Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1840-04-27
NO HELP FOR THE LoCoFoCos

votes WHICH 1t lad IN 1886 IT las lost immensely
in Pennsy vaniG, where It obtained 80 electoral
votes in 1886, by only about 1000 votes And
where has it gained Not in one solitary spot,
unless we concede a small gain in New Hamp-
shire, where the Wings made ITO struggle, and
perhaps in Michigan which amount to nothing,
MS 1t had both these states in 336, We ask then,
what hope is there for the administration Even
~ 1t retains Virginia. Maine, Tennessee, North
Carolina, and Georgn, all Of which are doubtful,
It must nevertheless he signay defeated. In view
Of this glorious prospect. let tho Democratic
Wigs uhc new counge. Cheerily! checryt
Whgs-fght on the victory will be yours.
BASE FoReERY The last Waterman has an
article with this caption, applied TO our humble
sheet, for publishing an article entitled, "Insult To-
laborers," and purporting TO contain an extract
from John Dhvis's speech, in which it is alleged
that MIR. Davis laid it down that ''.aborors are a
commodity, bought and sold like merchandise n
/ the markell sc.
This amiable and tr,dk.ieiliug print deals with
us with great severity, for misquoting MIR. Davis,
10 WI, in putting into his mouth the word 'la)orer'
when the word made Use of was labor u.) For
onre wo think rhe w. may he correct, though VIC
have not examined very critically to see, but we
can SEQ no reason why ii should fail into such
rage about it, aud hang and gbbet fellow with
great difference in the looks of ha two words ~
| But is it not strange hai the " ., from the force
OF haoit, while attempting to convict others of mis-
representation, should commit the same offence
ITSELF Why does the w. studiuusly conceal from
its readers The fact that the article alluded TO- the
'base forgery was copied from another paper
tthe PitlSburger) and represent it as editorial in
the Rolorner (:}.) Now we conceive Tint such
n suppression Of the truth is equally criminal with
the preparation of falsehood-if not base
forgery" it Is gross deception, and an act of fla
graft injustice live had written the article, and
misquotcd Mr. Davis, although he is II who esale
libeler and iaIsiier hmseIf) we would not lave
complained Of the W. for its chustisement but
copying it as we did, with an honest Intention,
and then to be misrepresented and abused is not
altogether so panlabe. (4) To he rebuked for
such course, 10y print whose very nliment,
whose lie and SOUL is SANDER, misrcT resentaton
and falsehon, is indeed huma'ing. How would
Satan look rebukng sin Reformer, alias Pat
l. Incorrect, neighbor. The forgery consisted
u not in merely changing labor to iaborsrs. The
, sentiment of Mr.. Davis was entirely misreprcsenl-
=. ed and tho man, who. committed this base act,
dellhe nleIy did more than change one little word
to eaecthis infamous purpose. Letus sheW you,
sic, how it was done. John Davis said
n Aluch has been said oflabor, g. what is may
81 say without offence it is commodity bought and
= sold like merchandise in the market"
. The forgery reads thus:
" "LaborerS arc n modify bought and sold
like merchandise in the market
The whoe of the context omitted, and both
+, tcordS and sentiment entirely changed this is the
70 extent of the base forgery
q You think the w. may be correct, though
we [you have not examined very critically to see."
indeed to the certain knowledge of the editor of
tho Wo,c had Toh, n, ;s, In,
=, possession for some days before the article,
% on which we are commenting, appeared in your
columns and yet sir, when you thought
that you were wrong, and we right, you would not
l. take the trouble TO look and see Common hon.
esty, truth, and justice to Mr.. Davis and to your
readers, required you examine this matter 'crit.
- cal!y and correct it fully; you neglect so TO dc,
and cut yourself off from every shadow of excuse
iorihis gross neglect, by confessing thatyou new
ertheess thought we might be correct The
sr public must judge Of the quantum ofyour regard
o for truth and for the reputation of your press
re willingly leave them to do It on your own tesii.
at mony in The case.
{ 3, These charges against US, OF misrepresen-
taiion" representing il editorial in the Refor-
mer" land Patriot are utterly groundIess, save in
the false and forced differences drawn by the edi-
y tor Of the Patriot himself We nlroduc ed the
base forgery to eur readers thus:
:, 'The lSeformer and Democrat, issued at the
~ Patriot office contains The foiiowing with sund y
indignant comments"
And again said
The scoundrel who perpeunted this forgery
- must have had this speech before him, and we
Re therefore say that he, and his copsis, guilty of
- deliberate falsehood."
w.. What were the natural inierences. from this ?
re That the article original in the Patriot; and
he that the editor hInse f the 'scoundrcl' who
first perpetrated the forgery? No: for if such
e. we've the facts we should have said so plainly
el aud said nothing about "copyiss." Every word
IS we asserted was true I; and VIVA, is more, nobody
As. would put the construction upon our Language
M which the Patriot ADOPTS unless it was from de-
oil, libera.e design to msrcpresent aud abuse us
Probably the editor of The Patriot can consrue This
remark correctly.
ma. A. The false and malicious assault upon John
IN. Davis would be worthy of particular notice, were
m. not he TOO high in the estimation OF all who know
RS him, for tru, and honor be reached by such al
assailnnt. We pass To the apology Of the Pario
editor, that he was mere honest copyist o
'"' the forgery What does this avail him? Mir
u" Davis speech was within his reach when he cop
=" led the forgery and it disposed to be verl
iH' honest why could LIS not have examined ii then
and seen for himself whether it contained tn
-" abominabls sentiment attributed TO il lie die
'' did not do This 'rhe partaker is ms bad AS th