{"newspaper_name": "State journal & flag.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1584, "word_count": 275, "ccnet_language_score": [0.987500011920929], "ccnet_perplexity": [789.7999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The Eufaula Democrat, in noticing an attack of tte CentreviIle (Bibb county) Advocate on Mr. Yancey, for his vote on the notice"to abrogate lhe convention of 1918, says" we have observed like dis position in higher quarters to make war upon those democrats in Congress, who voted against the passage of the notice, as if they were not friends tf Oregon equally with those who voted for that measure. The question of notice. was one of expedi- ency merely, involving no principle, and we can by no means assent to the propo. stion that it's passage was" of so vital consequence as the Advocate represents.

 Two of our delegation, Messrs. Yancey & Dargan, voted against the notice, us it passed the House of Representatives; and each submitted his reasons, at length, for his vote, which we have, heretofore, pub. lished.

 MT. Yaucey looked upon the "notce" as indicating unfriendy intentions. which must lead to war. In this opinion he is sustained by some of the ablcsl minds in the Union. Many of his friends differed fnm him, but as the Advocate suggests, it was difference |" involving no principle" Mr. Dargan, whose vote has also been criticised, has triumphanlly sustained his course, in an argument that would silence all horest objections, lift were in the hands of the fault finders. We fully agree with MT. Dargan in his positions, as 10 the pro- cess by which the question should be ad- justed; and it is no little honor to his dis crimination, to see the efforts of the ablest men in the senate directed to the mode of settlement suggested by MT. Dargan's res. olulions.