Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1905-08-18
rHR VERMONT PRINTING co., Publishers
sRArrLEBoRo, FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 1905
The New Lighting Contract.

In another column the Reformer
publishes a letter from C. ii. Davenport
which purports to show that the ball
ifs have saved the village H,514.G4
year by their new contract for light
ing, and denounces as "humbug the
tissue" raised last May that the OPP
position to the old board of bailins
was In the interest of the Gaslight
company.
The Reformer though opposed to
change for reasons at the time stated
was party to no "humbug," which
Webster's defines as ian imposition I'M
der fair pretenses.' This paper re-
ported what was the fact. that the OPP
position to the old board was called on
the street 1.-THE Gaslight company tick
et',. that one man on the ticket was
director of the company we further
stated that we did not consider that
under the circumstances director OF
the company could consistently be
member of the board. We have seen
no reason why that statement should
he withdrawn If proposal had been
made to elect Col. Estey to PURCHASE
the steamer of the Estey Organ Co. for
the village we should have offered the
same objection. No question Of Ball
iff Gordons honesty was or Is involv-
ed.
We have no excuse to make for the
old board of bailiffs They should have
settled the lighting contract long ago.
In not doing so they believed they were
acting for the best interests of the VII
lage. That they We're supported by
this mysterious director who under
stood what they were going to pay and
by the manager of the Gaslight COM,
pany. is of no consequence. Other d.
rectors of the company supported the
other ticket
The new contract is an Improvement
in the matter of rates-we hope 1t Will
prove so in the matter of service. we
have absolutely no evidence however
as to what the old board would have
done, except the say-so of name
less director denied by the old board.
On the other hand it is not likely that
the new board would have gone into
the question so extensively had 1t
not been for the reelection agitation
of the "humbuggers."
The facts as to the saving. as given
in the local columns of this paper. are
that the new contract is actually 1888
per year less than the old prices; that
figuring on the increased number OF
hours it would be approximately $1,000
a wear less But by Mr. Davenports
own figures, what the public has gain
ed over what it would have gained il
the old board had made the contract
he says it intended to make, is only
S15S a year Qess the expense OF the
investigation) and tn" promise of lights
on moonlight nights and of lights that
are up to the standard" The Gas
light company did not properly observe
the conditions on which its old charges
were made. Will it observe the new
conditions?
And what shall be said of this COM
pany? Owners of what amounts TO
public franchise, with leading business
men as directors and manager, appar-
entity pursuing a policy of taxing the
village "all the traffic will bear" UNI
til forced to reduction at the point OF
the sword, is this company entirely
blameless if the village has paid sever
al thousand dollars more than 1t ought
to for lights? AS to its policy of dis
elimination in rates to private con-
sumers. long a matter of common
knowledge, and now part OF the
Adams report. is this policy any less
a public wrong than the other? is not
this corporation just as bound to serve
the public impartially and faithfully
as are the bailiffs themselves?
AS to the "other chief issue referred
to by Mr. Davenport, we anxiously
await developments. From the OBJ
security of our editorial sanctum we
can see that officer Hall has lost his
iob There is doubtless more to 1t.