The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1898-12-14

not the question. That was fairly clear
to any ordinary observer and seems to
have been apparent even to his dull
eyed newspaper attorney
The Argus appeals to the record and
says the WATCHMAN has falsifed it in
respect of Mr. Wallis voting. To what
record does the contemporary refer2
To the official record? That is silent as
the grave as to the incidents of Mr..
Wallis voting on the occasion in ques-
tion, and it may be remarked in pass
ing that the official record maintains
the same deathly silence in the matter
of the Argus clients offer of a SAC, 600
bride to the members of the Legisls-
ture to hold up the State government,
unless the Senate should submit to the
stand and deliver mandate of the ban
dit of the House. So the WATCBMAN
has not falsified the official record in
these matters, for there is none to foli.
fly. The contemporary is at liberty to
catechse the official reporter to which
it refers, and may it have JOY in the
satisfaction it shall derive from the
catecfism.
The WATCHMAN was represented at
the late session of the Legislature by
an exceptionally acute and intelligent
observer and student of affairs. 1t
was his business to see and know what
was going on, and to record his obser-
vations without prejudice or prepos-
session. His reports are somewhat
more Illuminating than the official re-
cord. In the DAILY JOURNAL of Nov
EN- er Is, reporting the incidents of
the voting on the bill TO abolish the
board of agriculture, Mr.. Harris, writ
ing of the progress of the yea and nay
vote that followed the close of the de-
bate, says:
"Then the concert began with a solo by
Mr.. Wall of Randolph, who refused to vote
because he didn't know ho,U, followed with
one from General Butterfield, who also re-
fused to vote from conscientious scrupes.
The House wouldn't excuse William and he
finally voted yes to escape sentence of
impr isonment in the Pavilion elevator dur
ing supper. General Butterfield still re.
fused to vote, and the House finally excused
him."
The excuse given by Mr.. Wall for
refusing to vote is printed in italics in
this connection for obvious reasons.
Supplemental accounts of the proceed
ings are to the effect that Mr.. Wall re.
fused to answer when the roll was
called. After it was completed col.
loquy ensued between him and the
chair, there was sharp interchange of
remarks, the member from Randolph
maintaining that he "didn't know how
to vote intelligently," The House refus-
ed to excuse him and he finally voted
yes to end the scene. Mr.. Butte1feld
who, also, had declined to vote on the
score of conscientious scruples," was
excused, a circumstance that the Off
cial reporters record.
In the light of the facts who has
sought to "substract" from the sum of
human knowledge in this matter-to
suppress in the interest of its client
the real facts in the case? And what
becomes of the contemporaries aver
ment that "the man whose ignorance it
brands and whose morality it sneers at
was Mr.. Butterfeld of Derby? Petty
pettifogging is the mildest character
ization of the matter.
When driven into a corner and the
facts are all against the contemporary
its refuge is behind an insinuation of
malice. We trust it is abundantly salts
fed with this draft from "the sources of
information" in this office. If not there
is more on tap. To deliberately falsify
the record" is the sole recourse of the
contemporary in the defense or excul-
patton CT its bandit client, bnt it won't
work. 1t has tough case on its hands,
and the lawyers maxim in hopeless
cause, "abuse the other sde," will not
60 down in the high court of public
opinion.