Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1902-12-19

OOiG anu ESIl OnuOiCs
The adjournment of another ses-
sion of the legislature brings up the
usual list of sins of omission and of
commission according to each critics
own individual view, but it is prob
ably true as a general proposition that
the Legislature of 1902 performed its
work on the whole in as satisfactory
a way as the average of it's predeces-
sors. The interest in liquor legis-
lation overtopped everything else dur
ing all the first weeks of the ses-
sion, and it was inevitable that other
important measures should suffer.
The worst sins of omission, viewed
from the standpoint of the good name
of the state of Vermont, were the
failure to enact a caucus law, and
an elections law compelling candi-
dates for office to file a sworn state
ment of their campaign expenses. The
real reason that a caucus law was
not enacted was that no active, earn
est interest in such a measure was
felt on the part of the Republican
members. Perhaps we ought to go
further than this and say that the
real reason why the measure finally
failed in the last hours of the session
was that the Republicans lacked ac-
tive, responsible leadership. The
fault that such law was not enact
ed was equally that of the straight"
Republicans and of the Clement men,
because the regular Republican plat
form and the platform of the Clement
faction contained an almost identical
demand for the enactment of such a
law.
No good reason can be given, as
we believe, for the summary way in
which the Senate turned down Mr..
Gales elections bill which passed the
House. This bill was drawn on the
lines of similar enactments in Massa-
chusetts, New York, Ohio and other
leading states and contained no un-
usual or unreasonable provisions. In
its main substance, it simply provided
that all candidates for public office
must file a sworn statement, telling
what their campaign expenses had
been, and what they were for. The
course of last summers campaign
made the demand for enactment of
such a law imperative. What was
the motive that actuated the Senate
in refusing to give even decent atten-
tion to this bill? The ST. Adams
Messenger is entirely justified in its
inquiry, Was the Senate afraid to
compel political candidates to file
statements of their campaign expens-
es under oath?" Some day the peo-
pie. of Vermont will be heard from on
this question in no uncertain way.
They certainly will be if we have a
repetition of last summers campaign
methods.
The Senate was as inconsistent as
other Senates and Houses have been
in the past in committing the sentences
of the murderers, Doherty, Eastwood
and Shaw, and then almost in the
same breath refusing to concur in
the House bill to abolish capital pun
ishment. There was a show of rea-
son for committing the sentences of
Doherty and Eastwood, because a
legislative committee of five doctors
had visited these men in the Windsor
prison and pronounced them insane.
Nobody believes they were insane
when they shot their men, and it will
now be interesting to see how soon
they begin to improve" after their
transfer to the Waterbury asylum.
In the case of Shaw there was no
sound reason whatever that could be
advanced for the Communication of his
sentence. 1t was purely matter of
ton way, with Shaw's sister on the
ground, and a woman attorney to
help it along. The plea raised in
behalf of Shaw was as fallacious as
any that could be imagined. 1t was
admitted that he was a fugitive from
justice, that he was armed with a
rifle, and that he aimed his rifle at
vital part of Deputy Sheriff Hoffman
and shot him fatally. The plea was
that Shaw was not such very bad
fellow after all, that he got out of
Jail because he wanted to; once out,
he wanted to keep out, and it was
no way to do to hunt such a free
and easy good fellow with dogs and
a gun. The effect of this action by
the legislature in Shaw's case is i'm
moral in the highest degree so far
as it effects the class of men to which
Shaw belongs. 1t is now in order to
wait and see how long it will be be-
fore some governor is prevailed on to
grant Shaw pardon and turn him
loose.
The queerest flop which we ever
remember to have been "cut" by any
legislative body was that of the
Senate on the bill prohibiting state