Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-06-03
STATE EXECUTIVE COmMITTEF
FRIDAY, JUNE 8. 1859.
Is Col. Netherland the Enemy OF the
Poor JEanl

The question in itself is ridiculous. We
should exceedingly dislike to believe that
there is man in the State of Tennessee. of
any party, who. occupying seat in the
Legislature. would cast bis vote on any pro-
position merely because it would benefit or
injure the man of small means, or the man
OF large means. We are satisfied that Col.
NETHERLAND would scOrn the motive and the
policy. Both his public and private charac-
ter, fairly judged, would not warrant charge
OF so grave a nature. The charge has been
made, however, and the proof to sustain it is,
that he voted when young man, some TWEEN
ty five years ago. against exempting "the
last plough, hoe" &c. in the hands of the in
digent labOrer, from execution. When the
charge was first made by Gov. HARRIS in the
discussion here, Col. NETHERLAND lied that
he was voting the wishes of his constituents.
But it has been insisted that he should have
resigned his seat, rather than have given the
vote This is rather new doctrine to be
urged from that quarter. But for the sake of
this argument, suppose it to be true that Col.
~ gave the vote attributed to him at that
time. and that he then voted his own senti-
ments, does not his subsequent record show
that he changed those sentiments and re-
versed his votes? Looking to his record in
1872. we fnd him voting uniformly in ia
vor of the bill 10 exempt the homestead to
the value of $500, from execution. If 1t is
objected that this protects only the O'0ReTsof
land, we have a conclusive answer in the fact,
that during the progress of the bill through
the Legislature, an amendment was proposed
saying that if sLare or other property should
e levied on. the owner (not being the owner
OF land) should be entitled to have $500 OF
the value of the same set off to his use and
benefit. provided he was II housekeeper or the
head of a family. Col. n. sustained 1lts pTopo-
sition.
Asa further evidence of his indisposition
TO place undue burdens on the poor men OF
the State, we cite his course on the bill Ito
authorize and regulate county subscriptions
to Railroads.' On the second reading of that
b II Col. NETHERLAND offered the following
amendment:
'.Proui,led. that the county tax, contempla-
ted under the PROVISIONS Oh THIS uCt' %tdIt HOt
be LUied so as TO increase The poll tar"
This amendment was adopted and re-consld-
cred and the bill referred to the Committee on
Internal improvements. The Committee re-
ported bill in lieu not containing this pro-
vision. When the bill then came up on its
third reading, Col. NETHERLAND again offered
substantially the same amendment as fol-
lows: " Pr0Uvied, that IN nOcIse shall the tar on
,rtite rolls be Increased under the provisions OF
OF this act" Mr.. GUILD, that sterling old
democrat from Sumner, moved to lay 1t on
the table-which motion was rejected. Mr..
RAY, another democrat, now Secretary of
State, proposed to add to the amendment the |
words, ..unless in the discretion of the Coun-
ty Court they impose this tax upon persons"
This was lost, Col. N. voting no. The |
amendment OF Col. n. was then lost-l4 dem
ocrats voting for and l6 against it,
Here was Al fair chance to favor the poor
man, in which Col. n. showed his disposition
to do so; but leading democrats opposed it.
This was in 1872, nearly twenty years at
ter the vote which the organs now seek to rem
der so odous. Who, upon these facts, will
believe Col. NETHERLAND is an enemy TO the
poor man?