The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1853-09-30
Int,ings of the. Cloven Foot.

lnklIngs OF .the sClOVeh ool'
Under the head of "Sngular Coincide nee
the Editors of the Chronicle reflect in severe
terms upon Mr.. FIsDLE US Maine Law com.
municaton. They say: -
"This is an era Of singular occurrences in
the Scientific and literary world, and not the
least interesting of recent transactions is the
great similarity between the communication
of Mr.. Gle aver in our last weeks paper in
reply to the Temperance Committee, and the
communication of Mr.. Findley, the Locofoco
candidate which appears in to-day's issue. 1t
seems that not only the spirit but the very
letter of his reply corresponds with Mr..
Cleavers. We forestall comment, and leave
our readers to draw their own conclusions" b"
What subtle stroke of policy was this
well-timed comment of the Chronicle! And
what position do they occupy in this matter!
The Editor of the Chronicle, or one Of them
at least, is an enthusiastic Maine Law man,
(perhaps the other is not, it suits better to be
on both sides of the questionable is in favor
of the prohibition of the sale and manufacture
of spirituous liquors. Very good. The
temperance committee have nterrogated the
Democratic and Wing candidates for the
Senate and House of Representatives as to
their views upon the Maine Law, and the
course they will pursue in reference thereto,
if elected to the Senate or Legislature. Mr.
CLEAvER's response first appears. His
answer is satisfactory to the temperance COM
mittee Not word is said by the Chronicle
Editors;-they want to catch the votes of the
Maine Law democrats;-their silence then is
evidence of their appreciation OF his reply.
Mr.. FINDLEY responds. Now the sage
Editors of the Chronicle are in a guandary.
1t wont do to let the communication of Mr..
FINDLEY pass as they did that Of Mr.. CLEAvER.
Why, Because Maine Law whios might ySs;.e
FOR Mr.. Findley. They are afraid to come
at the question itself. What's to be done,-
they concluded to leave their readers to draw
their ewn conclusions" from the unfair COM
ment which they think proper TO make upon
- No. Findley's answer to the temperance
committee. Bear in mind that but one Dem
ocratic and one Wing candidate for the Legls-
lature have answered the interrogatores of
the Maine Law committee,-one Of the
Chronicle Editors is Maine Law man.
they make this thrust at Mr.. Findey-and
misprint his communication, perhaps inten-
tionaly What conclusion must we draw!
Must we not conclude that there is banker
ing after whiggery, which predominates over
temperance principles;-thatt this Maine Law
question is catch trap in the present in
stance.-that they are in favor of the Maine
Law SO far as it enhances whig prospects.
How convenient it would be to get democra tic
Maine Law men tovote for Mr.. Cleaver and at
the same time see strict party alliance observ-
cd in the whig ranks; Too shallow gen.
tlemen.
We also will leave "our sreaders,, to draw
their own conclusions as to the fairness Of
the Chronicle Editors upon the Maine Law
question.
The forgoing erudite article appeared last
week in the Gasette and Citizen, and, as may
be naturally supposed amused us not little.
Itwas very heinous offence indeed that
we should have discovered the great similarity
existing between the two articles in question.
In order, however, that all may see it, we
reprint both articles and place them side by
side that allmay compare them. Mr.. Findley's
letter we copy from the Gazette d. Ciicen:-