The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-10-16
HAPeooD OF PERU

Dear Olu OnClS fldpSOOu III ui1
communication printed on the firs'
page of the Banner today gives evi
dence of losing his temper. This is
the second time this year that he has
gotten angry at the Banner and its
editor, which he must know is bad
for the digestion and him troubled
with dyspepsia too. 1t is very care
less of him.
The Banner has never yet refused
to print one of Hapgood's letters, as
far as we remember, and he has call
ed the writer worse names heretofore
than this and probably will again.
That is the least of our worries. Now
as to his arguments.
First the Banner did print in full
the editorial from the Sifter-every
word of it. Either Hapgood is delib-
erately trying to mislead or he didn't
have his spectacles when he read
that copy of the Sitter There was
in the same issue of the paper an
other and entirely separate editorial
with Hapgood as subject, but we
were not discussing the matter con-
tanned therein, so naturally did not
print it. especially as the matter con-
tanned therein has already appeared
in the Banner.
Secondly the Banner never accused
Hapgood of subordinating his convic-
tions to self advertising. 1t merely
said, and repeats, that he takes adj
vantage of his whims to advertise
himself Do we need to produce any
evidence to prove this contention?
Thirdly, Hapgood never told the
writer anything about his plans to
post lands, etc, until after the bill
was signed by the governor, so that
his verbal fireworks are of no partic-
uIar interest, Probably he talked
with others and fails to remember ex-
actly, as would not be strange.
Fourthly, the Banner has never in
timated that he counseled the post
ing of wild, unenclosed lands.
Filthy, fawns which are not large
and strong enough to take care of
themselves when winter sets in will
not survive the winter anyway.
The Banner has no quarrel with
Hapgood or any other man who hon
estly and sincerely opposes the shoot
ing of doe. We are not so sure that
the present law is right and best that
we do not admit a doubt. What we
do regret is that the opponents of the
law should find it necessary to des-
cend to indecent, intolerant and abu
sive attacks on other people who are
just as honest and sincere as they
themselves are.
Some of us believed, and still be-
lieve, that in order to save the deer
in Vermont it was and is necessary to
curtail their increase for a year or
two, in order to curb the growing
sentiment for practically unlimited
hunting The present law is a COM
promise between those who wanted
a greatly heightened open season and
those who wanted no change.
Instead of giving the law a fair
trial, which anybody of reasonable
common sense knows can do no great
harm, certain well meaning but intol-
Grant and narrow individuals de
cline to admit that there are two
sides to the question. By their abu-
sive attitude they are paving the way
for more trouble in the future. The
posting law is none too popular now.
If the present law proves failure,
or results in too widespread slaugh-
ter of deer, the Banner will urge its
repeal and a return to the old law If
on the other hand the present law
proves a success in stopping the eX-
pense and strife over deer damage
without seriously decreasing the num-
Der of deer, will Hapgood own up
that he has been making a monkey Of
himself? We hardly expect it.
AS to Hapgoods sarcastic personal
arraignment of the editor of the Ban
ner perhaps we ought not to say any
thing, but we will say little.
AS a member of the legislature the