Daily Kennebec journal., 1925-07-30
WHO OWNS THE HIGHWAYS?

The legislature or 1925 passed an
act to prohibit advertising signs upon
public highways. Acting under this
act, Chief Field Of the Highway Po-
lice has instructed his officers to re-
move signs within the limits of the
highway. irrespective Of the nature
Of the sign. its purpose. or whether or
motif in any way obstructs or inter-
fers with the easement which the
public has to travel over the high
way.
It is, Of course. generally under
stood that an abutter on the highway
has certain private rights which arise
from his ownership Of property con-
tiguous to the highway and which are
not common to the public generally
In most instances in this state the
land over which the highway passes
Is owned by the abutter and the pub
lie has only an easement for the pur-
pose Of travel and purposes incident
to travel.
The owner of land through which
a highway passes has right to make
any reasonable use of the highway
and Of the land adjacent to the trav-
eled portion thereof which does not
interfere with the public easement
He has right of access to his pro-
perty and may make any. reasonable
use Of the highway for that purpose.
The farmer owns and has right to
the hay within the right Of way and a
title to the trees growing within the
highway limits is also in him, as is
also the title to the land.
It would seem that an error has
been made either on the part of the
legislature in passing an act abso-
lutely prohibiting all signs within the
limits of the highway or on the part
Of Chief Field in interpreting the
act.
As now interpreted a farmer does
not have the right to place a sign ad-
vertising the fact that he has butter
or eggs or other commodity for SALE
within the limits of the highway, on
his own land. no matter how far the
limits Of the highway may extend in
to his property nor how impossible 1t
may be for the public to see a sign
placed by him outside the limits of
the highway, and this irrespective Of
the fact Of whether or not the sign
in any way interferes with the safety
or welfare Of parties using the high
way for purposes Of travel.
A party may be given the right to
maintain gasolene pump within the
limits OF the highway, but If he has
at the top Of that pump the ordinary
illuminated sign, he is. according to
the apparent Interpretation now be-
ing placed upon the act, guilty of a
violation of its provisions and SUBJ
ject to a fine of not less than five nor
more than $500.
While we do not assume to under
stand the law applicable to this act
and do assume that the legislature
would not have presumed to have
passed an act so broad in it's scope
without careful consideration, we
cannot understand how the erection
and maintenance Of signs within the
limits Of ones own property and over
which the public has only an ease
ment Of travel, can be prohibited
without reference to the safety or
welfare Of the inhabitants and with
out compensation to the owner.
The regulation Of signs and the alb
solute prohibition of all signs is very
different. One can readily under
stand why the legislature undoubted-
ly has the power to prescribe any
proper regulation of signs. We can
not behave that it has the power to
absolutely prohibit all signs. If this
act receives uniform enforcement
throughout the state in the manner
now indicated, 1t can become nothing
less than q nuisance; and If it is not
uniformly enforced it works an alb
soluts injustice.
We all shall be glad to see the
present sign nuisance abolished, but
In doing away with 1t let US make
sure Of the legal rights Of the owners
Of the land.