Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-08-24
Open Letter No. = in Answer to
Gen. VIM. w. GrOut.

friend last Monday afternoon, and it is
printed in full and with pleasure elsewhere
in this paper. Since this correspondence
was begun in the first person, perhaps l
may as well continue it in that way as to
adopt the editorial tive"
In the opening part of your letter you
lay the main stress on the assertion that
the Parker oleomargarine bill of 1884 was
not unconstitutional, and that The Phoenix
and other Dillingham; papers have ''stu-
diously concealed" this fact from their
readers. You go so far as to say that
there are no decided cases in any of the
courts showing that this bill was unconsti-
tutional, and that 'every lawyer in the
state knows that the bill was not uncon-
sttutional"
On this point take direct issue with
you, | say that you are wrong. | say
you are not as well informed on this sub
ject as a good lawyer and a public man
ought to be. The fact is that the supreme
court of New York held a law with provis-
ions similar to the Parker bill to be un-
| constitutional, while the courts of Mis-
souri, and Pennsylvania have held similar
laws to be constitutional and valid. The
| supreme court of the United States has
held oleomargarne to be lawful article
of commerce between the states, and it
| has also held that state cannot enact
! law permitting the sale Of oleomargarine
and at the same time attach conditions
which in effect make the law prohibitory
| Under the principle of the decision last
referred to the Parker bill of 1884 was un-
| doubtedy unconstitutional, because, while
permitting the sale of oleomargarne, it
! put a tax upon it which was intended to
| be prohibitory.
For the benefit of any persons who care
! to burden themselves with such informa-
tion, have printed on the second page of
this paper, beginning on the fifth column,
a summary of facts about these court de-
cisions on oleomargarne legislation. [ be-
lieve that any person, farmer or otherwise,
who reads that article through carefully
will be satisfied, not only that the much
Wanted Parker bilr' of 1884 was un-
constitutional, but that the only effective
law regulating the sale of oleomargarine
which we have ever had on our Yer
mont statute book was the very law, en-
acted in 1884, which was introduced as
substitute for the Parker bill and sup
ported by Gov. Dillingham-the very law
that your newspapers and circulars, and
through them you yourself, are denounc-
ing as evidence that Gov. Dillingham; is the
enemy of the farmers. This, General is
where the laugh comes in. This is the
categorical answer which you are so
your call on me to estate a single thing
which you have "misrepresented or col
ored particle in this whole business"
The difference between us appears to be
that | am far more lenient in my judgment
of you in this matter than you were of me,
for you accused me of "studiously con-
cealng" the facts, while | only accuse you
of objectionable ignorance of the facts
for of course you did not mean to "misrep-
resent or color a single thing a parti-
cle." And through this ignorance you
have deliberately walked into the trap
which you yourself set.
The rest of your letter seems to me tC
show that the strain of the campaign ha;
made you morbidly nervous, and destroy
ed your sense of humnr, or else 1t is true
that my shot at you has gone home deeper
; than | could have imagined. For instance
= one of your newspapers announced a math
ematical proposition to the effect that youl
oleomargarine bill now pending in Con
gress was likely to add $500, 900 a year tC
the income of the farmers of Vermont
while good judges" placed the estimate al
high as S1,5OO,000 The editor of The
; Burlington Free Press took this up an(
turned the tables on you by estimating
what the farmers of Vermont must have
lost by your failure to get such bill en-
acted ten years ago. l think that was
= fair shot, made without any malice.
u your political skin is so thin just now tina
it seems otherwise to you, you will have Il
stand the inhiction. On my own part
have never for moment entertained tn,
Z idea suggested in your letter that you hav,
. 'grown enormously rich through CAREFUL,
considered neglect" of this subject. Oh
A the contrary, have understood that you
4 snug little pile of half million or so wa
. mainly cleaned up year ago last spring b,
n headlong plunge and lucky strike in Wal
g street.
q Again, you complain of the fun whicl
. the Rutland Herald had with you on you
agricultural lyrics" in Congress, and yo
a say the Herald was wrong in its facts
q the editor of that paper dulled his owi
a joke by a mistake of this kind think yo
/ must hold him responsible. What l wa
n after was the fun in the article, and nc
W its ancient history, correct or otherwise
, and the readers of The Phoenix now hav
is the full benefit of your correction.
l now return to the main point of m
= first letter and of this letter. In your al
swer you quote my statement of last wee
that: SIN last desperate resort, Gel
RI Grout has attacked Gov Dillingham;,
ne man of unblemished character in prva
y and public life," and then add: 81
OF nounce this as absolutely false; l hay