Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-12-28

on .oInt ballot were in favor of the election of Judge Sebastian. By these resolution was adopted admitting know nothings who represented democratic counties, to seats
 m the caucus. Col. Hindman says this was concocted Tn the private Sebastian caucus then contering with know nothings That he invited democrats to his room to see them, and that wien they came out oi the caucus room some turned their heads, others put hat or handkerchief before their faces to keep from being recognized that he then made them speech as they passed out-that Dick Johnson was not tar olf-that he appealed to Johnson to de- nounce through the True Democrat, Judge Sebastian anu these democrats who were then closeting with know nothings-that Dick Johnson folded his arms and walking of replied, "Col. Hindman am neutral Tn this fight" that he then told Johnson: " Here we separate, you can take that road and l this; my bridges are cut and my ships are burned' Then, Col. Hind- man says, the war commenced, and says it was commenced against him because he could not shut his eyes, close his lips and double lock his mouth while the sacred principles of democracy were being huck- stered away by that amalgation caucus
 l disapprove the action of the legislative caucus of Nov. the 9th, as violation of democratic precedent and principle. What, however, are the facts in this connection? The men who adopted that resolution were Sebastian's friends, and comprised ma jority of the democrats of the legislature. Why did they adopt this resolution? It must have been because they honestly, as they said, believed know nothings repre- sentlng democratic constituents, should, on account of the democrats they represent ed, be admitted. This, though, as l think, an error, must have been an error of the head, because there was no advantage to have been gained for their candidate by the course-they, having majority of the democrats ot the legislature, could certainly elect their candidate and need not cast about for more strength to do what they additional strength. The anti Sebastian men who were acting under the leadership of Col. Hindman, believed then, as he does now, that the adoption of this resolution was great outrage upon democratic prin- ciples; yet, notwithstanding theyso believed they acted with the caucus and supported the nominee thereof, thereby giving their aid to the establishment of an " outrageous precedent " for the future government of the party. Who then should be held most culpable? The friends of Sebastian who committed an error of the head, without any impure motive as an inducement; or Col. Hindman and his friends who, know ing 1t to be an outrage, gave it their indorse- ment.
 z But Col. Hindman cannot give the action of the legislative caucus or the Sebastian caucus as the cause of his war on Judge Sebastian; for another reason than the one above spoken of-which is this-Col Hind man made speech to an Sebastian caucus which was held prior to either the legislative or the Sebastian caucus, making war on Sebastian and eXpress.l himself willing to support any one of the aspirants who could be shown available and, not be- lieving any one then before the caucus available, he introduced new candidate to the caucus to see if all the opposition to Sebastian would unite on him. The truth is, and l suppose 1t will not be denied, the | Colonel was opposed to the reelection of Sebastian before the legislature convened, and, from his action so soon as he arrived at Little Rock, every man must think one of the objects of his lobby membership was to defeat Sebastian for the Senate Col. | Hindman's prostituting the influence with which he was clothed as the representative in Congress of the first congressional dis trict to influence State legislation, not only as to who should be the Senator in Con- gress, but as to who should be swamp land agent in the Helena district; as to whether a bill should be passed losing to Arkansas six months of her representation in Con- gross, and gerrymandering the first con gressional district, and other interference with the legislation of this State, is more objectionable than the action of the caucus and calculated to lead to worse conse- qucnces, if established as precedent
 He says he drafted the Macon resolutions when q lobby member to the legislature, and asked if approved them. He says Jefferson interfered with the Kentucky leg islature when he drafted the Kentucky re- solutions and used the influence of his name to get them passed, and wanted to know if 1 condemned him. The facts are, resi- dent of the State of Kentucky was on a visit to Mr. Jefferson at Monticello, during l Mr. Adams administration, and at the time the alien and seditiOn laws were being ex- ecuted with so much severity upon men who were opposed to the federal party At the earnest solicitation of Mr. Nicolas, (Mr. Jeferson's visitor,) Mir. Jefferson agreed to draw up the memorable resolu tions for Mr. Nicolas, he wanting to intro- duce them to the then succeeding Kentucky | legislature. Mr. Jefferson would not agree | however to draft the resolutions until Mr. Nicolas pledged himself positively that no | living man should ever know from him that Mir. Jefferson was the father of the resolu- tions. Though the resolutions were intro- duced and passed through the legislature, 1t was not known for twenty years after wards, and not until after the death of Mr. Nicolas-and then from Mr. Jefferson him. l self, who the author of the resolution were Now 1t strikes me Col. Hindman does not  compare with Thomas Jefferson, as he would have us believe now in the case cited Jefferson did not use the influence of his posi- tion to warp the legislation as Col. Hindman did-the latter was not only known as the father of some of these measures but was on the ground working for them. The member to the legislature is informed or instructed as the wishes of the people, and is responsi ble to his constituency for his conduct, aside | from his oath of office The lobby mem- Der, on the other hand, is not instructed, is not responsible, is not sworn, and when the influence with which he is clothed for other purposes is prostituted to warp State legislation, it is not only in violation of all right, but acting in bad faith to those who clothed him with this power. As Col. Hindman cited precedent to sustain him, although it failed it will not be amiss to cite a few acts of this character. The ad- ministration of the elder Adams has always in the opinion of the world been held re- sponsible for the alien and sedition laws; the history of the country now shows it to have been the result of Alexander Hamil- tons lobby membership to the Congress of l a1