Vermont farmer. [volume] (Newport, Orleans County, Vt.) 1870-1877, 1872-10-18
MORE ABOUT DECENCY-MR. RAN
KIN CoNFESSES JUDGMENT.

A few careless readers may possibly sup
pose that Mr. Rankin, in the last CaledOnian,
denies the charges made in the FARMER of
two weeks ago, in regard to the mean and
dsgraceful way in which he and his friends
have conducted the congressional canvass.
Some such may even be under the impression
that he not only denies them squarely, but
with heightened and righteous Indignation,
that will not permit him to refrain from the
free use of such fine explosives as " infamous
falsehood," " baseless calumny' and the
like.
1t may astonish such persons, if such there
are, to be told that Mr. Rankin not only does
not deny those charges, but that, notwith'
standing his energetic use of inelegapt Ian
guage, he, by the very manner and form of
his pretended denials, in fact admits nearly
every one of them to be true.
Mr.. Rankin can read, if he cannot write
very we'll and he is lawyer, professionally
trained to study his adyersary's statements,
and to choose his own language carefully in
reply. When, therefore, he does not cate
porically answer our charges, but distOrts
them, and then styles his own distortions
:. ialsehoods," he simply tries to raise dust
to cover over what he cannot safely nor
truthfully contradict
We proceed to show that this is precisely
the course taken by Mr. Rankin in the C0l-
edonian of last week that instead of either
denying or refuting, he alters, bubbles and
evades in the weakest and most ridiculous
way.
We charged that bank accommodation was
peremptorily refused to us on the avowed
ground that the FARMER opposed Judge Po-
land. Rankin says " No paper (meaning
business paper was ever refused at the bank
on the ground that those desiring it discount
ed did not support Poland. This is an un.
mitigated falsehood.' Very likely it is, but
ifso, it is faselood of Rankn's own coming,
coined because it could be so answered. as
the charge we made could not. We did not
state that we had offered any paper at bank.
Our friend asked the director who had pre-
yiously encouraged him to apply if the pa
per we proposed 10 offer would be discounted
and he replied that it would not, because the
FARMER was bribed to oppose Poland
This is our charge, aud if it is denied we will
name the director and produce our proof
We charged that strong pecuniary induce
ments were held out TO us to Uiolate ON
agreement in reggrd 10 The support of Judgc
Steele. Rankin says, mo pccuniary in
ducements were ever held out to the purchas.
ers of the Times to support Poland, by
Judge Poland, or to his knowledge" Very
true. We did not make any such charge
but what We did charge we now rc-afirm
and will Justify to the extent that we may be
forced to by any future denial which Mr.
Rankin may have the courage to make.
We charged that our mails were detained
and packages opened. SIR. Rankin says, "Thc
postmaster Of this place is charged by innu'
endo with OBTAINING packages Of the FARMER
and tearing them open, thus procuring the
names ofsits subscribers. This is false in
toto" Likely enough We have not charg
ed Mr.. Fleetwood with this oifense, either
directly or by iunuendo, and as soon as We
found that it was supposed that we alluded
to him, we willingly aud promptly put the
matter right. But our mails aoere detained
and the packages e0ere broken open, by whom
we know not, nor of course why, though the
undenied because undeniablc) fact that Mr.
Fleetwood did surreptitiously, through one Of
our employees, obtain a copy of part of oul
subscription list for campaign purposes, points
to that as a reason for completing the bus
mess in the way spoken Of
Now having reiterated Vyr charges, ant