Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-06-09
InsuiIlciency OF Highways.

The town of Rockingham has been sued for
$4,000 by Amos b. Keith of Lynn, Massachu-
sets, for damages received from being precipi-
tated down an embankment The injury occur
red on the 10Th day Of August 1879 The case
is to be tried in the United States circuit court.
Knowing your boldness in attacking the
evils that tend to Cypress the laborers of our
country and cut short the rewards of their
labor, venture to call your attention to the
above item, which has been in several of
our state papers. In the last legislature many
members desired to curtail the expenses of
our state government and lessen the burden
of taxation. Some desired to abolish the
Board of Agriculture and save $4,000 per
year; some would dispense with school SUI
perintendents, and save 10000 a year;
some would have one less Judge and save
$4,000 year; and many other ways were
considered. Efforts to economist are praise
worthy, yet we have a law Of such enormous
injustice that any town is liable to be taxed
for sums that would burden the state, as we
see this town likely to pay enough to sup.
port the superintendent of agriculture four
town system. The state does not inter.
fere to decide how many or how few town
needs although the state will occasionally
interfere to increase facilities of back towns
in reaching some shipping point by more
direct route than the intervening town is
willing to provide. In arguing, then, that all
persons shall use the highways and bridges
at their own risk, we say that the original
settlers and pioneers who gradually improved
from the obscure trail through the woods to
the winter road the cart road and the good
road, never supposed they would receive pay
for detention, breakage or injury in going
from their homes to mill or market, or in
returning. They never intended to grant
any superior rights to others than they pos
sessed, and did not intend through all time
to insure every team and driver safe and
speedy transit over their roads. They never
have, in their town-meetings, voted that they
would pay all damage that any persons
might receive on their roads, whether towns
people or strangers 1t was an error on the
part of representatives to legislate so as to
have their towns insure safety to all travel
ers. This insurance society is one of con-
slant loss and no gain. The most that
ought to have been done in any case would
have been the permission to all towns to vote
in their own town meetings to insure safety
to travellers on their roads. But no matter
what was intended, the sentiment has grad
ually prevailed that for every mishap the
town is liable. No matter how dark the
night, how drunk the driver, how shy the
horse, how frail the harness or carriage, the
town must foot the bills. Not only may this
outrageous burden suddenly come upon
town, but exemplary damages are some
times awarded. The real damage is assessed
as high as the travellers loss and expense
will warrant, and still higher, until his law
yer's conscience begins to quake; then ex-
emplary damages, or damage as a punish
ment, is allowed. Who keep the roads in re-
pair 2 The farmers Who furnish teams
plows, carts and other implements for work
on the highway? The farmers. Who does
the judge and jury intend to punish by ex
emplary damage? The farmers. Shall we
throw off this oppression that hangs over
us? believe | state facts when | say the
roads were made for the convenience of the
people. The roads will not be abandoned
or be worse if this liability to pay damage
is removed. The roads in New York, where
no damage is paid, are better than in Yer
mont. This damage" in Vermont is gen.
orally a swindling imposition. The injured
parties often purposely exaggerate their help
less condition and postpone recovery until
the damage is awarded. Mr. Judevine of
Hardwick introduced in the last legislature
bill that would remove the liability and
insure good roads, 1t passed the house and
was defeated in the senate. Elect no senator
in 1880 who is not pledged to remedy this evil.
The amount claimed against towns in Yer
mont is enormous. Hardwick has paid over
$4,000; Irasburgh, over $1,000; Randolph
in two cases, S6000 Stowe paid within a
year $4,000; Montgomery within year,
$4,000; Putney within year, Sl,lOO. 1t
would be worthy subject to investigate to
ascertain what has been paid and what has
been claimed in all the towns in the state.
Add to this the cost of litigation, and then
we should realize this great cause OF taxa
ton. 1t seems by the item that we have
still more to fear; the cases are to be carried
into the United States court. This seems
more formidable to the average town agent
who contests the cases. Let us repeal all
laws that lead to such contested cases, spend
more money on the roads if necessary, and
then require all who use them to do so at
their own risk. z.E. JAMESON.