News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1886-06-24

Edmunds wrote as follows the other
day:
SENATE CHAMBER,
WASHINGTON, June l. 1886.
Dear Sir-I have yours of the 18th ult.
on the subject of spurious butter. L
have been doing during, the winter and
spring everything l could to promote the
object the farmers have in view, but in
the way of taxation the Senate cannot
act until bill comes from the House.
which L hope will be soon.
Respectfully yours,
GEORGE F. EDMUNDs.
Reuben Chaffee, Esq,
West EnOsburgh, Vt.
The reason the Senate could do
nothing of course was that under the
constitution of the United States, tax
bills, like the bill taxing oleomarga-
rine, must originate in the House.
Two weeks later Mr.. Edmunds wrote
as follows to a Windsor county
farmer:
SENATE CHAMBER. I
WASHINGTON, June IA, 1856.
Dear Sir-I have yours of the 18th
inst. If you had been better informed
on the subject of the oleomargarine bill.
| think you would not have written me
in the way you have. AS 1 am on the
ground here, and as l have been interest
ing myself to promote what the farmers
of Vermont wish, all winter, and trust
have done some service. | must be eX-
cused for having an opinion as to what
reference of the bill, when it came to the
Senate, was best for their interests. The
bill can only stand constitutionally as a
taX-bill, and do not propose, for one, to
give it a black eye by acting in such a
way as to show that as taX-bill it was
cheat and humbug, and merely intend
ed to discriminate against one kind of a
product and in favor of another.
Again, by the practice of the Senate,
revenue bills (Which must first come
from the House of Representatives have
always been sent to the committee on
finance, where they belong, and of which,
as you know, the representative of the
Vermont farmers, Senator Morrill,, is the
chairman. 1t was great weakness on
the part of some of the friends of the bill
to raise the implication by voting to re-
fer to the committee on agriculture, that
it was not tax bill, and that it had not
strength enough as a taX-bill to 90
through the Senate in the regular way.
[ happen to know that some of the strong
est opponents of the bill voted to send
to the committee on agriculture. Their
motives you can readily guess.
think the foregoing will enable you
to understand how |. a working and ac-
tive friend of the bill, thought [ was
doing my duty to vote as | did, and
have sufficient confidence in your intelli-
gence to believe that you will now agree
with me. Respectfully yours.
GEORGE F. EDMUNDs.
This letter ought to bring blush to
the cheek of any Vermonter who has
been awaiting the course of our Sena-
tors in this matter. We know that
some of the agricultural papers pub
lished in New York State, have in
sisted that it was all important that
the bill should go to Senator War
ner Miller's committee but why Yer
monters should suppose that Mr..
Miller-who is, we believe, a paper
manufacturer, now serving his first
term in the Senate-could take any
better care of that bill than our inf1u-
entail, veteran Vermont Senator, JUS
tin S. Morrill,, we do not comprehend.
Unprecedented observers will certainly
say that there are no two men in the
United States Senate whose judy |
ment in regard to the best course to
be taken to promote any measure in
that body is more valuable than
that of Senators Edmunds and Nor
rill. They know the ropes quite as
we'll as the newspaper men who I'M
dertake to sit in Judgment on their
action, and no two Senators can rem
der more powerful aid to any bill in
which they are interested, than they.
Though serious mistake has I'M
doubtedly been made and made by |
the aid of votes of some of the strong |
est opponents of the bill by referring
it to the agricultural rather than to the
finance committee, our Senators will |
still, no doubt, do what they can for
The bill. But it will not get along any
faster, or stand any stronger if it be-
comes a law, than it would have, if it
had gone to the proper committee
Free Press.