{"character_count": 802, "word_count": 143, "ccnet_language_score": [0.98580002784729], "ccnet_perplexity": [1875.699951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 As we expected, the Swearing Editor has refused to give Judge Scott's reply a place in his columns. He excuses himself, by denying that the Judge has "been in- dividually assailed in Gov. Pope's publica- tion"-ail that is necessary to give the lie direct to this assertion, is reference to the Governors communication. We can readily account for his refusal to repub- fish. Judge Scott's reply is such a com plste refutation of the calumnies against the members of the late Legislature, with which his paper has teemed for months, that he is unwilling it should be generally read by his subscribers. The Party begin to find that this Ten Section Bill is not the thing they took it to be; if they are not careful. we opine, 1t will fail to fur nish them the "RALLYlNG roINTo spoken of by Col. sevier.