Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1911-01-27
Terms strictly in Advance.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 81, 1911.
Another Plank Regulated.

Again the vermont SENATE mas Inu-
tilated the Republican State platform
and as if to emphasize its contempt for
the party to which its members are
supposed to hold allegiance it has killed
the bill providing for the publicity of
campaign expenses without word of
debate.
The Republican platform of 1910 said:
1--WE believe that the Legislature should
enact such law as shall surround the
political party caucuses with the same
safeguards as now protect the elections
at the polls. And we further recon-
mend such legislation as shall compel
candidates for party offices to make pub
lie an itemized account of their cam
paign expenses and such other modifi-
cations of the existing statutes regard
ing corrupt practices in political cam
paigns and elections as shall tend more
certainly to secure the free choice of
the peoples servants in the govern
ment and make the manner and method
of that choice clear of any features re-
pugnant to the enlightened sense of
democratic people"
In his speech accepting the nomina-
ton for Governor Hon. John A. Mead
said: GAS to the publication of cam
paign expenses by candidates, | am in
favor of laws to that effect, that shall
apply to all elective offices under our
cOpcti+u+iop -
There was no attempt to amend the
bill. 1t was simply pitched out of
the window to follow the direct in
heritance tax bill. Having accept
ed office as Republicans the Senators
may now do as they please. 1t is very evil
dent that few of them expect again to
go before the people as candidates for
public office. Therefore they can have
the physical power to defy the public
opinion of the State, repudiate party
pledges and make as great a ship
wreck as possible of Republican chanc-
es of success in 1912. But will it pay
Senators thus to run up the black flag
and steer the party craft upon the
rocks? By what rules of political or
personal ethics do Senators thus treat
with contempt and derision the party
that has given them all the political
honors they have enjoyed?
No person will deny that the Senate
has aided in passing much good legisla-
ton, or that in their personal relations
the Senators are able and honorable
men, but they must be judged by the
record of the whole session. 1t would
be much pleasanter to praise than to
blame, but when the Senate defeats the
expressed will of the people, plants it.
self squarely across the highway of pro-
gress, and defies the highest party
authority, the State Convention, a Re-
publican newspaper would be remiss in
its duty and cowardly in its attitude if
it did not denounce such treachery.
The columns of this newspaper are
open to any Senator who can explain
how platform can be formulated more
fairly or be given wider publicity than
the Republican platform of 1910
Newspaper attacks have been made
only after the Senate has refused to
listen to arguments and to keep the
party promises. This paper, in fair
and honorable argument, has urged rea-
sons for keeping the platform pledges
and other newspapers have done the
same. Criticism has come only when
events compelled it and for this Sena-
tors have only themselves to blame.
Unwilling to trust the people with
their own Constitution, they have re-
fused to take off the time lock, although
the platform called for ratifying all
the proposed amendments. Thus far
the Senate has refused to keep the
pledge twice made to exempt from
trustee process the wages of laborers
to the amount of ten dollars, although
simple justice demands such action and
refusal to do so is political blunder of
the first magnitude. 1t requires faith
that would remove mountains to believe
that the Senate in its present defiant
mood will keep this pledge. Reference
has been made already to the repudia-
tion of the plank providing for the pub
licity of campaign expenses, course OF
action demanded by public sentiment
throughout the State. The inheritance
tax was not called for by the platform,
but it is method of taxation employed
in large number of the States of the
Union, and with direct tax threatening
the State, it is difficult to see why the
Senate should be more considerable OF
the estates of wealthy men than of the
pocketbooks of the citizens of small OF
moderate means.
The situation is extremely dangerous