The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1900-08-15

of the bill, but says nothing Of the feeling
that arose among the farmers in the Legis-
lature over the defeat Of the Parker bill,
and how Dillingham; gladly favored the Sec
ond bill to take the curse off from his oppo-
sition to the first, thus getting on both sides
OF the fence.
Our contemporary hourishes much over
what there is no dispute about, but fails to
touch the real points in issue, which are
First--That Dillingham; claimed the Par
ker bill unconstitutional.
Second-That our contemporary also
claimed that it was unconstitutional and
said it had been so decided in New YORK
and other States"
This was the emphatic claim Of Dilling-
ham and his papers. But this has been
shown to be absolutely false and proves
that Dillingham; either is a poor lawyer or
is ready tc pervert the law against the
farmers of the State. 1t also shows that he
cannot, without q change of heart, vote for
the Circuit bill which, like the Parker Bill
in 1884, proposes tax ON oleomsrgarine.
are utterly unreliable as guides and teach
ers Of the people. If Dillingham; will con-
TESS that he did not know the law and
would now vote the other way, the farmers
might forgive him.
So, also, II our contemporary, and other
Dillingham; papers, would own up squarely
that they were wrong in this matter, the
people might make an effort to believe them
in the future.
Will they do it?
Confession is said to be good for the
| soul.-St, Johnsbury Republican.
The foregoing is reproduced not be-
cause it is exceedingly forceful-not-
withstanding an attempt 20 give it
force by poster display-or has any
other proper claim to publicity. 1t
seems to be passing down the liue of
the subsidized Grout papers, and from
this circumstance and its origin it may
be accepted as General CIRCUITS answer
to the record. How good or poor an
answer it is the readers of the Grout
papers-which systematically pervert
facts-would better understand if the
papers in question published the rec
ord of legislative proceedings.
The record shows that an entire
change of feeling and opinion came
over the Representatives after the first
hasty, impulsive action on the Parker
bill. And that is the important thing,
and that is what troubles the Grout
brigade. The Republican seeks to
blink the real facts by its stupid refer.
ences to "what no one has Denied" to
"what there is no dispute about" etc
There is equally"no dispute about" the
fact that the farmers of the House, with
Douglas of Whiting at their head, be.
came satisfied that the Parker bill was
unsound and impracticable, and if
passed would be equivalent to no law
aud the traffic in oleomargarine would
have not even such restrictions as the
law might impose. That was "the
| tCCllhS tbat dlOoC uluOhS bhC luOi
in the Legislature" and by reclamation
in the passage of the bill of the general
committee, they said to the Senate
"Accept this substitute, and kill the
Parker BILL"
In the matter of the unconstitution
atty of the Parker bill the contempora
ries can buck their heads ad libitum
against the evidence presented of the
practically unanimous judgment OF
that point of every lawyer in the House
and Senate whose opinion was worth
anything on matter of such import
ance. These opinions constitute su
preme court decision on that point
There is no appeal from it.