Arkansas true Democrat., 1860-06-23
It's So. Because its So.

trouble;;" it is neck or nothing" with them, and full allowance should be made for the ridiculous assumptions they are sc- customed to make, without the support oi even the shadow of an argument The dis organizers have staked their all upon the throw of the die-they have openly lgnor- ed the State convention, and have sworn uncompromising hostility to the nominee
 Here is the ostensible basis of their oppo' sition, and here are the reasons which they say govern them in their suicidal course.
 1st. Col. Johnson was nominated by a majority of the democratic vote represent ed; and therefore, his nomination IS not binding.
 2nd A fraudulent vote was cast for Col. Johnson, which did not affect the result; therefore, it vitiates the nomination, and makes it null and void.
 3rd. The vote of Benton county was cast for Johnson against the choice of large majority of her democratic citizens.
 The two first propositions are utterly de- void of a reasonable foundation, and are blown away by the first breath of common sense. We showed last week that Col. Johnson was nominated under identically the same rule that had obtained since 1S44 that other sound democratic States have been accustomed to make nominations in the same way; that is, 6y e majority of Me vote represented-that both precedent and principle sustained the majority rule adopt ed; and that the question of two-thirds rule, or rule requiring majority of al the votes represented and unrepresented was one of erpediency only, for conventiom tc decide. If the majority choose to adopt the two-thirds rule, then all good democrat should abide by the twothirds rule; if they decide that ma ajority of the entire vote represented and unreprcsented shall be nee essary to choce-all good democrats should acquiesce; and if majority of tht vote represented shall be considered the pro per basis for nominating, democrats arc equally bound to abide by it. If not, wAs not?
 We showed also that the vote of Var Buren county did not affect the result-in deed 1t Is not contended that 1t does-that Col. Johnson is not responsible for the fraud and that it cuts no figure in the case at all. If a fraudulent vote alone is enough to vitiate the proceedings of an entire con- vention, one man might easily defeat the wish and will of thousands. If fraudu- lent vote in convention which does not de feat the nomination, renders the nomination void, why should not fraudulent votes given in an election make the election ofthe person 1 for whom they are given void? Yet we know unless the fraudulent votes, after being deducted, are sufficient to defeat the candi- date, his election is not affected by them We have invited discussion upon these questions, but as yet have the field to our selves.
 Week after week we hear piteous howl: of fraud and corruption, of majorities crushing the rights of minorities, of minori ties dictating to majorites, etc, etc, all ending by declaring that, heretore, the ac. tion of the State convention Is not binding upon the democratic party.
 If we ask why is the majority rule un- democratic2 we receive for answer" be. cause the majority rule is undemocratic. '' If we ask why does fraudulent vote, that does not affect the result, make the nomi- nation void? we strightway hear in reply -" because q fraudulent vote makes tho nomination void" If we ask why do you say " the voice of an entire county was ef. fectualy throttled and hushed, and made against their will to subserve the vile pur, poses of designing and ambitious dema gogues?" and similar answer is returned -" because it was"
 In this manner the disorganizers expect 10 succeed in throwing dust in the eyes O the people. and to conceal the only reason | for their foolish course-namely-th hatred of R. H. Johnson, the democratic nominee