The Arkansas banner., 1844-04-03

cause he was not Mason.
 Such IS a faithfuI accoast of my relations to masonry-am institution which has cofIi- prised some of the most eminent men of our country, dead and living. presume that the experience of many men has been-like my own--that, as we advance Tn lie, we cease to take any interest ill attending such institutions.
 In. the sentiments of love of country, of obedience to it's laws, of acknowledgment of their paramount obligation, and ot devotion to our free institutions, by which all ought to be, and understand Anti-3iasons are, anlma- ted, most heartily and cordially concur"
 We call upon any man, we care not for his poli- ties, fine be candid, and capable of appreeiatinS consistency of conduct, and ndindependence of charac ter,-we call upon any such man, to compare this humble confesson this faithful account of his do- ings with Masonry, with his high spirited, manly, independent answer, to similar inquiries in 1881 L What is the inference? Then, while he thought the Anti-Masons were too weak to do him harm, he boldly told them he owed them no responsibility for his opinions on that subject, and would not compfo- mise his ''personal independence" by giving them any answer at all. Upon this he claimed credit and applause, for his iadepeadeace and he tcas applaud ed orit to the very echo" But, for this, the Anz ti- Masons prevented his nomination for the Pfesl- deney, by the Harrisburg Convention; and, 1t Is very evident he sagely apprehends-or basely fears that they hold similar fate in store for him. Tn the ensuing Baltimore Convention So, they must be conciliated L,dependeace-sel -respect-manly dig IA 4l 4l,,E, froay yaIio and respect is forgotten, disregarded Every tlng is sacrificed as have before said, for the smost sweet voices of the once despised, but now dread ed Anti Masons So, we find him humbly answer ing all their questions grossly hatterng all their pre- tensions to patriotism, and, then, worse than all meany striving to decry and depreciate an lnsttu- ton which had cherished him. man, through the best days of his life, and to which he had clung, like base parasite until he found he could notperyert its sacred principles to the unholy purposes of his po- htical advancement.
 If, for his independence in refusing to answer the Anti. Masons in the first instance, Mir. Clay deserY ed honor and applause, what does he deserve, now, for answering similar questions, and thus, according to his own declaration forfeitng his "personal in dependence ?' Then, he was independent and hone- rable, and received applause! No,c, for obviously selfish and sordid purposes, with all the abectness of slave, he not only answers questions which, he had already declared, he could not answer at all, without forfeiting his epersonal independence" but, with black ingrattude he seeks to cast scorn and contumely upon the venerable Institution whose honors and benefits he had enjoyed for many years, because, forsooth, he found that he couldnot com nit the foul sin of converting it into political en- zine. What does he deserve for this? We repeat our inquiry-if Mir. Clay deserved honor and ap- plause for refusing to answer the Anti Masons, in l83I,-what does he deserve, ao10, for answering them? The upright mind--we care not for its poIi- tics-but, the upright mind has but one answer to this inquiry; and that is-he has forfeited the re- spect and confidence of every honest man.
 In contemplating such picture, we may well exelaim-'sIIow hath the mighty fallen ?!