Vermont Watchman And State Journal

For the Watchman & Journal.

Messrs Editors—I noticed that 'a Freeman' in the last Patriot, has seen fit to get up a tremendous wolf story, and by innuendoes and insinuations, is doing his utmost to injure Lieut. Gov. Camp. Permit me to say, briefly, that last spring a wolf, (which was not tame,) was brought into Derby, by a man from Canada, who intended to carry it to Massachusetts and exhibit it on the way for a show. That when arriving at Derby, his horse was attached, and he, of course, stopped. That he then endeavored, unsuccessfully, to sell the wolf, and finally determined to let it loose. In this emergency a son of Governor Camp determined to purchase the wolf, and did do it; and the real wolf man was thus enabled to pay his debt and resume his journey. The Governor's son had thus saved the wolf from being set at large—it was on his hands, and how should he be indemnified? There was only one way, and that was to kill the wolf and claim the bounty.—This was done: and the Governor maintained before the county judge that the case was equitable; that the wolf was killed in the state and for the purpose of preventing the animal from being set at large in the state. My own view is the same: the wolf had no legal residence, as I know of any where; and the chances certainly were that he would take up his then present residence in Vermont.—Suppose the wolf had been set at large, and twenty or thirty men had surrounded and killed him, in Derby, and on the spot? Would there have been any question but that the bounty was due? Or suppose that the animal was pursued and finally taken and killed at Irasburgh: it seems to me that then there could be no question. But what is the great difference, whether the wolf was actually let loose and killed—or prevented from being let loose and afterwards killed? It seems to me a 'distinction without a difference?' But to finish the story: the county judge gave a certificate, but at the same time wrote to the state treasurer that he had doubts about the case; and the treasurer refused to pay the certificate. The result is that the Governor's son saved the wolf from being let loose, and lost his money by so doing! Now, Messrs. Editors, permit me to ask if it is not a little ungenerous, to say the least, to endeavor to throw blame on the Governor for this transaction? I think he has done no more than every father would have done; and I also think that all the injustice is put entirely upon the wrong party: the boy ought, in strict equity, to have received the bounty. I have given these facts that no injury may be done to the Governor where he is not well known. In Orleans county he stands too high, as an honorable, just, and rigidly honest man, to be at all injured by the insinuations, innuendoes, or even bold and direct assertions of the Vermont Patriot.

ANOTHER FREEMAN.