The Arkansas Advocate

THE STATE-HOUSE AGAIN.
Mr. Sevier's understrapper, in his last paper, declares that the State-house has NOT STOPPED FOR WANT OF FUNDS, NOR FROM ANY OTHER CAUSE, and showers upon the Editor of the Advocate all the abuse and foul slang he is master of, because he had said (what is true) that "THE BUILDING HAS CEASED TO PROGRESS FOR WANT OF FUNDS." In our last paper, we noticed this subject at some length, and referred the public, for the correctness of our statement, to two gentlemen of this town, who live in the neighborhood of the site selected for the building. They have since politely furnished us with the following letter. Let the public read it, and decide which is the "LYING ORGAN" the Advocate or the Gazette.

"Little Rock, July 4th, 1833.
MR. BERTRAND—Reference having been made to us, in your paper of yesterday, for the correctness of your statement relative to the progress of the State-house, we have only to say, that we have had an opportunity of viewing, daily, the progress of the State-house, and, until within the last two or three weeks, it appeared to advance rapidly, but DURING THAT PERIOD. there has been a COMPLETE SUSPENSION OF THE WORK UPON THE BUILDING; the cause of that suspension, we are not positively apprised of, but have been told by those who HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED ABOUT THE BUILDING, that it is for WANT OF FUNDS.
Respectfully,
JOHN H. COCKE.
B. W. LEE."

Drs. Cocke and Lee say, unequivocally, that for the last two or three weeks, "there has been a complete suspension of the work upon the building," and that "those who have been employed about the building," have told them that "it is for want of funds." At a gathering on Saturday last, in Saline township, Dr. Cocke was referred to, and he made the same declaration, in the presence of Mr. Sevier. If we have not been misinformed, Mr. Sevier himself, on the same occasion, admitted that there was a scarcity of funds!!

What will Woodruff say to the letter given above? Dare he deny the truth of the statements therein contained? We guess not. He would rather be excused. He knows they are true, and that it would not be altogether safe to give them a denial.

One who is not acquainted with Woodruff, to hear him talk of "sense of shame," "honor," &c. would never suppose that he had been guilty of direct and corrupt Perjury, and that it could be proven in a court of justice.