Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1866-04-13

FNf ANt JNufhhs
WASHINGTON, April 8

HON r.. T. NALIoNt--
Dear Sir On my return here last night found
your paper of the 30th ult containing an article I
on the Stockton case and cricisng my course in |
relation to it, very freely acknowledge the right
of the public press TO review the action Of men
holding public position, and 10 condemn whatever
they disapprove, and believe have never in any
instance attempted any public explanation of any
act Of mine which has thus been questioned. |
would not in the present case, except for one sem
tence in your article. You say Now we have
to add that Senator Poland sustains Mr.. stockton,
while Senator Foot is a sick bed, and thus Yer
mont is wholly on the side of Mr. Stockton. This
incident will give peculiar interest to the question
in Vermont, and il the facts warrant the concur
sion that there is reasonable doubt against Mr..
Stockton's 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.
So far a, 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
1 Of Mr.. Stockton, | conversed with Mr. Foot about
it. stated TO him all the points Of the case and the
! grounds on which we thought his election valid.
! Mr. Foot said he thought the decision OF the com
mittee was correct in point Of law, and could not
! be controverted While the case was being dis
cussed in the Senate and after It was known the
vote would be very close and some political excite
ment had risen, | was told in the Senate that Mr.
! Foot said be should vote against Mr. Stockton,
and was requested to withhold my vote for him. to
equalize the loss Of Mr.. Foots vote. | mmedi-
ately went to see Mr.. Foot, and told him what had
been said to me and further, that if he had de-
cided to vote against Mr.. Stocktons right to u
seat l would withhold my vote Mr.. Foot re-
Piled that he had come TO no such conclusion, and
said to me that II he had examined the case, and
fs.lt a.. Al l.. H.
II was my duty to vote so, without regard to him.
have no doubt but that il Mr.. Foot had been in
the Senate, Vermont would have given one more
vote for stockton.
Whether MIR. Stockton was legally elected or
not, was purely a legal question, and could not
properly be affected by his politics; the same state
of facts which would legally elect a Republican
would equally elect Democrat, or a copperhead.
In your article it seems to be assumed that in the
performance Of my duty, the politics of the candi-
date and the state of parties in the Senate should
have been taken into consideration by me. No
one would rejoice more than myself at any legiti-
mate accession to the Republican strength in the
Senate but did not suppose that / was at liberty
10 vote against man | thought legally elected
i because he not aRepublicsn, nor do believe
any Republican in Vermont woud desire to have
; me. do not propose to enter into any argument
to prove that my opinion or my vote was correct
but did believe. and do now that when an cleo
and no express law existed as to the manner in
: which they should express their choice, that by
the general rule of parliamentary law any manner,
which the majority agreed upon and which should
tend to bring out the personal choice and Judge
, ment OF the electors, was valid. But If | was
wrong in my judgment, it is some consolation that
my error was participated in by such radical Re.
{ pubcans and learned jurists as Judge Trumbull
, of Illinois, Judge Harris, OF New York, Vice
1 President Foster, Of Connecticut, and Henderson
: Of Missouri Very truly yours,
e L. 2. POLAND.
We of course give the above cheeriully and i
! it shall relieve anybody of any error growing out
OF the article that elected it, we shall be glad Of
! it. 1t adds to the case, stated it, the fact
4 that Senator Foot at one time concurred in judg
ment with Senator Poland. Perhaps he did to til,
end, though it is observable that in the last inter
, view he did not commit himself, and advised Sen
ator Poland to act upon bis own conviction Of duty
. without regard to him 1t was fit advice for
/ dying Senator'S noble rule for the living. HaC
/ Senator Foot lived to listen to the debate an,
unite m the final vote we cannot help feeling tina
his clear appreciation of the legal and practica
o distinction between a legislative body Of co-ordi
nate branches and powers, and Joint assembly
would have led him to vote, his own convictions
d with majority Of the Senate, as well as with a
e least equal weight OF judicial authority in tina
= body. We cannot agree to put Fessenden ant
Sherman and Clark and Howard and Wade below
the distinguished lawyers mentioned by Senate
Poland. In fact, cannot help feeling that Sen
> ator Poland himself would have gladly voted il
the same way, had he not been committed by tn
action Of his committee. He moved to reoonside
the vote declaring Mr.. Stockton entitled to tn
seat and that reconsideration resulted in unseat
1 ing him.
Another thing is added TO our statement of tn,
8 case, and that is the ground which Senator
E Poland acted, thus " That when an election wal
> devolved upon particular body of men, and nc
express law existed as to the manner in which the,
should express their choice, by the general rul,
: of parliamentary law any manner, which the ma
+ jority agreed on, and which should tend to bring
out the personal choice and judgment of the elect
. ors, was valid As applied to the case, the
meaning Of this appears to be that, since the Leg
e islature of New Jersey regulated the mod,
of electing Senator, except by providing that
& choice shall be made in Joint assembly, that as
sembly had the right to blink the persona
choice and judgment of the electors and elect b,
a minority. With all respect to Senator Poland
we must say that he does not reach the real poin
in the case which was--Is the Joint assembly o
any state Legislature" within the fair meaning
of the Constitution, for the purpose of regulating
the choice of United States Senators?
, We cannot permit one remark of the Senator tc
pass uncontradicted. 1t is this:
In your article, it seems TO be assumed that il
the performance of my duty the politics Of th,
candidate, and the state of parte in the Senate
should have been taken into consideration by me :
! We said no such thing and never intended :,
assume it, but quite the reverse, viz. E" 1t is no
personal question, nor mere partg question
but whether the Constitution shall be fairly inter
preted aud obeyed, aud the states fifty represented
in the Senate We did allude to the grave DO
hteal consequences of permitting Stockton tc
retain his seat wrongfully, or doubtful ground
but only as emphasizing the Importance of settling
4, the question right-that is, in accordance will
4 the Constitution of the United States
RIGRr.--The President has issued circular tc
the heads OF departments, recommending that in
all anDonments nreferenca sbonld be ,ana. A..