Barre evening telegram. (Barre, Vt.) 1898-19??, 1899-02-20


It why can't it avoid it? The council
mad no right to make it without vote
of the city, and never would have made
it ii Swasey had not said it was all ri ght.
lie talks about the method OF select
ing commissioners but am reliably in-
formed that he told the court that the
commissioners were satisfactory to him.
and asked to have them appointed. lie
mado no objection to the method OF Sc
lecting them at the time the contract
was made,
If there has been any procrastnatlon
with legal proceedings the fault has
been with Swasey, not with Gordon.
Gordon has always been prompt i'll his
work, and has urged others to be so. |
know he has repeatedly urged Swasey
to do his work ON time, but urging has
heen useless in many cases. If you
want other proof ask the people on
Church street about certain nuisance
and look up his delays in enforcing our
ordinances after the matter was turned
into his hands,
Swasey says that the mayor told the
city meeting, when the first Adams
plan was presented that the building
could be built after this plan for hlfy
thousand dollars. This is not true.
The mayor had nothing to do with the
first Adams plan when it was present.
ed to the meeting on that occasion. Inc
matter was then in the hands of spec
iaI committee and this committee stat
ed that the building could be built for
fifty thousand dollars. 1t will be re-
membered that the exterior plan OF the
building with which Swasey and others
are now finding fault is substantially
the same now as it was in the first plan
1t never provided for all granite fronts.
The change from the first plan to what
is called the modified Adams plan was
made by the voters themselves, and
MIR. Swasey should criticise the voters
not Gordon. Is it not strange in view
of the necessity of economy in our pub
lie affairs that q candidate for mayor
should especially find fault with Cor
don because the city has paid for the
building as fast as constructed'
Swasey says that Gordon advocated
the East Barre supply "in season and
out" | never knew him to do so, and
as a member of the council and water
committee have heard him express
his views often in the last two years.
He always said that the East Barre
supply should be abandoned for domes-
tic use, and he drew the report made t"
the city meeting October 10, 1897,
which was against using the East Barre
supply. This is an official document
that is about as tru~tw Orthy as Swasey's
platform. Mr.. Gordon did all he could
to have the city take the West hill sup
ply before Goodhue did. lie pointed
out the advantage It woud tes Il the
city could hold all the West hill first
and leave Goodhue with nothing but
the East Barre supply. But the city
would not then follow his advice. ln-
stead it took the advice of some of Swa-
sey's warmest supporters. Mr.. Swasey
| is wrong when he says that the State
Board of Health twice condemned the
East Barre supply. The State Board OF
Health never condemned it, How
many times must this old chestnut be
cracked? The State Board of Health
recommended that u change be made
and pointed out the dangers. And the
Barre Water Co. itself, near ytwo years
ago went into court and proved that ii
was not safe to use this supply so thai
they could get the right to go on to 'ht
West hill, Nobody, not even the own
ers of the plant themselves for two
years have advocated the East Barre
supply; certainly Mr., Gordon ha;
not
There are many other errors in tho
platform. We shall have something
further to say about them later, W.
will not bother to correct only one NOR
at the present time. He says the may
or does not state in his message "hov
large debt has been contracted in eS
tending the East Barre supply" Ho'
could he state when no debt has bee
contracted for such a purpose. II h
means that Gordon did not state HOY
, much debt was incurred to extend tn
West hill supply he is in error. Gol
, don states it and gives the names OF til
, parties to whom we are indebted.
t j. w. MCDONALD.