Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1882-11-08
Differing Reasons.

DuIerlnB heusOnss
The supporters of the Judevine bill should
unite upon some classification of the oppon-
ents of that unwieldly and essentially I'M
Just statute. One admirer, enamored OF the
faultless beauty and symmetry of the law,
says it is the lawyers who are anxious for
a return to the old law. Another maintains
that the sentiment against the new law and
the reports of the bad condition OF the
roads have been manufactured by those who
have been deprived of the opportunity OF
bringing suits for fraudulent claims. This
law has been the subject of very general
condemnation. The emptiness of the
sources of justification of its methods and
its violation of principles which the state
rigidly enforces between individuals and
corporations is shown by the weak efforts
CT Is defenders to discredit the motives of
the opponents and the character of the op-
position. The press of the state are unani-
nous, we believe, in their opposition to the
new law, and the evidence the papers fur
nish of the deterioration Of the highways
since that law went into force cannot be
gainsaid. The newspapers undoubtedly re-
fleet the sentiment of the majority of the
people in this respect as they do in regard
to the tax law. They are indexes of public
opinion. We have from time to time pub.
lished impartially, extracts from these jour
nails, and have opened our columns freely to
the friends of the law. Popular opinion is
divided on this, as on other questions. Now
the newspaper fraternity are not lawyers
and their opposition to the law cannot be
tainted with any alleged injurious effect
upon their client list. The fraudulent
claim argument cannot apply to them. They
are all Boomers and Lorilards in their taste
for horse flesh and do not go housing round
to find rotten culverts, rickety bridges,
unguarded entertainments and unrepaired
washouts, seeking clandestine chance
to force a sale of worthless ringboned, spav-
ined, foundered equines upon an unwilling
town at high figure. They only ask, in
common with other citizens, that when they
ride out it shall not be at imminent risk to
life, limb and property, and that if, using
reasonable precaution, they suffer injury by
reason of the culpable negligence, indiffer-
ence or penuriousness of towns, they shall
have just and equitable compensation there
for. They do not banker after fractured
skull or broken limb or any other injury
to person or property, but claim that re-
sponsibility for such injuries, guarded by
checks against abuse, shall be the goad,
an exemplary fear of which shall prick the
towns up to an efficient performance of
their duty. The changes have been rung
80 constantly on the rotten harness, decrepit
steed, rickety vehicle argument, with an un.
principled dead beat for the presiding
genius, that it is practically denied that an
honest man has any rights on the highway
which the legislature is bound to protect
The complaint of bad roads and the failure
of the Judevine law to hold towns up to the
exercise of reasonable care over the high
ways comes from doctors and officers of the
law who drive far and near, at all times of
day and night, from livery men and men
whose business calls them to all parts of the
state off the line of railways. One of the
strong witnesses, who has more recently
come to the front, was member of the
last senate, and for two years has travelled
the state in all directions and at all times Of
the year. He says the roads have undeni-
ably grown worse under the Judevine law,
and that an efiicacious highway law should
be enacted. No one demands return TO
the old law. Progressive legislation is
asked. The Judevine law in method and
principle was step backward. Some of
the bills on this subject embody the ele-
ments of wise reform in the whole matter
of highway supervision and town response
bility, and if properly dgested, if worked
as assiduously as dog laws and poultry laws,
would result in giving the state an improved
highway code which would practically Sc
cure the first desderatum, good roads, and
would define and protect the rights both OF
towns and travellers. Against demand so
wise and reasonable the admirers of the Ju.
devine monstrosity should oppose something
else than senseless chatter about the old
horses, lawyers and fraudulent claims. A
law of this kind would be a fit companion
statute to the law of 1880 for the equaliza.
ton of taxes and an efficient means of re.
ducing as well as equalizing taxation. This
legislature will not do its duty if it adjourns
without an honest effort to make good
highway law.