Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1858-12-23

We see in the Calcdosian an article which
bears tho impression of cmanatiug not from
the editor Of that paper nor the gentlemen from
St. Johnshury, for we believe both of these men
are willing to concede to Others Il right to their
own opinions, without jealously mixing it with
entirely different matters. But if we should
say cmanating from the ex-architect or his
counsel, zoe think it would be no more than
tit for tut. We termed the language Of the re-
port Of the Committee on Public Buildings
scandalous towards DIR. Powers, not because we
wished to class his success with the success of
the State House completion, and we object TO
the writer, whoever he is, attempting to connect
the report of the Committee with the matter OF
completing the House. Completing the House
is one thing, and upon that question Doctors,
Lawyers and Editors sadly disagree, while the
question as to whoshall suporntend it is anoth-
er, upon which the Committee on Public Build
ngs and we disagree. That report was against
the Doctor, but the Legislature dismissed the
bill, |: and he is still Superintendent. And
while we really regret the quarrel between.Dr
Powers and Mr. Silloway, for we area friend to
both of them, we are in favor Of Dr.. Powers con-
tinuing as Superintendent and are free to say
that We think the language of that report I'm
warranted by the facts in the case.
But Notwithstanding all this, that Committee
and whoever else pleases, can oppose DR.. Pow
ers and favor the.completon Of the House, or
" sustain Montpelier" without in any manner
cOnaiatmg in their opinions or actions. We see
that the Chairman Of that Committee was opp0-
sed to Montpelier, and in favor of the report !;
while Mr.. Rounds of Chester was opposed to the
report, and in favor of Montpelier. We also
see that while a majority of the members of the
House were opposed to making an unconditional
appropriations a majority was still opposed to
dismissal; while we have no doubt that many
Of these who were in favor of an appropriation
were also in favor Of disnissing DR.. Powers.
The B,llows,Falls Times is in favor Of the Doe
tor, and SO is the Woodstock Staadard-but
one is in favor and one opposed to sustaining
Montpelier; while the Burlington Times is OPP
posed to both, and the Freeman in favor of both
Now we submit if there is not slight at
tempt at mixing things in hearticle referred
10, and an unwasranted Jealousy, exhibited. AS
we said before, the Doctor is still Superinten-
dent, whether Montpelier wishes it or not, and
as it cannot, if it would, remove him, it GER
tainly ought not to be made responsible for lis
acts If he does we'll, (and in respect to that
we have right to our indiridual judgment) the
praise does not belong to our town, but to him
and those who appointed and continue him f
Office, and if he does ill the blame should resi-
upon the same shoulders.
And whilewe are about it, we may as wei
add, that in what we shall say, as well as il
what we have said upon this question OF thu
State House that is now being built by the citi
zans Of Montpelier, we speak for the Freeman
and not on behalf of the inhabitants of thu
townin which our paper happens to be pub
lished. Wcare not tho organ of the gentlemen
whe signed the bond, nor of those who assist t.
pay for the House, and we should be sorry t,
have them punished for any indiscretion of ours
That exceedingly discreet paper, the Watchman
will, we presume, be selected when it become
necessary for the taxpayers to be heard.