The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-05-04
FRANK E. HOWE, editor and pub'r.
THE MORAL ASPECT

TIE MOHHL A0FENl
Let us Vermonters take the pains
TO clear away one or two ideas that
have some how become associated
with the New Haven-Grand Trunk
railroad war over property rights at
Brattleboro and that have nothing
whatever to do with the issue and
should not be allowed to influence
its decision. For instance, II does not
matter whether the state loses an an
nual sum in taxes if the New Haven
builds certain strip OF road in New
Hampshire or gains that certain sum
If the road is built on our side of the
river Exact and equal justice should
be done between these two railroad
lines no matter whether Vermont gets
cent out of it or not. Vermont can
afford to lose every cent of possible
tax receipts, but she cannot AFFORD TO
do either OF these parties intentional
injustice for the sake of making a dol
lar on her own account. Let us talk
no more about the gain to the state
in taxes aspect of the controversy
st. Adams Messenger
ne mcSocHScI ildhcS fcly Cic'Vl
plea but it misses few points just
as it seems to have the habit of do
ing in discussing this question. First
bear in mind that this is not war
over property rights at Brattleboro
but a question whether the Grand
Trunk railroad can drive out OF the
state railroad development that natu-
rally ought to come and desires to
come into Vermont. At no stage OF
this controversy have the supporters
of the Boston and Maine attempted to
take away from the Central Vermont
at Brattleboro anything but its mono
poly of the right to get into that vii
lage.
The bill passed by the Vermont
House of Representatives gave the
Central Vermont railroad double
track rights into and out OF Brattle-
boro and all terminal and yard
privileges that it does or is ever like
ly to need The Central Vermont
property 1t proposed to take was
merely land that it owns but not es-
sential for railroad purposes enough
to let another road into Brattleboro
over its own iron. The Messenger
and other editorial supporters of the
Central Vermont have over and over
stated and otherwise carried the i'm
preston that the bill passed would
take from the Central Vermont some
of its essential property used for rail
road purposes and therefore the Cen
trail Vermont would be crippled No
person familiar with the
situation could or would say that. 1t
is an error continuously reiterated to
blind the eyes of those who are not
familiar with the real circumstances
of the case.
Secondly we are not surprised that
the apologists for the British corpora
ton do not want to talk about that
loss of state revenue BY the refusal
of the state of Vermont to let the Bos-
ton and Maine into Brattleboro the
Boston and Maine was compelled to
figure on making its through line on
the New Hampshire side Of the river
where il would not naturally go.
With the trunk line on that side from
South Vernon to Walpole the state OF
Vermont will lose not merely
revenue OF $4,000 a year as was
figured If the extension was merely
through Hinsdale and Chesterfield to
Brattleboro as was originally talked,
but probably not less than $4,000
year through the diversion of traffic.
Think what that amounts to. Not
less than quarter of million dol
lars every ten years as long as wood
grows and railroads run. Forever
lost to Vermont just TO maintain a
Central Vermont monopoly of the en-
trance into Brattleboro from the
south.
And this too is not taking into con
sideration the Injustice to Brattleboro
and other towns of that section. Let
us continue to talk about the loss OF
state taxes aspect of the controversy
until Vermont can enforce justice to
her own people. Exact and equal
Justice should be done, as the Mes
senger says, but in our opinion it has
not yet been accomplished and the