The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1895-07-17
A New Field for KEENAN,,

In the course of an article, the text
for which is furnished by recent ed
itorial paragraph in this paper, the Her.
aid and Ne,os says:
eve discussed this subject of double
taxation with the Waterman some two
years ago. 1t certainly failed most ig-
ANONYMOUSLY then to prove that our position
was absurd. 1t has never attempted
reply to our last article on the subject at
that time. II it has anything further to
say now we shall be pleased to hear from It,"
So Well, failure was inevitable, as
it appeared later on, and the incapacity
Of the party to understand some of the
fundamental truths of political economy
seemed to be the main contributing
cause. If failure was most ignomini'
ous," as the contemporary somewhat
hysterically declares, the ignominy
could have accrued only from benevo-
lent disregard of the circumstances of
the case, which clearly pointed to an
observance of the scriptural injunction
as to answering persons not distin-
guished, to employ euphemism, for
ordinary wisdom or good sense.
The contemporary still insists that
Vermonters, under the existing tax
law, are martyrs to a system of OPP
preston that would be condemned in
Russia" He limits the area of mar
tyrdom to those farmers who have
failed to pay off the mortgages on their
farms. AS farmers constitute the great
body of Vermont's population, and our
pessimistic friends delight to declare
that the farms are, for the most part,
heavily mortgaged, the condition of the
great bulk of Vermonters is deplorable
indeed. But why exclude the large
army of mechanics, clerks, professional
men, and other laborers besides farmers,
whose property is mortgaged, from the
ranks of the oppressed? Are they not
equally martyrs to system of OPP
preston that would be condemned in
Russian" If the contemporary is right,
Vermont presents a new field for some
Stepniak's pen or Remnants exploiting
of horrors. If the contemporary is
wrong, he has not only misrepresented
the condition of large class of Yer
mont people, but has grossly libeled the
great majority which enacted and has
strenuously maintained the laws under
which he says this worse than Russian
system of oppression fourishes.
But the contemporary is wrong. He
knows that he is wrong, and, in this mat
ter, a demagogue also, employing the Ian
guage of anarchism to arouse class preju
dices in respect of law that is in the
main wise and just and equitable. The
representatives of the farmers in the
general assembly, acting in the light thai
intelligent discussion has shed upon the
subject, have invariably voted down the
quack remedies that have been pro
posed to cure this much-belied evil oil
"double taxation" arising from the
taxation of mortgages. In 1884 the
Douglass bill, which aimed to abolish
this form of alleged oppression, was
one of the leading measures of the
session. 1t was defeated after long
and exhaustive discussion, outside as
well as within the legislature, and il
has never since mustered sufficient
strength to be seriously considered. II
is one of those questions which, plausi-
BILE on the surface, will not endure
searching investigation and discussion
When there is need or occasion to say
anything further on this subject the
WATCHMAN will be heard from. Mean
time, the contemporary, whose brair
seems to be intoxicated by shallow
draughts at the Pierian spring.
may find deep rotations conducive to I
truer understanding of this subject ant
to consequent sobriety of language.