Independent Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1844-08-14

!. Joseph ktcll, OF WINSTON,
a Arthur Fox. OF LAWRENCE.
}. In the Creole of August Sd, one of i
y correspondents, with tho characterest
appelation of "Zip," attempts to revie
. our history of the Clay meeting OF IL
22d ult. The writer accuses us of misrel
resentation, and making mss.atemcn
&c. In this same line his review, TO sa
nothing of his name, proves him TO be a
capt scholar" Every person VIII
knows the editor Of Democrat, and if tn
writer be resident of Canton, he Toe
well knows that if any msstatomcnt o
error of fact had appered in this paper
upon its being pointed ou', it would hav,
been promptly corrected. The writer on
ly wished an opportunity to abuse ant
misrepresent democratic editor, and thi:
employment he found so pleasant, that he
devoted nearly four columns to It's exer.
else.
The writer first takes exception 10 on
remark that the Clay meeting was "re.
spectacle enough as to numbers" takes
it for granted we meant il was not respect
able otherwise, and attributes the remark
TO "gangrened political hate" We admit
the remark might bear this construction,
but it was one of which we never thought
until it was pointed GU, to us by this wri.
ter. We only meant 10 say respectable
number was present. We regarded the
meeting personally as respectable body
as might assemble anywhere.
The writer then denies that the wings
had the proposition of the democrats for
Joint barbecue and discussion under con-
sideration from the time of the democratic
meeting until their meeting of the 22d.
Our position was substantially correct. 1t
Is true the committee might not have
handed them a written communication
until the day of their meeting-a fact Of
which we were not aware-but the COM
mittee had verbally communicated it 10
hem, and the resolution of the democra-
lie meeting being public and in open day
hey were just as we'll aware Of the pro-
position, and had just as ample means for
as if the written communi-
cation had been made, which was mere
matter Of form and intended to give the
proposition more tangible shape. What
hen becomes of the assertion of the writer
hat our statement was 'without the shadow
If truth for its foundation?" AS regarded
he fact itself, it was q matter Of little i'm
,ortance and one which no man would
AVE had any interest in misrcpresenting
The next statement he controverts is
his:
They said the proposition of the de-
nocrats confined the discussion TO the
county of Madison, and that it was made
With the knowledge that they (the whigs)
lad already invited persons from other
ouniies.
We believe one of the speakers said
his at the meeting, but of this we are not
ertain; it was however the common ru.
nor in town, we heard it spoken of by
'ersons atthe meeting, and we recolIeci
n the same evening to have had con-
ersation with wing who complained OF
MS fact, and we assured him the demo-
rats had no knowledge whatever of their
aving invited persons, and with that he
semed satisfied.
Asto what was said about the discus
ion with Gen'l Foote, and the "war talk"
the orators, they are more "matters of
Isle" than anything else. We did not
ltend to attribute 10 the writer other than
'spectful language towards Gent Foote,
i'd we only intended to allude TO the fact
lat the speaker did not seem to have for.
,tten that discussion.
Another assertion of ours the writer !;
rms misstatement is as follows:
"They complained that the 'chalenge" !;
they termed it, had been published,
Id made the impression by their remarks,
at the resolutions of the democratic
Getting had been published in the Mis-.
ssippan before they had been commu-
Gated TO them"
The writer asserts they, did not nten-I