Year: 1859

OehUOHo6Ns, uarcn ZJtl, lS0J. MEssRs. JOHNSON & WOODWARD Gentlemen: l have noticed with pleasure an admission in your editorial of March 16th, that many of the members who drew the per diem pay are "honest. honorable. h'gh-minded men," Would it not have done as we'll to say that all of them were so? It is hard thing for me to believe that an Arkansas legislator would do dishonorable or unlawful act for the pitifuI difference of few dollars between his mileage and per diem pay I would not do so, and judging others by myself, I do not suppose they would do it.

 have also noticed with pleasure, the dignihed silence of the members upon this subject though some have been letting off pretty severe squibs against them under fictitious names. Even grave editors have made themselves witty as we'll as wise at the expense oi the legislature.

 l said was pleased at the digniied si- fence of the members on this subject, and 50 am. i too, Messls. Liitols, would have remained silent, enjoying myself in contemplatIona sublime on the great ob- jects which l attempted to accom- plish, and could'sd in the Arkansas Legislature, had Ii not been for direct inquiry made by 

 Randol ph, in late number of the North West Appeal, as to the course of the Ben ton county delegation upon the per diem question. Now the said Randolph has the unquestionable right, in common with all other citizens, to demand information from any representative relative to his conduct whilst Tn that capacity and the representa- tive ot two such counties as Benton and Madison, whose inhabitants entertain sen tlments as lofty as the elevated plain upon which they live, could not be silent under such circumstances.

 in five minutes after the enquiry of Ran dol ph was noticed, a short answer was written and handed to him in person. That answer was to the point, and fully met the question, but was not as full as l desired to make and hence the cause of this communication. As the facts which intended to state might be of some inter- est to many of my fellow members who are generally readers of your paper, and as you have manifested disposition to show fair play by the publication of the address of Col. B. T. Duval, 1 have yentmed to ad- dress this communication to you, hoping that you will also give it place in your columns, and that others of your order who are willing to measure out even handed justice to all parties, will follow your ex- ample

 You are fully aware that the adjourn ment of the legislature, under the existing circumstances, was new thing under the sun, and that many of us who were nothing but farmers, did not know, and did not pretend to know whether, on the reassem- bling of the legislature, it would be the same, or a new session. and my understand ing of the object of Col. Duval in apply ing to Judge Clendenin for mandamus, was to test this important question. For, if the mandamus in favor of per diem should be granted by the Judge, it would be bound to be on the ground that 1t was the same, and not a new session; and if it should not be sustained, it would amount to decision that 1t was a new session. and consequently members would be entitled to mileage again for going to, and return ing from their homes; and further, as a con- sequence, all the unfinished business in both houses would have to be done over again from the beginning; fearful result, surely, especially to those who had remained at the capital during the recess.

 l apprehend too that this would have been the legitimate consaluance of the mileage principle fully carried out. But my opinion is nothing upon that subject, though l can refer to one which is some thing, and that is the opinion of seven out of nine, l believe it was of the judiciary committee of the Senate, as able commit. tee as ever was in an Arkansas, or per. haps any other legislature. That com. mittee determined that 1t was a continua ton of the same session, and that the mem bers were entitled to per diem during tn recess. l presumed that decision was cor rect, especially to those members who Ina, not been at home in the language of Mr Oates, < attending to their own business, but had left their homes in the service O the State, and of course were in that ser vice till they returned home again, and con sequently entitled to their per diem pay If we were not in the service of the State whose service were we in? Some of know, very we'll at whose expense we wer at, and that we were doing nothing fo ourselves. But 1t is charged against tn. legislature that they committed a great CT TOT in deciding this question for themselves Who else would decide it? Judge Glen denin would not do it. But the True De mocrat intimates that the opinion of tn supreme court might have been had by ask ing for it. Isuppose it might And what think you, would it have been? just tn same as that of the circuit judge, that tn court had no jurisdiction over the case and far less inclination to decide the ques tion.

 Then the decision of the question by tn legislature was dernier resort, and deter mined upon < er necessitate rel"

 Now if the opinion of the said iudiciar,