The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1904-12-22
PARTISAN OPPOSITION.

And when it comes to legislation
in general. not only is it true that
both parties are interested simply as
Vermonters and not as political par
tisans in most of the questions that
come before them, but, even if it
we're not, the utter hopelessness of
the feeble little Democratic minority
in the house would make mere stub.
bornness not parliamentary cieveIness
but parliamentary suicide. On this
very question of the caucus law, for
instance, the Democrats did not fight
the measure because it was in execu-
ton of a Republican platform pledge
but because it contained provisions
that did not commend themselves to
them. There were provision in the
bill to which the Messenger took ex-
captions and for the very same reason
that some of the Democrats did. So
far as that goes there were Republi-
cans that felt the same way. But
when it came to the voting point, the
Republicans we're under the obligtion
of q party promise to pass a caucus
law and many of them felt compelled
to vote for almost anything in the
shape of caucus law rather than
risk failure of the measure a second
time because of unwillingnes to agree
upon it's terms. The Democrats were
under no such obligation but, rather,
had every opportunity to stand out in
the open and challenge the week spots
in the bill. And they did it.-St.
Adams Messenger.
The Messenger regards the stand of
the Democrats in the Legislature on
this important question of caucus
law in somewhat different light
than can the Jour nal from its knowl
edge Of the way,they conducted them
selves. 1t seemed to the Journal that
the continued opposition of the Demo-
Gratis was due almost entirely to the
demands of partisan politics as they
understood them. 1t is perhaps true
that the caucus bill which was passed
was not such as to suit entirely many
Of the Democrats. That is true as
well of the Republicans. With
measure of such Importance 1t would
be strange were it not SO.
But is it hardly fair to the Repub-
hcans to saylthat they hung together
for the law as in a sense partisan
measure pledged by the party plat
form, and still allow the Democrats
to go free of any interest IN the mat
ter from party standpoint. One
would almost think to read the Mes
senger's remarks, that the Democrats
looked on the bill without partisan
thought The fact is that this meas
ure, above all measures, the Demo
Gratis stood united against They OPP
posed it because it was party meas
ure and would take away from the
minority the opportunity for doing
what is often done to win by fair
means or foul. They opposed it be.
cause the Republican party was
pledged to its passage and if it could
be defeated it would be a good subject
for campaign talk Two years ago the
failure of the Republicans to pass a
caucus law gave the Democrats OPP
portunity to howl about broken
pledges. They wanted the chance
again under circumstances that would
make the argument stronger.
Whatever may have been the covers
used by the Democrats to disguise
their true feelings, it will be hard to
convince anybody who saw the work
ings of the whole affair, that the
Democrats we're not actuated chiefly
by partisan motives in their opposi.
tioD to the caucus bill. They failed to
gather unto themselves enough Repub-
licans to make their opposition effec-
tive. The law is to stand trial. If it
works well, it will be kept as 1T is. If
it needs change it will be changed and
the Republican party will do it in the
interests of fair politics.