St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1900-08-29
GEN CIRCUITS REPLY
To the Open Letter Addressed to HIN
Last Week.

Friend French: When one is spoken
to, it is hardly civil to make no answer I;
hence this reply to your friendly saluta'
ton in the Phoenix OF last week.
You speak OF the Essex Records pres
entation of Governor Dillingham's posi-
ton on the oleo bill of '94 as not being
"clean and above-board," and wonder if
originated it. | did not originate it,
but will say that can see nothing in it
not entirely "clean and above board"
Is it not perfectly proper to review the
public record of man when up for public
office? This is all the Essex paper did.
am sure if there are bad places IN my
record you will not fail to call attention
to them.
The Essex paper said Governor Dilling-
ham opposed the bill on the ground that
it was unconstitutional StralghtWay
the Dillingham; papers, including The
Phoenix, said that he was right, that the
bill was unconstitutional and that cas:s
had been so decided in the courts of New
York and other states. But it turns out
that there are no such decided cases, and
every lawyer in the state knows that the
bill was not unconstitutional. The editor
OF every Dillingham; paper in the state
must be convinced OF this, and that he
was wrong when he told his readers it
was unconstitutional, but not one has
made the correction. Not one has told
his readers that there are no decided
cases in New York and other states so
holding. Not one has owned up squarely
that Governor Dillingham's law was
wrong, and that he himself was wrong,
in what he told his readers about it.
Not one; but instead thereof everyone of
them seeks to divert attention from the
manifest error of their candidate, and
their own error, by talking about an
other bill which Governor Dillingham;
favored, but which is not now on the
statute book, it having been repealed as
worthless and an anti-color law adopted
instead. In other words, like the cutie
fish, they muddy the water and thus OBJ
scured, swim away.
Now, friend French, to be candid,
and l know you want to be, which is
less "clean and above-board," for the
Record and other Grout papers to pre-
sent Dillingham's attitude on this public
question, or tor The Phoenix and other
Dillingham; papers to studiouslv conceal
from their readers the mistake of their
candidate and their own mistake as
above made plain? l repeat, which is
less "clean and above board ?" l would
like a categorical answer to this ques-
ton.
With reference to the origin of the art
icle in the Burlington News, entitled,
"Who Pays the Freight" l will say
that it was not my work, and that
had no communication directly or indi-
rectly with the News concerning it. Nor
did furnish the Republican the article as
you intimate. In short, | had nothing
to do with it, and knew nothing of it
until it appeared in print.
Now object to being made responsible
for all the newspapers avoring me say,
just as | presume Governor Dillingham;
will object to being made responsible for
all that the papers tavoring him say.
For instance, l do not believe Governor
Dillingham; would be willing to be re-
sponsible for the editorial in the Free
Press OF the'17 inst. which after hav-
ing arraigned me in previous issue for
not having secured the passage OF a bet
ter oleo bill than the one now on the
statute book, says:
$50 it is possible for an alleged friend
of the farmer to be really foe in either
branch of Congress, is it? Was it merely
Carefully considered neglect that caused
the oleomargarine bill enacted in 1886,
which according to Congress CIRCUITS
recent letter embodied the principle of
the Parker bill of ga, to remain a law
for IA long years, while oleomargarine
has flooded the country at the expense
of the farmers, and to have a prospect
of further existence until at least 1902?
"How many millions of dollars has
the failure to secure thoroughly effec-
tive Interchangeable law all these
years cost the farmers of Vermont? Is
it not true that more than one congress
man has grown enormously rich, through
carefully considered neglect of legislation
affecting great corporations, while pre-
tending to be doing his best for his
constituents ?"
Now who fails to read here between
| the lines an inslnuation that | have
grown enormously rich through care
fully considered neglect Of this subject
And who fails to see that it implies
downright treachery on my part? This
is really far worse thrust at me on the
part of the Free Press than the News
interrogatory about Governor Dilling.
hams campaign fund. This Free Press
paragraph, if it means anything, means
that am a hypocrite, and a villain
pretending to help the farmers, but really
working against them all the time. You
are man who wants fair play al
around, and are my friend, and may
ask why you do not take the Free Press
to task for thus wantonly attacking
me? 1t can surely make no difference
with you whose OK is gored, for you by
nature can only be perfectly fair.
The fact is, friend French, the news
papers will have little display of fire.
works of their own once in while,
especially in a political campaign. 1t
cannot be helped, and those of us who
are candidates have to stand it whether
we like it or not. Now here is an in.
stance Of it in the very copy of The
Phoenix which contains your friendly
letter to me. You say, "in last DIES.
perate resort General Grout has attacked
Governor Dillingham;, man of unblem.
ished character in private and public
lite." l denounce this as absolutely
false, have made no attack upon Cover.
nor Dillingham;; bnt you had to touch
off this rocket just the same.
And again in another place you speak
Of General CIRCUITS attempt to foo
them 1.-THE farmers) on the oleomargarint
r1act,At, ,,,Lo., 4 Ill oat I@a Ia i