The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-09-28
Udelowitz Answers
 Frederick $. Chase
Refreshens IndustriaIist's Memory on Issuance Of
 Bond For Pipe Line-GOss 'Blackjacked"
Editor of The Democrat:

GQ1tof or The OemOCTaLs
 In the IS odd years that I have written articles for local papers, ] cannot recollect any charge having been ma6 that any statement that any article contained was not based on fact, until the charge was made by MT. F. s. Chase in Tuesdays pa- pers. Naturally, such a charge does not set well with me. And since MT Cfiase's charge was made in reply to a charge made by myself against MT. Chase, I realize that is incum- bent upon myself to substantiate the charges that have made.
 To do that properly, I found 1t necessary to look up the files of To- cal newspapers for that period and will presently inform your readers as to what found there. And VIII cal on your readers to act as jury to decide whether my charges have any foundation or not.
 MT. Chase said that was con- fused. I will admit that l was con- fused about the dates of the meet ings of the Additional Water Supply Commission, since I wrote every thing from memory, but will not admit any confusion or that l mis- stated the facts in any other part of that section of the article that ap- peared in Tuesday mornings Re- publican.
 Before I start citing sections Of the files, I find it necessary to re- fer your readers to the charge made by Judge Inslis to the jury in the recent conspiracy trial. In that charge, Judge Inglis told the jury that it was practically impossible for the state to produce sufficient di- rect evidence to convict on such charge and that the jury must draw influences from the evidence intro duced as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants. And In drawing these inferences, they were to ap- ply just ordinary common sense.
 The reason that am bringing the conspiracy trial into this discussion is that it resembles the conspiracy case in that it is practically lmpoS- sible to prove the charge that l have made by direct evidence. And your readers will therefore have to draw differences from the matter that I am submitting, to decide the truth of my charges.
 There is a distinction between a conspiracy charge and charge such as I have made. The former 1n- wolves moral turpitude and the de- fendantS are entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. The charge that I have made is that ot moral responsibility and therefore can be given a more liberal con- struction. will however waive this distinction and ask your readers to give MT. Chase and the other manu- facturers the benefit of every req Eonable doubt.
 In drawing their inferences, will ask your readers to consider these facts. That Mayor Hayes purpose in calling a meeting of the Additional WSter Supply Commission was not merely to float loan of $250 ,000 to build that lipe line through Water town. That the city was in a very bal way financially. That bonds to the amount of $1,500000 were sold in November, 1886, and the proceeds from them were merely a drop in the bucket. And that the floating of this bond is ue which was surround ed by a maze of camouf1age, bally- hoo and deceit, starting at the aruount of Sl, 100 .O00 and winding up at the enormous amount of $3,l00,- 900.
 I will now turn to the files.
 The American of Feb. 5, 1887, car ried the following story:
 '"The legislature was asked today in bills introduced by Reps. John D. Thoms and Daniel J. Mahaney to authorize the city of Waterbury to float bond issues of several varieties