{"character_count": 1308, "word_count": 231, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9690999984741211], "ccnet_perplexity": [1694.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
We have read attentively an article copied into the Times from the Nashville Union, fla vorable to the views of the Governor with re- gard to the State Government question. The writer starts, we think, with the same wrong principle as the Gevernor-that form ing constitution, to take effect at future day, would annul the Territorial Govern ment. We deny the premises--and as he takes them for granted, we are at issue on that point. It is not necessary to examine his deductions until he proves his premises.

 The writer's construction of the third arti- cle of the Treaty of Cession is entirely gra- tuitous. We must be excused from receiving it, until he proves it-except so far as he ad- mits our right to be incorporated into the Un- ion as State.

 He says that Congress has the right to de- termine our limits. Granted-but Congress fixed those limits when she gave us our pre- sent boundaries-and by implication she gave Us those limits as the bounds of the State of Arkansas Congress understood 1t so, and so do we.

 He calls the Territorial Assembly the deputy of Congress. We deny this. It is the representation of the people of Arkan- sas. And finally he urges that the proposed course would prejudice the interests of Ark ansas. We are willing to risk it, and rely upon the justice of Congress.