Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-01-25
Another !" Yiator" Trick.

In N0VemDer last, the nOnOraDle Dy courtesy, T. c. Hindman made speech at Pocahontas. After which, he wrote an account or synopsis of it, presented the same to MT. Martin, editor of the Herald, to be published as an editorial This the editor declined doing, and gives his reasons for so declining in these words:
 Col. T. c. Hindman Again.
 On our first page can be found an edito- rial synopsis of Col. T. c. Hindman's speech, delivered at this place on the 24th of last November.
 We publish this because we have been requested to do so, and not because we think it will injure Hindman, politically; for we believe him to be politically dead, without the hopes of resurrection; nor do we believe that it will go farther to con- vince the thinking people of northeast Arkansas, that he is the author of the "Niator letters," for we believe that all such, think with us in that respect, and we have never had any other belief, than, that the redoubtable Col. was the author of them, and never shall, though our name sake of Helena should swear he did the deed, before all the clerks, magistrates and clergymen in all Arkansas, and why? For the simple reason, that 1t is not his style" of writing, but Hindman's, and another reason for my believing it, is that the same man, who wrote the communication to the Old Line Democrat, in which Hindman's success in Randolph was so over-rated, over the signature of "Old Democrat" was also the author of the Viator letters, and we are very certain that Col. Martin did not pen that, and also are we as certain that Hinbman did; and why? Because, if we are not much mistaken, and we think we are not, at the time it was penned, our friend Martin, was out on "bu@" whilst our volumnious Col. was closeted-with no other companion, save pen, ink and paper-writing the editorial synopsis of his speech for the Randolph Herald, and also Old Democrats communication to the o. l.. D., or at least, such is our firm convic- tion, founded on circumstantial evidence.
 Our reasons for not adopting Elindman's editorial were eight fold, viz:
 First: We always write our own edito- rial.
 Second: We were not Hindmanwise in clined, and did not wish to appear so, as we should have done, had we adopted 1t; as all can see
 Third: We did not feel willing to assist in the abuse of such man as our Execu- tive, E. N. Conway
 Fourth: We did not wish to make peo- pie believe we were, what we are not.
 F'ifth We did not feel willing to do Hindman's dirty work
 Sixth We did not solicit 1t, and did not wish to have anything to do with it.
 Seventh: We did not believe the half, consequently declined.
 Eighth: Because speech and synopsis did not agree.
 The speech, as written out by Hindman himself, is before us. It Is the same series of misstatements, bold charges, unblush- ing falsehoods and general denunciations, that formed the staple of all his harangues. First, the caucus that nominated Sebastian Wltn reference to soiho Scoios caucus HeIu on Saturday night, which, if a secret thing, was so public that Hindman knew all about it. It is remarkable that he pretermits all reference to the secret caucus held in the U. s. circuit court room, over which he presided. Next, he bounces Mir. Wood ward, whom he declares to be hirelinQ "h hired with money" to abuse and villify him. Here too. he forgets ts state that