The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-08-25
Mr.. Edmunds' Record on the OleO-
margarine Bill.
tFrom the Rutland Telegram. ]

The Burlington Free Press prompted I'M
doubtedly by the senator himself-who, in
stead of going a-fishing has remained in Bur
lngton to direct his senatorial canvass-has
returned to an attempted defence of the
course of Mr.. Edmunds on the oleomar-
garine bill in the senate. The record of the
senate and the votes taken contain some
features which will indicate to the farmers
of Vermont just where he stood in reference
to that bill. Mr.. Edmunds started in as the
allyof the enemies of the bill. When the mo-
ton was made to refer it to the agricultural
committee, which was known to be friendly
oft, Mr.. Edmunds voted with the enemies of
the bill to refer it to the finance committee,
where it was known it would be killed.
We have already quoted the testimony of
Senator Warner Miller, showing that ref
erence to the finance committee would have
been absolutely fatal to the bill. A test
vote of the friends and enemies of the
bill was made on the proposition to reduce
the tax from five cents to two cents. Of
those who voted to refer it to the committee
on finance, not a single man present in the
senate chamber when the vote was taken
on the question of this reduction voted
against the reduction except Senators Ed
munds and Hawley. The one had heard
from Vermont and the other had heard from
Connecticut. In order that our readers may
see these two votes contrasted, we print them
in parallel columns;
Entire rote for reference Voted in faror ofredction
TO finance committee. from IRE TO trO cents.
Aldrich, Aldrich
Beck, Beck,
Berry, Berry,
Brown, Brown,
Butler, Butler,
Coke, Coke,
Edmunds. Had heard from VT,
Eusts, Eustis,
Hawey. Had heard from Conn,
Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Arkansas,
morrill,, Absent,
Payne, Payne,
Riddleberger, Riddleberger
Vance, Vance
walthall, Walthall,
Wilson of Maryland. Wilson of Maryland.
This is the proof from the Congressional
Record ITSELF which cannot be disputed, that
Mr.. Edmunds was willing to see the oleo-
margarine bill defeated and killed on the
threshold of the senate, so that he would
not have been forced to make a record upon
it. 1t is scarcely necessary to recall the fact
that his treachery in thus voting made the
farmers of Vermont exceedingly angry. He
could not have remained ignorant of the
tendency of his vote, because it appeared in
the debate as to this question of reference
that similar bill in three previous sessions
had been before the senate in various forms,
and had invariably been referred to the
agricultural committee without opposition.
He saw the enemies of the bill championing
on the floor the motion to refer it to the
finance committee and he could not but have
known that their anxiety for its reference
there meant their conviction that the bill
could be silently strangled if it was so re-
ferred. The circumstances which Mr.. Ed
munds received from Vermont appraised him
of the danger to himself of the course he
was pursuing, andit must be taken as purely
matter of selishness that he changed his
course. For in his attempt to Justify him
self in letters which he wrote to citizens of
Vermont he laid himself liable to the
gravest charges OF Misrepresentation not to
use stronger language.
We have before us a copy of letter writ
ten by Mr.. Edmunds to Reuben Chaffee of
West Enosburgh, in which he attempts to
justify his vote to refer the bill to the finance
committee by saying: happen to know
that some of the strongest opponents OF the
bill voted to send it to the committee on ag-
riculture." The Record shows that on the
final passage of the bill not a single man
who voted to refer it to the committee on
agriculture voted against the bill, excepting
Whitthorne of Tennessee. Thus Mr.. Ed
munds statement that he happened to know
that some of the strongest opponents of the
bill voted to send it to the committee of ag-
riculture is absolutely and wholly without
truth, because Mr.. Whitthorne, the single eX-
ception who voted against the bill, was
not one of the strongest opponents. He is a
new member, whose voice was not raised
from the beginning to the end of the con-
troversy. 1t is by such a weak defence as
this that Mr.. Edmunds has sought to blind
the farmers of Vermont to the real facts
which are that at heart he was against the
bill, but with his reelection pending saw
the necessity for conceding his personal
opinion to opinions at home. Two years
ago, when there was similar difference OF
opinion between himself and his constitu
ents over what he was to do in the presiden
tial campaign, he refused utterly TO concede
anything to the popular will and wish. The
question of his reelection was two years off
If the question of his reelection had still
been two years off when the oleomargarnt
bill was up, it is quite probable that he
would have continued his opposition to the
bill down to its final passage. This is mat
ter for serious reflection among the dairy
men, because it is acknowledged on all sides
that the oleomargarine bill is defective il
many particulars and will require mucl
amending next session to perfect it. Witt
renewed lease of power, Mr.. Edmunds il
quite as likely to stubbornly persist in OPP
posing these amendments as he was in 1888
to refuse to give assistance to the republican
4. ~.