Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-07-06
"Mr. Dillingham; and the Farmers"

In its issue of June Is the Essex Record,
published at Essex junction, printed in
large type, in double column, with a big
black heading, "Dillingham and the Farm
ers," an article in which the charge is
made with no modification whatever, that,
in the legislature of 1884, the representa-
tive from Waterbury, William p. Diling-
ham "went on record as opposed to the
interests of Vermont butter manufacturers
dairymen, and the farming interests in
| general" The ground on which this
| charge is made is that Mr.. Dillingham;
voted against bill introduced at that ses-
sion to impose heavy tax on the manu-
facture and sale of oleomargarine. The
full text of the bill is given, and then it is
stated that "here is where Mr.. Dilling-
ham showed his hand as opposed to the
! farming interests Of the state. He voted
in opposition to the bill!" The names
are given of several well-known men who
voted for the bill, and then comes this
final alleged trumpet blast
"And after this treatment of the
| bone, the sinew, the.very life of Yer
months farmers-the same Mr.. Dill
lingham of Waterbury comes to them
and asks that they send him to the
United States Senate, the successor of
the always to be lamented Morrill,.
"Do you believe, farmers of Yer
mcnt, after such treatment, that you
are serving your own interests best by
empowering this man with an office in
which he can do you still greater in
jury}"
So much for the accusation of the Es-
sex Record. And now here are the facts
as given by the Montpelier Daily journal
The Facts In the Case.
"In the ession of the legislature of 1854
Mr.. Dillingham; was the representative
from Waterbury. The bill cited by the
Record was introduced into the House
early in the session. 1t proposed to place
tax of 10 cents on each pound of the
substitute for butter made, and taxed the
wholesale dealer $4,000 as a licenle fee,
and the retailer $1,000, imposing also, a
penalty of $500 upon any person who sold
such products without a license. The
committee on agriculture reduced the H.
cense fees TO $1,000 and $1,000 respectively.
when the bill came before the house
upon its final passage the question was
raised that the tax and license fees were so
heavy that the measure was prohibitive in
its effect, and If prohibitive then uncon-
stitutional; and II unconstitutional, OF no
protection either to the butter makers or
| consumers
"In voting against the bill Mr.. Dilling-
ham gave as his reasons those above stated.
He assured the friends of the measure that
| he was in full sympathy with their purpose
to protect the butter makers of Vermont,
but that in his judgment this measure
would be dead letter. The ground taken
| by him was supported by the votes of six
out of nine of the judiciary committee,
among whom were W. II. Walker of Lud-
low, chairman, who was soon after made
one of the judges of the supreme court, by
| w. B. g. Stickney OF Bethel, K. c. Abel
of West Haven, Herbert F. Brigham of
Bakersfield and Mr. Brownel of Pownal,
but the bill passed the House, was sent to
the Senate, referred TO the committee on
agriculture, which consisted of Ansel l..
| Hill of Hubbardton, Robert G. Cristy of
johnson and II. b. Williams OF Monkton,
| all Of lrhOm lcere farmers. This commit
tee would not indorse the measure and re-
ported 1t back to the Senate without ex-
preston of opinion on their part, and the
third reading of the bill in the Senate was,
| of course, refused without a roll call.
"The fear entertained by those not fAv-
oring the measure, that it would have been
Of no protection either to the farmers or
the people OF Vermont, was soon after con-
trmed by the fact that acts of a similar
nature were held to be unconstitutional
by the higher courts of New York and OF
some of the other states.
"Soon after the defeat of this measure in
the Senate, another bill was prepared and
reported from the general committee of the
House, entitled, "An Act to Prevent
Fraud in the Sale Of Oleomargarine and
Other Substances as Butter" which read
as follows;
Sec. l. A person who knowingly sells
or offers for sale, as butter, any oieomar-
garipe, butterine or article or substance re.
sembling butter, and not made exclusively
from milk or cream, and of which the oil
or fat of animals, not produced from milk,
is a component part, shall, for each such
offence be fined five hundred dollars; and
on trial for such offence, proof of the sale
or offer for sale shall be prima facie evi
dence of knowledge. Half of the penalty
shall go to the complainant.
Sec. 2 This act shall take effect from
its passage.
"This bill was warmly supported by Mr.
Dillingham;, passed both House and Sen
ate, and received the approval of the gov
ernor, and is No SS of the Acts of 1884,
Not word of comment is necessary
There is not man in Vermont, farmer OIL
otherwise, who reads this article through
but sees for himself the purpose of the
Record publication. 1t is a deliberate
attempt to prejudice the farmers against
Mr. Dillingham; by outright perversion oi
facts-by what is in effect bald, unadul
terated lie.
This seems to be distinctly new devel
opment in Vermont politics. In all oul
experience in the campaigns of % years
we do not recall such an unqualiedly
dirty piece of business as this.