Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1866-04-20
Senator Poland and the stockton Gas c
[From Walton's Journal
WASHINGTON, April 5, 1866
Hon Z. p. Ualton


DEAR SIR-On my return here last night
found your paper of the 30th ult, contanin
an article on the Stockton case, and criticism
my course in relation TO it. | very fully &C
knowledge the right Of the public press to re
view the action OF men holding public position
and TO condemn whatever they disapproye, an,
believe have never in any instance ATTEMPTED
any public explanation Of any act Of mint
which has thus been questioned. l would moi
IN the present case, except for one sentence in
your article. You say
"Now we have to add that Senator Poland
sustains Mr.. Stockton. while Senator Foot is on
a sick bed, and thus Vermont is wholly on the
side Of Mr.. Stockton. This incident will give
peculiar interest to the question in Vermont,
aud if the facts warrant the conclusion that
there is reasonable doubt against Mr.. Stock
toms right, the vote Of Senator Poland will be
much regretted and Justly condemned"
You do not say directly that Mr. Foot would
have voted against Mr.. Stockton, if he had
been able to be present. but such, | think, is
the clear implication.
50 far as have means Of knowing, Mr. Foot,
If present, would have voted as | did After
the case had been very carefully examined by
the committee and We had agreed to report in
favor Of Mr.. Stockton, conversed with Mr.
Foot about it, stated 10 him all the points Of the
case, and the grounds on which we thought his
election valid. Mr.. Foot said he thought the
decision the committee was correct in point Of
law, and could not De cOntrOverteL " lille the
case vas being discussed in the Senate, and af
ter it was known the vote would be very close,
and some political excitement had risen, | was
told in the Senate that Mr. Foot said he should
yoteagainst Mr.. Stockton, and vas requested 10
withhold my vote for him. 10 equalize the loss Of
MIR. Fo0t's vote / Immediately went to see Mr..
Foot. and told him what had been said 10 me;
and further, that if be had decided TO vote
against Mr.. Stockion's right 10 a seat would
withhold my vote. Mr.. Foot replied that he had I
come to no such conclusion, and sad to me that /
if | had examined the case, and felt satisfied |
that Mr.. Stockton was legally elected, it was /
my duty 10 vote SO, without regard TO him. |
have no doubt but that If Mr. Foot had been in .
the Senate, Vermont would hsye given one more 4
vote for Stockton.
Whether Mr.. Stockton was legally elected OF
not, was purely a legal question, and could not
properly be affected by his politics; the same
state of facts which would legally elect Repub-
lean, would equally elect Hemocrat, or
copperhead.
In your article 1t seems to he assumed that In
the performance Of my duty, the politics Of the
candidate and the state Of parties IN the Senate,
should have been taken into consideration by ne.
No one would have rejoiced more than myself at
any legitimate accession 10 the Republican
strength in the Senate, but ! did not suppose
was at liberty to vote against a man thought
legally elected because he was not a Republican,
nor do l believe any Republican in Vermont
would desire to have me.
DO not propose 10 enter into any argument
10 prove that my opinion OF my vote VAS correct;
lut | did believe, and DO nov, that when an
election was devolyed upon a particular body Of
men, and no express law existed as 10 the man
Ter in which they should express their choice,
hat by the general rue Of parliamentary law
my manner. which the majority agreed upon,
md which should tend TO bring out the personal
.hoice and judgment Of the electors, was valid
But if l was wrong in my judgment, il is some
,onsolation that my error was participated in
y such radicll republicans and jurists as Judge
Irumbull Of Illinois, Judge Harris Of New
/ fork, Vice President Poster Of Connecticut, an
Henderson Of Missouri.