Arkansas intelligencer., 1845-11-15
IiiE ARKANSAS BANNER.

II
and mn, coulinue this foolish quarre'
ais.d by The Banner. or if We are LED 10 '''"
do 80 shortly.
The Editor Of tha, paper has mesed ou' W u,
in his sheet Of the 5lh inst, his usual qu'"''"
abuse, uddiug to the epshess already oes'0"e" y"
u. , fsv new ones. They hurt us no'-ou' 'o"
.c;enco is clear, our democracy un'a'h'e'' NV
we eanno. be s,ung IN any point; but 'hey ~ 10,
:, ,,ove that the editor Of the Banner has se'''o
40 long in the changing school OF Po'''cs ''"' w
b,s forpo,,en the rules which require sep''e'a"
10 hearing towards all antagonists. In MS '"''
,obored efor, to screen his political deI'n q"en''e'
BY history of his schooI.boy days he s"e"' +"
The W orId tha. he has been probed to the qu'e"'
,ba, he is no. only Vulnerable ln the heel oo' a's'
in the heart. Else. why his abusive parogr'P"
concerning our editorials, and the vulgar COCK
fighters jareon which he uses to 'njure the name
which stands at the head of the Pira'ical lnsesen'
CERT" Such language demonstrates 10 all that his
argument is forsake n, and tha, by personally a.
busing US he u. once ,aci,ly acknowledges his de-
mocracy not unstaned, that though claiming
mos. urrog an,ly toto be the "Organ OF the de-
mocra,ic party his robe is not free from DARK
linz spots. Our columns, thanks to our better
bringing up and our unwavering democracy, is
no, polluted by uny such billingsgase-and more
over never shall be.
The Banner mos, pervertngy still continues its
vain and untrue charge that we commenced TINS
controversy. What say tie facts TO the people
who are not only our judges but our uphoders!
Did no, the Bauner and its correspondents COM
mence this controversy? Has not that paper 's-
pecialIy devoted it columns to carrying on this
controversy. and abuse of us personally for disa.
greeing and opposing its arrogant assump'''ns'-
To whom but them is the party indebted for the
feeling and bckerng which they have origin
a,ed agans. the social relations Of that party 5
membersl Go back, democrats Of Arkansas, to
tho columns Of the last ten or twelve Banners and
then answer the question. Bu; it has already
been answered: the people have condemned by o.
pen expression the Banners conduct, and it is fast
losing the coun,enauce and support Of the ma jor.
ty of the democratic party. The crime--and it is
almost as heinous as notification heresy-of en-.
deavoring to sacrifice distinguished parlisans, and
the will Of the people to elude, in order to promote
the selfish ends of self.loving nspirants. lies at
No dee- L~. ~. chat ur ,,ro Daun1r. Tnls Is
truth, plain. undeniabe and known truth. The
Banner worked so zonlousy against the Times
g. Advocate and followed that nnti.democratc,
gen.lemanly sheet so far, that he has no, yet
returned-he is pursuing precisely the course Of
Weller, whom he so holly denounced.
And who is this editor that, as one in authority
he denounces us. declares US "worthless" "pirates'
".Fai:ors', heaps upon US ephcts Of contnmelyl
Is he one who has within his breast the glowing
wish for the prosperity and honor of his country
his party' Is he one who ha. set his faith up
on the gloriou, landmarks of freedom, which fai,t
lends us to select and rely upon the mcn who car
best represent and defend the glory of Arkansas
Is he one who earns his bred rs we do. bv the
honest and trueheurted expression Of opinion,
that conform to the will of the mn njority? No: he
is hired by sect to fight its battles. by selfish de
agogues to sound their praise. 10 trun,- No''"
their Fictitious claims to high OFF, '"oSe o''ces
Lii, .;r,,,r- nut for th.Si Iucrativeness. He
!. .ohas enlisted under the petty pennon of
selfish clique. And what defence has he brought
to the charge which re here first have made, of
being actually engaged in the unholv work of
burning his image, whoma nation n,ourns, whose
memory is shrined in the great American heart
Andrew Jncksonl Is i; clear open deniaI1 M.
Is it frank confession followed by recan,a,,on
of the damning heresy, "which claimed tho rich,
for minority TO rule the majority! No. Is it
a good defence! No. According to his own
words, tho editor of the Banner began his jack
'onsm IN 'lS%2', he says it i, of ",weuty.one
years standing" "fashiosing with his own
hands number Of Jackson cockades;" but h.,
docs not tell US of 1928, of the work tb,, he
then dd-when, according 10 his own showing. bo
was full grown man. Was this an inten,;o,,
or accidental discrepancy The Banner ed;,o,,.
Jacksohism bsgun in 1922, If j, is of twen,v.on.
years Standing, but his notification A,o he c,,
ried in 1882. He did not make jackson cor.
ades' in 1882. for his Jncksoni.m is OF .,ws,,v
one years standing. hnt he never denied I'm, h,