Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-07-21
" "Arkansaw Traveller. i"

This gount organ of the democracy of Clark county comes out in the last issue in demagoguish appeal to the people, striv- ing to make it appear that one of our cor respondents, and that we incidentally, have not due respect for the gallant democracy of that county. We do admire that ban- ner county of the southern district, and what Is more, we believe that when the ldes of August roll around, that the demo- crats of old Clark will wheel into ranks and give an overwhelming majority for Johnson as the nominee of the party, and Dr. c. B. Mitchell, as the gallant old "war horse" of democracy of South Arkansas, the unflinching soldier who has fought more battles for the cause than Col. Can't, the editor of the Old Line Democrat, the no- minal know nothing editor of the Traveller and the real editor, Mir. Incog, who we are credibly informed has never voted for ex- ceeding one democratic president, James Buchanan) if he voted for him. It is well known that MT. Scott, the former loyal and able editor of the Traveller, when canvas sing for the Senate had to disclaim any con- nection editorially with Mr. Harris, now nominal exponent of Mr. Gantt's demo. cratic principles; for the democrats of Clark county at that time were not willing to re- ceive instruction at his hands; we ask them in candor if the dose is improved by the addition of an editor behind the curtains of the same stripe, and who has only one high CT recommendation--tha he has more abili- ty to "make the worse appear the better reason"
 Passing by the balderdash and misre. presentations in regard to the county con vention, with the remark that Dr. Mitchel wished to address said convention before its action, in order to clear up some false rumors circulated against him, very req sonable demand, we proceed to state wha opinions he and Col. Can't do entertain or the "Territorial Question"
 Dr. Mitchell stands squarely on the State platform. He thinks the question of sla very should be excluded as far as possiJls from Congress, as do conservative men O all parties; he puts more faith in the pro lection of an unbiased judiciary" than il an abolitionized Congress; and finally, hs thinks Congress has the clear and unequi vocal r;gAt, and that it is it's duty, wheneve the question is praeticolly presented, tC afford ample protection to slavery in th' territories. Col, Can't began the canvass on the immediate sloue code territoriol polio, of Hon. A. c. Brown. but finding that tot ultra to be popular, he has mQdified hi views and now stands on the State platform which embodied Davis resolutions, side by side with Dr. Mitchell. The only difference now between the two congressional aspi rants is merely difference of opinion, no of principle. Can't says we may get pro tection by asking for it, while Mitche thinks it improbable that we will get it, Mitchell hopes the judiciary will protect ou constitutional rights as it has hitherto done Can't puts more faith in an abolition Con gress. This is an honest difference of opin ion There is no principle involved.
 We hope our fussy contemporary over il Philadelphia will copy the last paragraph entire, as our answer to the innumerabl' silly questions propounded in the last issue of the Traveller. We are afraid the nomi nal and real editors of that sheet are fnh ing the pathway of democracy |" hart road to hayel' from the useless ,sophomo ric, braggadocio clamor that it keeps up.