The Lamoille news. (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1877-1881, 1878-07-10
WIZ?

~" and "X" of the Free Press, TO-
yether with many personal friends
want to know why we can support
Barlow after what we have said. We
do not see why what we have said
should make any particular difference.
We acknowledge a pride which rem
ders it not easy by any means to re-
treat in a large measure from the po-
sition first assumed, and yet a man is
A coward who will not correct an er-
ror. We said when the canvass open
that Barlow was the unfittest nan
among the candidates for the position.
Now ''presto change" we say he is
the fttest of the two men, one Of
whom is to win unless the great un-
known comes to the front. Owing to
this change our enemies and some of
our friends cry "bought." Upon that
point let US say to friend or foe that
we have refused money proffered to us
from eUery n of the candidates. 1t
is a fact echich ue know, not that we
guess at, that both Sowles and Grout
have put money largely into the Free
Press canvass and the fight has been
a great profit to that paper. Sowles
would not hesitate a moment to pay
out one hundred thousand dollars
were he assured that he could thereby
secure a seat in the next Congress-
On the other hand it is very we'll
known that Grout, considering his
means, has been very free with his
money, and would match Barlow and
Sowlcs if he had AS much, all Of which
leads us to reiterate the declaration
which seems to have been so offensive
to 81" to wit In point of principle
there is no preference among the three
candidates on the score ofusing mon
ey. Had we supported Sowles these
offended mes would have thought it
all right, and yet like all the rest, he
has been anxious to secure our infu-
ence, and as he is worth as much as
Barlow his promise to do the square
thing ought to have put us among the
"mercensry horde" had we supported
him, just IS much as to support Bar
low. Two courses were open to us.
to pick cut the fittest man of the three
and support him or to take up a new
candidate and advance his interest if
possible. Had we been the publisher
of aaaily and had the circulation and
position of some of our cotempora-
srtes, we might have adopted the lat
ter course, but had our insignificant
little journal presented a man, the per-
sou presented would doubtless have
ordered us to let him alone, as men
do not like to come before the people
Wlnless they al do so with PRESTIGE
1t would have been both egotistical
and presumptious to have attacked
the whole board and presented anoth-
,er candidate on our own hook. We
therefore adopted the former course,
At first We thought Grout was the
man we could best support but were
not long in discovering that to abuse
Mr.. Barlow in favor of Grout woulG
require hypocracy, for morally Grou'
is no better man than Barlow. In fac
he does not stand investigation as wei
as Barlow. On this point we will no
allow ourselves to be forced to tn,
publication OF what we know. If any
of our friends wish to know VIII,
Circuit is not all right we can tel
them, but it is not matter fit for pub
licaton. On a moral issue let thos,
support Mr.. Grout who can, we can
not. On the other hand when W,
wrote u first editorial against Bar
low which the Free Press has twic
repeated we were led by that papc
and by SANDER to believe that Barlo,
openly violated all those marital vir
tues which are divinely enjoyed an,
give to civilized life its greatest char
and makes human love possible, an
that such was the estimation in whic
the best people of st. Adams hcl
him. With that impression VIC mad
mt ATTACK Of which VIC should be prou
had our impression of the man bee
true to facts, but of which we al
ashamed since ave have learned the
falsity and learned that the very bes
citizens of St. Adams arc his most az
70 tive supporters. At the caucus las
saturday evening not a vote was ca.
against him. Even Mr.. Albert Sowle:
brother of Edward the candidate, cas-
hie vote for Mr., Barlow. Losing fait
in Groat we turned toward Sowles br
At once perceived what is rapid