The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-09-28
.sudgc Poland Desenss rr,u,sc,,

''NN'N''' 'NB'' ~~' ip'ts
Judge Poland Defends rr,mscIy
The Boston Journd5 Of Commerce pub
lishcd >aturday the following letter from
Judge Poland, referring TO his action on
the gag law and to the work of the
committee on the revision of the statutes:
10 tile HdjtOr Of the Boston .Jouynal If
Comm@ce:-ln your last paper | see quite a
sharp article on me. in connection with
the revision of the United States statutes.
have recently received so much attention
from the press that | have been Obliged to
iofcgo any attempt 10 answer it, and
would not now except that | am anxious
that the revised statutes be not discussed bv
personal attacks on me.
lon begin 10y stating two falsehools in
regard 20 what is called the "gag law"
You say that when that law was before the
house 'hc was questioned &C., and ''hc
vehemcntly denied that it contained any
attack upon the right of speech or the
pen. This is wholly untrue. | was asked
IT the bill would have any effect upon
SUIT or prosecution, which il was said Sen
ator Chandler had instituted against some
newspaper correspondent. and replied
that il would not. Nobody has ever pre-
tended that il did, or could, that have
heard Of.
You further say that when it was proved
that what | sai' was false. attributed il
to an "inGdvcrtencc." have never claimed
or attributed anything about ii 10 ''lmlvcr-
tencc. have said, and say again. that |
had no Thought OF newspapers. or of prose
BUTTONS Tor liDel, IN connection with the
bill. and do not believe any member of
tbn itfltf.itrN H.. Al.
was considered and reported, had. have
said, and say again, that the law does not
have any application to. or effect upon.
prosecutions for libel. But my main oh
ject is TO reply to your attack npon me in
connection with the revision of the statutes.
Your first charge is in substance this
That by the law as it stood AigOls were on
the free list. but that | changed il in the
revision so as to make them liable TO a duty
of six cents per pound.
You do not seem TO understand much
about the revision, or the connection had
with it. You speak of it ms my bill. as
though it was something | originated or
connected. The revision was made ~
three commissioners. appointed by the pre-
sdent under law of congress. This rev-
sion was referred To Il committee, of which
was chairman, to examine and report as
n
nendnl n vast nn,ouut of ,;n,a mi lai,n,.
upon il. and honestly cndevorr1 r. make If
ms pcrrect n statement of the ovistinr law
as possibe PERHAPS the most dilIicnlt and
pnrplexing portion of the whole. was the
subject of tariff duties. The law was con-
tanned in great many different atu,es -
drawn loosely, many of them, contradict
ory in many of their provisions, and it was
often II matter of great difficulty TO deter
mine what the law ac,uallv was when IL
was all to be brought into one sinoIc
statute had this portion of the revision.
among others. assigned to me rs A sn5.co,D.
mittee, to examine and report upon.
spent weeks of most careful labor ilpon if.
| rccol'ect very well about the article of
"AyyoiS" Prior to 1870. A,gols were
subject , duty of six cents per mound
In Il tariff act passed in 1870 Ciude Aygols |
were placed ON the free list. The nrior |
law was not repealed, cxcept SO far as if |
was inconsistent with the law of 1870. |
How then stood the law ? and how shonld |
it be stated when all were brought into one |
single law? | reported to the committee |
that il should be.
ARGOS, crude, on the free list.
ARGOS, other than crude, six cents per
pound. The committee adopted nv view.
and it was so placed in the revision
submit, that there is no other possible
mode of stating the law CORRECTLY. as the
statutes stood You saw. that ".Jndge Pc.
land, in this business. was but the AGENT of
Judge Kelley, the representative Of the
philadelphia drug and perfume manurnc-
turers." &c. Now have 10 saw TINT Ind
never word of communication with
Judge Kelley. or any other human bcmp
on the subject, eyccpt the committee.
was not enough acquainted with the uscs of
Argols to know who would be affected. nor
did care. except to state the law correctly.
and presume every other member of the
committee was in the same condition
The other charge is. that | .smupolcd in
a clause for the benefit of tbc silk mann.
facturers of New Jersey whornhv ,Lo
duty ON roods of which siIl, is n common.
cpt part. we're intended to Inc raised ron,
IS to 60 per cent
NV recollection is. that in rcsncct IN fine
duties upon that class of goods ,hc com.
mittcc made no change nj ali in The revision
rs made bv the commissioners Tho com.
cndeavorcl TO rcnort tho law
lust ms il s,ood They chon"eI nhraSo
olory. AS thew were ohiire1 r. in h,inginr
t. great number of Statutes tonnthcr into
one. Where they had clearly stated Tho
law ns If stood we made NO olIoro,;nn