Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1855-09-28
&0eeklp free Dress.
Chittenden County Election.

long letter, occasioned by what we said Of
him in an article of last week on "Chttenden
County election" The first half of it is oc-
supied with on attempt to show that we have
not been consistent in our own course here
tofore, and he asks Now Mr. Editor, do
you not think it would look better to be
little moro consistent yourself before you
lecture other people,
We must omit all notice of that part Of
his letter, because it is altogether irrelevant
TO the matter in hand 1t would do us no
harm to publish it, and we could in q few
sentences show the futility of all his impu-
tations but it would do him no good, and |
had ,pe been ever so inconsistent it would not !
bear on the consistency of has conduct nor on
the propriety Of our remarks. A great deal
ofthe last half i, equally foreign to the pur-
pose, but We will give every essential point
in his own language.
He says "What you said in your article
about my doings in committee or since is not
one word of it true, except my being on the
committee, which is true. | did not nomi-
nate nor second the nomination of Dr. Peck.
voted for him at the election"
Our first statement was that Mr.. Harmon
was one of the nominating committee. lie
admits it.
Our second statement was, that in commit
tee Mr.. Harmon seconded the nomination Of
DR.. Peck for assistant Judge We made it
on the authority of members of that commit
l. T.. III.
cannot say who is in error 4; nor is it of much
consequence either way, for our third state
ment was that he roted for the nomination Of
Or. Peck in committee and he admit, it.
Our fourth statement was that his doing
60 was " in agreement with his own previ-
ously declared opinion lie does not DENY
it. Our ttth statement was that he was
nominated afterwards by the Democrats for
the same office, and we implied that he ac-
cepted the nomination. lie admits that he
" was nominated by the Democrats for the
Office Of County Judge" and says, " was
urged, it is true, not to decline. | did not"
Under the circumstances we think the not
declining will be set down by the public as
practically accepting, whether the form of ac-
cepting it was gone through with, or not. -
Whatever difference there is between our
statement and Mr.. Harmon's on this point.
may 90 in his favor for what it is worth
He asserts again that he g had no wish Ia
injure DR.. Peck We never asserted or i'm.
piled that he had. lie says | did not sup.
pose should get one-half of the votes did
and did not care whether | got one or not
The question comes right up, why then did
he not decline in favor Of the regular nominee
whose nomination he had helped as committee
man TO make , Mr., Harmon will not pretent
that those who urged him "not 10 dcchnc
did it to help the election Of the rcgula,
nominee. Their aim was to dctcat it, and
that he must have known.
Mr. Harmon says again " what find fnul,
with in your article s. it seems to me that
j, wa, intended to nialcad the public as tC
the true state Of the case. Any one reading
underhanded way to get the election and t,
defeat the whole ticket, Which i, not true.
We doubt whether any careful reader Of on
article, except Mr.. Harmon, would infer an,
such thing. We never intended to shy or t,
insinuate any such thing, and our lauguag
admits Of no such construction. So far a
Mr. IIarmon's conduct was alluded to, W
confined our remarks entirely to his action i
the nominating committee, to the fact that sue
action was " in agreement with his own pr,
viously declared opinion and to the consi'
tency of allowing himself, under The orc,n,
stances, to stand as candidate. In all ou
subsequent remarks we had no thought of Nj
Harmon. We spoke in general terms Of Ii,
torious influences and practices which wcr
brought to bear in the election. to dcfcf
rome of the regular nominees and we lc
every man to appropriate to himself iu'
what belonged to him