The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-02-13
sauce on the Billings goose The Red
field gander is yet to be eaten.
Beams and Notes.

Patriot we find these words "When THE
WAToHMAN insinuates that any judge of
the supreme bench made false inventory,
swore to it and was doubled therefor, it
insinuates what is false" Our dual con-
temporary has fallen into very slovenly
ways of reading, as we'll as writing. 1t
had been devoting a great deal of virtuous
energy to the cases of Judge Royce and
Frederick Billings, citizens who made no
Inventories under the new listing law, but
who paid their taxes on whatever list the
listers of their respective towns made for
them. Our contemporary had also been
setting itself up as "the only" paper in
the state that dared to expose rings and,
"without fear or favor" tell the truth.
The WAToHMAN thereupon asked its con-
temporary few simple questions, suscep-
tible of short and easy answers, and which
it would have answered had not its as
sumptions of the virtues it was parading
been shallow fraud which, with old-time
and unchastened effrontery, it was again
trying to impose upon its readers. In the
case quoted above, THE WAToHMAN in
simulated nothing. 1t asked the Argus q
square question, viz Whether it knew of
any republican or democratic Judge of the
supreme court who had made false in
ventory, sworn to it, and been doubled
therefor ? We innocently supposed that
this dual guardian of political parties
would have the same care for the morals
of its democratic as of its republican wards.
We regret to say that it does not seem to
treat its proteges with equal impartiality.
In one way or another it has kept the bad
example of republican judge steadily
before the people, but has studiously
blinked the sin of democratic Judge.
Not only has the soiling of the "judicial
ermine by democratic judge not been
noticed by the Argus and Patriot, but we
shall not be surprised to see in its columns
a denial of what is well.known fact,
even to our esteemed contemporary, that
Judge Redfeld made an inventory in the
spring of 1882, which the listers of Mont
pelier found to be false and added large
sum thereto that in 1888 this same Judge
made an inventory which the listers found
to be false, to which they added by assess
ment, and then, by a unanimous vote,
doubled the total, as the law directs them
to do when, in their opinion, a taxpayer
has made and sworn to false inventory.
The Argus is thoroughly familiar with all
these facts, but it has preserved the silence
of the grave respecting them. Was it 81
lent because it dared not expose, dared
not defend? Did politics, or personal
considerations, seal our contemporary col.
umns to the publication of matters of in
terest to the voters and Taxpayers of the
state, while the press of the state, with
hardly an exception, was commenting
thereon Did the Argus fear that the
truth, which it says it "believes can harm
no one," might corrupt the morals of its
democratic wards, or might injuriously
affect the prospects of past, and of g
possible future, candidate for the chief
| judgeship =? Has its far-away gaze been sc
steadfastly directed towards Woodstock
and Oregon and New York that il
could not see what offenses have beer
committed at home Or is an alleged
offense at Woodstock more heinous in the
Argus eyes than actual wrong-doing il
Montpelier ? Was there reason for keep
ing silence in the circumstance that, il
the spring of 1888, Judge Redfeld, by
appealing to the board of civil authority
succeeded in obtaining, SO far as tht
doubling was concerned, reversal of thu
action of the listers, by vote of ma
jority of the members present and voting
But did not this same board "rectify
the judges sworn inventory by adding tt
it more than two thousand dollars, vir
tual admission that the inventory wa
false? Was our contemporaries "rect,s Il
curia salve compounded for a patien
like this -? Had republican judge beer
the victim of such case of bad morals
or of mental infrmity, or of avarice, ant
had the offending official stood between
democratic judge and the chief seat OF
the supreme bench, it is fair to presume
that our contemporary would have beer
the ardent apostle of elevating the stand
ard of judicial morality and efficiency
Now what shall be said of the consistenc,
or the motives of public journal which
sees in this democratic judge no faul
worth mentioning-except, when presses
to the wall, to deny what it knows to b
true-but which is shocked at the pre-
posed candidacy for the governorship of
republican, a private citizen, who, in
frank and honorable way, has paid hi
taxes as assessed by the legal authority
and which without ceasing has parade
before the people republican Judge
example that, whatever else may be sal
respecting it, was free from faint of dis
honor ? Has this dual guardian of polit
ical morals one standard of honesty fc
. | sta g.. l..