The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-09-08
Some Late Performances of Edmunds'
Organ Grinders.

Since our last issue the Burlington
Free Press and Rutland Herald have
paid their respects TO the WATCHMAN
in several articles, and the former has
been especially virulent. Those papers,
each having six issues to the WATCH
MANS one, have had large advantage
in the discussion, and they made the
most of this advantage just before the
election, when the WATCHMAN had no
opportunity for immediate reply. Now
that the election is over, we would
much prefer to suspend the discussion
for time, but the falsehoods and mis-
representations of the Free Press in
reference to the WATCHMAN and Mr..
Edmunds have been so bold and afro
cious that they should not be permitted
to pass unnoticed. In what we NAV
say now we cannot be charged with a
design to influence the action of voters.
The WATCHMAN has no apologies to
make to Senator Edmunds, the Free
Press or any one else for its course in
the campaign. 1t has done what it be-
lieved was best for the republican party
and the interests of the people of Yer
mont, and has endeavored to treat Mr..
Edmunds and his newspaper organs ac-
cording to their deserts. 1t has been
careful to make no statements that did
not appear to be well sustained by facts.
1t is not infallible and may have erred
on some minor points. But even in
that respect we doubt if the newspaper
organs of Senator Edmunds can claim
much advantage in the presentation of
their case. The Free Press has affected
great surprise at what it calls the {" i'm
pudence of the WATCHMAN in ven
turing reply to Senator Morrill's letter
to Vermont farmer. We do not sup
pose that Senator Morrill, claims infalli-
bility for himself. and we presume
that he would admit that during his dis
tinguished public career he has some-
times erred in judgment or in his state
ments. We even doubt if the Seven
thousand-dollar Military Historian can
lay any claim to infallibility. Before
proceeding further we will say, for
the benefit of the Free Press, which
has been in great middle all through
the campaign, that the editor of the
WATCHMAN has himself furnished all
the editorial matter that has appeared
in this paper; and, with the exception
of few favors from correspondents
that have been printed as communica-
tions, he has had no assistance from any
source in conducting the political COL
umns of his paper.
On Wednesday last the Free Press
attempted to break the force of our
statements in regard to the oleomar-
garine legislation. 1t will require but
little space to show how the Free Press
has falsified the record. The WATCH
MAN claimed that but four of the eleven
members of the finance committee
were in favor of the bill in the effective
shape IN which 1t came from the house.
The Free Press claims that Seren men,
bers of that committee were friendly to
the bill, but in order to make this show
ing it is compelled to count those men,
bers who voted for the bill after it had
been mutilated and rendered less eff
fective by the amendments reducing
the tax and inserting the word "know-
ingly" in the penalty clause, and as
Stunning that those who favored the
reference of the bill to the finance COM
mittee were not unfriendly to this legis-
lation. Mr.. Mcpherson (democrat)
of New Jersey, whom the Free Press
says was in favor of the bill, did not
vote upon it at any time. In every
vote on the bill and amendments he is
recorded as absent, and it is not stated
that he was paired with any senator on
this measure. The Free Press has no
warrant for stating that he either
favored or opposed the bill, but it has
been learned from Senator Miller and
others that he was opposed to the bill
"as it came from the house." SO was
Senator Jones, who was paired with
Senator Harrison. The latter was in
favor of the house bill. In voting yea
on its passage, Senator Harrison re-
marked:
l have been paired on some of the amend
ments to this bill with the senator from Ne
vada (Mr. Jones), but / understand in the
present shape of the bill he would vote for
its passage. therefore vote yea"
This is conclusive of Senator Jones'
position on the bill. Mr.. Aldrich was
likewise opposed to the house bill, and
voted for the amendments. The Record
shows precisely what we stated before,
that of the eleven members of the
finance committee only Senators Nor
rill, Sherman, Allison and Miller were
in favor of the house bill without
amendment.
In the same issue the Free Press
undertakes to show that the WATCH.
MAN has misrepresented Mr.. Edmunds