{"character_count": 3263, "word_count": 581, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9620000123977661], "ccnet_perplexity": [974.7000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Now that the State Bank system has faecl SO signally, and is becoming unpopular with all par ties

 in this State, portion of the press is continually sneering at the Democratic party as the authors of the system, and taunting us with its misdeed and follies The object is to take credit the wg par

 y in shape; but how, ii, would puzzle the wi sest among them, to define with cearness. Al the time when the State Bank System established an ,ong

 us, the whig party unborn; the very name was unknown to the State, and the whole voting por ula-

 tion, with exceptions to be counted the fingers from memory by any of general acqu ain tance in the State, unanimous in support oi the men and the measures claimed by the Democl tatic party as peculiarly their lfthere were any anti State Bank men among us, they did not pretend to be so, because they were anti-Democrats. Sti Il it may freely be acknowledged, that the theory of the State Bank system was one winch peculiarly re com mended itself to public favor, from its popular cha rarter. It very plausible idea, likely to be s'c

 ceptabie Democrats that the banking system sbo, i'd be stripped of the exclusive character which it ad always had elsewhere should longer be cntrus ed to private monopolists, 10 be administered for ndi v

 dual gan be confined in its benefits to particu lar classes of the community; but should be made COG tensive with the State, accessible by all classes, nd administered by the people throunh their agent for their own benefit, and the profits be carrl ed into their common treasury Estimated as Ban Ks then by all parties, their value to commerce nd their importance to the common prosperity, conced cd without discusslon-ths form of employing thel n, seemed to take away some of the characterisli cs which made them conflict with the prevailing opinioi

 in this Statc,o the subject of equal rights But, while say much for the theory, cannot admit tn at

 ere any party division in tbe State,-iro m which, the present Whig party lay claim to sup rior discernneut the workings of the syst eD, its members can set up party merit as Wings hav- in opposed the system We suspect that wh sneV CT ,ch opposition manifested among them, it 'prang in general from preference the old system of copo ations,-the instructive love for monopoes, which makes so strong part of the afintes which brought the Wing party together afterwards, and keeps the ClaygWhigs together stl and, in this sense, there may be right to say, that the original grounds were what became whig ground, when that party ai- terwards formed. But this cannot be so traced, as to justify the charge taken against the dcmocra

 tc party, that they solely responsible either for the creation the failure of the system. There was no distnctio of whig and democrat in our parties when it was created, and there has been no such distinction in supporting, managing or raising 1t, nor, do we trust is there be, any such contrarety of the winding of it up, total failure. The cur rency finances and credit of the state, require the

 ;d of ,t,s s. and enf of all narties i,stend disractng us. by making them subjects of party re- proval and recrminaton. Let us all unite as cili- zens having common interest the honor of the