The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1855-10-03
who are the KNOW Nothing
E1GBGNTGe

has been inveiglcd into the Know Moth
ing party, and who is not convinced that
it is Wing scheme, let him look around
him and see who are its leaders. You
will see that those who were most indus
trious in building up the order are nearly
all Wings. Those who are now making
the greatest efforts to hold the rickety
concern together are Wings, with the ex-
ception of a few Office seeking Democrats.
Who are the men that are perambulating
the county and holding meetings in coun-
'cil? Are they not all Wings or candi-
dates? Who are the men that are stump
ing the county for the Know Nothing
ticket? Are they not all Wings? Who
are the men that are abusing the Demo-
Gratis through the Journal here Are they
not well known to be Wings? Who are
their candidates for the most important
offices? Are they not Wings? Who are
the candidates on the State ticket? Eight
Of the nine were formerly Wings. Who
are the clique here that endeavors to con-
troll the party? They are Wings.
Look where you will and you will see
that the prominent and active men of the
party are Wings. Nearly al the Demo-
Gratis are either abandoning the order or
remain inactive, except the candidates;
the Wings on the contrary joined the or
der almost to man, and few or none of
them are leaving it. The reason is very
apparent. 1t is Wing scheme and they
know it, and laugh in their sleeves at the
credulity of the Democrats. AS Serious
ly as they may talk in your presence OF
'no-partyism," ''reform," &C., they chuckle
when YOU arc absent, to think how they
have pulled the wool over your eyes.
| If Democrats do not see that it is q
Whig scheme it is because they yolunta-
rily shut their eyes and stop their ears.
It is plain as the broad glare of the sun
The Public Works and "Tax-payer.'
The Journals correspondent, TAX
payer" appears in the last number Of that
paper in an article headed. Taxes" but
without saying one word about taxes
from one end of his article to the other
Three-fourths of his communication is low
and scurrilous abuse of us, because of oul
youth. He uses ungentlemanly and vul-
gar language in it as Familiarity as If he
were but little acquainted with any Other
kind We will not retort it; for it is ey-
ident, from the hippancy with which he
makes use of it, that we would come of
second best in such contest. We viii
sustain our position by Il different kind OF
argument, or will not sustain it at all
His personal abuse is less Objectionable
when we remember that it is all that il
left for his defense. When the last argu
ment in favor of his charge was demol
ished, he adopted the usual course in sucf
cases. by making personal attack.
In our reply to the charge Of design
ing to deceive we treated the authors a!
if there were two of them. We are still
well satisfied that it requires another be-
sides himself to prepare any of his com
munications for the printer; but as tlit
one assumes the responsibility, we vii
treat him as the author. In his last arti
Gle ne virtually admits the correctness o.
our statements, and for this reason we
omit to publish his name. He tries tc
squirm out of his difficulty by saying, IL
that Report" (meaning that Of the Board
of Public Works. "will not agree with the
State Auditors Report, as to the amount
received into the Treasury, then 1 say
hold the party making such Report ac-
countable." That dodge won't DO; there
is no difference between us as to the
lamount paid into the State Treasury, and
besides that the Reports do agree. But
that is not the point in controversy; it is
simply this: We gave certain figures as
being the amount of tolls, &c, collected
by the officers f the Public Works You
said they were alse; that we "put them
down to make the sum prove" and with a
"design to deceive" TO make the read
ers of the Jou,nd believe your charge,
YOU gave the amolnt paid into the Treas
ury as being the Whole amount collected;
or that which is tie same, you stated your
figures to be the mount we purported to
give, whether igwrautly or designedly we
say not.
You talk abot being able to prove
t your figures to b correctly copied. You
5 can prove that tey are in the Auditors
) Report but you ant prove that they are