Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1879-08-23
LOOSE CRITICISMS.

LOOSE CRITICISMS.
We clip the following from the Inde-
pendence Sentinel :-"Capt. Lesueur,
member of the late legislature, editor of
the Lexington Intelligencer. and a very
gentleman, still nsglects to ex-
plain through his paper. since his Odessa
his vote against the impeach-
of Treasurer Cafes, though nu-
merous democrats in Lafayette county
consider it good reading and. so
far, we have not seen from his pen even
q metaphysical dis9uisition j~ustifying his
vote for Vest for senator. when. in his
canvass, he expressed his preferences
for Glover nor have we any informa-
ton from his pen giving the exact ex-
PLANTATION of the use of his name by the
Vest papers in connection with a place
on the next state ticket. On all these
pertinent questions the Intelligencer is
modest in the extreme. But it found
courage. last week. to timidly touch the
bait, aud got into its net
as follows" Here follows an ex-
tract from this paper, based upon a quo.
ted paragraph from the Times-Journal,
condemnlng democratic papers for al
that a certain ring was about to
attempt to deliver Cookrell's seat to
Allen. in pursuance of a bargain to that
effect IN Jefferson City, last winter. The
Sentinel then concludes: 1--WE see. The
editor was no doubt honest when he ex-
pressed preferences for Glover, and no
doubt honest when he voted against
him for Vest. He no doubt favored
Cockrell then and tavors him now, just
as he did Glover, but with n and the
same act he did all IN the power Of a
vote to defeat both. W. do the honor
able gentleman's manhood the justice
to say that we believe if he knew he was
sitting on a dirty nest. he, like the Sen
tinel, would try to clean it. But he will
excuse US If We gently whisper that
whether it knows it or not. it is a dirty
bird that sits on a foul nest"
The editor of the Sentinel is a very
clever gentleman. with whom we desire
no controversy. but With whom We
would much prefer to labor in harmony
for the success of pure and undeiled
democracy; beside. We have q whole
some fear Of being caught in a net.
though our good friend should remem-
Der that netting is unlawful In Missouri,
and is not sportspanlike anywhere. Sc
riously. however. what has his article to
do with the charge that Senator Vests
friends formed a conspiracy to defeat
Senator CockrellP The offense commit
ted by US was in quoting the words. ut
is a dirty bird that fopls Its " nest"
though we only Endorsed. in our article.
the language. 1T does not become them
(the democratic papers of Alssouri) to
charge what every honest man can only
regard as Infamous" Exactly. And
il our friend feels the affront, though
not personal. contained in the language
of the Times-Journsl, what does he sup
pose are the feelings of the gentlemen
who voted for Col. Vest. and who are
put in . hotch.potch of Infamous bar
gaining by the charges in which he has
so freely indulged9 In our article quo
tod in the Sentinel, we said, alluding to
the alleged Vest bargain, "He never
made or sanctioned it. If some of his
partisans are also partisans of Mr.. Al
len. it is their right; but an intimation
that there is an organized effort on the
part of his friends to defeat Cockrell and
elect Allen. is simply untrue. as will
.,A.v -annn ha DEMONSTRATED hp thAlar9a
number OF Vest men who are also Cock
rell men Why not accuse these men,
too. with being the ringF This loose
kind OF talk. engepdered by past politl-
cal squabbles within the democratic
party. should cease. There is no ground
for it." This language the editor cuts
out Of what he quotes from our columns,
which we think is hardly fair.
So far as the attack upon the writer
is concerned. we are nothing for its eff.
tect where the truth is known. Not one
of his constituents has asked any expla-
nation of his votes on impeachment, very
likely because he explained them at the
time in these columns. And so tar from
expressing q preference for Glover dur
ing his canvass, no clearly stated, in its
very inception, that believing Vest to be
the choice of the district. he should, il
elected. vote for him. and no one expec.
ted HIM to do otherwise. He did speak
in the highest terms of MIR. Gfover's
talents and patriotism then. as be will al.
ways do. but intimated no preference fol
him over Vest. mol did he ever intimate
to any n that he would vote for him.
To have voted against Vest, IN oppo.
sition to the will OF bis people. because
a vote tor Vest might injure Cockrell.
would hardly have been doing his duty
as q representative, and would have
smacked of bad faith indeed.
We are very much Of the opinion tina
our critic is still dazed by the last con.
g%ressional fight in his district. We as
sure HIM that there is no more danger
that the Mastins, Burnses or their allies
will ever again control a democratic
nomination than there is of The average
editors being translated. The asser
ton, too. which he makes in another ed
itorial article. that 1.-THE same influence!
which brought on the party its disgrace
controlled the last democratic legisla.
ture," Ii untrue. There was no lobb,
in the treasury interest, and no legisla,
ture was ever more free from lobby IN,
fiuence. Impeaching Gates would have
been no step to recover the lost moneys
OF the state, but the best step to have
forever precluded the possibility of suct
recovery. So far from failing to d.
something to guard the treasury. tn,
general assembly passed q treasury bill
which is the first law Missouri has eve
had that fully protects the public fund.
"a law which precludes the possibllit,