Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-09-01

J.. P. JOHNSON.
 BALTIMORE, June 21, 1860.
 BALTIMORE, June 2l, 1860.
 Mr. J. P. Johnson and D. C. Cross unite in this statement explanatory of our connection with the difficulty between Col. I. C. Hlndman ana W Tn. M. Hooper, esqs.
 Mr. Cross having notified Col Hindman in writ ing of the object in view, was referred by the latter to Mir. Johnson. After an interchange of notes arranging for time and place of conference, we met at the time and place agreed on. Before any remarks by Mir. Cross, Mir Johnson said in effect that he knew what Mir Cross intended, and that he desired to inform him in advance that, as Col. Hindman's friend, he could not receive any com munication from Mr. Hooper, Col. Hlndman not recognizing Mir. Hooper as his equal. Mir Cross replied that he had duty to perform which he would not shrink from, and presented Mr. Hooper's note. Mir. Johnson declined to receive the note, but at the same time made statement verbally, which he afterwards reduced to writing, and deliv cred to Mir. Cross, as follows. (See note No. 7) The above statement is made for the public in formation, with the publication of all the cores pondence DAVID C. CROSS,
 J. P. JOHNSON.
 These notes set forth the truth of the matter, just as it took place; and, accord ing to my understanding, their publication was intended to end it, at least so far as l was concerned; for 1 certainly have not in- tended to have, nor have had, anything whatever to do with it since that time.
 But, statement from MT. J. P. John son, dated "White Sulphur, Ky, 20th July, 1S60," and making part of the pub lication in the State Rights Democrat, men toned above, introduces my name in this connection again, very unwarrantably, as 1 think, and undertakes to give a new mean ing to words used in those notes. A mean ing very different from what appears upon their face, and from what had any reason to understand from them at the time they were used.
 The part of Mir. Johnson's recent state ment to which refer, is the following:
 Col. D. C. Cross called on me and rendered me, in behalf of MT. Hooper, note addressed to Col. Hndman, demanding satisfaction. l had been au thorized previously, by Col. Hndnan, to act for him in the matter, and had been directed by him to decline receiving any communication from MT. Hooper. The reason given me by Col. Hndman for declining, and which he requested me to give to Col. Cross, was that he did not recognize Mr. Hooper as q gentleman. gave that reason to Col. Cross, in words not exactly the same, but intended by me to express exactly the same idea. The
 
 Hooper " his equa.'' These words not used by Col. Hndman, and when informed him that had used those words, hcimmediately called my attention to the difference, remarkmg that Mir. Hooper might think that he considered him his in ferior, because not holding high office. l assured Col. Hindman that the words did not admit of any such construction, and that had used them in the same sense as the words-' not c gentleman"
 After this, when Col. Cross and 1 met to agree upon a joint statement of our action in the natter Col. Hindman called Col. Cross attention to the words " not-his equal,' and remarked that their meaning was, he did not consider Mir. Hooper gentleman --. Col. Cross said Mir. Hooper would construe the words as meaning that Col. findman felt himself superior because holding seat in Con gress. Col. Hindman said such construction would be grossly ncorrec-that he did not consider himself superior to any man because of his office, as he had shown by the care taken to convince him (Col Cross,) who was also private citizen, that no dsrespect was intended him in refusing MT. Hooper's note.
 To say the least of 1t, this statement of Mr. Johnson sets forth what never took place between him, Col. Hindman, and my self. No such explanation as is here rep resented-indeed, no explanation tall was ever given to me or in my presence, either by Mr. Johnson alone, or by him and Col. Hindman together, as to what Col. Hind man meant by saying that he did not con- slider Mr. Hooper |" his equal" The only words used by either of them, either in con versation, or in the written notes, as above, to give hisr for refusing to accept the challenge, was his "not considering MT. Hooper his equal" But no explanation was made, then or at any time thereafter, by either of them as to mhy Col. Hindman did not consider Mr. Hooper his equal
 Col Hipdman did say that Mir. Hooper might think that he did not consider him his equal, because he (Hindman) was a member of Congress. He said this was not the fact, but gave no reason in my hear ing why he did not regard him as his equal, and at no time put his refusal upon the ground that Mr. Hooper was not gentle man.
 In the foregoing, which 1 would gladly have been spared, my only motive has been a sense of duty, which would not permit me to be silent, when 1 might, thereby, seem to sanction an unwarrantable use of my name in connection with such state ment as Mir. Johnson's, which is directly and strangely at variance with what know to be true.
 Such papers as have published MT. J ohn- sons card are requested, as an act ofjustice, to publish this
 DAVID c. CROSS.
 Memphis, August IS, 1860.