The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1892-08-31

doubt, correctly-have stoutly insisted that
the republican nominee for representative
at the election for 1892 should be a man who
favors high license. The efforts that have
been made to enforce the prOhbitory law
in Montpelier, and events growing out of
those efforts, and the legal outcome Of
those efforts, have unquestonably added
intensity to local political feeling, on both
sides of the temperance question. The
men-or many Of them-who are standing by
the prohibitory law, and the men who are
strict constructonists of that section of the
constitution that declares that " the House
of Representation of the Freemen of this
State shall consist of persons most noted
for wisdom and virtue" and who would re-
ioice to see this constitutional requirement
embodied in the representative of the CAPT
tai town of the state, are dissatisfied with
the action of the Montpelier republican
caucus. Indeed they are in open rebellion.
Representing this element OF republicans,
Joel Foster, II. G. Lowe, T. j. Keegan, IT,
c. Cotton, f. Blanchard, T. c. Barrows,
Joseph Poland, Joseph Fisher, Morton
Marvin, George L. Blanchard, j. f.. Curran
and A. G.. Brown filed with the town clerk on
Saturday, paper placing Professor Il. A,
Bishop, principal of the Methodist Sem
mary, in nomination for the Office of town
representative.
The caucus on Thursday evening was reg
ular in all its proceedings. 1t was publicly
announced, in the newspapers, and by
handbills distributed on the afternoon of
Thursday. It's proceedings were regular
and above criticism. But the protestants,
or kickers," aver that agents and parti-
sans of the winning side had industriously
drummed the town for several days preced-
ing the time of holding the caucus, and that
they had their followers out in force; that
they were overborne and out-voted by an
alert, diligent and aggressive faction that
does not fairly represent the majority senti-
ment of this town. So they protest, and
some of them have put their protest into
this nomination of Professor Bishop. 9th
ers say that they "carry their sovereignty
under their own hat" and declare their
purpose to vote their individual preferences,
outside of any formal nominations. The
victorious side at the caucus pleads the
regularity and perfect fairness of all the
proceedings, and argues that all good re-
publicans should support a nomination so
openly and fairly secured. The majority
should rule, and personal preferences
should be subjected to the majority party
will This, we believe is fair and impartial
statement of the main facts of the existing
situation in the matter of town repre-
sentative.
There is more or less talk of combines
with the democracy to secure Mr. Clark's
election or to accomplish his defeat. AS a
counter to republican detection, it is al
| legged that democratic saloon-keeper will
| a
same political faith to the rescue of Mr..
Clark. Again the CHECKERS " are accused
by the " regulars of willingness to con-
tribute to the election of the democratic
nominee for representative. The temper
ance people regard the nomination of Mr..
Clark as direct and formal challenge.
The Z" rum element" they say, has thrown
down the gauntlet and the election of Mr..
Clark will be as signal a triumph of Ii
cense as if Hiram Atkins, whose son-in-law
| Mr.. Clark is, were himself elected repre-
sentative. Therefore they propose to de-
featlNIr. Clark if they can, and if Mont
peler is to have license representative
they prefer that a democrat shall carry that
| honor from the polls.
To the claim of party support on the score
of the regularity of Mr.. Clark's nomination,
| the temperance dissidentS answer that the
dominating element in the Clark faction
had been conspiring to defeat Mr.. Howe,
the regularly nominated republican candi-
date for sheriff, for no other reason, in fact,
than that he has been faithful in perform
| ing certain duties the law and his oath
of Office have imposed upon him. The
| WATCHMAN has not, and does not, make
this or any other charge against either
faction in this local difference that has
arisen within the republican party. We
sincerely regret this difference, and deeply
regret that it had not been possible to unite
on some one of the many able and compe-
tent republicans who should have been en-
tirely acceptable to republicans of every
shade of preference on the temperance OF
other public questions. But in this contin'
gency we can see no reason why republicans
should vote the democratic ticket, or why
they should court democratic aid to elect
their OWE. There are enough who hold the
republican faith to win victory If they
will act wisely and abide together in peace
and harmony. And to the accomplishment
of an end so devoutly to be wished every
loyal republican should devote all his ener
gies between this time and the day of cleo
ton.