Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1900-08-24
Gen. CIRCUITS Reply
To the open Letter Addrrs,cd TO Him
Last week.

Ill / ne lutfulA VI ldSJ Wtths
You speak of the Essex Records pre-
sentation of Governor Dlllingham's posi-
ton on the oleo bill of 1884 as not being
"cean and above board and wonder If |
originated it. did not originate 1t, but
will say that can see nothing in it not en-
tirely 'clean and above board" Is # not
perfectly proper to review the public rec
ord of a 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. Slraightway the
Dillingham; papers, including The Phoenix,
said that he was right, that the bill was
unconstitutional and that cases 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 un-
constitutional. The editor of every Dill
bingham paper in the state must be con-
WINGED of this and that he was wrong when
he told his readers it was unconstitu-
tional, but not one has made the correc-
ton. Not one has told his readers that
there are no decided cases in New Y ork
and other states so holding. Not one has
owned up squarely that Governor Dilling-
hams law was wrong, and that he himself
was wrong in what he told his readers
about it. Not one but instead thereof
every one 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; ia
vored, but which is not now on the statute
book, it having been repealed as worthless
and an ant-color law adopted instead. In
other words, like the cuttle-tish, they muddy
the water and thus obscured, swim away.
Now, friend French, to be candid, and |
| know you want to be, which is less ''clean
and above. board" for the Record and 9TH
err Grout papers to present Dillingham's
| attitude on this public question, or
for The Phoenix and other Dillingham; pa
| pers to studiously conceal from their read
| ers the mistake of their candidate and
| their own mistake as above made plain?
| repeat, which is less clean and above
board?" | would like a categorical answer
| to this question.
With reference to the origin of the arti-
Gle in the Burlington News, entitled "Who
Pays the Freight" | will say that it was
not my work, and that had no communi-
] 4 f,,l f1tsr ba
concerninglt. Nor did furnish the Re
publican the article as you intimate. In
short, had nothing to do with ii, and knew
nothing of it until it appeared in print
Now | object to being made responsible
for all the newspapers favoring me may say,
Just as | presume Governor Dillingham;
will object to being made responsible for
all that the papers fayoring him say. For
instance, do not believe Governor Dilling-
ham would be willing to be responsible for
the editorial in the Free Press Of the 18th
inst, in which after having arraigned me
in previous issue for not having secured
the passage of better 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 1856,
which according to Congressman circuit
recent letter embodied the principle of the
Parker bill Of 1854, TO remain a law for
II long years, while oleomargarine has
flooded the country at the expense of the
farmers, and to have prospect of further
existence until at least 1902.
Glow many millions of dollars has the
failure to secure a thoroughly effective
anti oleomargarine law all these years cost
the farmers of Vermont? Is it not true
that more than one congressman has
grown enormously rich, through Carefully
considered neglect of legislation affecting
great corporations, while pretending TO bt
doing his best for his constituents"
Now who fails to read here between the
lines an insinuation that | have "grown
enormously rich through carefully consid-
cred neglect" of this subject? And who
fails to see that it implies downright treach
cry on my part? This is really far worse
thrust at me on the part of the Free Press
than the News interrogatory about Cover
nor Dillingham's campaign fund. This
Free Press paragraph, if it means anything
means that l am hypocrite and villain
pretending to help the farmers, but really
working against them all the time. You
are a man who wants fair play all around
and are my friend, and may ask why you
do not take the Free Press to task for thu:
wantonly attacking me? 1t can surely
make no difference with you whose OK /,
gored, for you by nature can only be per
fectly fair.
The fact is, friend French, the newspa
pers will have a little display of frework,
of their own once in while, especially in
political campaign. 1t cannot be helped
and those of us who are candidates hav,
to stand it whether we like it or not Now
here is an instance of it in the very copy o.
The Phoenix which contains your friendly
letter to me. You say, Sin last desperate
resort General Grout has attacked Cover
nor Dillingham;, a man of unbemisheC
character in private and public life"
denounce this as absolutely false. have
made no attack upon Governor billing
ham; but you had to touch off this rocket
just the same.
And again in another place you speak o.
n