Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1859-07-01

Rkzs~ The zeal with which the Union and Ameri-
can labors TO prove that Dr. Mcnees did vote for tine
exemption Of Universities, Colleges and Churches
from taxation shows the Importance 1t attaches to
the subject; and to prevent any one from being
mised, we again recur to that part of the Doctor
record On page AIS, Senate Journal we find that
DR.. Menees introduced bill, mo 23l, to incorpo-
rate an auxiliary board to publish books for the
Blind On page 425 the bill was taken up and
passed second reading, and on page 43l, it passed
third reading. Il was then transmitted to the low
er House, where it was amended and returned to
the Senate for concurrence in the amendment; and
at page 1913, the Senate took up '1Iouse message,
returning Senate bill, No. 23, to incorporate aux
lary board, to publish books for the blind" and
"The question being on the motion to concur in
House amendment, TO exempt all Incorporated Uni
versities, Colleges, and Churches from taxation,
Mr. Walker moved to insert "Convents and Mon
asteries"
1.-THE amendment as amended, was concurred in"
And Dr. Menees voted againstit.
The defence set up by the Union and American
for DIR. Meness is that he had previously voted for
the exemption of all these institutions and didn't
chose to do it again. Without admitting deny
ing this statement let look into the matter lit
tie deeper. The House amendment proposed to ex-
empt "all incorporated Universities Colleges and
Churches" from taxation; if that was the law
already, the House seemed to be ignorant of the
fact as well as the Senate, and even DIR. Menees
failed to plead the fact apology for his vote.-y
But if the law did really exist prior to the passage
of this BILL did it embrace "Convents and Monaste-
ries' in the list of exempted property? If it did,
Mr.. Walker was strangely ignorant of the fact and
if it did not, may we not find in the addition of
those two institutions to the list the why DR.
Menees voted against the amendment These are
important suggestions and we want the Union and
American to show that "Convents and Mouasteries'
were exempted from taxation by the law for which
he says DR.. Menees voted early in the session.
But the charge which we made against DR.
Menees, in the beginning Of this discussion, was
that he voted against bill to exempt the foregoing
institutions from taxation. That charge is moi
denied-it is proven by the record, and by the adj
mission of his organ; and we can not see how the
doctors claims to craftsmanship are advanced by
the undeniable fact that he voted for and against
the same proposition, as he certainly did, if the
version of the Union and American be the true one
But the Senate Journal does not show that he evel
voted for the exemption of "Convents and Monas
teries' from taxation, and he voted against ex
empting them, on the last day, but two, Of tn,
session, we shall insist that he never did vote fol
that proposition, at any previous date, until thu
Union and American proves the contrary. As be
fore remarked, we have established our charge thai
DR.. Menees did vote against exempting from taxa
ton, ''all incorporated Universities, Colleges
, Churches, "Convents and Monasteries," and why h
did it, is for him TO explain-the lame defence o
the Union and american is in-admissiable execep
upon the plea that the Legislature was grossl,
ignorant--so much so, as to enact law at the be
ginning of the session. and reenact it at the close
A This plea, we can not admit and call upon tn
G Organ to show that Walkers amendment constitu
ted part of the list of exempted institutions in tn
old law of which it speaks and failing in this tn
inference may be made that religious intolcranc
had something to do. with the action upon thi
: question. We confess our ignorance as 20 how tn
law stood previous to Walkers amendment an
y our charge is based upon the Senate Journal whic
fully sustains u.s.