Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-07-28
LITTLE ROCK. JULY 27, 1860.
Fully Answered.

EUAy AuSWC10U'
 The Old Line asks "why IS 1t that Roane, Rector, Mc Creery, CarroH, Duval, Hemingway, Warren, Machell'' and others oppose the election of Col. R. H. Johnson! We will tell him. Roane desired the nomi- nation himself The editor of the Old Line seems to have been in his confidence, inas' much as he proposed Roane's name he did not think of Rector then in the Pulaski county convention instead of Col. J ohn- sons. Roane then lived here. He receiv ed only two or three votes.
 Rector is the disorganizing candidate.- Having done the very thing for which he impeaches others-having as an office holder sat in conventions-ha support ed and electioneered for Roane as the nomi- nee of caucus composed of office-holders solely-it is unreasonable to suppose that any one will give him credit for sincerity in his rigmarole about fraud and office holders in the last State convention. That disposes of him. McCreery" we are in formed is taking no part in the election.- His name was before the convention, and kept there to the last, and he is precluded from calling it corrupt As Judge Totten says, it is an insult to tell any one whose name was placed before the convention, that it was composed of corrupt mass 1t is virtually saying their friends wished to give them traudulent nomination and make them accomplices in the fraud-a fair and manly view of the matter.
 Carroll will support Johnson. Duval has invested ninety six dollars per diem in the Old Line Dem ocrat, he is therefore ex- cusable. No person wants his support Hemingway is a very respectable man, but is ilnatured and has an unfortunate proclivity for supporting Henries- Henrg NJ. Rector and Henry s. Foote for instance 1t is monomania We excuse him too WarrenW Does the Old Line mean the gentleman who so distinguished himself 1T Congress few years ago, and was excused from a reelection by his indulgent constitu ency, or does it allude to the equally noto rious individual who withdrew recently from the canvass for prosecuting attorne, because he was going to be beaten in hi own county by a much younger contestant We can assure our neighbor that both gen tlemen are quite insignificant, and like John S. Roane "played out" years ago.
 Mitchell" suppose Gen. Mitchell i meant-does not oppose Johnson. Hi name was before the convention and h' was willing to receive the nomination. Of course he would not so far stultify him self as to oppose the nominee on the ground that it was composed of " office holders, after allowing his own claims to go before those office-holders.'
 We have answered the questions of th' Old Line Democrat. Will 1t now tell Ill "why it is' that the Old Line neve thought of the "presidential canvass" til it took its cue from Hindman's address just as we predicted?
 "Why is it" that the editor of the OlC Line alludes to Col. Cypert after that gen tleman has branded him as tiar, and tht charge of favoritsm on the part of the Tru' Democrat as false?
 "Why is it" that the Old Line has tn impertincnce to speak of Johnson as being incorporate, when every one knows tha Rector has drank much more than eve Johnson did?
 When does the Old Line expect anothe remittance from " Donation Bcn?'