Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-11-22
The Highways.

Mr.. Pecks highway BILL Ii. III, came up rs |
special order in the house Thursday forenoon and |
was discussed at considerable length. Mr.. Hobson |
of Brighton stated the objections to the old Jude
vine law; that it gave too arbitrary power to the
commissioners; that 1t virtually takes away the
right of petition by requiring bonds before hear
ing could be obtained; and that the greatest objee-
ton OF all was that 1t is cumbersome and unwiedy
He favored the proposed law as meeting just
these objections and as being so plain that any
common man could understand 1t, and said that a
large majority of the committee were in favor of
it. Mr.. Munson OF Manchester said that origin
ally he was against the Judevine law; but the
more he had investigated the matter he had be-
come In favor OF it and should prefer to rest, for
the next two years at least, upon the present law
as basis This bill which is proposed
is just AZ purely an experiment as the Jude
vine law was two years ago. He did not be-
lieve that 1t was prudent to drop an expert
ment just as it was getting into running or
der and try another experiment. Let the legis-
lature make the remedial machinery of the
Judevine law little more simple and simpler in
its operation. The present bill did not seem to
him to give expectation Of satisfactory operation.
The provision which allows the selectmen of ad-
joining towns to supervise repairs in the COM
planned of towns was bad feature. 1t gave too
many inexperienced boards Of supervision, and
would lead to confusion. The bill lacked clear
ness and fullness in providing for the remedial
and punitive machinery. He considered the OBJ
ections to the machinery of the Judevine law
and answered them, and claimed that, compared
with the present BILL its machinery was far more
simple and effectual and more likely to lead to
justice The Judevine law might be arbitrary,
but not so much so az this bill. Mr. Dearborn
of vershre criticised the Judevine law as too
cumbrous and slow in its provisions. Mr.. Edison
| of Mendon offered an amendment limiting any
single liability of town to one hundred dollars.
Mr. Peck of Brookfield the author of the bill, de-
Tended it vigorously, and attacked the amendment
Of Mr. Edison frivolous Mr.. Edison said the
bars ought to be put up and the expense limited
| somewhere. Be just well as generous Mr..
Brown was in favor of making the limitation
more than hundred dollars. Mr. Bridgman
of Barton opposed the amendment. Mr.. Ray
mond OF Bridgewater moved that the Limitation
be five hundred dollars. Mr.. Wells of CRANKY
was opposed to all limitations. Let each case be
decided on its merits, and If defect could not be
repaired at less than a Thousand dollars, let a
thousand dollars be paid. He was in favor of the
~. sas..,e,a ps - =. ...,. U.s.
49,
ni 80 80 .,1',,,., ~ 80 :,
.i.. -.
.i'"' my ,ii'a' -,, D'I'o'
" 'ao 80 mon ava ''-' -o'
1Ne ~ w -, ~ 90" "aN nv ~ ~"
w., N.Y. " ei9 sn''' We 49," NV
W. u.s. " 49,, 80 e','-"N
80 80, :, -, -, ~,
nv gu" ""' ~ $500, Nv - ~. ~
so"i' ''e W ''no' 0''oA OA W '",
~, TN,l -
-, vs.. -, S., ~.
~ ' :. w.
N" "o". - 'DoNi 'eN9U d" VOC -. nv s'o'
eop'e Ane" '"1s "e'e io"e'io'' Gnu 'no'oioi
- "s' - ''' op-nloA P.oP'o 'O'. -
sne '''. "" S'".' 0I y, W
''-4 ~ " ~ rs
""'' '.'"A lou Wv" 'o' ~ uah'
n' o'Ae' .'' p''''l u.'o, .,-o o'' Ia"
NJ oN','' Vi Vs']'u sl0 0"uo' -
'""' Gnu p,o'ee ",l'''i " 10 .'"o sun VI WV
p'oPno'' oh MN ''io i"""''o Vi 'u'se '""o''n'
."s i"He"' "Au sA'e'u' pan u ','A""i' 'nou'
''i'' 'o '"'N ."' 10 '""Ji nv opo" "a,
piesen' o'i ~ouiu pass' uu' Us oi''Aen no nopeo
, "ou'" 10 Aiiieu nii' D'N u h''n'sonoiy sai'
."a' ''0 pt"eN'1- "V,A'Is =, 'H' Ouuo''no -"
nas o'o1 ,u'S Dvn", anu los p'o'on'ou . w.
, pAoA"aiu .o""ius 'no oiu o"h"se Jaw M
JULIUS Vi "neo'ooA 'no'oo 'n"' 'no VII NO u,S