Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-02-09

that had been agreed upon. Such represent
atiotion is wholly untrue. And to show that
had no object except to do the best | could for
the Free Democracy, when, in day or two af-
ter, it was suggested by Mr. Redield in our
caucus that he believed the Wings would nego-
tate with us, I moved postponement of the
consideration Of the Old Line proposals, for tho
purpose ofseeing what the Wings were willing
to do. And this was before the wings had ap-
appointed any committee, or had shown any dis
position to appoint one! If possessed, as !
am represented to have possessed, and am held
responsible for possessing, such great influence
with the majority of the Free Soil representa-
tives, do you think | could not have pressed
through the caucus resolution to unite with
the Old Liners!
Why, ifmy object was to transfer the Free
Soil party to the Old Line Democracy, Or to head
of Mr.. Skaters election, or to do any other
unprincipled or foolish thing to the detrimcnt
Of the Free Soil party, did | not Immediately
upon the Old Liners appointing a committee and
making proposition to give us Speaker, Sccre-
tary Of State, and Auditor of Accounts, if we
would elect their State Ticket, urge an accept
lance Of that proposition and close the avenue
to any negotiation with the Wings Instead
OF doing that, opposed the acceptance of the
proposition, and moved that our committee be
instructed to inform the Old Line committee,
that we did not accept the proposal and Mr..
ti1ld, who, it seems, is as great if not greater
traitor than myself, said in caucus, that it was
best to gice them feo more sUedts and they
would be likely to do better and all this before
the Wings had done any thing, except to vote
that they would make no bargains If " Field
& Barber " had been Old Liners in disguise, and
were wishing to transfer the Free Soil party to
the Pierce Democracy. they would not s9lave
been likely to have taken the course they did.
The truth is, and no one present at the caucus
will deny it, that the coalition with the Old
Liners would have been effected before the Wings
moved at all in the matter, had it not been for
the opposition to concluding the arrangement
proposed by them from myself and one or tNJ
others of the majority.
But to 60 back little, when the matter was
under discussion between myself and Mr.. Brain
erd and Others it was as stated above agreed
that it was wholly question of expediency what
we should do-whether we should form any CO.
alition, and if 50, with which of the old parties.
Mr.. Brainerd frequently said to me, it is alto
gethera question of expectancy; do the best you
can for our plrty--evcry man must Judge for
himself what is the most available cours. Of ac-
ton. Now what was best for the future pros
perity and success Of the Free Democracy What
course would be most likely to give us the as
tendency in the State A politician whose VS.
ion was not bounded by the scenes transporting
before his eyes and who did not think more OF
obtaining one Or more Offices for his friends in the
present, than Of the triumph of his party and
his principles over all other parties in the future
would naturally inquire, how can thc power
which the Free Sellers posses now, be used to
the best advantage to give them increase and
success by their own strength hereafter! My
idea was that we should look to future, rather
than immediate effects, and that it was Of lita,
consequence, compared with that whether W
got greater or II less number Of Offices for the
present How could coalition with one or the
other Of the old parties operate in this point OF
view, was the question lahorcd to decide, solely
with reference to the good Of the Free Democra-
cy. This question will consider more at length
in my next communication.
You say in your last that You published my
letter 'as an act of simple justice to the author
but what pnrposc it will serve VIC cannot con-
lecture" If it is an "act of justice" it will
serve " the purpose OF doing justice and that
is worth service among honest land tair-minded
men. But, sir, what purpose have youra'tlcks
and the attacks Of your correspondents on me
served Have they served any good purpose!
Ii you deem it important to arraign me- and IL
large portion of our own party in the last l.ogis
lature with charges 'pcrtidy' 10 our PRINCIPLES
and oar organization is it rot impn t.nt Chat
we should be- heard in our dcfcncei Is it not
quite as likely that We are right-that we are
honest and true mon as that YOU and Mr.. Bar
ton, and Gen Fletcher, and your ANONYMOUS
correspondents arc! Are ''ye the::mcn.' only,
and will " wisdom die with youl" ESQ, ad-
NIT that it is useless to reply. You say further
that my letter "erp!ains n0tiing, crhibts no
de'ens'rc facts, nor anything Of The sort," but
seems to be rather an effort to show that it was
no worse to unite with the Democrats than the
Wings, IN point Of principle, and no less, in
point OF poic because We got u greater nuna6er
q obtces." Now, from your own statement,
have attempted to " explain something, and
to make some defence; whether have succeed
ed, is for Others to determine. If l have show
cd that in doing what the majority did at Mont
peller, there Wis no violation of principle, ex-
ccpt what they are condemned for not doing
uniting with the Whigs-and that they lost
nothing in point of policy, think have an
swerad IA considerable portion of the accusations
which have been hurled So profuscy at me and
others. beg Of you, sir, not to be inpatient
in the discussion of the question | have not
yet discuss ID fully the "policy" of the course
pursued at Montpelier. 1t cannot be done in a
moment, nor in one communication. You wac
NOT inpatient when CORE spondcnts were pour
ing out the yialso OF their indignation on me and
Others; do not be inpatient of the reply. Besides,
Sir, you and your correspondents have called on
us for reasons for our course. You have for
mally md'cfcd me in your paper. plead not
gmHy, and calculate to try the cas-, before the
old Free Soil jury, before whom am not afraid
to appear by your side, or by the side of any
other man. You do not seem to remember thas
in your paper of December ID, you said -
" We call upon Mr.. Barber to make more
satisfactory explanation than that of throwing
himself back upon his previous reputation-or
breathing defiance la Webster, to those who
have right to inspect his conduct
Why did you not send this suporcilous call
to me when you made it! You would have
got what you bargaiued for, if not more, imme-
diately.f beg OF you, now that have COM
m:ncod answering your CALL that you will not
think the answer Improbable or unnecessary
l shall not - throw myself /" back on my pre-
c'ous reputation" but, standing on my present
reputation, which is the same now, among hon
orabe and fair-mlnded men, as it over was, for
aught know, | shall answer my accusers to
their face / F." breathe ~ no /" defiance. :" but |
tell you, as told another gentleman, that nei-
ther your fidelity nor your services, nor your
. previous reputation y entitle you to catechso
me as to the manner in which have discharc
cd my, duty as representative of the people and
as Free Soiler. know what is required OF
me as public servant, and as IL tried and un-
waverlng friend of freedom and the slave. better
than you can tell Inc, If you and your cores
pondents who assail me, will be as stern and I'M