Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1886-08-30
SENATOR MORRILL, TO A
VERMONT FARMER.


evening, and, although my health is not
yet fully restored, hasten to reply. You
will bear it in mind that was not pres
ent in the last few weeks of the late ses-
ion Of congress. You say: cit is charged
persistently against Senator Edmunds in
several state papers that his action upon
the oleomargarine bill was hostile to the
the passage and efficiency of said bill
official action upon measures pending in |
congress concerning corporations has |
been uniformly hostile to the interests of
the United States and of the people
porations. Believing that your long and
valued service in congress has given
you the fullest opportunity of knowing
as to the truth or falsity Of these charges,
1 respectfully ask that you will give me
your opinion upon the matters men,
toned"
/ cannot but regret that the friends of
my distinguished colleague, Senator Ed
munds, whose long and brilliant service
In the United States senate has obtained
national fame, should now seem to be
called upon to refute charges, possibly
originating from misinformatiOn, but, as
they appear to me, wholly destitute of
foundation, every reader of the senate's
daily record should have known.
When the oleomargarine bill from the
house of representatives came to the
senate after Senator Miller of New York
made his motion to refer the bill to the
committee Oh agriculture, of which he is
the chairman, / stated to the senate, in
substance, that while the bill appeared
| to have been considered and controlled
| in the house by the committee on agri-
| culture, and while all petitions and pa
pers in relation to the subject had so
| far been referred to the committee on
| agriculture in the senate, yet if the bill
was to be treated as an internal revenue
| bill it should be referred to the commit
tee on finance, but if the bill was to be &C
copied as an agricultural measure, then
of course it should go to the committee
on agriculture. l gave notice, therefore,
that should the motion Of Senator Miller
fail l should make a motion to refer the
the bill to the committee on finance. 1t
was known that was friend of the bill,
and perhaps as we'll known that all, or
nearly all, of the democratic members of
the finance committee We're opposed to
it. Senator Miller's motion, he having
been specially Identified with the bill, did
not fail, while l voted against it on the
ground that the bill on it's face as tax
bill clearly belonged to the committee
on finance, and my colleague voted the
same way for the same reason, he being
also an open and declared friend of the
bill. The measure from the outset was
sure of majority of the senate, to what
ever committee it might have been re-
ferred, and all of the republican men,
bers present of the committee on finance,
l believe, us well as my colleague, voted
in its favor on its passage. The amend
ment reducing the tax to two cents pei
pound, suppose, was adopted because
it was not thought necessary to augment
the revenue, and also because without il
utive veto. l was absent from the senate
npon tne final votes, but was paired will
Senator Salisbury of Delaware.
The charge that Mr.. Edmunds was
| -, n
the oleomargarine bill, it is to be hoped
has been based upon misapprehensiol
rather than sheer Misrepresentation.
The other charge-that his official &C
the Uuited States and the people ant
favorable to the corporatiOns-seem tt
s me equally baseless and equally mar
I val of misinformation. 1 am quite SUR
that Mr.. Thurman would give to Senate
Edmunds as much credit for what i
known as the Thurman act' as he woul
I claim for himself, either as to its initis
t ton or as to it's progress through tn
: senate. By that act the United State
= is now collecting some portion of TIL
large Indebtedness of the Pacific raj
: roads To these roads and to Charlie
i Francis Adams, president Of the Unto
e Pacific road, it will be rare news this
[. Senator Edmunds is favorable to CO
porations and hostile to the interests {
the United States or to the interests {
the people. So far as l know, his actio
oil n
i the other side.
In relation to the forfeiture Of what
o. called unearned IMMIGRANTS to railroad
20 where the roads have not been Who'll
err completed, there is a minority of tt
10 senate which holds that the lands al
t. unearned and subject to forfeiture ovt
he any part of the line constructed subs
quent to the time originally specific
all when it should have been complete
O. Notwithstanding the apparent acquie
de cence Of congress, and that the COVER
st ment has from time to time inSpectt
C. and certified its acceptance of the porto
IT. of the roads thus far built; but the S
b. preme court appears to have decide
he in late case that these roads a
LII entitled to the lands SO far as the roa
Sc have been actually completed. On til
We point 1 suppose Mr.. Edmunds, and nes
ly all Of the formost lawyers of the Sc
OIL ate, agree with the supreme court.
to Without some specification of corp
ID ration favoritism, the general charge va
ishes. have seen no specification.
al Permit me to say that have had
of doubt about the retention of Mr.. T
ct munds in the senate of the United Stat
by the people of Vermont, but ha
gs feared that the home opposition to h
be might be productive of some injury ell
Va where to the republican party. Our g
liant little state has long felt great pri
~ in his lead in the senate, where his v
Ply lance has often been potential again
IN mischievous legislation.
10. Very sincerely yours,
80 JUSTIN S. MORRILL,