The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1902-11-05
GROTON'S CLAIM.
Hearing Before the Committee
Commissioner Sanford Ex-
plains.

A Groton public hearing was held
before the joint committee on claims
on Thursday afternoon. About 100
members of each branch of the Gener-
al Assembly were present. Senator
Bailey presided. Representative Bun
dy of st. Johnsbury read House bill
AZ in which the town of Groton asks
the State to pay the sum of 1921. A,
claiming that this sum is due under
eSction 3445 " S.. regarding highways
and alleging that the same had been
withheld by the State highway COM
missioner for reasons unknown.
Commissioner Sanford expressed
surprise that he should be called to
this city to appear before the commit
tee, as he did not think the matter
in question warranted the time or eX-
pense He had received letter from
the town clerk of Groton which
showed that there was trouble brew
ing. The town believed it had re-
ceived unfair treatment. The COM
missioner said that Groton was not the
only town believing itself wronged in
similar way. The reason that these
towns were complaining was because
they had not informed themselves as
to the requirements of the law which
would entitle them to their share of
the State fund for road improvements.
The apportionment of this fund was
made upon the basis of mileage of i'm
proved roads. Nearly 100 towns have
failed to receive their share of the
fund, yet the cities of Montpelier and
Burlington had contributed largely in
excess of what they had received The
commissioner said he understood ex-
actly the reason for the dissatisfac-
ton, and believed it was because many
towns were proceeding under the old
law of 1892. Referring specifically to
the case of Groton, he said he had
written that town explaining why it's
claim had not been approved, and he
could hardly understand why the mat
ter should be brought before the Egg
ls!vInre Groton had made aim
for repairs upon permailc,t Dads
which they had built the devious
year, but the law does not allow the
payment of money from this fund for
repairs upon permanent roads. GrOton
had failed to make any improvement
in drainage, as specifically required
by the law. The cost of foundation,
as claimed by Groton showed loose
work, or negligence in complying
with the law, as it should not cost as
much as claimed by the town.
The town used clay on the surface
of it's roads, which was wholly
wrong. The law had not been com
piled with in so many respects the
commissioner had decided not to ap-
prove the claim.
The only reason for this gathering
before the claims committee was a
lack of understanding upon the part
of Groton. In all other towns he had
arranged disputed claims satisfactorily
by explaining what was necessary
upon the part of the towns before
they were entitled to State aid. Com
missioner. Sanford thought it was poor
plan to change road commissioners too
often.
Town Clerk Page of Groton said
his town had expended the amount
which they understood they we're en-
titled to. He explained in detail the
several items in the towns claim.
The town claims that it did not repair
permanent roads but that part of its
work was the continuing Of the work
of building permanent roads
AS the hour was late adjournment
was taken at this point. Commission
er Sanford went to Groton on Thurs
day afternoon to look over the grounds
| on which Iroton bases its claim.
Commissioner Sanford, returning
from Groton on Friday, reported
that owing to the fact that Groton
had not reported to the commissioner
all the work the town had done or its
character. he believed part of the
claim made ought to be allowed by
him, but not all. The Groton officials
now see and understand this and will
not be caught thus delinquent again
SUPREME COURT.
The two cases began Wednesday have
not yet been decided. Thursday
the case Fletcher V. Wakefield, Cal
edonia county, for replevin.
The cases under consideration Oct 30
are both from Caledonia county
II. n I