Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1906-12-07
BRATrLEBoRo, FRIDAY. DEC, 7, 1905
WHAT THE VILLAGE WILL GET.

In whatever form the amendment
TO the village charter is secured there
is little doubt that 1t will contain pro-
visions binding the village to deal fair
ly with Mr.. Crowell before taking steps
toward the establishment of a compel
ing system. just how this protection
will be given to Mr.. Crowell is matter
of conjecture. II is not unlikely, how
ever, that it will be in the form of n
clause obliging the village to negotiate
for the present systems by purchase or
arbitration before doing anything that
will tend to destroy Mr.. Crowell' S prop
erty. interests. Judging by the
attitude of the legislative committee
on municipal corporations at the public
hearing Tuesday its members fail TO
understand why Brattleboro is so siren
uously opposed to the arbitration plan.
This failure to comprehend the situation
is not surprising when the testimony of
water board members is taken into con
sideration. From what they said
the committee was led to believe that
the board was in favor of paying for
the Crowell systems practically $685.
900 more than il considered them worth
vet was afraid to leave the matter of
price to three fair.minded arbitrator.
In other words the board took the attl-
tude that any board of arbitrator
would be likely to place on the Crowcll
systems a valuation more than $l25,0O0
in excess of their actual worth. In
explaining the reasons for the village 5
rejection Of the. recent agreement to
purchase the Croweli systems the water
board failed to state that many people
were opposed to the plan because they
doubt the expediency of village
ownership at the present time. The
board also neglected to state that its
own inconsistent course had something
to do with the defeat of the agreement
In fact it may be said with truth that
the board s position at the hearing
clouded rather than cleared the situa
ton in the minds of the legislative
committee.
However, the hearing established one
fact clearly, and that was that Mr.. Glib.
son s bill in its original form would
have offered no solution of the water
question. 1t contained no provision for
appeal from the question of the neces-
sity of taking land, and this omission
in itself would have made the bill un-
constitutional. In this connection Mr..
Crowell 8 counsel brought out the fact
that the village charter amendment of
1892 was unconstitutional for this very
reason and that under it the village
could not have taken a single legal step
toward owning water system. The
provision in Mr.. Gibson s bill for the
legalization of the village acts of Jan
10, 1906, was also subjected to criti-
cism and it was conceded by both sides
that this would have to be stricken
out.
Of course, no one can tell just what
sort of a charter amendment the legis
lature will give the village, but it is
probable that it will contain provisions
making the water board a body of not
less than three or more than five mem
bers to be elected at a special meeting,
placing the question of the disposal of
bonds in the hands of the taxpayers
themselves instead of in the hands of
the water board, and compelling the
village to deal with Mr.. Crowell either
by the arbitration agreement of last
June or under the terms of the pur-
chase agreement of November before
having the authority to establish a COM
peting system. This will mean, prob
ably, that the question of village own
ership will be dropped for the present,
and there are many taxpayers who be-
lieve such action would eventually
bring about the most satisfactory solu-
ton of the whole matter.
-