Des Arc citizen., 1859-03-04

provement on parliamentary law, decided
 the demand tout of order v That de-
 cision compelled those present to vote in
 favor of all the resolutions, or against all.
 The record shows that eighty-eight mem-
 bers voted Those eighty-eighi took up
 the 9th resolution embodying the two
 thirds rule, a mere policy--and weighed
 1t, as il were, against the other resolutions,
 containing principle. Thirly-three of
 them found that principle oulweghed pol
 icy, and therefore voted for all the reso-
 lutions. Flfty-Gve of them, on the other
 hand, were induced, by the insidious arli-
 fees of their leaders, 10 decide that poli- ey was more ponderous than principle, and therefore voted against all the resolutions
 repudiatng principles which they pro-
 policy they objected to. This was the ex- panation their leaders gave at the time.
 But even that tattered and tridng fig leaf of an apology was torn from them at the next instant, by further test. A Sen ator .Mr. Hammond, of H1t Spring ) offered this abbreviation of the Baxter resolutions :--
 RESOLVED, That we, as representing the
 Democracy of Arkansas, do cordially endorse the well-known principles of the Cincinnati
 Platform.
 RESOLVED, That none except good and true Sates-R Rights Democrats should be admitted into Democratic Convention or Caucus.
 RESOLVED, That a majority of thls conyen- tion shall nominate candidate for United States Senator.
 These Hammond resolutions were en- tirely free from the objection urged against the Baxter resolutions, for they proposed the majority rule instead of the two-thirds rule. But they endorsed the Cincinnati platform and excluded all except good and true Stale-rights Democrats" Their adoption would have vacated the seats in shecaucus held by Know Nothings and pisorganizers. That would have viola Ted the secret Sunday-night agreement; it would have dissolved the coalition and divorced the loving fusionists, not only from bed and board, but even from the bonds of amalgamation. However much the !" Hards," or Old Line Democrats, might have desired this divorce, the !" Softs' and their opposition allies would by no means consent to it, The Ham, mond resolutlons--includng the National Democratic platform, the convention sys- tenn and the majority rule--were there fore murdered in cold blood and cast into the same grave with the Baxter resolu- tions. They were unceremoniously voted down, or, as the Secretary mournfully re- cords the fact, they were lost" At the same time and by the same act, the title of that caucus 10 consideration as Demo- cratic body was also '" lost"-never to be regained until Lucifer and his angels are taken back in Paradise.
 The subsequent action fully explains what have related, and is the key to the fate of the Baxter and Hammond resolu ions; key with which the door of the Sunday-night caucus may readily be un- locked and all its hidden plottngs ex- posed to view. Let us use 1t for that pur- pose.
 The Grffin resolution, changed in form but not in effect. and with new resolu- ion attached 10 it as an amendment, was read and adopted as follows:
 RESOLVED, That all questions to be deter mined by this convention shall be determined md decided by majority of all democratic members of the Legislature, or those who rep 'esent Democratic counties and are pledged to support Democrat for United States Senator.
 RESOLVED, That this being merely Dem- ,cratic Caucus to nominate candidate for United States Senator, we will not consider f,,t. .lfaa Alatf fn ,ratic constituents, being not so authorized to act.
 The amendment, or second resolution, al first reading, like au honest confession of political incompetency. We'll night such confession be made Well night tue leaders in the caucus, who had quilt such ricketty piece of patchwork or themselves and their friends, acknowl- ,dge their inability to construct a platform or others But that is not the true meaning It's meaning is that the caucus ,oted down the Baxter and Hammond resolutions, because not authorized to ,dopt platform. The inference from his is, that no platform IS binding unless Idopted in pursuance of express insruc- ions. If that be so, then the Democratic party of the United States Is at this mo. nent without any platform whatsoever, or 1t is fact that the delegates to our laional conventions have never been spe- ;ially empowered to lay down platform. We are then reduced 10 the necessity ol ,eiecting the National Democratic plat orm, or repudiating the caucus of No ;ember 9th. Truly, sad dilemma to be placed in, if the Democracy of those who managed the caucus is admitted, but otherwise no dilemma al all. The fact is hat the amendment is a mere bllnd--an rlhought--concocted to hide the enor- nity of voting down the Baxter and Ham, nond resolutions and to cover up the out age of admitting Know Nothings and Osofganizers. Every intelligent voter n the State will sec this al once, when ie observes that while the amendment so ,tudiously disclaims all authority 10 adopt | platform, the Griffin resolution, to which | is attached, actually does adopt a plat orm, al the very same time--the before lnheard-of platform of Know Nothings md Disorganizing equality in Democratic ,aucuses and conventions. Canvass the history of our party--disentomb the rec ,rds of all it's assemblies-Scan those rec