St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1886-09-23
VERMONT.
Geo. ". Curtis in Harper's Weekly.

Vermont is a republican state, as
Alabama is democratic state. There
is never any doubt of the result of an
election in either. But the question
this year in Vermont was an eXtraOr-
binary one. 1t was nothing less than
whether the republican leader of the
senate is sound republican. Yet the
only charge against him was not inf
deity to any doctrine known as a re-
publican principle, nor want of ade-
quate ability or experience, nor was it
any moral defect or delinquency, but
merely that he declined to express
confidence in the fitness of a candidate
whom he believed to be unfit. This
was his sole offence, and for this he
was arraigned by those who claimed to
be sOunder republicans for the reason
that they would vote for any candi-
date who should be regularly nOmi-
mated. This pitiful and contemplate
doctrine was, of course, repudiated by
the Vermont republicans. If Mr.. Ed
munds could have been defeated for
any such reason, the name republican
would have been utterly disgraced.
When Mr.. Blaine was defeated in
1884, the feeling of many republicans
against all republicans who had not
warmly supported him was intensely
bitter, and it remains so. 1t was
scarcely less bitter against those who
could not approve the nomination, but
who acquiesced in it in the same way
that Mr.. COnkling when a senator was
said to. have acquiesced in the cOnfir
nation of an opponent. The hostility
of the Blaine faction to Mr.. Edmunds
was not concealed. But Mr.. Edmunds
had done only what every self-respect
ing man would do under the same Cir
cumstances. He reprOached nobody.
He hoped that his party would sue
coed. He voted for the republican
electors. He did everything but say
what he did not think-that Mr.. Blaine
was proper candidate. Mr.. Edmunds
is an honorable man, and the alterna
tive at the polls was disagreeable.
But he thought that the election even
of Mr.. Blaine was better upon the
whole than the election of Mr.. Cleve-
land, and he voted accordingly. A
month after the election he wrote the
following letter, which has been re-
Gently published, explaining his posi-
ton:
Omitted States Senate,
w ASdlNGION, " ", DcC. y, Oh.
Dear Sir:-I have yours of the 25th
ult. The courtesy of it's tone, l think,
entities it to reply. The newspaper
reports of my 'complaisancy' at the de-
feat of our ticket are entirely false. |
have never limited, said, or thought
such a thing. If L could have looked
with satisfaction on democratic victory,
l should have voted that way, for | be-
lieve it is the duty of every honest cit
izen to vote for the side he wishes to
win. l wished the republican party to
succeed at the election, and said so and
voted so. AS public speaker L could
not say that l believed certain things
that L did not believe, but General
Hawley had beliefs that had not, and
so he could honestly say so. Now
neither you nor any other upright re-
publican could wish me to stand up in
the presence of our cOuntrymen and
there tell falsehood or prevaricate in
aid of any cause, however good.
l am thankful that the power which
rules the world gave me sufficient NOR
al courage to resist the temptation to
undertake to make speeches in which
L would have to speak falsely or dis
on certain important points |
III oTuer W nave my remarks useIul TO |
our side. l am grateful to you and |
others for your former good opinion,
and am sure have not desired to lose |
it. Respectfully yours,
GEORGE f. EDMUNDs."
The difference between Mr.. Edmunds
and his republican opponents appears
to be that they did wish him to stand
up and tell falsehOod or prevaricate
al Of fLa ha Il
choose to do it. The difference is i'm
portant. 1t is because those who
wished him to do this, or who thought