Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1911-03-15

ing it's terminal facilities. 1t is too
bad that such feeling of distrust
should exist but the Central Vermont
officials have only 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 a chain
OF circumstances with which Brattle
boro people are all too familiar. 1t
contains one statement. however,
which demands correction. When Mr..
Jones says that the Central Vermont
officials submitted to the local rail-
road proposition whereby that
road agreed to make all of the local
Bost ton & Maine ard to give the Bos-
ton & Maine the right to use these
facilities jointly with full rights of
competition and that this proposition
was promptly Declined" he is mis-
taken to say the least. All three
members of the local committee say
positively that no such proposition
ever came to them. At one time
they were asked what they would
think of such proposition 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 forthcoming at that time or
at any time later.
Since the very beginning of the
famous railroad conflict which cul-
minated so UNANIMOUSLY Brattleboro
has shown d disposition to deal with
the question fairly. The activity of
it's citizens in behalf of the Boston &
Maine proposition to build a compel.
ing line from Brattleboro to South
Vernon was inspired by no desire tc
harm the Central Vermont but by an
honest wish to secure for this town as
we'll as for the entire east side of
Vermont the manifold benefits that
follow increased and improved rail
road service. The local railroad com.
mittee was Jealous in it's efforts tt
secure adequate protection for the
Central Vermont terminal facilities
here, and the bill that passed the
house of representatives provided
amply for such protection. But wher
the Central Vermont officials contIn
ued active opposition to the bill ir
Espite of all these safeguards which
the local committee helped to get, i
became apparent that the roads mair
purpose was to prevent, by hook OF
crook, anything that resembled actua
competition.
All the talk which the Central Yer
mont newspapers are making abou
h -
policy involved in the action of thu
senate and the vote of thanks which
New England owes that august body
is pure buncombe for the very plain
and simple reason that the authority
the Boston & Maine road would moi
in anyway "tbrottle' the Central
Vermont or interfere in the sIightes
degree with the carrying out Of an.
extension which it may have in con
temptation. This statement is a sol
id, stubborn fact-a fact which prac
tically every member of the hous
t and senate railroad committees VIII,
visited Brattleboro recognized; a fac
which the majority Of the Vermont
house of representative recognized
a fact which nineteen Vermont sena
tors absolutely ignored when the,
voted against the proposition. In tn,
= case of at least six of the nineteen.
David E. Porter of st. Johnsbury,
Sumner z. Darling Of Hardwick,
Porter H. Dale of Brighton,
Merrick NJ. Taplin of Barton,
Frank C. Archibald of Manchester
Henry T. Cushman of Bennington,
the Reformer believes that the,
voted not only against the best inter
ests of the state of Vermont but con
trary to the wishes of the large ma
jority Of their constituents. --Brattle.
boro Reformer.