Arkansas democratic banner., 1851-07-08
A FalseAeeA Arkneuladrea.

We have often known men convicted of stating what was false upon the testimony of their fellows, but that man should go deliberately to work 10 prove himself guilty of such charge. involves contradiction in terms. that we must explain
 The Editor Of the whg repeating from the Van Buyeu Inseligencer. although he made the asser- tion al first as if from his own knowledge put forth the following mputation:
 "Sorne of them (Johnson's friends before the Convention had assembled, were bold and reckless enough to avow that, in the event Of eny aspiruai getting the nomination. Savc the Hon. K. W, Johnson, that they would not support him, but on the contrary, use ali the means and influences they were master of to defeat ha before the peo- pie
 We pronounced this declaration false and de6ed the Whig or IntelIigencer to name any Democrat who had made such an avowsl. The Whig already in concert, 1t would seem with hls diSorganizing friend says in his ReigAbOrly way to us. "Haye you recollection of il, neighbor; you surely pos sess very treacherous memory. Your forgeful- ness raises an issue of veracity between yourself and those witnesses in whose presence the dec iaration was made"
 ! He then promised testimony of the fact. We AdltSu WILL S1sAS PdtfCiiCc tO SGC NNV ttJSc Gu- Resses'' were, who heard us say what we never thought, dreamed or uttered as we well knew.-- When 10 thess pitnesses appeared in the last Whig and who does the reader suppose "they weres' why Geo. W Clarke, (and nothing shorten under his own signature sends certificate to K. C. Farelly stating that we would not vote for hisa ] tClaTke) even if nominated by convention, and this Farelly mpudently parades as an excuse for perpetrating what any plain spoken man would certainly designate as a lie.
 Fsrelly asks Clarke Tive ever said that we would support no other nominee for Congress than John son, and Clarke interruptions as he IS in some things, when il comes to private conversation to which Borland called ty Aimself as ,ritaess, does not vary from the fact but can only make out the following statement "I was informed he (Rear dom had declared that, in the event of the nomi- nation of myself for Congress, he would not SUD- port me, and asked him for an admission or denial of the truth of the statement. He admitted 1t was true; and when asked what pretext he would offer for his course, he replied Upon the ground that there are too many proxies in the Convention" 1 We will not discuss now with Gen. Clarke the truth of his last assertion. We only desire to show that his colleague has fallen into dsgrace- fui error. This assertion then made by the editor of the Whig so peremptorly, and from which he expected to make so much capital, to give it the most charitable construction, IS but a confused remembrance of prioale cOnrerSation with 'tHese scitnesses." And who were they Why Geo. W. Clarke, and most unfortunately nov he declines to indorse the - slight prevarication. The edi- tor of the Whig when he published Clarkes letter, evidently felt that he not on safe ground, and commenced sort of iaek-leg lawyer plea, beg gng the question in this wise:
 "The wiley Editor perchance may attempt to clear himself by bubble: that he never declared that he would not support Gny Gspirant getting the nomination. but that he would not support George W. Clarke"
 Why we said all the lime through the Banner and every where as appears from Clarke's letter. that we would support aay body but hia whom the Convention might nominate-numbers of the Ban ner wil show 1t. It is great trial to have to con test truth with one who has no fixed ideas of right and wrong and believing that it is time mis- spent we shall certainly make this the last effort to imp,ant any consciousness in the editor Of the Whig or his eonfrere of the Intelllgencer