Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


Please note: Ashland electric rates have not changed since 2010

To The Daily Sun,

Allegations have been leveled against the Ashland Electric Department, in your paper dated Oct. 15. We would like to set the record straight.

The referenced flag pole would have a grand total cost of approximately 20 cents a month for 500 KWH or $2.40 for a period of one year. A small price to pay for something as symbolic as the American flag. We have received many comments about how proud our ratepayers are and their contribution. The original intent was for the Ashland Electric Department to operate and maintain the flag and pole. However, the Ashland Board of Selectmen has voted to take control out of our hands.

We have approximately $500,000 worth of vehicles and materials sitting outside and slowly deteriorating. Our new building can stop this process. The Electric Department is a franchise, as is the Ashland Water & Sewer Departments. Within RSA 38:2, backed by RSA 35:15, the commissioners can name themselves as agents and can then expend capital reserve monies as needed without a vote of the people. This is not the case with the Board of Selectmen.

As to the North Ashland Road Project, had the selectmen not confiscated over $430,000 in 1999 from the Electric Department, the transfer from the old poles, wires and transformers to the new poles would have been completed within the five-year estimate. Then it was asked of the voters to forgive this debt that the general fund owed the Electric Department Fund, in 2001, in violation of state law.

We do not butt our noses into other business of the town. Why do others persist in butting into ours as our rates are for all intents and purposes the lowest in the state and maybe New England. Please also note, our rates have not changed since 2010.

Sandra Coleman, Chair
Daniel Vaughn, Member
David Fucarile, Member

Town of Ashland

Electric Department


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 177

In order to participate in politics it was necessary to join a church

To the editor,

Bob Meade has not only failed in his assertions regarding the founding era, he turns out to be quite the accomplished fiction writer. Mr. Meade claims that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli was intended to mollify the Barbary Coast and that the U.S. senators and the president didn't really mean Article 11. Bob was there, of course.

Those are the talking points of the historical revisionists in the Christian Reconstructionist camp (David Barton, etc). The problem with Mr. Meade's claim is that Article 11 isn't in the Arab versions. None of the known Arabic versions of the treaty contains Article 11 so there was no attempt to mollify the Barbary Coast in the treaty the Arabs agreed to. But Article 11 was in the version unanimously ratified, article by article, by the U.S. Senate and then signed by President Adams. Article 11's statement that the "government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion" accords perfectly with the Constitution's ban on religious tests and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendments as understood by Jefferson and Madison. Why it went down this way we will probably never know. But it still doesn't negate that the article was ratified by the U.S. Senate, signed, and became the law of the land and mollification is fiction.

Mr. Meade also claimed that all the founders who signed the Declaration of Independence were Christians. It's not that simple. What he seems to be unaware of is that since the colonial era, no person could be involved or be influential in civil affairs in any of the colonies or states unless they were members of an official church. These were the times before religious tests were banned by the Constitution.

For example, George Washington refused the sacrament of communion all of his adult life. He always left the church service prior to its administration. When he was outed publicly by the pastor of the church for not participating in the sacrament, Washington promptly quit that congregation and joined another.

As Paul F. Boller noted in his book, "George Washington & Religion", "Actually, under the Anglican establishment in Virginia before the Revolution, the duties of a parish vestry were as much civil as religious in nature and it is not possible to deduce any exceptional religious zeal from the mere fact of membership. Even Thomas Jefferson was a vestryman for a while. Consisting of the leading gentlemen of the parish in position and influence (many of whom, like Washington, were also at one time or other members of the county court and of the House of Burgesses), the parish vestry, among other things, levied the parish taxes, handled poor relief, fixed land boundaries in the parish, supervised the construction, furnishing, and repairs of churches, and hired ministers and paid their salaries."

Boller also mentioned Bishop William Meade who complained in his 1857 book, "Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia," "Even Mr. Jefferson and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."

So it's pretty clear that being a member of a church meant nothing as far as deducing the beliefs of a politician because in order to participate in politics, one was required to join a state-approved church.

"Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept separate." (U. S. Supreme Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860)

James Veverka

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 158