Des Arc citizen., 1860-07-25
THE ARKANSAS CONTEST.
STATEMENT OF THE REGULAR DELEGATES.
BALTIMORE, June 20, l

Democratic COnUentaon..
 SIR: On behalf of the regular delegates from Arkansas, beg leave to submit thls statement of the facts that prove thelr rIght to seats in the body over which you pre- side. lI !,
 Pursuant to the call of the State Central Committee. whose authority IS not ques- toned the Democratic State Convention of Arkansas met, at Little Rock, on April 2d. 1886, to nominate a candidate for Gov- ernor. and candidates for Electors, and to appoint Delegates to the Democratic Ns- tional Conventions The Delegates ap- pointed were the following:
 J. P. JOHNSON, F. A. TERRY,
 N. B. BURROW. JNO: A, JoRp a15H ". H. MANNING, F: " H0ADLEl e,sgg 1t Al T. D. FLOURNoY, JNO. l. SHERMAN All the above named Delegates attend- ed the Charleston Convention, and were adpitted-a clear recognition of the reg ularity of their appointment. When the resolutions known as the "MaJorIty Flat form were voted down, J. P. Johnson N. B. Burrow, V. H. Manning. ' A. Terry, Jno. A. Jordan and F. w.. load lev. withdrew from the convention, while T. B. Flournoy and John l. stlrman re- mained.
 Immediately after the adjournment Of the Charleston Convention, I. 5. Flour nov issued an address to the Democracy ot Arkansas, appealing to them, and to the Central Committee to call another State Convention to appoint delegates to baltI- more. J..P. Johnson also issued an ad- dress, affirming that the seeding delegates would be entitled to seats at Baltimore unless displaced by the regular conventions of the Democracy. These addresses were published generally, if not universally, by the press of the State, but not until about the last of May, when it. was too late for assembling another State Convention, No new State Convention was held, and no call was made by the Central Committee.
 May 14, 1860. the Democratic Con- ventions ofthe two Congressional Districts met, at Dover and Philadelphia respective ly, pursuant to adjournment of the Con gressional Conventions of 1S5S. The Do- yer Convention Gin the first, or Northern District, ) unanimously endorsed the course of the delegates who seeded at Charles ton, and requested N. B. Burrow to attend the Baltimore Convention and take his seat there ;-he being the only one Of the seeding delegates resident in that Dis trict. The Dover Convention also appoint ed De Rosey Carroll and T. c. Hindman, (hers present. and N. B. Pearce (ab- sent, as co-delegates with N. B. Burrow.
 The Philadelphia Convention, Gin the second, or Southern District,) also unani- mously endorsed the course of the Seced- ing Delegates, and requested those of them resident in that District to attend the Bal timore Convention and take their seats there-to wit: J. P. Johnson, V. H. Man hing, Jno. A. Jordan and F. W. Hoadey, (here present, and r. A. Terry, (absent. The Philadelphia Convention also appoint ed R. W. Johnson and Josiah Gould (there present, and Thomas Fletcher and j. H. Hobson absent,) as co-delegates with the others.
 All the fifty-fve counties of the State were represented in these two District Conventions.
 It thus appears that the delegates ap' pointed by the regular Democratic organi. zation of Arkansas, and here present, arc the following:
 J. P. JOHNSON, F. W. HOADLEY, J. A. JORDAN, DE R. CARROLL, V. II. MANNING, JOSIAH GOULD, T. B. FLOURNOY, R. ". JOHNSON, J. I. SHERMAN, T. c. HINDMAN.
 Full documentary proofs of the facts hereinbefore stated have been duly filed
 The above named delegates have all agreed that there shall be no contest, as between themselves, for seats, and that they will act as one delegation; with the further understanding that ifno more than eight can be admitted, under the rule, then T. R. Flournoy, Jno. I. Stirman, and six of the others shall constitute the delegation on the floor.
 The right of all the above named dele gates to seats, except T. B. Flournoy and John I. Stirman, is contested by Thomas H. Bradley, David c. Cross and William RI. Hooper, as representing a so-caled "mass meeting of the Democracy of the first district" held at the town of Madison in St. Francis county, on June l3, 1860. The following summary of the admission made by these contestants, show how ut- terly unfounded and absurd their preten- sions.
 l. They state that their meeting was called only about one month before the day on which 1t was held--a notice bare- ly long enough for township meeting, and manifestly insufficient for meeting pretending to speak the voice of the whole State, and 10 override the action of the regular State and District Conventions, which is really the claim set up by these however inconsistent it may seem with their assumed title of ' dele gates for the first district" .
 2. They state that their "call" was made by no duly authorized committee, repre- sentipg any regular organization, but by persons of four or five counties, represent ing themselves only.
 3. No copy of tbis "call' is produced. but its contents and the names of the sign CTS are stated from memory by the contes- tants. Of these alleged signers, at least