The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1847-09-04
Mr.. DiIlingham's sfngle friend.

the sLighiest defence ofthe shuflling, incohsls-
tent, and indeicnsble course of Mr. Dining
ham as Representative Of the people OF
Vermont in the National Congress. That
paper is the North Star. We trust twill be
honoyuJly remembered ms paper wiling 10
makea martyr ofitself in the cause OF Loco
focoism We have so much respect for 1t
that we give below, what it vigorously snys
for it's candidate for Governor. Behold!
"THE WuGs AND Mn. DMLJNGHAM. The
Wing Journals continue to vent their spleen
upon Mr. Dillingham;. Every intelligent man
in Vermont understands their motive in
thus assailng him. They (the whigs) have
always found in Mr. ID. staunch and UNI
compromising democrat. II Is Tor thlS mat
they falsely accuse him Of abandoning the
Wilmot Proviso, while in Congress, aud va
rious other charges equally absurd. Mr. Dill
Iiugham voted for that Proviso three several
times, aud he is in favor ofthc principle Of 1t
vet. lie expressly declared himself so, in
his speech ut the late democratic State Con
ycntion which nominated him. On this ver-
point, he has expressed himself more fully
and more publicly since his rcturn from Con-
gress, than any Of the candidates of the 9th
or parties.
We can tell these wing culumniaors that
MIR Dillingham; is above and beyond their
malice, so far us the democracy of the State
is concerned Thank fortune, with all their
accusations, there are some things the wing
defamcrs cannot accuse Mr. ID. OF. They
cannot accuse him of talking the WIInot
Proviso to death, as did .IOhu Davis, the fed
clnl Senator from old federal Massachusetts.
They cannot accuse him ofvorng directly a
gaiust the Proyiso, us did TWO wing mem
bers from Rhode Island! All they can say
the most they can charge lin with Is, that
he did vote for it three times, and when he,
with other members, found it was no longer
Of any ayuil-that it could not possibly pass
the Senate and Tint the alternative was pre-
scntcd of losing the three million bill or the
Proviso, they did notvotc at ALL"
Now, then, let us look at it. Mr. Dilling-
ham "voted for the proviso three times" did
he? So he did; and he voted against it once,
and he DoDGED it once, my fine fellow! And
You have not brass enough to deny it! 1t is
probable that Mr. Dillingham; sent you the
Congressional Globe which process what we
assert.
But, son this very point Mr. ID. has express
sed himself moe publicly, since has return
from Congress, than any ofthe candidates of
the other parties las he, indeed! We
rather incline to the opinion that there was
considerably more necessity for it. Like the
Cumclion, the gentleman takes the color of
the object he stands upon! With his South
crn allies he goes against the WiImot Provi-
So with his liberal friends he is neutral, and
in Tcmom he goes for it, "more .ti,liy, and
more Pr.JEely"' lie is perfect political pend
mlum, vibrating with great adroitncss and
regularity through every shade Of precept
and of practice.
But the Star "can tell these Wing culum-
1iators that Mr. Dillingham; is above their
malice" A caIumny, we believe, is a ma
licious misrepresentation Of facts in regard
TO a person. Now, we beg to apprise the
Star that we defy it to point out Il Wing pa
per in the State who has made such mis- |
representation, malicious or otherwise. We,
and other Wing Editors, say that Mr. Dilting
ham voted for the admission Of Texas to the
Union kno,cing that lis constitution PROHTBI-
TED the emancipation of slaves; that he vot-
ed tos and against and lodged the Tariff of |
40; that he voted for, and against and dDdgcd
the Wimot Proyiso; that he voted for, and a.
power to appoint Benton to supersede ScoTr
and TAYLOR in the command of the Army;
that he voted directly FOR the cenSWG Of Gen.
TAYLOR for the terms of the equalization of
Monterey;that he uniformly DoDGED the vote,
whenever the question of printing or refer
ring the respectful Petitions of THE People
against the Annexation ofTexas, and in IA
vor of the Abolition of Slavery in the Dis
trct of Columbia, was raised. We make
these charges explicitly and without malice.
They are TRUE, aud the people of Vermont
know it. TtIey are true, then, we respect
fully ask the Star ifthey are not the last
degree disgraceful to Il REPRESENTATIVE OF
VERMONT? Dthey are true, we respectfully
ask the Star, if Paul Dillingham; deserves to
receive solitary pote from the FREEMEN of
this State. rthcy are true, can the Star
justify itselfin calling tbs 'calumniator'?
We appeal to tho RECORDS. We have made
no charge of dishonorable conduct, Of I'M
worthy and dscrcditab!e eUaSion of duty, q
ganst Mr. Dillingham; that we have not proc
cd By the record. We say that Mr. Dillingham;
did NOT stand up to his duty, and meet his
responsibilities, in Congress, like man and
n Nermouter; and we can tell the Star and
its co laborors for Polllery, that it is within
our own personal knowledge that there are
prominent members of'their own Party in
Vermont, who have not hesitatcd to express
their contempt for the time serving and truck
ling career Of that gentleman. Calumnia-
tors, indeed!