Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1916-06-16
POWER PETITION GRANTED,
Right Of Incorporation TO Develop
Power on Mlddlebury River.

'H' AbllN WV tNNANNANRNN'' 'ANh
decided to grant the petition of Charles
II. Thompson to be allowed to organize
a corporation to build a dam on the
Middlebury river and sell the power to
Barre. But Mr. Thompson must first
show his funds and do several other
things, The Commissions report is
as follows:-
AT the hearing, the petitioners intro
duced evidence that they had acquired
certain land or rights to land either in
fee or by option on the Middlebury river
and that the proposed corporation, If
established, proposed to develop a
hydro electric plant at a point called
"The Gorge" on said River and to dis
tribute the electricity generated there
from to the public for power and me-
chancal purposes only in the towns Of
Middlebury, Ripton, Lincoln, Hancock,
and Granville, in the County of Addison;
Warren, Roxbury, Mortified, Berlin,
Barre Town, Barre City, and Mont
peler, in the County of Washington,
and Wiliamstown in the County of
Orange, and also for lighting purposes
in the towns of Ripton, Hancock, Lin
coin, Warren, ROxbury, Berlin and the
village of East Middebury.
The petitioners introduced evidence
concerning particular plan Of develop
ment which would be adopted by said
corporation and also produced engineer
ing data which tended to show that said
particular plan of development was
commercially feasible.
The estate of Joseph Battell which
appeared in opposition to the petition,
claimed that the proposed plan of de-
velopment if carried out, would destroy
the senic beauty of Mddlebury Gorge;
would render necessary a diversion of
the highway leading to Bread Loaf Inn,
hotel owned by said estate, and would
require the taking of large amount
Of land now owned by the said estate.
The claim was also made by said estate
that the land owned by it which would
have to be taken to carry out said plan
of development has already been de-
voted to public use by the terms of
the will of the late Joseph Battel and
consequently could not be taken by the
exercise of any right of eminent domain
by said proposed corporation.
There was considerable dispute in the
evidence as to the relative real estate
holdings of the Battell estate and of the
petitioners. In regard to the conten-
tions of said estate, we find that the
proposed plan of development, if carried
out would not injure or impede access
by highway to the Bread Loaf Inn, as
the proposed plan contempates the
building of new highway in place of
the present highway which would be
better than said present highway in
grade and construction and would rem
der the Inn equally accessible. While
the Commission has due appreciation
of the scenic beauties of the State, we
do not feel that such consideration
should be paramount in deciding ques-
tion concerning an industrial develop
ment of the State of Vermont through
the medium of its water powers. In
this case, we believe that the advantage
of some form of hydro-electrc develop
on the Middebury River will outweigh
the possible impairment of the scenic
beauty of the River which might result
therefrom. In regard to the possibility
of land being taken from the estate of
Joseph Battell by condemnation pro-
ceedings by the proposed corporation
and in regard to the legal right of the
corporation so to do, the Commission is
of the opinion that the present proceed
ing is not the one in which to decide
these questions. The proposed cor
poraton would have no right to take any
of the lands of said estate unless by con-
demnation proceedings in which the
statutory requirements must be shown
and even then could not take any land
if the same had been previously devoted
to public use.
To undertake to decide those ques.
tions in the present proceeding would be
going entirely beyond the scope which
we attribute to this petition. We will
consider these questions when, if ever,
they are raised before the Commission
directly in proceeding between the
corporation and the estate of Joseph
Battell.
The Montpelier & Barre Light &
Power Company appeared in opposition
to the petition, claiming that it is ar
established public service corporation
supplying Northfeld, Berlin, Barre
Town, Barre City, Montpelier and Viii.
Jamestown with electric energy for
lighting and power purposes; that il
was adequately supplying all the elec.