Norwich bulletin., 1921-07-12
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Water Board Presidency

Mir Editor: There are one or two exceptions that l feel 1 must take to your editorial in this mornings issue of The Bulletin You say it was owing to the conditions revealed last summer and the disclosures made, that resulted in the removal of their superintendent. As matter of fact Mir Lang was not the superintendent but water com missioner elected in the same manner and by the same method as that by which MT: Bartlett was elected. As member of the court of common council voted for the removal of Mn Lang. It is true that immediate steps were taken to clear the water sheds of the menace existing, yes even before Mir. Bartlett became a member of the board. You state his recent election proves his course met with the approval of the people. As a matter of fact he was | elected when he received the nomination in caucus. At the election he fell behind his democratic opponent in the number | of votes polVed.
 The board is perfectly aware of the extension of work now going on for the state hospital and every rrember in fact, every citizen also is for the contract was published in one of your recent is- | sues and MT. Ela ckledge is fully capable | of carrying out that work. It is true 1 tae council should and does look after l the interests of the taxpayers though their way of doing it does not always meet with popular approval. It is also ] true that it should not make any diff ference which part of the city member l resides, but, Mir. ditor neither the water board or Greeneville members of the court of common council raised that question. That, if I mistake not, was 1 first raised in your valued paper ir | which it was stated that the Greene vile majority voted in Greeneville men, Outside the position of president there were no, other candidates except the re tiring officials. 'Sectfonalism neves entered the minds of the members wht 1 supported MT. Blackledge for president They believed they were serving tn, best interests of the city by supportins MT. BlackIedge and the fact of his hay ing been a member of the board at tn, time of the wood cutting disclosures doe not disQuaIify him from serving as presi dent of the board. His business integri ty is beyond quetion and his ability tt fulfill the position is conceded by every one except those who by every means ar seeking the retention of Mir. Bartlett fo the. same position.
 As a member of the board and on who has the welfare of the city as nucl l at heart as those who opposed the con firmation in the council meeting I feel
 did right and have no apology to mak in supporting Mir. Blackledge. In con clusion 1 am not writing this to enter int a newspaper correspondence for I q, not intend to be led into one but just t, give the views of those on the wate board and council who voted with me Thanking you in anticipation of your s4v
 ing this space in your paper, believ me
 Yours respectfully,
 EDWARD CROOKS
 Norwich, July Ii, 1921
 ~s (At the time of his removal MT Ian
 was 8 member of the board but it wa under his service as superintendent o the equivalent and also member of th board that the wood cutting was p1anne and carried out.-Ed.)