Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1859-01-21
The Watchman's correspondent further

has acquired n privileged immunity; and il is not
deemed quito courteous to question it. We will
only say, that when sundry gentlemen call to mind
the well known fact that n gentleman of promin-
encc from the west side Of the mountain. of ability
and r~rnHtico in such matters, visited Montpelier
and other rlaces prior to the session, advocating
Mr.. Elmunds' election, and making suggestions
and o%vcrturcs for the withdrawal of Mr.. NJ, in all
which 1t was verify supposed that he was accredited
from Mr.. E.; and when thew also call to mind
certain other things that occurred in proper cor
respondcncc with this supposition, they are somc-
what pcrplexed by the apparent scope Of this
denial"
The scope of the denial, as we have just
said, is as broad as the English language will
allow of; and rs to the various and vtguc
hints of the foregoing quotation, We have
only to say Let the writer nanc his man and
bring him to the witness-stand, and have
done with such mystical and unmanly insin-
nations.
The Watchman's correspondent says:
"The Free Press asserts that it is call news to
them at Burlington that the newspapers of that
town have been charging Montpelier with bad faith,
and that one Of them had declared that the checks
of the people of Montpelier should "tingle with
shame The senior editor of the Free Press is "A
man of sturly mlnlinsfs, (ccrtiinly he is such
when not crampcd in the editorial chair,) and
we arc utterly at a loss to account for such an
assertion, unless upon the assumption that the
Burlington Times and the Burlington Scrtnd are
of too small account to be read in Burlington.
But We would refer our venerable friend to the
files Of the Sentinel for the past month, Particular
" to the Dec. 10th number, and to those Of the
Times p~1ssim.'
Oar readers will remember what we said.
and We have no occasion to unsiy Il word of
it.. We have lo,kcl up tn, Sentinel Of Dec.
10th, and we fnl in it Il brief article on the
State House Appropriation, in which after
rcmarking in substance, that the House of
Repre-! %ntltivcs very properly refused to
make an unconditional appropriation Of
SD 600, but preferred to hold them (the
people Of Montpelicrl, to their engagement
Voluntarily entered into, the writer concludes
as follows
whether the State shall ultimately refund tho
money paid out, i not a question to he considered
in the present %iuncturc of afIir-. Til, honor, re-
putation, integrity aId good faith Of Montpelier
is Mt stake, and wert we resident Of that town,
our cheeks would mantle with shame at the insinu-
alton, now SO freely blniicl from mouth t. mouth
through the state that we desired to cvade
the conditions Of our bond. Such is not the
fact, say you; such is the impression
made all over the State by the late movements at
Montpelier. And ii ,Jch be not the fact, the best
evidence which can be offered Of its fulsity. would
be the prompt payment of whatever is due on the
bond, and tn prompt completion of the State
nousc.-Montpclicr owes it to herself and to the
maintainnnce of her past influence in the Lcgisla-
ton of the state, to do it. We hope such may be
the result of this state House imhroslio, and
that we shall hear NJ more insinuations Of bad
faith in our Montpelier friends"
The candid will iulg, whether what the
Watchman's correspondent charges can be
lound there. We Sc, nothing like it.
There has been a good deal Of splrring be-
tween the Times anil the Freeman, mostly on
topics personal t. the oijDrs. The Times
hasalso spoken very irr3y2r, ntly Of Doctor
towers State lIou.9 chimney, and has re-
marked quite freely on the relations Of that
gentleman to the Legislative Committee on
Pdblic Buildings and t. Mr.. Silloway the ar
%chitect, and on other related topics but if it
has said what is imputed to it above, we have
not seen it,-although our wont is to look
over that paper, rs it comes out. We an
prehend an examination of the 'Tamcs pas
SIM would como out like that of the .S,ni-
mel Of Dec. 10th.
The Watchman's correspondent says the
Free Press ." talks like a very innocent" in
denying the charge which he had made
against Burlington as an . implacable foe to !,
Montpelier, As having been wlging i'm
placible warfare against Montpelier for more
than a generation However the Free Press
talks. it does deny it; and as the senior editor Of
the Free Press has lived in Burlington IN re
than a generation,' and been on pretty IA
miliar terms with most of its prominent
and active citizens during the whole period.
he claims to know what he is talking about.
There are many points in the article
we have commented on which we omit
all allusion to, as of small moment;
and in concluding what we have to say on
subject, (ior we do not expect to be drawn
INTO any further extended remark on it.) We
repeat in substance what we said before. We !
could not fnd any reason for the writing OF
the article which first appeared as an edito-
nal In the Freeman, and has since appeared
IS a communicable in the Waterman and in
he Patriot, when we first read it. We can
mn find oDu ,o,r