The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-08-25
Senator MOrrilPS Letter.

We print elsewhere a letter from
Senator Morrill, to a Vermont farmer
which first appeared last week in the
Burlington Free Press. For some time
past desperate effort has been made
to save Mr.. Edmunds from the conse-
quences of his blunders, and it has
been intimated privately that Mr.. Nor
rill would come to his rescue. We
were well aware that Mr.. Morrill,, for
reasons doubtless satisfactory to him
self, was favorable to Senator Edmunds'
reelection, but in view of the peculiar
circumstances of the political situation
we hardly thought he would desire to
make a public acknowledgment of his
position. We cannot but regard it as
unfortunate for his fame that he should
be made, either willingly or unwillingly,
an active partisan in contest over the
election of another senator. However,
the letter may not have been intended
by him for publication; but be this as
it may, we think it can be demonstrated
to the satisfaction of every unpreju-
diced mind that he has erred in many
of his statements. We entertain high
respect for the opinions of Senator
Morrill, on many public questions, but
we feel compelled to dissent from his
views in reference to Mr.. Edmunds.
The question in which Vermont
people, especially the farmers and
dairymen, are most interested just now
is, What are the facts in regard to the
action of Senator Edmunds on the oleo-
margarine bill? Mr.. Morrill, has stated
them in part, but has made some i'm
portant omissions, and we will state
the facts as they appear in the pages of
the Congressional Record. The only
republican senators who voted on June
against the reference of the bill to
the committee on agriculture were
Aldrich, Edmunds, Morrill, and Riddle
berger. At that time Mr.. Edmunds
favored the reference of the bill to the
finance committee, claiming that was
the committee "where only it could
stand as a constitutional BILL" Mr..
Morrill, has given his own reasons for
voting as he did, but he does not at
tempt to explain why Mr.. Edmunds
drifted away from his constitutional
moorings and on July II voted against
referring the bill to the finance COM
mittee, in direct opposition to his former
action. This is one of the important
points in the present controversy and
will need to be explained before any
defence of Mr.. Edmunds' action on the
bill can be accepted as satisfactory.
Now were a majority of the members
of the finance committee friendly OF
hostile to the bill as it came in its mos
effective shape from the house? Mr.
Morrill, admits that the democratic mem
bers were opposed to it. OF the clever
members of the committee six are re
publicans, viz: Morrill, (chairman)
Sherman, Jones of Nevada, Allison
Aldrich and Miller 1t appears tina
Mr.. Aldrich voted against the reference
of the bill to the committee on agri
culture. On July II, when motor
was made to refer the bill to the com
mittee on finance, he was absent; bu
that he would have voted against re
porting the house bill favorably with
out amendment is shown by the fac
that he voted for the reduction of tn
tax from five to two cents per pound
Senator Jones was absent when thi
vote was taken, but it was intimated b,
the senator with whom he was paire,
(Mr. Harrison of Indiana, who favore,
the house bill without amendment
that Mr.. Jones was opposed to the bill
unless it was amended as proposed il
the senate, 1t thus appears that bu
four of the eleven members of tn,
finance committee were in favor of tn
bill as it came from the house. This
the official record as it stands, and i
cannot be controverted by any subtel
fuge or special pleading We do nc
doubt that Mr.. Morrill, was sincerely i
favor of the bill as it came from tn
house, for he has always been fir
and consistent supporter of whatever, i
his judgment, would promote the agr
cultural interests of the country. w
make no criticism on his course in thi