Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1906-10-12
JAMES F. HOOKER,
JOHN l.. ROESS,
LYMAN e. HOLDEN,
G.. e. GILMAN,
j. A. TAYLOR,
HENRY TUCKER.
A. w. ROCKWELL,
GEORGE A. EELS.

The ABOVE letter NOr Is II statement! y
was issued Wednesday and has been gem
orally circulated in the village. Its ap-
pearance makes 1t increasingly evident
that 1t needs a cipher code and the SER
vices of an interpreter to find out where
the water board (speaking collectively
stands on the water question, and what
is the exact truth" II such a quantity
exists in connection with this subject.
Presuming that The Phoenix is one of
the local papers referred to, let US see
in what our Misrepresentation and un-
fairness" consist in connection with the
statement published last week over the
names of ]. F. Hooker, L. e. Holden and
G. E. Gilman. "for the water board" In
our editorial comment on that statement
we said that the board had voted to have
such a statement drawn up. Was this
untrue? We said that at least six mem
bers of the board had not seen the state
ment before publication. Since this Is a
case where the exact truth" is essential.
let us be definite We found by personal
enquiry that John Calvin, Henry r.
Brown. Henry Tucker. ]. A. Taylor,
A. w. Rockwell. George A. Eels and
John l.. Roess had not seen the state
ment before 1t was submitted for publica-
ton. We did not take this information at
second hand; we got it by direct enquiry
of each of the men named. Was this
a misrepresentation or unfair?
The Phoenix said edtorially last week:
''Au least four members of the water
board state that they stand squarely by
the agreement to arbitrate for the pur-
chase of the present system, and that,
| while still in favor of municipal owner
ship. they would not now countenance
or support a movement to establish an
independent system in competition with
the CrowelI system without proceeding
with the arbitration agreed upon" Three
members of the board-John Calvin
Henry r. Brown, and Henry Tucker
made this statement to the editor OF this
paper in person. Mr.. Eels made the same
statement. though perhaps in less abso
lutte and positive way, to w. A. Gilbert
whom we sent to interview him. Johr
CALVIN told the editor Of this papei
yesterday that he was not asked to sigI
the letter or statement printed at th'
head of this article. Henry r. Brown
said he was asked TO sign 1t and refused
to do 50.
Here is the exact truth" stated Will
as much exactness and definiteness as ou
command of the English language permits
US to use. We trust the signatories viii
now find time to tell the public in wha
the Misrepresentation and unfairness
of this local paper" consisted
We can see only one possible chanc
for disagreement. We thought we wer
warranted in saying last week that eth
statement Cfor the water board) de
clares positively against ownership of tn
Crowell system"-but perhaps the res
fact is that the board itself doesn't knoN
where 1t is 'at." If so, so much the NOR
reason for dismlssing it from further ser
vice.
We venture this predictions: The voter
of the village of Brattleboro, to maintai
their unbroken record of honor and goo
faith, will either keep their agreemer
with Mr.. Crowell to arbitrate for the pun
chase of his water system, or by agree
ment with him they will drop the who
proceedings and let him finish and ow
and operate the village water system
The taxpayers of the village will neve
in their sober senses, vote to burde
themselves and mortgage the future wit
a debt of 100000 to 100000 for the col
struction of an Independent competir
system. The whole of the service ar
: the whole of the income is not too muC
: to make the enterprise even moderate
a financial success whoever owns it.