Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1870-07-06
WHO DEFINES PARTY PRINCIPLES.

clarau0nS OF Gov. BrOwnlOw a part of the
policy and platform of the Republican
party, makes it our duty to notice the sub
iect, and treat it as we believe our duty to
the party requires.
The declaration to which we refer was
contained in letter published in the
CHRONICLE some weeks ago 1t read as
follows:
VI would improve rivers and harbors and
build railroads by the Federal Government
without regard to any secton-East West
North or South Nay, more, had my way [
would so reconstruct the Government of the
United States as to form q STRONG CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT here in the District of Columbia
and organize the States as so many colonial
corporations as absolutely dependent upon and
subject to the will of the central power at Wash
ington as are counties to States
| Thus L would wipe out and extirpate the
whole theory of States rights and State sover-
eighty, to which we are mainly indebted for the
late rebellion.
while l only speak::for myself believe that
Congress and the country are looking in the
same direction
Political parties are fairly bound by the
principles promulgated in their State and
National conventions, and are, to a certain
extent, committed to support the policy of
a Presidentan Congress of theirown choos-
ing, as declared through public messages
and legislation. But further than this. a
party cannot with safety commit itself.
Every public man has Il right to entertain
his own opinions of public policy, and adj
vocate his own theories of government.
He does this upon his own responsibility
and at his own peril In due time his con-
stituents are called upon to pass Judgment
upon his record, and it is with them to en-
dorse or repudiate him. But that "A politi-
cal party is to be held responsible for the
sentiments of every one of its prominent
men in office is contrary to custom and
reason. The Governor of State and the
representatives of tn party in a legislative
assembly are very properly looked upon
as opponents of the policy and sentiments
of their party in the State.
The President and his Cabinet. and the
representatives of party in Congress, are
supposed, through their legislation, to re-
present the principles and policy of the
party with which they are identified. But
that Senator Summers individual opinions
upon the Alabama claims, or Senator
Chambers on our foreign policy, or Sena-
tor Brownlow's upon our theory of gov
eminent, can be said to represent the poll
cy or sentiment of the Republican party,
is simply unfair. They do not, either of
them, claim to represent their party upon
| these questions. Mr. Brownlow states
very frankly that 81 only speak for my
SELF and it is therefore not lust to him or
to his party that an attempt should be
made to fasten upon the party as part Of
its policy or principles, the views thus pro-
claimed. We differ with the Senator very
widely upon this question. We do not
agree with him that either Congress or the
country are looking in the same direction
On the contrary we say that the whole
legislation of Congress upon the recon-
struction question relieves the party from
any such charge. There is nothing i'm the
Chicago Platform of 1865, in the legislation
OF Congress, or in the policy of President
Grants Administration that commits the
Republican party to the novel proposition
advanced by Senator Brownlow. The
relations of the States as States. in all
the legislation of Congress, has, as We.
believe, been respected and protected. The
anomalous position assumed by the people
of the rebellious States has compelled Con-
gress to pass upon questions never before
presented in the history of its legislation
but i'll all cases affecting the rights of
States, We believe its acts will bear the test
of judicial investigation. We see no war
rant for the declaration that Congress or
the Republican party-which is probably
what the Senator means by the oountjy-
intends changing the theory of our Coy
eminent by making the States colonial
corporations. The relations of counties to
States is so different from that of the STATES |
to the Federal Government that the COM |
parison is hardly permissible.
We do not understand Mr.. Brownlow as
desiring to represent these views as part of
the policy of the party; but as the Demo- |
cracy, in their flaming posters, refer to
them as part of the principles of the par
~, we feel called upon, in 80 far as we
represent that party, to say that we do not
understand it as in any way committed to
them. Mr.. Brownlow is well qualified to
defend his peculiar views on this subject.
and we dare say will do 30 at the proper
time, and We only to the matter now
because the speakers at the Mass Conven-
q lion