Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1905-06-08
WHAT OUR NElGHBORS SAY
Large Amount Of Cash Distributed An
nusily BY insurance Companies.
(From the Rutland News.)

(From the Rutland News)
Perhaps few people appreciate the large
amount OF cash IN the aggregate dis
tributed annually throughout this State
by the life insurance companies. Or the
total amount paid in 1904 in the United
States and Canada. sS7l ,642, 81, Vermont re-
ceived Sl,639,329. This does not include a
large amount distributed by fraternal Or
assessment societies. IL Is of interest to
note where in tho course Of year this
immense sum of money found its way for
distribution.
OF the amount paid in Vermont, Brattlc-
boro received the largest. $94,3s7. Rutland
followed with SS7,533, while Burlington
was third with ss6,o2l In Bennington
there was ss1,2,6 paid.
In other towns in this part of the State
the following amounts were received:
Bridgewater. s2,o0c; Bristol, $500; Ches.
ter. M,S32 Dorset, ss.S95; Fair Haven,
5000 Leicester, s2,S21: Ludlow, $5,S29
Manchester. S2ooOi Manchester Centre.
5000 Mechanicsville. s4.195; Mendon,
s26S Nfiddlcbury. 81, SIG; Middletowrl
Springs. sS257: Mount Holly, $1,000: New
Haven Mills. $1,000; Pawlet. So. 40; Poult-
ncy. $3.50; Proctor, $1,000; stockbridee
5000: Springfield, $500; Stockbrdec.
Si.oo3; Sunderland s2.225; West Haven,
s2.l?S.
Vermont towns in which other large
amounts were apportioncd were: Barre
sl9.o5o; Montpelier, s53,OI9: North Bennins-
ton. S9.5l4; Randolph. sl51si st. Adams
s65.506; st. Johnsbury. 30.203: Waterbury,
slS.05O; Windsor. s26 ls2 Wnooski sl0.s50
There was industrial insurance paid as-
gregating sl?. 26O. while the unclassitied IN
surance amounted to s650,0OO
The largest individual payment was on
the life of Alonzo Il. Valentine of Ben
nington. si2.67S There were three other
payments of between $4,000 and $4,000.
From these figures it is apparent that
Vermont people are provident and well
insured class.
1t Is hard to over-estimate the value OF
life insurance to the family of any man
when he is removed by death. Often ii
keeps the widow and her dependents from
positive want: it furnishes ready cash wit.
which To meet pressing obligations ano
thus to preserve intact whatever estate is
left without wastef,il sacrificing in order
to realize. There is no man. in however
moderate circumstances, who cannot af.
ford to put at least small portion of hi:
earnings to this purpose.
! HIGHEST COURT HELPLESS
(F'rom the Bennington Banner.)
| Many people fail to understand why thi!
latest lease of life for Mary Rogers came
as reprive from the governor instead o
a stay of execution granted by the su
premc court The reasons are these
Ordinarily when a person is convicted q
murder in Vermont exceptions are takei
and the case is carried to supreme cour
and the death sentence il finally pro
nounced is pronounced by supreme court
Then If there is to be stay of execution
the supreme court merely rcvises its owl
action in granting further delay.
The Mary Rogers case was different
No exceptions were taken in count.
court or at least none were filed on whicl
the case could be passed TO the highe
court Consequently the death sentenc
was pronounced by Judge Watson in tn
county court az Bennington and not b.
the supreme court at Montpelier. Accord
ing to federal statute when an appeal i
taken to II higher court. as the suprem
court of the United States. in a capita
case. a stay Of execution shall be grantee
| by the court which pronounced sentence
When the question of appeal to tn
federal supreme court was considered il
the case of Mary Rogers at Montpeic
Tuesday evening, Chief Rowcll and hi
associates held that inasmuch as the Su
prenle Court OF Vermont had not pro
nounced sentence on the condemned wo
wan, that court had no jurisdiction I
grant stay of execution. The court o
sentence. that is the December, 1913, terri
of Bennington county court had passe
out of existence more than a year ago
Judge ROwell concluded that no cour
had the authority to intervene to saw
Mrs. Rogers'S life. Governor Bell Wa
hurrcdy summoned to Montpelier, arriy
ing early Wednesday morning and. at til
request of the supreme court, the COVER
nor used the authority conferred on hi
by the constitution OF the State and ri
prieved the condemned murderess unit
her attorneys have time to act.
II was a peculiar situation and Cove,
nor Bell could not do less than act az
cording to the advice of the highest Stat
court.