The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1885-02-25


forgetting the command to "let their light
shine before men," In spite of this reluc-
tance to publish their own doings, the record
of what our own union has accomplished in
one year since organization was most cheer
ing and creditable, but deserves separate
notice, which may be given hereafter. The
county president gave very interesting adj
dress on county work, which was followed
by an encouraging essay on the wonderful
changes and progress of public sentiment on
the temperance question in the past, after
which Mrs. Emily L. Mclaughlin of Boston
gave very practical talk on Evangelistic
Work." urging its importance as the foun-
dation of all our efforts. Thursday evening
Mrs. Mclaughlin gave her address on " Bar
riers to Success of which we feel that too
much cannot be said in appreciation and ap-
probation. AS highly as the speaker had
been recommended, we are sure the audience
felt that she more than justified the highest |
terms of praise that could be bestowed. On |
Friday, both sessions of the institute were |
opened with devotional meetings, as all |
Woman's Christian Temperance Union
meetings are. Papers were read on "Juve-
nile Work and Scientific Temperance |
Instruction in Schools" illustrated by the
appearance of class from our primary
school who recited portion of the temper
ance catechism, showing what little children
may be taught, and shaming many older
people, who could hardly have answered all
the questions given. This was followed by
papers on the different lines of Sunday
school, press and alms-house work, a class
on Young Womens Christian Temperance
Unions, most excellent and practical papers
on Heredity, and Hygiene, and closing with
most interesting essay on What Busy
Women Can Do. Those who are too busy
with the mothers work of home-making
and housekeeping to go away to conventions
and institutes, or do any of the more public
work of carrying on the temperance reform
If any such woman doubts what she can
do, we shall be glad to place in her hands
copy of the Union Signal, which will publish
the essay in full. Being asked unexpectedly,
after the institute was over, to furnish re-
port, we have without doubt omitted some
things that well deserve to be recorded,
which we greatly regret, as we consider
every line of work presented entitled to the
most honorable mention. We could wish
that the interest felt in the community had
been such as to call out larger audiences.
1t was cause of great regret that Mrs.
Perkins, who was expected to speak on Fri
day evening, was SICK and unable to be
present. We shall still hope to secure her
at some other time when we hope crowded
house will be so fortunate as to Hear one
who many consider finer speaker than
even Mrs. Mclaughlin.
ROMEO G. Brown, a law student in this
village and recent graduate of Harvard
College, assaulted Harry G. Dewing, of the
Argus and Patriot staff, Thursday noon, on
the sidewalk in front of Shipman's shoe
store on Main street Brown was talking
with some acquaintances when Dewing ap-
preached, smoking cigar and having his
hands encased in the breast-pockets of his
ulster. Brown stepped up to Dewng, as he
was about to pass, accosted him and de-
livered blow that landed him in the snow
embankment at the edge of the walk. He
dealt Dewing eight or ten severe blows,
producing several abrasions and contusions,
before he suffered him to rise. The provo
cation was an item in the Montpelier col
umn of the last issue of the Argus and
Patriot, purporting to give some expert
ences of an innocently amorous character in
which Brown was the hero. He was repre-
sented as a somewhat "spooney" young
man, and the victim of an involuntary rail-
way excursion as the penalty of his gal
lantry. Dewing was believed to be the
writer of this item. Brown was arrested
and brought before Justice Hinkley. John
G. Wing appeared for the state and George
w. Wing for the respondent. Brown
pleaded guilty, but evidence was taken to
determine the amount of the fine. The
state contended that the assault was of an
aggravated character and Brown should be
mucted in the largest sum the law allows.
The court ordered the young man to con-
tribute S10and costs, aggregating about $50,
to the public revenue. A. w. Ferrin, who
witnessed the assault, started subscription
paper in Browns behalf, which was signed
by several prominent citizens before the in
tended beneficiary heard Of the matter when
he promptly dscountenanced and forbade
the proceeding. Mr.. Brown does not un-
dertake to defend his course by the ordin-
ary standards of right and wrong. He
found, as he believed, the individual re-
sponsible for gross personal injustice
and proceeded to take personal satisfac-
ton. We believe he was entirely wrong,
both in the course he took and in the person
he made the victim of private vengeance
Mr.. Hiram Atkins was the party respon-
sible for the publication of the offensive
item. The assistant says his chief saw it in
proof and suffered it to pass. On the other
hand, Brown says that he went to Mr.. At
lSins, prepared to punish him, but Atkins
denied all knowledge of the item till he saw
it in his paper, declaring that Dewing wrote
it and smuggled it into the Montpelier col
umn. Thereupon the young man re-
linquished his designs against the chief and
. sought out and punished the subordinate
In the paroXysms of virtue which some
times rend the argus, it maintains, if it
suits momentary purpose, that the pub
lishers business is to know what goes into
his paper, and no plea of ignorance can re.
lieve him of responsibility. In this particu,
lar case, whether Mr.. Atkins saw the item
or not, before publication, he is entirely re-
sponsible. Every issue of his paper contains
: similar abusive items. His helpers have
carte blanche to write them. 1t is the policy
of the paper to publish them People take