Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1859-01-14

. waters, as surely return az last, III luc shape
of positive evils, to those that cast them
"m semeptem FERRIS, TIA 1t mates"
One cannot be expected to follow the news
papers, to explode every bubble Of SANDER as
it appears, and should not have troubled
you with this letter, had it not seemed, that
the article, to which | have replied, was the
deliberate manifesto Of the people Of Mont
pelier Yours respectfully
GEORGE F. EDMUNDS.
We confess TO a good deal Of surprise that
Mr.. Edmunds should have troubled himself
to make so long a reply upon points that were
not made material by the article to which he
replies, and to accusations that were not made
against him.
lie says he is ACCUSED" in the article re-
ierrod to "of appointing a majority Of the
) committee Of ways and means from localities
opposed to Montpelier which he says means
that he packed the committee Now in
fact, we did not accuse him in this regard
we did not suggest any blame on his part.
We merely stated the fact of the localities Of
the majority, and Of their surprising course
of action. 1t is unfortunate that Mr.. f. did
not read the article more carefully before re-
q, plying to it,
But Mr. e. says that Middebury is not
locality opposed to Montpelier, unless Mr..
Stewart misrepresented that town in 1851.
: This is mere play upon words perhaps re-
sorted to for the purpose of uttering a jeer at
Mr. Stewart. The whole of Addison County
when we speak Of mere locdliy. is opposed to
Montpelier, except the town Of Granville, al
though in fact Montpelier has had supporters
+ from that County.
Mr.. Edmunds says that two members Of
this majority were appointed at the solicitation
of Mr.. Colhmer. In order to a more full ex-
PLANTATION we state, by authority of Mr. Col
amer, that Mr. Z. insisted upon appointing
three, out of the five members composing the
committee, from the west side of the noun
tain; and that Mr.. C.. suggested names TO the
Speaker, and among them were those of the
members from Castleton and Middlebury.
Mr. Collamcr well knew the course taken by
= Mr.. Wcstover in 1857. but was personally
, unacquainted with Mr. Hammond Of Middle
bury. and was entirely ignorant Of the fact
that Mr. II. was at Montpelier during the ex-
ira session working for Burlington. Mr.
p Collamcr is therefore unwilling to have it I'M
derstood that the committee was his choice,
/ except as now explained
Mr. +. says he believes he is charged with
I some sin in the appointment of the com
, mitteo on public buildings. We did not all
} lude to this committee.
Mr. f. says he is accused" of having ere
! fused to receive the propositions Of the SEN
ate, but ailirms 81 did nothing of the kind"
= and goes on to say that the House ordered the
} return to the Senate, meaning of course to
have 1t inferred that it was not the Speaker
that originated the action that was taken.
{ Surely this sounds like most triumphant
denial. Now we wish it to be understood
that in our former article we did not ''accuse"
Mr.. f., nor utter any censure Of his action,
, but we only referred to it as a fact, showing
t the complication of questions of order that
, embarrassed the Senate, a fact that we sup
posed was an undoubted one. But we are
now compelled to verify it against an unex-
pected denial.
I The reporter for the Daily journal stated
the fact in the following words:
"a message was received from the Senate, that the
Senate had amended the bill making appropriation for
the state House IN accordance with the recommendation
Of the committee Of conference But the committee hay
ing been divided, the chair decided that the message
could not be received and i was returned to the Senate
q 1t will be seen that this corresponds pre-
cisely with our statement. 1t will not be de-
MED that Mr.. Il. made the ruling referred to,
b that 1t required a majority Of the committee
e OF each House to agree upon report, and
Il therefore it was not proper to submit the
I question to the House in the form it was pre-
scented by the Senate. When Mr. Edmunds
o says he did nothing of the kind" does he
mean that he did not refuse to hear the Sec
e rotary of the Senate announce the message !.
OF course he could not refuse to hear its an
p nouncement, but we shall not presume this
y to be Mr. Els meaning, for this would be a
shallow bubble. Or does he mean that he
did not refuse to take the papers from the
d Secretary, and in some way dispose of them
C OF course he could not do otherwise, as every
G legislator knows without any particular infor-
1 nation.
. Is it not refusing to receive message from
S another House to refuse to receive that mes
C sage in the mode it is offered or to refuse to
r. PROFOUND to the House the questions which
e that message asks to have proposed for con-
= currence;
The question of order raised by the Speak
% er was new to the members, having probably
= never before been raised in our Legislature.
and it was no discredit to any member hut
= the Speaker to be uniformed in regard to it /;
c and of course the House adopted the action
""iNNN Vut ~ thV ppedhtl'
We submit then upon this comparatively
? immaterial point, made material only by the
D sounding denial of Mr.. f., that our assertion
a was technically, as it certainly was substan-
t TALLY, correct. Would it not have been more
fitting for Mr.. E. to have manfuly assumed
$ the responsibility of the action taken by the
y House, without saying that be did nothing
Y of the kind but the House ordered the re-
q turn;
f As to the Committee of Conference, we do
not object to the appointment of majority
G from the majority of the House. Every leg
lsiator knows that parliamentary law requires
$ thus But the same parliamentary law ad-
Judges, that vote agreeing to a conference
. as expressive of willingness to attempt a
5 consultation or compromise for If that is not
I the disposition the conference should be de.
e el'ned for it would be an indignity put upon
'.-e.Ha'sas' 1asisa. a.s-. 4, ...-...........