The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-06-16
Mr.. Edmunds in 1884.

Mr.. Edior.-The WATCHMAN continually
reiterates its charge of inconsistency in Mr.
Edmunds in voting for Mr.. Blaine while re-
fusing to take an active part in the cam !
paign. 1t also gives currency to, or directly
supports, the charge that Mr. Edmunds was
disloyal to his party. Now it has been re- |
peatedly said, in substance, that Mr.. Ed |
munds, with all his objections to one of its +
candidates, greatly preferred the success of
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. The WATCHMAN seems to me to
evade this statement. Is it not due to Mr.
Edmunds as a man of honor, and to the
WATCHMAN as journal bound to meet
fairly the position of distinguished senator,
that its readers should have this claim made
in his behalf fairly put before them? To the
present writer there is no inconsistency or
disloyalty in the attitude taken by the sem
ator If the facts are as alleged. The silence
of the opponents of Mr.. Edmunds on the
point is painfully significant of their injus-
tice towards him, for If they have a just
cause they should welcome all the truth.
JUSTICE.
Our correspondent hardly does us Justice
in assuming that we have evaded the state
ment to which he refers, but we have not
accepted it as fact because it has never
been substantiated by good authority. The
WATcHMAN has mainly treated the whole
question as one of party policy. Senator
Edmunds has been honored by Vermont
republicans with four successive elections.
The republicans have felt, and with abun-
dant reason, that he owed something to his
party that when he was called upon by his
republican constituents or by the republic
can state and national committees to speak
in behalf of the party and its candidates he
should have responded, unless he had the
best of reasons for declining; that if he was
not satisfied with the candidates supported
by the majority of the party, yet he was in
duty bound as an influential party leader to
subordinate personal feeling to the good of
the cause, and to aid in saving the party
from defeat. No satisfactory reasons have
ever been given for his refusal to take an
active part in the campaign of 1884. A num-
Der of so-called explanations have been pub
lished from time to time, but they are not
conclusive, because there is nothing to show
that they are substantially true or have
been authorized by Mr.. Edmunds. There
fore any view of his course in the campaign
of 1884 must rest to a great extent upon
such differences as may be drawn from his
attitude in the canvass, his letters to the
national committee and individuals, and
the representations made by his friends at
the time, rather than upon actual knowl-
| edge of his motives The writer asked
prominent personal friend of Mr.. Edmunds,
! in the fall of 1884, why it was that the sem
ator could not support Mr.. Blaine and the
reply was, " Because of his personal feeling
against Blaine" There was nothing said
about any letter that Mr.. Edmunds had
written in which the personal character and
| public career of Mr. Blaine was assailed.
In letter to Mr. F. A. Flower of Madison,
| Wis, in September, 1884, Mr.. Edmunds is
reported as denying that he ever made any
such charges against Mr.. Blaine as it was
said that he did in a certain letter to parties
| in Vermont
In regard to the question of Mr.. Edmunds ,
| loyalty, it must be determined by certain
circumstances. The fact that he refused to
| perform service for his party when his aid
was so greatly needed, and that this conduct
won for him the hearty appreciation of the
mugwumps who voted for Cleveland, was
held by probably majority of republicans
in Vermont and elsewhere, for some months
after the election, as sufficient proof of dis
loyalty. If Mr.. Edmunds had good de-
fence to make of his inaction in the presi-
dental campaign, it would seem that he
was bound by every consideration of party
obligation to make it known to the great re-
publican constituency which had so long
condescended to explain his conduct and
has treated the party as though it has no
concern whatever with his political actions.
Because of this failure to set himself right
with his party, there are thousands of re-
publicans who have come to believe that he
had no worthy grounds for his course in
1884, and they fear that he will prove equally
faithess to the interests of the party in
1888 if it's candidate for president should
not be acceptable to him.
In regard to the charge of inconsistency
against Mr.. Edmunds, it may be said that if
he believed Mr.. Blaine to be an unfit man for
president, and for that reason could not
conscientiously support him in the canvass,
then his action in voting for Mr. Blaine las
it is claimed that he did was plainly incon-
sistent. If he did not vote for Mr.. Blaine,
then of course he is to be relieved from the
charge of Inconsistency, but in that case he
is rendered amenable to more serious impu-
tations