{"character_count": 1791, "word_count": 307, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9591000080108643], "ccnet_perplexity": [1617.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
5TIIIs LEADING ARTIcLE,-The writer
ola communication, on ''the position of
Cecil" which is the leading article on the
first page, in the last Gazette, in speaking
of the state debt, makes the following de-
iaralion:--"W hatcver individuals may
have done towards bringing about this
state Of affairs, utterly deny that such
charge can justly be entertained against
the Loco foco] party" And says he
"fearlessly asserts" that no ''respectablc"
Wing will dare to say that, that party
gave their sanction, to the wild schemes
that involved the state.


We neither know nor care what that
writer or that Editor calls respectable; but
we hold, that truth is respectable, and
that falsehood is not So let US see wheth-
er The declaration quoted above is not as
false as it is 'sfearless.n No Locoloco
can deny that MACKEY, HARLAN,
THOMAS, and MERCER, delegates sent
from this county, by their party, voted
for the first appropriation [S5o0,OO0] to


internal improvements. Now did they
do this in direct opposition to the express
sed wishes of their constituents If so,
how came MACKEY to be taken up a.
gain for a higher office, by those selfsame
constituents And in 1888, did not THO
MAS, and KNIGHT, men whom you Lo-
cos elected, vote for an appropriation to
the CanaR Were you deceived again9--
Did these men also, go contrary to your
instructions? Ifthey did, why did you
run the (in such case) deceitfu a,@
Knight, again last iall2 And why M'f&
YOU him now on your ticketa Answe.
these questions, ye a5-JEwELs of con-
s1srENcy.-gs Say! does not this show
that you sanctioned the wild schemes"
for which these men votedl But suppose
that YOU had been deceived in these in-
stances! How was it, that you again
sent men there 'unpledged,' 'uninstructedP
The very next year the Josrnal shows that