The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1886-07-22

| The enemies OF Senator Edmunds, n
might have been expected, hav,
made some false charges igains
him, with the evident intention o
securing his defeat next fall. One O
shese charges is that he is opposed to th,
bill taxing oleomargsrins. He has nevel
opposed this bill and 10 his place 10 tb,
Senate. Monday, advocated its passage.
Another charge 10 that be has acted u
counsel for corporations interested 10 pro-
curing legislation at the hands Of the Sen
ate. This is also false. The New Yorl
World gave publicly to this charge and
its correspondent afterwards had q long
talk with the Senator and as result sent
the following reply to his paper:
III any one we're TO take tue pains TO OK.
anime my record carefully or come TO me
to make inquiries l am sure they would
find that have DOM less ia the way OF
legal work for corporations than almost
any man in public life. It is true that
| have large legal practice. | am not
denying that, aud do not understand
that the general charge Of my having .
great amount Of corporation practice is
intended Ms an dispersion upon my char
scter; bnt the real fact is that have had
very litih' corporation practice during my
t.nl 4 has. Lo.l
any rrpular connection viii, a corporation
with thu .Ac.pii,n ~ the Vermont Central
railroad hsyr tern the advisory conn
sci ~ that rofura,iDn for some year.
receiving a small stbn,i lee. On the LIST
II last Janna, re.,. ,,rd that connection.
lis i.e,i hn.inr-s @s- practically u an
-ln nnu .as 10 further use fsr my ser
vices
'rau first c.srpurpti.n ease that had OF
auy lmpufiaue. whicl, nov call TO mind
was that ola Scaltish corporation, some
10 or ~ ypafs age. IL u suit against the
Missoari. Kausa. x Texas railroad, in the
vest have, perhaps, 10 MI my career
had five OF six rorporni,n clients. but 10
cases where the governments interest
was IN 10 way involved. l never have
been tbs attorney Of lAnh.grant railroads,
aud have never sctrd professionally for
them 10 az, way. appeared 10 the su.
Pfeme cuuri ~ counsel in what is known
~ the California tax case but Ia that l
really represented public interests. The
state 81 C4IIforpis bsl passed sn uucon-
s.iiuiIouai tax. aud II The principle Of the
legislation had b~,b sustained It would
have been possible for STATES 10 have taxed
private corporations ont Of existence.
Ny Interest 10 thai Case was one OF sus.
.siniug the constitution IT the United
States. which guarantees equal protection
% al. have been 30 careful I'll my life
ID retr raining from accepting legal em
,lpyment from any interest which might
;oms before me Ia congress ihst some Of
my refusals might be considered foolish.
During the reconstruclion days. when |
stanton Vas secretary Of var, the state
u Georgia scught to test the copstitu-
iopaiiiy Of the Reconstruction act M.
stanton offered me employment - special
'ounssl 10 represent the interests Of The
but l declined the employ
mont upon the ground that the statutes
orbsde such employment A decision Of
Hin vhea be vss attorney general vaa
ny guide upon thst occssicn- II Vas
cry clearly laid do~n in that decision
bat membsr 81 congress conld mot b
Employed while holding kis ofics by 40,
4 The other branches Of the govsrnnent
q aoy capacity. II il true that have
ons legal work FOE The Adams EIprsss
omPany. bat that il not corporation.
I IL business partnership. The senator
have carried my foolish
- 20 fer ~ 10 have rsfssined from Il