Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1913-08-06
LEAVES CASE TO PEOPLE
Surprised to Learn Governor Had Any
Other Reasons for His Removal.
His Reply to Fletcher in Full.

Other Reasons for His Removal.
His Reply to Fletcher in Full.
Charles D. Watson. who was re
moved by Governor Fletcher from the
public service commission on Monday
of last week, as told in these columns,
made the following statement in
answer to that of Governor Fletcher,
an extract of which appeared in this
paper.
Il read the statement of Governor
Fletcher this morning with more than
ordinary interest for it was the first
information had received in any way
regarding the causes of my removal
other than the statement made to the
members of the commission that they
were no longer fit to serve because of
the stand they had taken in the tele-
phone matter. That stand amounted
to a refusal to pass judgment in case
before the evidence was heard as l
stated Monday.
Il must confess that am surprised
to learn that the Governor had any
other reasons. AS to the Bennington
matter referred to by His Excellency,,
l may properly say that the Governor
told the commission that he had been
AOAoOSCCd W SO W AS14ulAE VII
vestigate. He was Informed that the
commission had passed judgment and
would stand by that Judgment. Gov.
ernor Fletcher at first criticised the
commission but when the situation
was explained. he said no more and
did not intimate in any way that our
action was unsatisfactory, which
makes all the more surprising his
present statement that our action
would have justified reorganization
of the commission at that time.
'His Excellency makes reference to
procrastination in putting into effect a
railroad demurrage law. This is the
first intimation of complaint by the
Governor IN this regard. If there was
any procrastination here it was due as
much to the complainant refusal
to conform to the procedure in such
matters as laid down by the law, as to
any delay of the commission.
''As to whether the commission was
asked to pre-judge the telephone case
l ask the people to read the letter from
the Governor which accompanied the
report of Messrs. Cook and Graham
and which virtually informed us that
we were to issue an order in con-
formity with the specific recommends
tions of the special counsel. The
public may judge whether the special
counsel obtained sufficient evidence or
obtained it in way proper on which
to base such an order as was desired
! l, with the other members of the
commission, was willing to issue such
an order as would give the telephone
companies an opportunity to be heard
and present their case.
"That had no intimation or suspicion
that relations between the Governor
and myself were not friendly, l may
say that besides lack of suggestion
from him, 1 had been received socially
at his home and had eaten at his table
and slept under his roof. Up to the
time of the telephone report, then, in
my opinion the most cordial relations
existed between Mr. Fletcher anc
myself. A change was noticeable,
however, after the commission hao
determined that it must withdraw its
promise to sign the order the Governor
wanted. When we told His Excellency
of our position the change was at once
evident. AS have stated before, he
then Informed us that we were ne
longer fit to sit in judgment on the
matter. This was at his house ir
Proctorsville. There was great
contrast between his treatment of me
on the occasion of my former visit t.
his house and then. II will say il
conclusion that Governor Fletcher
knew me by personal contact when We
were in the house of representative!
together in 1908 and also during tn,
recent session when he was chic
executive and was again on the foo
of the house. He appointed me with
, out my solicitation or without repre-
, sentations on the part of my friends a
z far as l knew. He must have know
the man he was appointing, and ther
has been no change in the man since
| am willing to let this matter res
with the people. simply stood fo
, the right as saw it. I have nothin,
to conceal from the people the record
: are there. simply refused to sit i
judgment on case when the defend
5 ant had not been given the opportunl
ty to be heard