The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-02-27
Some Corrections.

It's Issue OIL the 10 IN 1nSJ. Inc argus lOOl-
hardy course in the Billings matter led it
into fatal position, with no way OF exit,
in which 1t was forced to take its hot
sand-bath while the whole state looked on
and derided. Like "Sairey Camp" the
Argus invariably has, in default of tangible
proof, an imaginary Mrs. Harris as
authority for any incredible assertion or
bit of gossip. 1t is, however, not always
discreet in quoting its mythical inform
ant. For instance, at the beginning of its
article its "Mrs. Harris" is made to say,
among other things, that Mr.. Billings is
"pained" by THE WATcHMAN's "mud-
throwing upon Judge Red6eld." In the
next breath it is averred that Mr.. Bill
lings' statements to its "Mrs. Harris /"
were made before he had seen the issue
of THE WATcHMAN containing the al
legged Judicial "mud-throwing," or the
expression of his disgust would undoubt-
eddy have been much stronger" This
is rather conflicting. Unlike "Mrs.
Camps" imaginary friend, the Argus
"Mrs. Harris " is very likely "to be i'm
peaged for lack of veracity, and "who
deniges of ?" Indeed we have the highest
authority for saying that MIR. Billings
never made to any person, friend or other
wise, the remarks attributed to him by
the Argus. Our contemporaries yarn, 30
far as it relates to the course of The
WATCHMAN, is either sheer fabrication
or our oowilling contemporary has again
been a victim of misplaced confidence.
When our contemporary sails out on its
own responsibility, it is even more unfor-
tunate with its facts and in its state
ments. 1t says: "There is no reason,
whatever, for attacking Judge Redfield at
this time. He is not candidate for
Office; is not before the public in any
manner. So far as The
WATCHMAN is concerned, it is enough to
say that our attitude toward Judge Red
field has been exactly the same as its atti-
tude, until last week. A careful search
of its columns in 1882 and 1883 fails to
discover wordvof condemnation of Judge
Redfeld's alleged acts at the time they
took place, aud at the time when all the
circumstances were fresh aud fully before
the public. 1t supported the judge for
reelection in 1882, and so did we. Yet
it then knew the circumstances attending
the giving of his list as we'll as it knows
them now. Its remarks in 1883 on his
taxation were almost Numerically op-
posed to those it makes now. But at
that time it had no venom to spit out. 1t
had not then been held up to the gaze of
the state as monument of dishonest ter
giversation." GA careful search of its
columns will show that THE WATcHMAN
published the facts about Judge Red
fields list-giving when they were first
authoritatively and officially disclosed.
The Argus did not. and has not. In this re-
spect its latitude toward Judge Rad
field was not "exactly or remotely the
same as that of The WATERMAN. The
"damning facts" to borrow our contem.
porary's mild phrase, were on their face a
sufficient condemnation of Judge Red
fields alleged acts.' Any comment upon
them would have been, as our contem-
porary, in its fondness for high-sounding
words would phrase it, as much ga work
of supererogation" as in case of burglary,
or any other "trespass on the laws" 1t
is barely possible that THE WAToHMAN
may have known in the fall of 1882 what
happened in the spring of 1883, but unless
our contemporaries "careful search re-
veals evidence, as our learned neighbol
might say, of so startling an anachronism
we shall have to plead not guilty to this
count in its indictment. THE WATcHMAN
has made no "attack upon Judge Red
field, unless stating indisputable facts is
an attack. These facts the Argus does
not attempt to dispute. and unless it can
put in better defense for one who was
and is yet, judge of the supreme court
than that he "Is not candidate for any
Office and is not before the public in any
Manner" it had far better have grimly
held to its policy of oblivious silence. Re
specting the cry of "mud-throwing," We
have only to say that, to test the sin
certify and honesty of its professions, THF
WATCHMAN asked the Argus certain ques
tions relating to case of judicial tax
lodging which it had never mentioned. Il
feigned ignorance at first, and finally
charged us with making an insinuation
that was "false." Thereupon the facts wer,
briefly reviewed and our contemporary ar
raigned for its inconsistency and " dishon
est tergiversations." The artillery which
had been belching loud-mouthed charge
against another was remorselessly turnec
upon itself. In its "last ditch" fiasco it doe
the best it can under the very embarrass
ing circumstances in which THE WATCH
MAN placed it. 1t sees plainly that it ha
no case, 80 it works the pettifogger's las
resort, abuse of the other side, for all it |
worth. If the facts relating to Judg
Redfeld's listing affairs are revived a
this time and given unpleasant notoriet,