Waterbury Democrat., 1902-06-16
A GARBLED REPORT.
Reporters Who Delight in Alisrepre- senting Public ofhclals.

AepOrLeTS WHO DeuSlL III MISIepLe-
 senting Public Officials.
 Saturday must have been an off day with Reporter French of the American. His articleon the trolley application and the board of public works furnishes un- mistakable evidence of this Of course his wild assertions may have been brought about by the fact that he was talking with a member of the board of public works Friday night, and, as he tells his readers, this member had good deal to say regarding the recent action of the board in connection with the trolley extension to WatertoWn, but neglects to state what the com missioner said, we're all in the dark on that point But it is nothing more than fair to assume that the comlnis- Sioner didn't overstate the facts, conse- quently the reporter must have done the blundering himself.
 MT French says that the proceedings of the meeting at which the trolley ap- plication was taken up were Withheld from the public. French, what were you thinking of when you made that statement? Wasn't the report of the board read to the aldermen less than half an hour after it had been acted
 
 Inasmuch as nothing else was consid- cred at that meeting, it is hard to see how anyone could think of saying that the proceedings of the meeting weren not given to the public. The reporter also states that Commissioners Scully, Ma nancy and Whiting were opposed to the whole scheme and made it plain to those about them that they never would allow the trolley people to use the highway at the Oakville bridge un- less the city was sure of the removal of the abutments in question, but Ma nancy and Scully changed their minds at the last moment. while the only commissioner who stuck to his guns was Mir Whiting The reporter must have neglected to read the conditions recommended by the board of public works on this trolley application else he never would have made this mis- take. He admits that Scully and Ma haney claimed from the beginning that they would not vote for the extension unless they were sure that the abnt- ments would be taken out of the street. and although the report covers all this and great deal more, still he accuses men who voted for it of hav- ing changed their minds. If MT French was not in 2 position to know all the facts in this case one might think that he had been imposed upon by some one with an axe to grind but no such ex- cuse can be offered in explanation of lis conduct Within the past month MT Scully told the reporter in EX- change place that he didn't know how the other members would vote on the trolley application. but that so far as he was concerned he had made up his mind not to agree to anything short of the widening of the street and a con- tract to the effect that i'll case the troll ley people failed to compel the railroad company to meet the expense. that they should do all the work themselves and pay all the bills. All these things were provided for in the recommendation of the board of public works, with the ad- dition of a surety bond of S25 1000, pay able to the city in case the work should not be done on or before q certain date.
 The reporter should return to that trolley question and do justice to the men whom he has wronged Usually his work as a reporter of the doings of the board of public works is very fair, but in this case he appears to have made an unpardonable binder Prob ably the conversation he had with member of the board exercised some in- huence over nim, and for all one can tell the reporter may have been under the magnetic power of the commission CT when he sat down Uo prepare CODY for that article. Commissioners. as well as members of alIother bodies. who have their way about things on most occa- sions are very apt to feel offended if their opinions happen to be thrust aside once ill while and those of oth- CTS accepted instead Probably that's why the commissioner the reporter chatted with last Friday night was so hot under the collar But if he had anything better to offer than what his colleagues voted for he should have submitted q minority report instead of protesting against what was being done. He may say he didn't have time. Did he ask for an extension of time or state that he wanted to make q mi nOrity report?
 The article referred to hints that the mayor will veto the action of the alder men on the trolley application. It would be hard to think otherwise. The report as submitted to the aldermen had the indorsement of the mayor. As amended 1t means nothing so far as protecting the city is concerned. Nat urally the mayor will want to yeto if and 1t is not unreasonable to believe that many of the aldermen who voted for the amendment that nullified every thing did so in good faith. but now that they see wlfat the amendment meant they may want to do it over again.