Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-08-10

and all along the line of the Grout printing
offices, from the Canadian to the Massa-
chusetts border, there is fusillade of cleo
margarine. The Grout editors are charg-
ed to the chin with oleomargarine. The
very heavens drip oleomargarine.
With a unanimity like that which NOV
ed the craftsmen Of Ephesus to cry Justify
and for many hours "Great is Diana OF the
Ephesians," and impelled by similar mo-
tive, the Grout newspaper shouters are pro-
claiming the greatness of their patron as
tribune of the farmers, and with equal fer
vor and violence are assailing the standing
of William p. Dillingham;. Their attack
his record as a legislator. The assault
takes all the shapes of direct and positive
falsehood, Misrepresentation, insinuatiOn,
and innuendo. The fusillade is all directed
at Mr.. Dilingham's course in the legisla-
ture of 1884 on the measures then propos-
ed to prohibit or prevent the sale or man.
uf4cture in this state of oleomargarine, or
any other butter imitation or substitute, as
| butter made from the milk of cows.
With some immaterial variations of state
ment, the burden of the accusation against
| Mr.. Dillingham; is that he was hostile to
the oleomargarine legislation proposed at
| the session of 1884, hostile or out of sym
patty with its purpose and the principle,
and either hostile to specific measures, or
silent and inactive in their support. In
respect of house bill SIS, which was final
| ~ passed, it is stated as a matter Of indis-
| putable fact that "Mr. Dillingham; did not
speak in favor of the bill from the floor of
| the house," that investigation fails to
show that Mr.. Dillingham; was instrument
| al in the passage OF the law, or that he ad-
vocated It's passage on the floor of the
| l. IT, -tpfv VNlr Ia nlo ryn
| is reiterated in the columns of the subsidiz-
| ed Grout papers. The basis of the charge
is the subioined extract from an extensive
ly circulated interview with w. II. Parker,
Esq, of Cambridge, a member of the
house OF representatives in 1884 and the
author OF bill which the legislature re-
jected:
1T is said that Mr.. Dillingham; worked for the
| bill Do you know II this Is sos''
| II do not know that any body worked for this
| bill. II created no interest. 1t wasn't necessary
| that anybody work for Il. II never created any
discussion on the floor OF the house. Therefore
Mr. Dillingham; did not talk for it from his seat
DO you LnOw that he voted for "
| II do not"
is there any way of ascertaining whether he
mo, there is no way Of knowing from the rec
ords, for there was no aye and nay vote taken
| Possibly the members who had seats near Mr.
| Dillingham; might recall how he voted. He may
| not have been present for all know"
Investigation shows that Mr.. Parker is
in error, not only in the statements he
makes in the foregoing extract from the
published interview, but similarly at fault
in other very positive assertions in the
same interview. Mr.. Parker forgets what
he does not remember-like a great many
other people more or less positive accord
ing TO circumstances. Moreover, investi-
- ali no.
vociferously proclaimng that investigation
does not show, that Mr.. Dillingham; spoke
and voted in favor of house bill 5l5. Over
against their false and misleading state
ments the Journal sets the facts of the Of
fetal report of the legislative proceedings
on the matter in question.
AS has been already stated, Parker of
Cambridge introduced his bill, No. 1877,
Oct. u. 1t was held by the committee on
agriculture of which Douglass of Whiting
was chairman, till Nov. Is, when IL was
reported favorably with amendments
which were agreed TO, and the bill
passed. IL went to the senate and on
Nov 10 was referred TO the committee on
agriculture, made up of three farmers who
kept the bill in their possession till the
closing hours of the last night of the session,
when they reported 1t without expression
of opinion and 1t was killed.
In the meantime, on the 18th of Novem-
Der, only three days after the house had
passed the Parker bill, the general COM
mittee reported house bill SIS, IAN act to
prevent fraud in the sale of oleomargarine
and other substances as butter" The
house journal shows that this bill was
J taken up Nov. 10, and its third reading Or
J dered the following day. The official re-
port of proceedings thereon, published in
the Montpelier Daily Journal Of that date,
is as follows:
"OleomargGrine.-H. SIS, to prevent fraud In
the sale OF oleomargarine and other substances
as butter, was taken up, and, on motion OF Mr..
OF Mr. Barrett Of Rutland It was again taken up,
and its third reading ordered for tomorrow morn
, ing Mr.. Barrett explained that the bill render
ed more effective the existing law by making the
Offering or sale OF the subs itute as genuine a
fraud"
November 20, the bill was read the third
time, and, on motion of Douglass of Whit
| ing, chairman of the committee on agri-
| culture-a farmer and one of the strong
est supporters of the farmer interest in
the state-it was amended in minor par
ticulars. On motion of Childs of Wey-
bridge the bill was then ordered to lie.
Subjoined is the Daily Journals publica'
7 ton of the official report of the procee d.
3 ings of Nov. 20:
"Anti- OleomaTgdrine,- III. SIS, 10 prevent FRAUD
In the sale OF oleomarRartne and other substances
as butter, was read the third time. Pending itS
| passage, MIR. Parker of Cambridge opposed the
bill. MIR. Barrett OF Rutland and Mr.. billing ham
| OF Waterbury advocated II. Finally, on motion
) Of Mr. ChildS Of Weybridge, the bill was ordered
to lie."
3 On the Monday following, November "a
? as the house journal and the Daily Jour.
naps official reports show, the bill wal
called up by Mr.. Douglass and passed
' Now If this bill was deemed to be the
. nonentity Mr.. Parker and the Grout pa
pers are declaring that it was, why was Sc
stout champion of the farmer interest al
was Mr.. Douglass, the chairman of thu
agricultural committee, the leader of the
farmers of the house, their able and recog
nized advocate, strong in mind, steadfas
I in integrity, power in debate, supporting
3 this measure? If he deemed bill 1877 thu
wiser and better measure, why was he no
4 found with Lawyer Parker opposing bill
2 5l5, and demanding that bill 1877, theI
pending in the senate, should have prece
9 dence? The strong significance of these
s circumstances require neither suggestion
= nor comment.
: The senate received bill 515 Nov 25
e 1t was referred to the committee on agri
} culture-composed wholly of farmers
s which had held in its possession Parker
: | hill No 1877 ainca Nov IL vVithOut ACTIN