Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1906-10-12

Wuler III I1e ltlieI puDlSneu IN tne
village papers last week.
Fourteen years ago a committee elected
by the village, with an engineer in their
employ, carefully examined Stickney
brook and Sunset lake as sources for a
water supply for Brattleboro. and then
pronounced It the best. The quality of
the water was analysed at that time and
found to be excellent At the annual
meeting in May, 1906 the village elected
a committee to examine into the question
of a water supply, and that committed
employed an engineer, and several months
were spent in examining the quality of
the water, sources and amount of supply,
and size of watershed and availability,
and the engineer employed by that COM
mittee reported that the most available
source OF supply was Stickney brook and
Sunset lake The health officer of Brat
tleboro for many months previous to last
July had repeatedly taken samples of
water from Sunset lake and Stickney
brook and Pleasant valley, as we'll as
other possible sources OF supply, 50 the
village has known all that anybody
could know about the quantity and
quality of water from Sunset lake.
Stlckney brook and Pleasant valley. The
village by its vote in January last de-
clared its preference for taking over my
water systems. either by purchase or
arbitration. Subsequent to that meeting
/ had two. and only two. meetings with
the water board-each time only a por-
ton Of the board being present. At the
first meeting Messrs. Calvin, Brown, Hol-
den and Hooker of the board were pres
ent, with Judge Waterman as counsel.
At that meeting no proposition or sug-
gestion of arbitration was made. l was
simply asked to name my price or make
proposition for sale to the village, and /
made three propositions in writing: One
to take the systems as they then existed.
the two others each with considerable
further work to be done. My price on
the two latter propositions was made
upon the basis of estimates of cost which
had been furnished me. and which after
ward were found to be largely exceeded.
when the work was actually done. At
the second meeting with the water board
there were present Messrs. Hooker, Gal
win. Holden and Browa. I didn't Under
stand that meeting to be one for formal
propositions. There was more or less
tax about price and the suggestion was
made by Mr.. Calvin that there be a
board of engineers selected by the par
ties to appraise the property. | stated
that felt 1t should not pe left to en-
gineers to appraise the value of the
way to get at It, Nothing came of that
meeting but in order that there could be
no misunderstanding as to what took
place there. I wrote the following letter
to Mr.. Hooker:
Brattleboro. VT. April 7. 1906.
James F. Hooker. ESQ.,
Chairman Water Board.
Brattleboro, VT.
Dear Sir:-I understand that the con-
Calvin and Brown, of your committee
and me, at my house yesterday, was
purely Informal, as some of your COM
mittee stated. IL II Is in any case to be
regarded as anything more than that, or
II the talk relative to negotiations for
the purchase of the Chestnut Hill and
basis of any further action, i'm any way.
IL seems to me It would be well to have
the matter of both your suggestions of
writing. So will you be good enough to
write me IL this talk is to be in any
event regarded as anything more than
informal and II II is. TO put in writing
the statement and suggestions made. and
i Will at once put my reply IN writing. so
sha5 there cam T never 10 De ba AMY
treated as purely informal, II that is your
wish.
Yours truly,
GEORGE E. CROMWELL.
To this letter l received the following
reply from Mr.. Hooker
Brattleboro. VT. April 9, 1906.
My dear Mr.. Crowell:-
We called Saturday to see If you cared
to sell the Sunset Lake system separate
from the Chestnut Hill system. thinking
We could use the Sunset Lake system. not
for water for domestic purposes, but to
avoid water damages. You stated you
would not sell the two systems separately.
| understand the rest of the conversation
as purely informal.
Trust to communicate further with you
In a week or so.
Very sincerely yours,
(Sgned) JAS. F. HOOKER.
1 expected to hear further from the
water board according to the terms of
Mr.. Hooker's letter Up to the time of
the meeting with the water board on
June 2S there was never a word said to
me by the water board offering to leave
the matter of the sum TO be paid me for
my water systems to arbitration. The
only suggestion having been to leave 1t
to engineers to appraise the value, and
that in a talk which was purely informal,
as Mr.. Hooker states in his letter.
never stated that If l could not get
100000 more than it would cost to put
in the new system, / didn't want to sell
and would not, nor did l ever state any
thing of that kind for have never taken
any such position. After receiving Mr..
Hookers DETER as above 1 heard MOTH
ing from the water board, only as ]
learned through the public press and
rumor that they were planning to put
in an Independent system, and noticed a
call for bids for It's construction After
the contract had been let, as 1 was in
formed, suggestions came to me that IT
might be we'll to have a meeting with
the water board to see If something
could not be arranged. Accordingly,
met a committee from the water board
at the probate Office June 2S. Both par
ties were represented by counsel at that
meeting. l showed Mr.. Hooker's letter
to the gentlemen present and they all
stated that they had never seen it nor
heard of II and didn't know that such a
letter had been written. Then arose the
trate, and 1t was stated by me and my
counsel that 1 was, and the result OF
the meeting was the agreement to
arbitrate tentatively made, and the
committee submitted 1t to the board
which accepted the same and desired to
have 1t informally presented to the viii
lage meeting, then about to be held
There were no arbitrators agreed upon
at that meeting; there were two or three
men named as indicating the kind and
character and standard of men that
would make good arbitrators. There was
no agreement that the matter would be
attended to within the next two weeks
1t was agreed, as the agreement to arbi-
trate states, that each side should have
two weeks in which to put in testimony
whenever the hearing was held. 1t was
stated by my counsel at that meeting
that he seriously doubted whether the
village had the right under its present
charter to arbitrate, and certainly that
the village could not bind itself for any
sum over $780, 900 under the present char
ter, but that an agreement could be made