The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1845-11-27
For the Voice Of Freedom.
Brandon Bank,

strangely mistaken The ground of dissatis-
faction existing here, in consequence OF
the defeat of our bank, as well as the
whole tenor and Intention Of my commu-
nication published in your paper Of The
18th instant.
From his reading OF those remarks, il
would not be pertinent 10 enquire-as Of
Mr. Weller in the the case of Bardell ver-
sus Picwic - whether he had eyes ? unless
it were to show the double million mag
nifying" process which enabled him to
"see up two pairs Of stairs, md through
a deal door:' for, in the language of a
well known Satire,
"optics sharp it needs, I ween,
To see what is not to be seem"
Nor is his representation OF lhe arIcle 10
question, less highly coIorcd and distorted
from lis real import. We know very
well that our friends in Rutland are not at
issue with US; that they neither enerair
feelings of enmity, nor ofjeoIousy towards
the citizens Of Brandon. But why does
the Herald assume this, as an evidence
that We are unreasonable when we com
plain, no, OF the people Of that town, nor
OF The county, but Of the banking iats'e
which was arrayed against us; and Of
those individuals, who were bound 10 re.
spect our wishes, in common with Others.
yet who were induced from motives Of
personal interest--or others which are not
now >assi 2nab'e--to neglect the one, and
oppose the other.
If, as The Herald declares, and as we
fully believe, "he people Of Rutland re,
loIce that our prosperity issuch as TO re-
qnire bank" then. (unless i, intends to
tamper with the facts, by acknowledging
our claims for the purpose OF showing lis
pfowess in demoishIng them,) how can it
acqHit the representative from Rutland,
both of having done injury 10 US, by vo!ing
agains! the bill and OF doing injustice also,
by the same act to his own constituents.
We make no claims upon him person.
ally, nor do we admit that his opposition
was of any great consequence--consider-
Ing its cfftc; upon the Elouse--bul, as the
authori5 ID exponent Of town which ia
thus declared 10 be in favor Of our project,
End applying the ordinary ties, of his off.
cial station, il would certainly appear, eli.
Their that the Herald had mistaken the
feeling existing 10 Rutland, or that their
delegate 10 the legislature had failed to
discharge an important trust which PLATO
ly devolved upon him.
The first service Of Representative, is
btedly due to his own constituents,
although its performance seldom in;erleres
with the other aud greater inleress OF The
State. But if he is obliged at any time to
sacrifice the one. it should be only in con.
sequence Of the superior claims Of the 9th,
er. In this case however be sacrificed
both, and served nobody. Such is the in
ference derived from The Herad's STATE
ment, and il must exlricate Itself from The
dilemma 10 which it is thus placed. We
do not wish to arraign the individual IN.
volved in this prcdcameu', before the pub
lie, or in any other way, 10 do him injury;
although his opposition was poor return
for the support which we have twice Civ
en- to the Bank Of Rutland through the
legislature, and for The acquisitions which
it has so long received from our business.
Sill less do we make any charges against
the attorneys Of that institution who acled
professionally in its behalf.
The Herald seems 10 have been 5Uffi q.
GENTLY indifferent to the real complaints
which were ade, though we can
not refrain from acknowledging our
indebtedness for several substitutes, wh eb,
if they do not serve our own case ms well
or at ali-wi!l doubtless answer the rur
pose of others much better.
|, disclaims having any thing to say "in
regard to The Back, its attorneys, or The
Senators who received so large share of
indignation" ION the plea that it is improper
to appear in the defence "of those so
much more able to speak for themselves. "
Thus the ony debatabe issue is voIuniG-
riy forsaken; the ground upon which
our complaints are based and from, which