The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1909-12-09
@ermont Matthman.
THE "NEw. VERMONT.

The Journal prints today in anoth-
er column an editorial from the st.
Albans Messenger in which that pa
per disagrees with the opinions re-
garding the term New" Vermont
recently expressed in these columns
The Journal is under obligation to
the Messenger for citing illustrations
which prove conclusively the po-
sition taken by this paper. If 1t is true
that the human body, as the Mes
senger suggests, passes through an
evolutionary process so that its con-
stituent elements are changed every
seven years, in one sense it may be
a different body, but in the larger and
truer sense it is the same. NO man
thinks of calling it new body. By
the time an individual reaches the
age of 81 years he would have had
twelve new" bodies and unless he
numbered the changes the term
new" would be somewhat confus-
ing.
The Messenger refers to the period
of slow growth following the Civil
War as a time when Vermont
gave little outward manifestation of
an ambition to better her conditions
along the lines that some. of her sis
ter States were actively pursuing"
The census figures show that Ver-
monts increase in population from
1870 to 1880 was 1875, and from
1880 to 1890 was only 1876. The
figures also show that from 1850 to
1860 the gains amounted only to
97S, while from 1860 to 1870 in spite
of the heavy losses during the Civil
War, there was an increase of 15,453
in population. Evidently there must
have been a New" Vermont during
and Immediately following the Civil
War, and the period which the Mes
senger has named should be a
Newer Vermont.
If the ordinary meanings of words
are employed a State that grows
better and larger by a natural pro-
cess of evolution is not a new
State at all Webster defines evolu-
ton as the act of unfolding or I'M
rolling; hence, is the process of
growth, development; as the evolution
of flower from a bud or an animal
from the egg" He defines new as
having existed or having been
made but a short time; having orig
mated or having occurred lately /;
not early in being; of late origin /;
recent; fresh; modern; opposed to
old and used of things; as a new
coat; new house; new book; a
new fashion" These definitions of
new hardly fit Vermont today.
In the evolutionary growth of the
human body or the State there may
be new elements each day, or each
year, but they do not constitute
changes that warrant the use OF
such terms as a new body or a new
velopment of a child when growth
is slow and other periods when it is
rapid, but we do not speak of a
new" child let the growth be ever SC
rapid We reserve that expression
for another addition to the family.
When we provide ourselves with a
new house we depart from the old
When we establish new State we
make some definite and distinct de-
parture from the old, usually in the
form of new boundaries or new
system of government.
The Journal heartily agrees with
the Messenger that there is no spec
tacular revolution going on here, but
there is steady evolution from
good, through better, to best. II
maintains, however, that such evo-
lutionary progress does not consti-
tute New" Vermont, and that the
use of the term new" is misleading
and not we'll chosen. 1t does not be.
lieve that when the present issue
is reduced to it's simplest terms, il
is merely, that a welcome child has
been born and we are disagreed as
to what we shall call it," The child
was born 1872 years ago and was
named soon after birth. The issue
simply relates to the period OF
growth, not to birth.
The Journal is just as eager to ait
the progress of Vermont as is its
friend the Messenger, and welcome.
every change for the better Just a.
ardently 1t does believe, however
that new is not the proper adjectiv,
TO employ in describing the progress.
of Vermont