The Columbia Democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1837-1850, 1844-08-03
CHARLES COOK,
AND THE LOCAL QUESTION.

the local question, Tor double Shu6Ving,
non commutai, half wdy betpeenify deola
ralons for the eye of the people, whenever
detected in their secret operations, we
should have been asioGished 10 see the fol
lowing half-acknowledging, half cringing,
half begging for quarters article, that appear
ed 10 the last Danville Democrat. But
knowing their system Of tactics, our sur
prise is dssipated, although il virtually ad
mils that Cook did utter willful and ma
llcious falsehood, when he made the posi-
tive denial of the truth of our charge against
him, ,ha, he had said, he never would vote
for a Removal man. Read the manly ar.
licle from Cooks paper. We copy ii with
his italics and capitals.
Our PosITIoN IN REGARD TO THE Lo
CAL QUESTION. We would have answer
edMr.W WEBB, of The Bloomsbury Democrat,
ia regard to his reiterated charges against us
in his paper of week before last, had we not
been prevented by absence And all we
have to say nor is this that to the best of
cur recollection, zoe neUer said, that we
would not vote for Removal man." as Mr.
Webbs first charge expressed, because we
have never entertained such az opinion
But this we cid say, on more than one oc
casion, that we could not, and would not
vote for LOCO FOCO RemovGL man,
i. e. for one of the Webb, Snyder aud Nc
Reynolds clique, and we still adhere TO. the
same opinion, Personally, we have little
Interest in this local question, because we
own not foot Of Real Estate which would
be injurously affected by Removal of the
Seat Of Justice, but as long as we reside al
Danvile, and receive onr chief support from
members Of both parties of this place and
neighborhood, our position is clear. Nov
Mr.. WEBB may bring as much proof or af
frdavis as he pIeases, we shall not refer TO
this petty business again"
Here then you have Mr.. Cook if you can
catch him. 10 his frs, reply to our charge
that he had said, he never would vote for
"a Removal man. i, was declared TO be q
: malicious and willful falsehood,' got up by
us to injure his circulation and the whig
cause; but as soon as he discovers that we
can snstain our charge with positive proof,
he shrlnks behind the convenient cloak of
we have never said il to lhe best of our re.
collection and it is petty business" any
hpw and we will say no more about it, or
in 1}fin language, do not publish the proof
Give yourself no uneasiness about the
proof, for The article above, evasjve as it is.
bs fdtfi ~ IN d6r r-e-,riaiE@ q
He does not deny saying that he cared
nothing for the local question, and that be
took no part in IT. nor that he asked 20 ia
vors of the Removal parly;' therefore tha, is
admitted and needs no proof On the next
subject, I'VE have says he, said, on more
than one occasion, that we could not. nor
would Lot vote for loco foco Removal
man, i. o. one of the Webb, Snyder, and
McReynolds clique What does this mean?
Last fall he denounced the Removal tickle,
as OF this class, notwithstanding there was
a whg upon it. Time and again had he
declared, before the Removal ticket was
c rmed, that If whig candidate was ir the
field for Commissioner, he would SUPPORT
him in any event. Did he support Samuel
Mesrs ! Let his paper answer. Let the
TWO VOTES Samuel Mears received in
Oanvlle, answer. lie could not vote for
a loco foco on the Removal ticket. Oh. no.
lie was conscienliously opposed TO doing
so. But be could, without any conscen
lons scfuples, support and vote for loco
loco opposed 10 Removal against Removal
whlg. This shows him up in his true cha
racler. Acts speak louder than words; and
his confirm the assertion that he will, in no
event, vote for any man upon the Removal
ticket, whether he be whig, or whether he
be democrat. This we have always ex.
pected of him. For we krew ,ha, he was
established and sustained in DanulIe by|
both political parties, for that particular pur.
pose, and his reply above confirms it. It
was not OF this that we complained. Ii was
TO his hypocracy and double dealing that
we referred to. II was for his attempting
to palm himself off as indifferent to the re-
suit o! the local question, when with reno
val men, while he was hatching a conspira.
pV IN Iafrnpf a 4