The Brattleboro reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1907-1912, 1911-02-10

Central Vermont had not already Gov.
cred these two stretches with its own
tracks or did not own a charter to con.
struct the intervening link. 1t is, |
think, therefore manifest that the real
and only objection, if there be real
objection when the case is viewed from
a public standpoint and in broad
way, is the existence IF (D contracts
in the form of prior franchises entered
into between the state of Vermont and
the Central Vermont interests whereby
the latter may have been thought en-
titled to monopolize the railroad trans
question, or (2) land titles in the Cen
trail Vermont.
On the point of there being a right.
full monopoly pre-existing in the Cen.
trail Vermont | think it material to
mention two circumstances: First, the
state of Vermont as long ago as the
year 1869 declared, in effect, through
the grant of a charter to the West Riv-
er railroad, that the Central Vermont
did not, even theoretically. own an ex.
elusive right to operate railroad be.
tween South Vernon and Brattleboro
and, second, that since both of these
stretches lie along the boundary of the
state it was physically impossible that
the. state of Vermont acting independ.
emily Of the state of New Hampshire,
could create any monopoly of this kind.
AS to the taking or using of the
property of one railroad by another, as
has been contemplated in the vicinity
of the Brattleboro station, that matter
could probably be settled in the courts
or by adjustment without complicating
the main question of granting to the
Boston & Maine the franchise or fran.
chises to build railroad lines in Ver-
mont
| urged in my communication which
you published in your issue of January
2 that if new tracks were to be laid in
the Connecticut valley by any railroad
company it was important that they be
placed close alongside the existing
tracks, and not on the opposite side Of
the river. The reasons which l gave /
consider sound. if viewed from the
standpoint of the best interests of Yer
mont. To those reasons I may add the
suggestion of possible large increase
in the revenues of the state from fran.
chise and other taxes.
The newspapers have said that the
Boston & Maine would pay $4,000 per
annum to Vermont if the South Yer
non Brattleboro line were built. If the
Windsor White River Junction line
should be built in Vermont it ought to
yield an equally large revenue to the
state. On the other hand. if the fran.
chise which the Boston & Maine has
asked is not granted by Vermont it is
not unlikely that that road will build
the two parallel links in New Hamp.
shire. diminish the business of the Cen.
trail Vermont to virtually the same ex.
tent as if the parallel links were built
in Vermont, deprive two sections of
Vermont of through connection with
New York, and pay to New Hampshire
instead Of Vermont considerable an.
nual revenue.
The subject is important in its bear.
ing on the interests. of Vermont for all
time. To my mind, it has either not
been disposed of by the Vermont legis-
lature or, at least, has not been fully or
wisely disposed Of, and l think that
the governor would be justified in call. |
ing special session of the legislature
at an early date for the rurpose of ain. |
posing of this matter completely and
for the best interests of Vermont.
would renew my suggestion made in |
your issue of January 2, that il a fran. |
rhise be granted to the Boston & Main.
to construct line from South Vernon
to Brattleboro such grant be strictly
on the Boston & Maines
building another line from Windsor to |
White River Junction, wholly within
The state of Vermont and close along. |
.ide the track Of the Central Vermont. |
This condition. apprehend. would not !