The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-08-25
Mr.. Edmunds in 1884.


Mr.. Eddor In note printed in th]
WATcHMAN of June 16 in reference to th1
charge Of the disloyalty of Mr.. Edmunds I'd
his party the writer said " 1t has been re
peatedly said, in substance, that Mr.. Ed
innnds with all his objections to one of H.
candidates, greatly preferred the success o
the republican party, but on account of his
knowledge Of certain matters and his con
Victions concerning them could not take
the platform without the probability !
through inquiries put to him, of doing the
party more harm than he would if he STAYED
at home" He also added: "To the present
writer there is no inconsistency or disloyalty
in the attitude taken by the senator If the !
facts are AS alleged"
In reply to this the WATcHMAN, With
other things, said: "Our correspondent
hardly does us justice in assuming that wei
have evaded the statement to which wei
refer, but we have not accepted IL as a fact
because it has never been substantiated byI
good authority" In other words, that
would indeed be an explanation deserving
grave attention, but we dismiss it because|
it has rested on no good authority" of
course l could reply to this only by prof.
ducing some such evidence as would meet the|
case. But now it turns out that the WATCH-|
MAN has printed, in its issue of July q, al
note from a gentleman of undoubted high|
the very evidence the WATCHMAN seemed to|
lack. In this note of Professor Edward Co
nant, the author says " On referring to Mr..
Edmunds' own written statement, it does
not appear that he was ready to speak in
the republican campaign of 1884, but it does
appear that in 1884 he greatly preferred the
success of the republican party to the return
of the democratic to the control of the
government, and that, in his Judgment, he
took the best course for the party that
man of honor and truth could do in his cir
cumStanCeS."
Now this is what Mr. Conant finds in
Mr.. Edl0undS olCR Dritten statement" and
we certainly can trust his rendering of the
meaning, and it fully supplies the proof
of the statement above taken from my
note. To my surprise, the WATCHMAN
both failed to acknowledge the need of re-
vising its reply to my note and also made
no comment on the second letter of Mr..
Conant, in which he frankly corrected the
error of his earlier note, though il promptly
replied to his first letter Now this second
letter of Mr.. Conant far more than his first
demanded attention. The first letter in
advertently made a mistake which, as the
WATCHMAN stated at the time, had clearly
been shown to be such and was almost too
well known to require more than word
This letter received prompt editorial at
tention. But to the second letter of Mr..
Conant-which gave information of the most
important character and from a point
concerning which it seemed to crave evil
dence, and which in other respects was re-
u
clear thinker-the WATCHMAN has made no
reply whatever, unless it alluded to it last
week, when ii says: az This is the most absurd
of all the apologies for his conduct" But
this can hardly be the reference of this sem
tence, for the WATCHMAN has before held
that this reason was not considered because
there was no evidence of its foundation in
fact, and il is speaking of organic " and not
OF personal statements. The present writer
now puts the point of his own former letter
again, and thinks he is entitled to a direct
acknowledgment that the editorial COM
ments of June 16 fail to meet the case. Mr.
! Conant can probably also assure the read
ers of the WATCHMAN that this written
statement of Mr.. Edmunds' to which he re-
fers is no recent affair. And this authentic
statement compels me to believe in the alb
solute loyalty of Mr.. Edmunds to his party,
unless | take the alternative that he was
mistaken in judgment or lacks both in honor
and veracity in making it. | cannot believe
the latter, though the WATcHNIAN in its last
! editorial seemed half inclined to do so.
! The former part of the alternative may be
! true, but the strong presumption is against
| it. And it does not take very hard think
| ing to see that it may be best for the success
of the party in the future, as it seemed to
him in the past, for Mr.. Edmunds to remain
silent as TO the real reasons for his conduct
in 1884 If this be so, Mr.. Edmunds should
command the respect of all party men,
though independents might disapprove,
| for it presents him as loyal republican who
| nerges objections to candidate in his de-
votion to the party, but keeps silent simply
| because silence in his circumstances il best
| for the party. Certainly for a newspaper
that " has mainly treated the whole ques-
ton as one of party policy " this explanation
should be conclusive JUSTICE.