Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-07-21
1.-THE TRUE ISSUE.

he repudiates the action of the late State Convention, to-wit: that Col R. H. John son, did not fairly and leg;timotely oJtain majority of Me votes represented in said l Conpention" Remember that M;s IS the "TRUE ISSUE '" according to the Old Line Democrat, and that we, so far from divert ing attention from it will eagerly accept it without lodging. the estimation of hair. |" The O. l.. D.-tries to sustain its posi- tion by the following reasons:
 l First--Betause the fraudulent vote of Van Buren county was given to Johnson. Secondly Because the vote of Benton county was given to him.
 Thirdly - Because the vote of Greene county was given to him on second ballot. Fourthly-Because the vote of Lawrence county was cast for him. after the first choice of that county (Maj. Flournoy) had withdrawn.
 Have we stated the points fairly !? have we sought to divert attention from them ? But to give the Old Line faction the benc- fit of every objection urged, we will add one of Judge Rector's.
 Fifthly Because the vote of Fulton county, whose democracy had instructed their delegates to vote for Mir. Flournoy, and who had expressed no second choice, was improperly, most shamefully. " out rageously," and 'corruptly' cast for Hon. Thomas Fletcher, by T. c. Peek, the proxy of that county.
 l. Then we have FIVE reasons, which are considered sufficient to warrant repudia- tion of the largest Convention ever held in the State let us examine them. In answer 10 the first objection, we have this to say, that if the vote of Van Buren county had been necessary to Johnson $ nomination. its being fraudulenty given would vitiate such nomination, exactly as fraudulent vote, which elects candidate to office, would annul his election: and that. if the vote of Van Duren county was not necessary to .Johnson's nomination, he receiving enough votes without it-then it no more effects his nomination than an extra vote which is illegal, given candi date. renders his election void
 Are we right, or are we wrong? if we are right, then the vote of Van Burcn county does not effect the nomination, for Johnson received majority without it : and if we are wrong, let the Old Line Demo crat or any other grumbler at the State 1 Convention, show us uherein we are wrong.
 Secondly-Because the vote of Benton county was given to Mr. Johnson.
 It is asserted by complainants that Col. Johnson was not the choice of that county and on the other side it is asserted that he is and was the choice of that county-now whatever may be the weight of evidence upon this point at the present time, 1t Is entirely immateral--and cuts no fgure n Me cose-the question is not, have 800 democrats protested against the action of the State Convention, and were they in re- alty justly represented in the convention?- though we maintain that the democracy of that county pere correctly repreSented- but the question is-did the SIXTEEN THoUs- AND dem mocrats-through their representa- tives in the State Convention do what they supposed was right in excluding MT. Peek as proxy of that county-that is did the THREE -FoURTHs of the Convention act cor rupdy in voting for the majority report of the committee on credentials
 The committee on credentials heard all the facts, examined all the witnesses, read all the documents on either side, and after nmple GelDerotion, four out of the .foe deci- Ied in favor of rejecting Mir. Peek and ad- hitting NIT. Harston, citizen of Benton county; did these four act corruptly? if they did not, did the Mree Jourths of the Con- vention act corruptly in voting for their report ? and fl they did not, was the report properly adopted? If it uas-the vote of Benton county was properly given for Col. Johnson. The only legitimate question is did the Convention decide the case accord ing to the evidence before them it must be presumed to have done so until the con- trary is shown and empty unsupported as- sumptions of fraud and injustice, cannot effect the verdict
 Thirdly - Because the vote of Greene county was given Col. Johnson.
 How is it? Did the proxy of that county, Col. A. H. Rutherford, do right or wrong in voting for Johnson on the second ballot? We maintain he did per- fectly right, and will prove it.
 The Convention of Greene county passed the following resolution
 Resoloed, That our delegates at the Convention to be held at L tte Rock, April 2nd, le6 for the purpose of nom tting candi late for Govern r, be instructed tD vote TOT t1Oil nos et C1tF, tue President of the Senate, as our first ch ice, and hereby left free to vote fo. any good democrat as second choice, should Mir. Fetcher's nomination be improbabe.'
 Now the question is-did Col. Rutherford, as the proxy of Greene county. vote accord ding to instructions: the disorganizers say he did not what ,cere the instructions?
 1st. That he should vote first for Hon. Thos. Fletcher.
 2nd. That he should vote for any good democrat should 1Mr. F7etcher's nomination be improbable: did he do this The record shows that he voted on first ballot, for the Hon. Thos. Fletcher he was then, under his instructions. left free to vote for |" any good democrat" provided Mir. Fletcher s nomination was improbable who was to be the juige of the improba5ility of Mr. Fletch CTS success, and of the ''good democrot l" who should receive the vote of Greene coun. ty? Was Judge Fletcher's nomination improbable the ballotings show that it was at any rate Col. Rutherford had good st l.