Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-02-23

ways some odium has been attempted to be attached to us by reason of 1t. In fact, it was an extra legislative proceeding and one with which no outsider hadAany right to interfere, much less to attempt to con trol. We take the occasion to say here, distinctly and emphatically, that whoever charged us, or the then sole editor of this paper with having suggested, proposed, or in any manner being concered in getting up the caucus, speaks falsely Those who so charge, also assert that we did so for the benefit of Mr. Sebastian. Now, as it was known that he had majority, it was, obviously, the policy of his friends to dis pense with caucus if possible. Thus, one false assertion of our enemies disproves the other. To return. By whom got up we neither know or care. If the members chose to hold a caucus 1t was peculiarly their own business-was in accordance with democratic usage and matter which should have been left entirely to themselves. For ourselves, we knew, as did everybody, that the contest lay between Messrs. Hampstead and Sebastian and between these two gen tlemen the True Democrat expressed no preference.
 It was known, before the assembling ot the legislature that Mr Sebastian was the strongest, but, it was supposed, that if the opposition to him could be made to unite on one man, that they could run him close | lv. From the commencement of the ses sion till the night of the caucus, the friends of the different aspirants. were active and held frequent meetings The minority was most active as minorities usually are; their first error was in submitting themselves to be mustered and drilled by an outsider.- They were told, in substance C Gentlemen, tie to me-I can defeat the ma iority-here's head for you, let me alone to circumvent them, trust to me and all will be safe. .'- After long and frequent consultations the tactics to be adopted by the minority were understood to be decided upon. On the night of the caucus they appeared, muster ed by their self constituted General who had promised them glorious victory, to be gained by series of brilliantly conceiv- ed maneuvers. Aid-de-camps were ready to carry orders from the general to his sub alterns Mr. Griffin offered a resolution adopting the majority rule. Mir. Baxter offered substitute consisting of q series of resolutions which were understood to con- tain the policy of the minority. They were as follows:
 1St. Resoloed That we, as representing the democracy of Arkansas, do cordially ndorse the well-known principles and po- licy of our party, and fully approve that ancient, well-established and invaluable de- mocratic usage, the convention system.
 70. Resoloed, That none except good and true State rights democrats should be admitted into a democratic convention or caucus, and we refuse to recognize any man as democrat who was elected in opposi- tion to a regular democratic nominee, or who failed, unless providentially prevented ito vote for the nominee of the democra- cy of his district for Congress at the Au- gust election, 1858.
 3d. Resolued, That we deem this a suit able occasion for declaring that whatever may be the result of this caucus-we con demn and repudiate any and all appeals by democratic aspirants to know nothlngs or disorganizers for support.
 4h Resolped, That we will not go into the election of United States Senator, un til after nomination has been made ac- cording to our party usages and precedents.
 5h. Resolved That as to the number of votes necessary to a nomination, the same rule shall be in force in this caucus that governed the caucus of 1852, which nom- mated a candidate for the senatorial seat for which this caucus is about to nominate a candidate, to-wit: the two-thirds rule.
 The first of these was well enough per haps, but unnecessary, because mere legis- lative caucus was not the place to lay down platform.
 The second was rather mixed. We be- Heved then and do now, that none but de- mocrats should be admitted to take part in a democratic caucus. No matter if they represented democratic counties, for if such counties send up opposition members they must expect to lose their right to represen- tation in bodies exclusively democratic.- And by adopting this the majority would not have lost anything, for as many know nothing votes were cast against their can didate as for him. The next branch of the resolution, as well as the third resolution, was one that involved some difficultv.- And we can speak freely on this subject because our opinions on 1t are well known Throughout the late canvass we urged union of the democracy upon their nomi nees and repeatedly indorsed and defended the convention system. We expect to do so during the next canvass and especially to war upon disorganizers. We are not only in favor of voting against them, but, if they subsequently, sought office, would hold it to be a good argument to be used against them In this case the difficulty was in determining who were the disorgani- gers. Who was to be the judge? In some counties there had been no nominations and democrats had beaten democrats. Were these men disorganizers? In others two conventions had been held and the nomi- | nee of one had beaten the nominee of the | other. Was the first convention to be con- sidered the proper one? Evidently this would not do, for, in the congressional race, in one county three conventions were held. First, the friends of particular candidate called a convention and when 1t met, it instructed for another man. Hear ing this, the aspirant went there, made