Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1856-11-14

BuRLIyGToy, Vi, Nov. 9th, 1856.
Dear Sir Duty requires to call your atten-
ton to an expression in your daily paper of yester-
day, which deem ungentemanly towards the Rad
ical Abolition Party we'll towards myself
You denominate our ticket as the " Sankee ="
ticket thus identifying yourself with others of the
Republican Party whose ungentemanly bearing
towards US has been so manifest for few weeks
past, and which has been at antipodes with the
treatment we have invariably received from gem
tlemcn Of the other party, not claiming to be all
the lecency.
Mr.. Sankee's name put on the ticket without
his consent, by myself, the duty devolving upon
to provide ticket for such with l am
therefore bound to protect him to the extent Of my
ability. His political principles and his talents for
tho Office nominated him for perfectly salts
factory and vouched for by myself as Committee
His skin is little darker than your own and in
stead of that being cause why you should use his
name jest, it is good reason why you should
not.
| Your slur is but trinng one in itself and were
it not for the principle involved and that it is
of series pcrpetraed by others as well as yourself
it would excite but little notice
Christian judgment may dictate and in public a
manner as the case demands.
! newspaper should be edited as not to be an
impress of the Editors notions and opinions in Ell
ther religion, politics or philosophy.
We support it for the and intelligence. The
duty of the Editor is to arrange faets and argu-
rnents as to lead out the mind of the reader to in
vesigate for itself, SO that the man may be in
dependent free thinker, thoroughly furnished for
every good work.
hope you will take these suggestions into care
| full consideration and that hereafter your paper
will be model of fairness, kindness, and good will.
FARE YE WELL.
| We understand Mr.. Forests grievance to
be, not that his ticket was placed in such
close juxta-position with the other scattering
ticket, In our hasty paragraph, but that it
was distinguished by the name of the first
elector upon it, while the other was dig
nifed by the name of its presidential candi-
date. We used the names applied by the
crowd which furnished the matter for our
item, and really that seems to be all we need
say on the matter. But if nice distinctions
are to be insisted on we own that in fair
ness, when speaking of the two tickets to-
gether, Mr.. Forests ticket should haye been
called the Smith ticket, if the other was cal,
led the Fillmore ticket, or else the other
should have been the Wheeler ticket if his
was the Sankee ticket.
That would have precluded Mr.. Forests
objections, unless he wishes it to be inferred
that the connection of the leading elector's 8
name with the ticket was necessarily q
.'slur" upon it. If so then Mr.. Forest has
only to blame himself for the way in which
he made up his ticket. I'VE have not under
taken to decide on the respectablity of Mr.
Sankee's name, our principal knowledge of
which comes from the fact that we have
recently had to print it in connection with
violations of our prohlbitory law neither
have we called in question his fitness for the
Office he was nominated for neither have we
drawn distinctions of color between HIM
and other men. Mr.. Forest is the only
one who has drawn any such in this case.
Neither do we exactly agree with Mr., Forest
in his statement of what constitutes the
whole duty OF an Editor 1t will be after
this when we publish paper which bears no
impress of our own opinions.
We are sorry if in any of our attempts to
he Jolly under our political reverses, we have
injured the feelings of Mr.. Forest who is a
worthy man and good citizen, and we beg to
disclaim all intention of SO doing