Morning journal and courier., 1881-04-04
AmGI-AhneXAtI
 FAIR HAVEN Or AnriI , 1SS

FAIR HAVEN, Or, April ?, 1881. To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER: have noticed with considerable interest the correspondence of late in your paper gardlng annexation.
 fully agree with the conclusion drawn by
 Fair Play, "and must take decided exception to the so-called answer thereto signed 1902, ," and lest the people outside of our town be led into misunderstanding by his smooth sentences, I would inquire when has there been any public meeting called for gen eral attendance to consider this matter. There has been none at all-there have been several pocket conferences called on an even- ing to a special few and that is all. In regard to his remarks about the petition and remonstrance not showing the relative strength of the two sides, andthat three -fourths of the grand list of the town is represented on their side, etc. Now, MT. Editor. this is all campaign balderdash Let us look at it in the light of to-day's meeting and make @ few figures. There are 365 voters in the borough. Of those about 27O signed the remonstrance and 50 signed another. There are in the town 799 voters. The petition was circulated through the whole town with every variety of arguments suited to each particular locality, and resulted in getting only 2S6 signers, about 26O of them voters, out of total of 79S, while there were 426 signatures to the remonstrance. Now 1t seems to me that the remark refecting on the efforts and ability of Flair Play" to tell the truth comes with ill grace from party who cannot or will not state the case any more correctly than BOP has in this instance. Further, it is 0 remarkable coincidence that the number present and voting at meeting called to designate the boundary line should be only 286, just exactly the number of signers of the petition in the whole town and again note his exception to 'sFair Play's' statement of the feeling in the bor- ough, viz, that there were only 52 in favor. Well, what of to-day's meeting? After week of hard work and many changes, as ''302'' claims, we find by actual count that the bor- ough was represented by just 61 or 1 in of it's voters.
 We look in vain for general answer to the other propositions of Flair Play" If 1902" had been in Hartford at the con- mittee's hearing, he might have heard one of the annexation counsel admit that the renaon- strants did represent over one-half of the grand list of the borough. Now how does this compare with his statements about three-fourths, etc. But enough of this.
 ''302' evidently either does not take the pa- pers, or taking does not read, or reading is not willing to believe that which does not accord with hia ideas
 In closing, word regarding to-days meet ing. The remonstrants remained away for two reasons. First, they did not see how they could come in under the call. Second, the matter having been carefully considered was settled unanimously by the honorable committee and then by the Sen ate; so that no action of the town under the said call could get it legally before the Legis- lature again, therefore they did not choose to make laughing stock of themselves by talk ing hand in the farce As 1t was, the meet ing went forward and transacted business not mentioned in the call and their work, there fore, becomes of no value, which shows the correctness of our theory
 My friend 3O2 has shown one piece of good judgment. Not having on his own side any figures of sufficient magnitude, he bor rows from seFair Play" the figures represen- tingthe borough reno nstrants as his nom de plume.
 Now Iam not as badly off, but will use as mine our Arce and the towns voters viz.
 426 OUT od 789.