The Columbia Democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1837-1850, 1839-06-15
lDIh@0EllSDUR@ 8
SATURDAY,; yU.wE Is, 1890,

ii they knew what was meant by the in-
PRODUCTION into the Legislature, by Mr..
Colt, of bill to incorporate the Blooms.
burg Rail Road and Iron Company" saw
they cannot tell, and denounce the bill as an
+" dbonination." The first assertion wa
believe 10 be false--the latter true 10 the LET.
ter; allowing the word " abomination" the
full definition given 10 il by Johnson, to wit
" defeStation, hatred, pollution or defle.
ment," for under this head we would class
all interpretations for private purposes, es.
pecially where they have the power of
making railroads through any mans farm
that may best accommodate their own pri-
vate interest or convenience. For once.
then, they have blundered into the truth;
but in the remainder Of the article, it has
been cautiously avoided, with one exception
where they acknowledge that they would
rather see Bloom cursed with an incorpo.
rate monopoly, than to have the Courts of
the county located within its limits.
They say that al the last election they
supported Bowman because he was friend
to the removal. If SO, why was pledge
given TO the Danvllle Federaists that it
should not be agitated by him! The fac.
was, they supported him upon party
grounds and for party purposes only, and
had he been elected, he would undoubtedly
have gone with the party, regardless Of the
removal question, under the plea that the
proper iime," had not arrived "for agital.
ing the question:" 1t is true that they
hypocEtically held out the removal ques-
tion flag in this section, as an inducemen.
to support him; while below they as sedu.
lously denounced it. And il is useless for
them now to pretend thatthey supported him
upon those grounds, after HE having receiV.
ed, as he did, every federal vote in the an.
ti-removal townships, for no ono will be-
lieve it. The assertion that wo brought
forward and sustained Colt as a removal
man," is alike destitute Of truth, and vii.
full and deliberate falsehood. We never
expected he would be in favor of 4
REMOVAL" nor did we in any shape or
manner advocate his election upon those
grounds. We played no hypocritical part.
We avowedly gave our support to him up
on party grounds; believing then that he
would faithfully represent the interest Of
the achole party, and of course that of the
aciole county, without any regard 10 the
removal question. We also sustained him
under the belief, that he would act as De-
nocrat, and not be made tool of by few
wings, to secretely impose upon us an IN
restricted incorporated Rail Road Compa-
ny Tor private purposes; and that, too, with.
out the knowledge of any individual in tho
county. so far as we can learn, as all, like
the Regis-three, are ignorant as to whom
or what compose the company, or at whose
request the bill was introduced. We should
think at least that some portion of COM
munity ought 10 be consulted before an in.
corPorated company was located among
them; and more especially before such
company were authorised by law to convert
the landed property Of others to their own
private use, at pleasure. We are as much
in favor OF having companies established in
the neighborhood for the manufacture ofiron,
as any other individual can possibly be,
fully believing it would advance the interest
and prosperity of the county. But while
we would do all in our power to promote the
formation of such companies. we will me-
yer consent to have individual rights sacri-
feed to the grasping avsrice of soulless in.
corporations.
The insinuation that the bill was intro.
duced through our influence, is too son.
temptibie to merit even passing notice.
- zs..gsrsl