The Arkansas banner., 1844-10-16
: CHIEF IusTLeE RING0.


 have received from Judge Riago, in reply to our editorial. of ast week, under the head of "0fciai interfaresce." In accordance with our wish and de- termination to deal fairly with all men, we cheerful ly lav them before our readers, and thus give the Judge the full benefit of their publication, to the same exton at least, as our charge was circulated.
 As we had no pleasure in making the charge, owing 10 our personal respect and kind feeling for Judge Ringo; so we are gratifad to find that his conduct was not such as we believed, and had the best reason for believing, it to have been Yet the matter must not rest here, without few words of explanation. For, admitting the truth of Judge Ringos statement throughout, the circumstances of the case fully justified our remarks of week. and our duty to the Democratic party required us to make them. What were those circumstances ?-- When natnralized foreigners presented themselves at the polls, at the Marl1e-house precinct, in this cy their certificates of naturalization were demand cd as evidence of their qualification to vote; and in default of that evidence their oaths were refused, as inadmissible and incompetent to prove that they had been naturalized. To give single instance, this injustice was practiced upon Mir. CHARLES FISCHER, German, who is an old citizen of Little Rock, and has been regular voter for tho last ten or twelve years His vote was refused, because he did not present his certificate of naturalization; his cath to tde fact that he had been naturqlzed, was refused; and he was compelled to go home, dis lance of halfa mila and bring his certificate, When this illegal, unjust, and oppressive decision Was Pfe- tested against, Col. MERRfeK, one Of the Whig Judges proclaimed that he had obtained the opinion of the C4ief Justice and acted upon it. He did not say where or how he had obtained this opinion; but impressed the by-standers. and obviously intended 10 impress them with the belief that he had obtained t directly from the Chief Justice himself; and fur taer, that il had been so obtained, for the special purpose of being so used, on that particular ocea- sion. If Col Merric1 had then given np as he does now, lha real source from which he had obtained the opinion; or fl Hr. Bertrand, who was bis au- thorty had stated the circumstances under which l il had been expressed, no one would have thought of ceasuriag Judge Rngo. Neither i1as donc how ever; but Col. aJerricl to the minds of all who heard him, was, and obviously designed to be, in the attitude Of one Hhe had been in close communion with the Chief Justice; and then, by authority, pro claimed the decisive opinion ef the Supreme Court. l Moreover, if the decision of the election Judges, based as t protassed to be- apon he opinion of the Chief Justice, had been such aa Col AIemcl, his letter, Hor states t to have been, no one would have thought of complaining al it. for no one asked any thing more Ali that was demanded was that the cath Of the applicant should be received as evidence of his naturalization. II was admitted on eU hands that ha best evidence of naturalization was the cer- tifcate; but it was conended, by the Democrats, that it WIS not the only evidence and that, in is absence, the oath of the applicant was admissible and competent evidence of the fact of naturalization We repeat that if this had been admitted, by Col. Nerficl, at the polls, no one would have com pained for no one would have lost his vote. Bat this was not admitted by Col. Merriels On the contrary he denied ii; basing his denial upon the alleged opinion of the Chief Justice-that the oath of the applicant was not admissible evidence; and, consequently, several Democrats lost their votes, at that precinct
 It will be perceived that there is material dis erepaney-a direct and palpahe contradiction, in- deed, between the statement, of Judge Riugo's opinion, as made by Col. Merrck at the polls, and as now given in his subioined letter. With this contradiction We have nothing to do, except to pointit out to the consideration ofthose who heard the one and now have an opportunity of reading the other.
 If, ia all this, Judge Ringo has been unfairly brought before the public, and unjustiy censured lte owes t. not 10 as but to those who, in violation of the sanetity of social intercourse and, to serl vile party purposes, have improperly exposed, aud grossly misrepresented his private opinions. We took him, as represented by those who are generally understood to be his political and personal friends and we treated him accordingly. Our censure is withdrawn, not from the conduct We condemned last week. for that was justly censurable hut iron Judge Ringo individually, since it appears that k did not perpetrate it In this conneXion, we know of no one who has better cause to exelaim-sssay, me from my f'ieads"
 LITTLE Rock, Oct. IL. l94l