Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1880-10-27
History OF the CentenniaIs.

The matter Of the publication Of the his
tory Of the state centennials is, we under.
stand, before the joint committee on the
library. In 1873 the legislature appropriated
sum of money to aid In the publication of
the history of the celebrations at West
minister, Windsor, Hubbardton and Ben.
nington. A history of these celebrations
has been compiled and printed. The gentle
man who originally undertook the compila-
ton died in the earlier stages of the work
and 1t seems to have been completed under
auspices unfavorable to fullness of facts or
accuracy of detail. 1t appears that the
resolution under which the money was ap-
propriated for the production Of this his
tory, as well as for the war history failed to
reach the governor for his signature, and so
lacks the binding force of law. Money was
expended under the resolution before its in
validity had become known, and indeed,
the centennial history had been finished be-
fore the discovery was made. We have said
that circumstances beyond the control of the
state have rendered this history incomplete
in its facts and inaccurate In its details.
The conspicuous deficiencies relate, among
other things, to the omission to mention the
presence of New Hampshire and Massachu-
sets at the centennial celebration of the
battle OF Bennington. These states had
been officially invited to unite with Vermont
in erecting monument fifty to commemo.
rate signal victory won by the troops of
the three states in the War of Independence.
They had periodically and generously re-
sponded to this invitation and were present,
through their representatives, at the ovation
in the capacity of invited guests. Now, in
writing up the history of that celebration
the presence of those invited guests, de-
scendants of those who had fought at Ben
nington hundred years before, has been
entirely omitted from the record. Of course
the omission is unintentional but this state
should as soon think of publishing under
its sanction, history of the battle itself
with General Stark's name left out as, under
all the circumstances, an account of this
celebration from which the part taken in the
ceremonies by New Hampshire has been
omitted. OF course, this remark applies
with equal force to the case of Massachu-
sets. We do not believe the legislature
will allow such history to 60 out, but will |
order the work to be carefully revised
corrected and reprinted before it is distrib-
uted. 1t has been suggested that the fact |
that New Hampshire and Massachusetts, |
were present on this occasion could be |
printed on separate sheets and pasted into |
the work, sort of annex or side show to |
the body of the work, in which ,ce, the state |
OF Vermont, alone appeared. That would |
be exceedingly shabby treatment toward |
two sovereign states whom we asked, on ac-
count OF their participation in the battle, to |
share the expense of erecting monument
on our own soil, aud invited to be present at |
the ceremonies of laying the corner stone,
ceremonies which the president of the United
States honored and dignifed with his pres.
ence. The presence of the state militia,
also of the veteran soldiers of the war of the
rebellion, is not mentioned aud many errors
of omission and commission of minor i'm
portance are said to run through the work.
The state had better call it a very bad job,
sell the books for old paper, have the history
carefully revised by competent and response
BILE hands and reprint it, making in the future
its contracts for literary work with degree
Of care and forethought that will secure their
faithful fulfilment