet or otherwise, after
the highway tax is expended. So that,
as far as the expenditure for repairs is
concerned, the trustees acted legally an6
properly. At village meeting, held in
June 1872, the trustees were directed tC
"extend the main sewer from the school
house, on School street, to East creek
also, to build connecting links between
the Rutland railroad and Forest street,
and from the sewer at or near Ripley's
block to West street, and from West
street to the sewer in rear of Center
street" This was an absolute direc-
ton to the trustees to do certain work,
and they were obliged to do it. The
village had no estimate of its probable
expense, and in voting tax, at the same
meeting, they did not know whether it
would raise the necessary sum, or more
or less. This will hn nhvinns whom un
refer to the fact, that they instructed the
trustees what to do with the balance of
the money so raised IF any," The viii
lage having ordered the sewer to be con-
structed, it was the duty of the trustees,
in the exercise of their best judgment, to
do it. They are not responsible, pecun-
iarily, for an error of judgment. The
only matter the village have right tc
find fault with, is that they did not con,
struct all the sewers they were directed
to. Here is tangible ground for com
plant, but not for pecuniary response
bility. The vote of the village was ar
appropriation of the money, in the very
terms of the ordinance, and the same
rules of law would apply to the expen
ditures in this case as in that of the Vii
lage Hall, with this difference-The au
thority was, here, direct, positive ant
mandatory, and nothing was left to i'm
plication. Is it not, then, all ''bosh" t.
talk about personal pecuniary liability
on the part of the trustees?