The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1900-08-08
ARTHUR ROPES. General Editor
OleOmargarine In Politics,

fusilade of oleomargarine. The Grout
editors are charged to the chin with
oleomargarine. The very heavens drip |
oleomargarine.
With a unanimity like that which
moved the craftsmen of Ephesus to cry
Justify and for many hours "Great is
Diana of the Ephesians," and impelled
by similar motive, the Grout newspa-
per shouters are proclaiming the great
ness of their patron as tribune of the
farmers, and with equal fervor and VIC
lence are assailing the standing of Will
liam p. Dillingham;. They attack his
record as a legislator. The assault
takes all the shapes of direct and posi-
tive falsehood, Misrepresentation, in
situation, and innuendo. The fusilade
is all directed at Mr.. Dillingham;
course in the Legislature of 1884 on
the measures then proposed to prohibit
or prevent the sale or manufacture 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
statement, the burthen of the accusa-
ton against Mr.. Dillingham; is that he
was hostile to the oleomargarne leg
islation proposed at the session of
1884, hostile or out of sympathy with
it's 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
finally passed, it is stated as a matter
of indisputable fact that "Mr. Dilling-
ham did not speak in favor of the bill
from the floor of the House," that
investigation fails to show that Mr..
Dillingham; was instrumental in the
passage of the law, or that he advo-
Gated its passage on the floor of the
House," So, in varying phrase, this
charge is reiterated in the columns of
the subsidized Grout papers. The
basis of the charge is the subjoined ex-
tract from an extensively circulated
interview with W. II. Parker, ESQ.,, of
Cambridge, member of the House of
Representatives in 1884 and the
author of a bill which the Legislature
rejected:
ut is said that Mr.. Dillingham; worked
for the bill. Do you know If this is SOP" n
II do not know that anybody worked for
to 1Hs1 t. kNI "a
necessary that anybody work for it. 1t
never created any discussion on the floor of
the house. Therefore Mr.. Dillingham; did
not talk for it from his seat on the floor"
do you know that he voted for it9'.
II do not"
he did or not?"
mo, there is no way of knowing from the
records, 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 L 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 asser-
tions in the same interview. Mr.. Par
ker forgets what he does not remember
like a great many other people. more
or less positive according to circum-
stances. Moreover, investigation shows,
what the Grout editors are vociferously
proclaiming that investigation does not
show, that Mr.. Dillingham; spoke and
voted in favor of House bill 5l5. Over
against their false and misleading
statements the JOURNAL sets the facts
of the official report of the legislative
proceedings on the matter in question.
AS has been already stated, Parker of
Cambridge introduced his bill, No. 1877,
October 81. 1t was held by the COM
mittee on agriculture of which Doug
lass of Whiting was chairman, till No.
vember 13 when it was reported favor
ably with amendments, which were
agreed to, and the bill passed. 1t went
t the Senate and on November Is was
referred to the committee on agricul-
ture, 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 it with
out expression of opinion and it, was
killed.
In the meantime, on the 18th of
November, only three days after the
House had passed the Parker bill, the
general committee reported House bill
5l5, "An act to prevent fraud in the
sale of oleomargarine and other sub
stances as butter" The House jour-
nal shows that this bill was taken up
Nov. 10, and it's third reading ordered
the following day. The official report
Of proceedings thereon, published in
the Montpelier Daily Journal of that
date, is as follows:
"Oleomargarine. Bio, to prevent fraud
in the sale of oleomargarine and other SUBJ
stances as butter, was taken up, and, on