The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1911-02-10
BRArrLEBoRo, FRIDAY. FEB. 10. 1911
THE CASE OF SENATOR PORTER.


ssrvant OF the public, II is his duty L
act in accordance with the wishes of hi
constituents so long as those wishes d.
not contemplate the perpetration Of al
actual injustice. As long as he does 81
act his course il, as a rule, free from hom'
criticism and in the absence Of criticism
there is no need of his making any de
tense. Therefore when a public servan,
feels called upon to publish lengthy
defense OF his action on any question di
rectly affecting the interests OF his con
stituents il may be fairly assumed that
this action is contrary to the wishes OF his
constituents. We have in mind the case
Of Senator David L. Porter of Caledonia
county, who, in lengthy letter 10 the
st. Johnsbury papers, attempts to justify
his action in voting against the Boston 4
Maine railroad bill.
In the first place, let us consider Sena'
tor Porters position in the matter. As a
member of the judiciary committee Of the
senate he was called upon to give particu'
lar attention to this bill only after il was
referred to the special committee made up
of the senate committees on railroads and
judiciary. As a member of this special
committee it was his duty either to in
vestigate the situation personally or to
take the facts as reported by those who
had made such an investigation. BY voting
against the motions authorizing the entire
senate to visit Brattleboro, he elected to
take the latter course, namely, to accept
the facts in the case as reported by the
hcpse and senate committees on railroads,
who had made careful investigation OF
conditions in Brattleboro and the effect
of the proposed bill upon them. These
facts, in so far as they relate to damage
to the property of the Central Vermont
by the proposed Boston & Maine extern
sion, were reported as follows by the ma
jority of the house committee
at was found that the plans would ne.
cessitate the destruction and rebuilding OF
a turntable and roundhouse, would de.
stroy two small side-tracks and would
separate the tracks at present used for
handling carload freight from the main
portion of the yard by the proposed tracks
Of the Boston & Maine. On the other
hand, the plans would make more space
available for tracks on the side of the
railroad track next to the town, would
provide an admirable place. for handling
carload freight on that side and would
greatly facilitate the handling of the whole
freight and passenger service. In short,
the new layout for Central Vermont bust.
ness alone, without reference to that of
the Boston & Maine, your committee be-
lieves would be much better than it is at
present"
And as follows by the majority of the
senate committee
"For such taking the general law does
not provide. It can be done without injury
to the property of said company which is
not taken and without interfering with
the portion Of the main line or freight
yard tracks or freight yard operated by
the Central Vermont Railway company;
and if the plan exhibited to the commit
tees be adopted, it will result in the great
advantage and improvement Of said prop
erty by extending the facilities of the
freight yard and improving the grade of
the highway, making it substantially level
from the village to the freight yard
But did Senator Porter accept them?
Apparently not, for he says in his letter
of attempted justification
1.-THE taking of such land would leave
sidings on either side of said strip and the
Central Vermont would, in order to reach
such sidings, have to cross and recross the
Boston & Maine tracks on such terms as
could be obtained. Under such conditions
independent operation would be impossi.
BILE. One must be the road controlling the
situation. One road must, SO far as the
yard is concerned, dominate the other.
The taking Of the land means surrender
of the Central Vermont authority over its
own property and future subserviency to
the Boston & Maine in the occupancy and
use Of its yard cut into by such taking"
In further attempt to justify his
course the senator from Caledonia county
makes this statement
"The taking Of land Of one railroad and
giving it to another involves a funda-
mental principle and would establish
precedent fraught with deterrent uncer-
tainty for any. industry seeking to estab-
h itself in Vermont. With such a pre-
emit no railroad and no industry would
free from the ever present danger of
ling crippled or even absorbed by more
.,werful factor. Such q taking is without
recedent in Vermont"
Such taking is without precedent in
Vermont only when it substantially de-
stroys the property Of the party from
which the land is taken, so Senator Porter
practically admits his refusal to accept
the facts as reported by those Of his col.
leagues who gave the matter personal in
vestigation.
Further on in his letter Senator Porter
speaks of the senate amendment which he
drew. "This amendment" he says, ''pro.
vided, among other things, for the con-
struction Of double track and more, if
the public service commission found more
necessary, for full and unrestricted con-
duct of the business Of the Boston &
Maine, to be used by it as tenant Of the
Central Vermont, compensation for the use
of the same to be fixed by the public serv-
ice commission if not agreed upon" All
that need be said regarding this proposal
10 that before it was offered it was de.
clared unconstitutional in the opinion of
the attorney-general.
The facts are then, that Senator Porter
bases his justification, first, on the ground
that the proposed Boston & Maine charter
would harm the Central Vermont terminal
facilities at Brattleboro, when the men
who visited the premises and whose judg-
ment he agreed to accept said that the ia.
cilities would be helped rather than harm.
ed; second, that Ne action would be with
an,