The Morning Comet

We hope not. It seems that we have drawn a wrong inference from an article in the columns of our Church street contemporary; which appeared on the 6th inst., two days after the election, and have attributed language to him, not made use of in the article referred to. We very cheerfully make amends for it, and assure him that it was not our intention to misrepresent him. The inference we drew from the article, was it seems gratuitous on our part; as no such idea was intended to be conveyed. We were in error to say that the charge was made direct by our cofrere against the City Council in reference to the fact that paupers were taken from the list on Monday who voted on Tuesday. However to set the matter right, we republish the article of our neighbor to which we referred. It was headed "East Baton Rouge," and reads as follows:

The indomitable Democracy of this parish have cause for self-congratulation. Here we met and overcame the most bitter, the most unrelenting opposition to be found anywhere in the State. The victory is complete, and the enemy routed. We can therefore afford to treat with contempt the old worn-out cry of the defeated party about frauds, corruption and all that sort of thing. We are accused of subsidizing the vote of this parish with money: each voter is indiscriminately charged with having been purchased. We will not insult our friends comprising the Democracy here by even replying to this base insinuation. It is too low for notice.

We venture the assertion, that if the truth were known, the opposition in this parish have expended five dollars to where the Democracy have expended one for obtaining voters. The wealthy Know Nothings of West Baton Rouge, if brought upon the witness stand, could say a word as to the expense of the canvass in East Baton Rouge. They bled largely, as we know from K. N. testimony.

The Democracy can boast of one thing: They struck no names from the town pauper list and voted them for Buchanan on Tuesday. Will some of the K. N. prints inform us how many paupers were stricken from the list on Monday, the day before the election, carried to the polls and made to put in Fillmore tickets? Let us know. We trust that we have heard the last of foreign paupers. We desire to know which is the pauper party now. Thank God we cannot reproach ourselves hereafter with so degrading an act as was perpetrated at our precinct on Tuesday last.—Advocate.

So well satisfied were we, that our fellow-citizens who compose the City Council, had done nothing in respect of this matter, discreditable or censurable; that we published a brief communication, (written doubtless to elicit the facts) and this brought out the truth of the matter, which we gave in an article a few days after; headed "Entirely satisfactory." In this article we charged language to our con-frere, not used by him, and in last Saturday's Advocate the following appears:

It is not "Entirely Satisfactory."

—The Comet of this morning has the following in an article relative to a matter before mentioned in our columns:

"Several days ago, we published a brief communication asking to know the truth of certain current rumors afloat in reference to paupers voting at the recent election. The Advocate had made the charge direct, that the City Council had stricken from the pauper list, on Monday two persons who voted on Tuesday."

The assertion here made concerning this paper is absolutely and unqualifiedly untrue, and we cannot understand the motives that prompted it.—We charged that paupers were stricken from the list on Monday, and when challenged at the polls on Tuesday, did exhibit certificates of removal from the list, dated the preceding Monday—a charge we still adhere to, and dare the Comet or any one else to deny it. The City Council was not mentioned. We shall investigate the matter further.—Advocate.

We renew the assurance to our friend and neighbor, that it was far from our intention to misrepresent him in this matter. We have travelled along together through the storms of an exciting canvass, and certain it is that we cannot consent to part friendship, now that it is over, on grounds so slight as this.