{"character_count": 6132, "word_count": 1065, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9797999858856201], "ccnet_perplexity": [1056.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
For he Register.

 Mr. Editor :-In Fridays Advertiser Mr. Lang don rests his vindicatlon on two points The first IS, that his speech was not correctly reported The second shall give in his words. It is as fol- lows

 "The gentleman from Washington had sad in his speech, that it great hardship for those charged 'tath crime in Mobile to be rled by men whom they had voice in eecting He dwelt at considerable length much more than appears in the report, on the great hardship of the In my ply alluded this branch of his argument, and marked that the gentleman had an exceeding sympa- thy for the criminals who infested Mobile, and the multtudes who hung about the city for purposes of punder. l thought this class, which denominated, and think correctly, 'rogues, thieves and ncendia- res' deserving of no sympathy favorable consid- eration."

 Now, if prove that he has misrepreseated distor- ted and fasified both my language and that of the "gentleman from Washington l thihk it will he a sufficient answer to this part of his communication. In No III. gave all the remarks of the gentleman from Washington, that misapprehenson could exist. That gentleman did mol say ''that ,eaS Q Hardship for those charged onh M1Jile be tried by ,ohom they had uoice eiecting," His words were as follows ..#

 "But where was the balance of power In the hands of petty yrants, deriving their authority from the rich poor, unfortunate man, who might be charged with some offence against the city ordnan- ces would find himself in the hands and at the mercy of men whom he had no voice in eecting."

 This is the language of the ''gentleman from Wash ington." Not one word is said about men ''charged trth crime" The object of the ''gentleInan from Washington was not to intimate that poor men are liable to be charged.with offences against the or dnances but to show that should rich man and a poor man be arraigned for the same offence, whilst the former would have the satisfaction of knowing and feeling that he had in elecng his judges the other would have had none, and therefore less srance that he should receive justice their hands. The very adjective nnortmaate which he uses proves that he did not mean men ''oharged oh crime" The gentleman expressed no sympathy for criminals. ( It was sympathy for 'poor, unfortunate men,'' (he very reverse of criminas,) who might be tried in- suited and wronged by judges irresponsible to him. and who could scourge fine him, with the certainty that the disfranchsing charter secured them from that terror of public men, the condemnation of the popular voice. A#r.t t- #.f#

 'rbs part of Mir, Langdon's defence, is therefore, totally destroyed-t is plea based a wilful and barelaced peryersion of the language used by the ''gentleman from Washington"

 The other point of defence is that his speech was not reported correctly. To this it would be answer enough to say that hitherto that report was never contradicted by Mr. Laugdsn. No man so cun- ming and experienced in party warlare--so used to party discipline, ,-and so well aware of the conse-

 

 his sentiments so important subject, to be mis- represented for one moment. The plea is idle. But | have it from the best authorty-those who heard Mir. Langdon-that his speech is not misrepresened; ; and corroboratiye evidence of the fact, all the speeches made in reply based upon the very lan guage which is attributed to him. If, therefore his speech mis-reportes all the of the speeches must have been ms-reported. A suppositon, inas- much as the report is whig report, which is totally inadmssabie a- t'

 have proved that Mr. Langdon has falsilied the record, shall now prove that he has fslsifed my words. He says

 ''He (meaning myself has the assurance to say, that opposed tile bill on the ground that ssunirersai suffrage paS dn e,ai, and that m my arguments cha racterzed all who not entitled to vote for mem bers of the common council rognes tiiepes and ia- cendiariss. nfi-'d aHl HH4f My language was, that Mir. Langdon s'argued ia corporations universal suffrage was an evil-not uni ,ersal suffrage every where. His own words are as follows:-

 ''Mr. Langdon had heard much of general indepen- dence. That has nothing to do with the question, said Mr. L. In political affairs there is interdic- ton of the right suffrage, property or no prop erty; but in corporations it is different"

 And then he goes on to say that we might as well give seyery one in the community right ''to vote for directors the stock banks' as to give every person right to unrestricted suffrage in corporations

 faftncr ulu not assert that MT. LangdOn pOSlftre iy characterized all who were not entitled to vote for members of common council as 'rogues taeues and incendiUies.' l" It was deduction made from the language which he used and that such is the correct deduction, no man who has his senses can for a mo- ment doubt. MT. Langdon by implication did assert that all men who have not right to vote for com mon councilmen are "rogues, thieves and incendia- res,' and defy him to prove the contrary, except by belying his own speech. f'

 In his defence, the gentleman must have fling at what he is pleased to term "hnsd scribbiers." It is to be expected that who implies that poor men ''rogues, thieves and ncendiares,v and who has managed to liye through banking operations on the - dustry othose poor men, should thus express his tempt for them. To look for any thing else would be as absurd as tQ expect figs to grow on thistle branches but if mistake not the temper of the hred of Mobile-those whom the city charter disfran- chises--the gentleman will never have another oppor. tunty of utterng such calumnies on the floor of our House of Representatives. We have already enough of people who at election day, can SCOUT the pureus of our cities, hunting up voters, whilst they can use the privileges given by those voters, malgn, abuse and disfranchise them. fH B.

 ..5. Forths Register.

 Another of those dirty partisan which for three years past have annually dsgraced the records of the Commissioners Court of this County, has just been