The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-08-11

Edmunds in relation to the Beck bill is
almost universally condemned by the
republican press of the country. The
few exceptions are the Edmunds organs
in this state.
There has been considerable dis
cussion of late regarding Mr.. Edmunds'
position on the oleomargarine bill. On
the 18th of June he voted to refer this
bill to the committee on finance. He
must have known at the time Qor there
were other senators who did know that
majority of that committee were hos
tile to the measure in the shape it had
come from the house, and were pre-
pared to report against it. Mr.. Ed
munds sought to explain his vote by
the statement that the reference to the
finance committee was the only proper
and constitutional method of dealing
with the bill. And yet he is not so
much of a stckler for constitutional
methods as he then professed to be, for
ON July 18th, when another attempt
was made to refer the oleomargarine
bill to the finance committee, he voted
against such reference. Now was he
right when he voted for its reference to
that committee, or when he voted on
the other side of the question? Is it
not probable that the displeasure mani
tested by Vermont farmers and dairy
men with his first vote on the bill had
some influence upon his subsequent
action? Meantime he was writing to
| Vermont farmers that he was doing
everything possible for the success of
the measure; but there are some peo-
pie in Washington so uncharitable as
to suggest that but for the importunate
demands of our farmers for this legisla-
ton Mr.. Edmunds would have been
opposed to it. He finally made a good
speech in favor of the bill, but on what
was represented as the vital question
reducing the tax from five to two cents
per pound-he had nothing to say. 1t
is believed that really strong speech
in opposition to that reduction might
have preserved the bill in the shape in
which it came from the house. 1t is
now pretended that the rate of tax was
not an important feature of the bill.
If this is the case, what was the object
of imposing any tax at all :? 1t is GER
tain that during the debates on the bill
in both houses the rate of tax was held
to be an essential feature. But be this
as it may, and without discussing the
merits of the bill, it may be said that
Mr.. Edmunds' course upon it did not
have the merit of consistency; and we
find that good many Vermont farmers
are not satisfied that he did all in his
power to make this legislation effective.
In an interview with a New York
World correspondent Mr.. Edmunds has
condescended to allude to his recent
statement in the senate that "Pan-
Electric " Garland is can upright and
just man." He now says: 81 think
Garland is an honest man, but 1 do
think he made mistake. His mistake
was in accepting an interest in a specu-
lative enterprise when he was a sena-
tor" The testimony brought out before
the Investigating committee against Mr.
Garland was very damaging and did not
show that he was an honest man. Mr..
Edmunds appears to be the only repub-
lican of any prominence who holds to
that estimate of the encouragement.
When it is remembered that Mr.. Gar
land, in his testimony, admitted the
scandalous charges against him, and
also confessed that he was gambler,
it will be seen that Mr.. Edmunds' idea
of what constitutes an honest man is
peculiar.