The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1911-02-17
FIGHTING PROGRESS,

AHSee~s
Through some strange coincidence so
called history of the recent railroad night
by General Manager G. G. Jones OF the
Central Vermont appeared IN the 81
Albans Messenger the day before the
special town meeting in Bnttleboro to
take action looking toward suspension
of the work which that railroad has start
ed under the public service commission
order of last fall-work which is intended
we believe, to prevent the Boston y
Maine from coming into BrOttleboro from
the south on this side OF the river. Hand
bills bearing a reprint of Mr. Jones's
''history" were circulated in Brattleboro
Tuesday afternoon, and their effect on local
sentiment was about the same as that OF
A gallon or two of kerosene poured on
bonfire. The vote on the railroad question
Tuesday evening is unmistakable evidence
that the people OF Brattleboro have no
confidence in a railroad corporation that
resists legitimate competition under the
flimsy pretence of protecting its terminal
facilities. II is too bad that such a feel
ing OF distrust should exist but tine Central
Vermont officials have on'y themselves to
blame because it does exist. Their course
throughout the railroad fight has been in
direct opposition to the best interests OF
Vermont and the town of Brattleboro.
There is little need for comment on the
Jones "history." In the main it is
highly colored review of chain OF cir
cumstances with which Brattleboro people
are all too familiar. 1t contains one state
ment, however, which demands correction,
When Mr.. Jones says that the Central
Vermont officials submitted to the local
railroad committee a proposition whereby
that road agreed TO make all of the local
improvements contemplated by the Boston
& Maine and to give the Boston x Maine
the right to use these facilities jointly
with full rights of competition, and that
this proposition was promptly declined,
he is mistaken to say the least. All three
members OF the local committee say posi-
lively that no such proposition ever came
to them. At one time they were asked
what they would think of such PROPOSE
ton if it should be made, and their reply
was in effect that they could tell better
when they received it. A day or two later
they met the Central Vermont officials in
the expectation that such a proposition
might be offered, but it was not forthcom-
ing at that time or at any time later.
Since the very beginning of the famous
railroad conflict which eliminated so in
famously Brattleboro has shown DISPOSE
ton to deal with the question fairly.
The activity of its citizens in behalf OF
the Boston & Maine proposition to build
a competing line from Brattleboro to
South Vernon was inspired by no desire
to harm. the Central Vermont but by an
honest wish to secure for this town as well
as for the entire east side of Vermont the
manifold benefits that follow increased
and improved railroad service. The local
railroad committee was jealous in its Ell
forts to secure adequate protection for the
Central Vermont terminal facilities here,
and the bill that passed the house OF rep
resentatives provided amply for such pro-
lection. But when the Central Vermont
officials continued active opposition to the
bill in spite of all these safeguards which
the local committee helped to get, it be-
came apparent that the roads main pur.
pose was to prevent, by hook or crook,
ANYTHING that resembled actual competi'
ton.
All the talk which the Central Vermont
newspapers are making about the wide
six-state New England policy involved in
the action of the senate and the vote OF
thanks which New England owes that au-
gust body is pure buncombe for the very
plain and simple reason that the authority
which the senate was asked to give the
Boston & Maine road would not in any way
"throttle" the Central Vermont or inter
fere in the slightest degree with the car
rying out OF any extension which it may
have in contemplation. This statement is
solid, stubborn fact-a fact which prac-
tically every member of the house and
senate railroad committees who visited
Brattleboro recognized fact which the
majority of the Vermont house of repre-
sentatives recognized; fact which nine
teen Vermont senators absolutely ignored
when they voted against the proposition.
In the case of at least six of the nineteen,
David E. Porter of St. Johnsbury,
Sumner E. Darling of Hardwick,
Porter H. Dale of Brighton,
Merrick M. Taplin of Barton,
Frank G. Archibald of Manchester,
Henry T. Cushman of Bennington,
The Reformer believes that they voted
not only against the best interests of the
state of Vermont but contrary to the
wishes of the large majority of their con-
stituents.