Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1822-08-03

such trick. But the great mass of So
ciety must abhor it.
Every effort to obtain this famous hand
bill, by any one of Mr.. Cooks friends
has been fruitless. Enough however,
has been learnt concerning it, from notes
taken by gentlemen who have read il, to
ascertain that, it contains the old charge
of L" voting against the reduction OF the
price of public land" in new, decep-
tious, and false aspect. No attempt IS
made TO deny That the journals do I'M
cquivocaIly exhibit, Mr.. Cooks motion
for the Dery reduction, which goQ8 made
by Congress. But it is most disn-
genuousy alledged that he voted against
+" the bill reducing the Price Of public
land" and pages 1856, 437, Of the jour
nails of the House of Representative of
1920 are referred to, as proof OF The fact.
One would naturally infer, from this
Tariul and uncandid manner oil exhibiting
the charge that, there had been bill be-
fore the house, entitled, as the one refer
red to, is above described; and whose
principal, fnot exclusive object, was the
reduction of the price of public land
and herein consists the deception, and
(aIsehood. There was no such bill be-
fore Congress.
The journal referred to, by Philo
Brutus," on examination will be found TO
prove no more, than that, Mr.. Cook
voled against the final passage OF the bill,
for changing the mode of disposing OF
the public lands from a credit to cash
system which has never been denied.
And so did Judge Thomas and his col
e ague, both vote against the same bill
and this the Judge dare not deny. Is he
then, willing to admit that he zVa8 or
POSED 10 the reduction u the price o'
hUbHc kaud 2 If not, should he not be
ashamed, even, to countenance, much
less, 10 aid in giving currency to charge
against Mr.. Cook, founded only, upon
proof, that equally applies to himself
Such disingenuous articles, and contri-
vances, may, and probably will, enable
him 10 injure Mr.. Cook--but society
must become infinitely more demoraiized
than ii is at present. if they can benefit
him. He may indeed, put down Mr..
Cook by such meaHS, but IL SO dong, he
cannot fail To loose the confidence OF all
good men.
Neither the vote of Mr.. Cook, nor the
concurring votes Of our Senators, on the
bill last referred 10, can be considered as
voting against the reduction OF the price
of public lands, because the Journals
prove they were all in favor OF the latter.
Suppose a bill 10 contain twelve sections,
upon eleven Of which, all the members
should vote unanimously in The ai1lrma-
tive, but the 18th section beng thought,
bya majority, to be unconstitutional, the
bill should be lost on that account
could it be pretended That, those WHO had
voted against lis final passage, had voted
against the eleven sections, when their
votes stood recorded III favor OF them
The case is too plain 10 require iilustra-
| ton, therefore dismiss ii.
Seeing Mr.. Cook So ungenerously as
sailed and prosecuted, BY such reiterated
iasehoods,, and unprincipled articles
men of honor, though they may not APP
prove altogether OF his conduct, must
feel natural repnlsion, at the very idea
of participating in such moan5to destroy
him. If he is TO be prostrated, Ictit b.
for the public good---and not TO crafty
the malice, revenge, or ambitious hopes
l. Il