The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1912-03-30

file of the Republican party? Why
didn't you at least tell both sides of
the story-or were you so anxious to
iniure me that you wanted only half
light on the subject?
These instances ] have given are
not single ones sorted out. Every
last one of the quotations instanced
by you is of the same garbled charac-
ter. You have distorted every express
sion by taking out piece without
giving it in its relation to the whole
1t is the meanest kind of mendacity
of which any newspaper can be guilty
You quote certain sentences of
what | have said as to Senator La
Toilette, but you fall short of justice
by failing to include what The Ban
ner said months ago in relation to
him which was:
The Banner would not pledge the
Vermont delegation to La Toilette If
it could. The Banner believes in
many things in the La Toilette propa-
ganda, and also in many of the things
advocated by President Taft Seriously
though, we fear that neither of them
can win and the party might do
better to make Former Governor
Hughes its standard bearer
Your attempt to drag me into the
Taft-Roosevelt controversy is of the
same kind. respectfully submit
that it is not advocating a mans can.
didacy to barely state that in my
opinion, he would poll the most votes
If you had been honest with your
readers and fair to me, you would
have stated that as long ago as last
fall / had advocated dropping Taft
and nominating Hughes. How
long since has it been q
crime to exercise ones own
judgment in supporting a party
candidate? Were the Republicans
who supported Gen. Grant in 1880 OBJ
jects of vilification and abuse because
they were honestly in his favor? I'm
der the line of argument which you
are trying to enforce, the Republicans
who were for Senator Edmunds in
1883 were not good Republicans and
should have been driven out OF the
party In 1892 there were thousands
of Republicans who favored the nom
ination Of Mckinley instead of Harri
son. According to your theories. they
must have been traitors and black
legs deserving only of abuse
and obloquy. The cheapness
and bad faith of your comment
is proved if my memory serves me
right, by the fact that four year.
ago, you were ardently in favor o.
Hughes, while | was supporting Taft
If 1t was virtue for you to support
Hughes then, why is it a crime fol
me to favor him now? Isn't it tn,
shabbiest kind Of peanut politics t
attempt to discredit a man because h,
favors some other candidate than tn,
one you are advocating?
In your anxiety to make out a cas-,
against me, you have even garble,
my answers to your questions, b!
not including the whole answers. Hal
you been man enough to face tn,
truth and print the whole answer
your own false insinuations woul,
have fallen even flatter than they did
Your cutting out part and in man
cases, the principal part OF my an
swers is on par with the rest O
your methods.
] have never denied having critici.
ed President Taft and his adminlstrs
ton. believed a man had a right tC
and that ii was a newspapers dut
on certain OCCASIONS. supported hir
most earnestly four years ago, bu
since he became president hay
not approved all OF his acts. Befor
he had been two years in office, tn
Republican party was overwhelming
ly beaten in the congressional ele,
tons of 1910, showing that was nc
alone in my feeling toward his lea,
ership.
have condemned some Of his act
perhaps harshly. but never the maj
and here reproduce a quotation frol
The Banner, relative TO Mr. Tar
which shows just how niue
basis you have for your wholesaI
calumny;
"As winner OF friends By persons
contact, Taft is world famous. II
wholesome personality, his goo
cheer, his evident ability and read
ness to tackle and carry heavy bu
dens without perceptible strain an
his hearty Americanism OF mann'
and ideals, make him n marked ma
in any company. He has not sufferc
by comparison with any other Anne
ican.p
The Banner was the first paper
Vermont TO support Taft for the pre-
idenoy and had to endure lot
heckling because OF Il from the san