Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-07-14
Out of his Depth

that sort of thing" we replied with short
 argument which seems to be poser to our
 Helena cotemporary, for he makes ludic-
 rous struggle to keep his feet: we took the
 position that fraudulent vote did not af-
 feet an election or nomination, unless the
 election or nomination would be defeated
 oy striking out said fraudulent vote: but
 read how easily the State Rights man
 olunders over the point
 "ln equity, if we mistake not when fraud is dis.
 covered Tn any of the articles of contract such
 contract becomes thereby void, and we do not see
 why this should not be applied to conventions as
 well. The convention is an assembace of the
 agents of the people. These agents convene for
 the purpose of entering into political contract
 to agree as to the terms upon which the people shall
 eject candidates chosen by them in common. If such contract is discovered to be in anvwse fraud.
 uient, from that moment, it ceases to be binding
 upon any one. Of course, if fraud which is at the
 time unknown to the nominating power and which ooes not affect the result, is afterwards discovered It cannot vitate the nomination. But if such fraud was known, whether it, per se affects the result or not, It vitlates the nomination. and annuIs the obi gatlohs or the contract, because that knowledge makes the nominating power accessory to the fraud.'
 That the editor of the State Rights Dem ocrat is a first rate clever fellow, good humored and sensible, we verify believe: but It IS plain that he is no more of a "snaosh. 'mgtogician" than his brother of the Old Line they pull about even, when it comes to reasoning on their bumcombe positions par mobile trotrum!
 Our friend of the s. R. D. does not see why the equity doctrine of fraud should not apply as wellt conventions as to contracts indeed he shows clear as mud that the act of convention, being the work of the agents of the people is nothing but a contract any how, to agree as to the terms upon which the people shall elect candidates chosen by them in common: that is to say-''it is a general rule that the majority of mankind in general are continually trying to swindle the majority of mankind in general" and therefore the people generally send up their general agents to make a general contract don't you see how naturally the conclusion follows that conventions form contracts that are subject to all the equity rules and regu- lations with respect to the doctrine of frauds? But says the s. R. D.; 'ifsuch contract" ;"i. e. act ofa convention. "is sdiscoyeredtob be in any- aOise .traudulent, from Mot moment, t ceases to de binding upon any one::" indeed If nomination is a contract, is not an election of a Governor Legislator, Judge, States Attorney, etc., etc., much more so? do they not swear ill consideration of being elected that they will faithfully demean themselves in office? do they not solemnly contract that they Will guard the interests of the people, the other contracting party? then t a nomi- nation, which has none of the solemnities of an election, is to be subjected to the eguity restrictions relating to fraud, should not an election, for much greater reason be likewise subject to it? But is it so? If candidate receives 1000 votes and it only requires that number to elect him. he is prima facie elected: but if ii is discovered that one fraud- ulent vote has been given him, it must be deducted from his thousand, leaving him but 999. And as it requires 1000 to elect, he is defeated by one fraudulent vote this is so, whether the recipient of the vote was cognizant of it or not. But if it only requires 1000 sotes to elect and candidate receives 2000, 999 of which are fraudulent, still his election would not be affected; why? because he would still have a majority of one, and this is so whether he procured the votes himset, or not.
 "Of course, if fraud, which is at the time un- known to the nominating power, and which does not affect the result, is afterwards discov vered it cannot vitiate the nomination.
 But, if such fraud was known, whether it, per SC effects the result or not, it vitates the nomination, and annuls the obligations of the contract, because that knowledge makes the nominating power acces- sory to the fraud.'
 Pray, what is the "aonanating power2" is it the delegates who make the nomina- ton? it cannot be the nominee, neither can it be the person who casts the fraudulent vote: we will therefore suppose it is the conyen- ton that is this nominating power:" then how does the matter stand? does the S. R. D. pretend to say that the State Conven- tion knew that the vote of Van Buren county was fraudulent at the time 1t was given? does it pretend to say that R. $. Yerkes knew he was giving a fraudulent vote at the time he voted? does be pretend to say that Col R. H. Johnson was privy to the fraud? We presume not: then this peehy argument runs out to pointless point; clear out of sight. But even if they all knew of the fraud and perpetrated it know ingly and willfully itwould not alter the case. Our cotemporary is on cold track when ever he attempts to argue in support of his coursc he will do better to follow the example of the Old Liner-yell trauG corruption! .tamilyt oligarchy! clique! junto, and various other things-until the heavens give back the sound: write of the dominant power that has crushed the ener, gies of our gallant State," the central deS- potism which has had its ungainly foot upon the necks of the people, every week about the wasting form and palid brow of consumptive Arkansas; but never be so indiscreet as to come down from such toploftical sailing, to the level of common sense and reason; for ke sailor on land you aciW reel, and make yourself ridiculous
 Old Line Democrat-Last Issue.
 We have read carefully the last issue of our cotemporary, not in aspirit of captious- ness, but with an earnest desire to find one