The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1870-03-17
EDITORIAL.
W. D. wATTERsON, Political Editor.
We Don't Agree.

we 40 not agree Win tue banner
or '.any other MAN." who thinks thai
when person commits an otfense In
public capacity, as did NcilS. Brown
A. o. P. Nicholson, ct ais, touching
the negro fraud in the Convention, there
can be any condition of affairs in tho
world to dissuade q faithful and honest
Journalist from speaking out in behalf
of an outraged people, and against the
offenders, while il is fresh in the minds
OF that people. Why delay the matter
Why cry out "ill-timed ?" Is the in
terest OF the people nearer the heart o.
such Journalists than the personal re-
gard entertained foi these corrupt pol
itnians Who commit a known FRAUD
upon the people? What course viii
the Banner take, If sometime in the
future one of these gentlemen should
dare ask the people for public trust
again ? If we should move our humble
pen in opposition to said gentle ,en
and charge that they had committed q
known fraud upon those who had once
trusted them in high position-that
they had virtually declared the people
could not be trusted, and tyrannically
denied them so far as they could, the
right even of discussion, what would
the Banner say?' All! holding to the
same old Gloves" perhaps, it would
cry out Northumberland is all past
now-bury the hatchet-you ought to
have talked about this thing long ago,
it is to late now and all such stuff as
this. No. '"Dear Banner" pardon us.
We honestly think now is the time to
talk about these gentlemen and to ex-
pose their wilful and purposed offense
against their constituents, and we fur.
ther think that the man who holds
more dear the rights of a too-long OPP
pressed and outraged people, than the
regards for corrupt politicians will
speak out, and that with carnestness,
too.
This cry Of "ill.timed," rather in
sinuates the idea that to expose these
parties for the manner in which they
dared to perpetlate fraud upon the
people by making all the questions
in the new Constitution de-
pend upon the perpetuation of negro
suffrage, would incline opposition to
the Constitution itself. This may or
may not be SO. We have heretofore
tried to explain TO our readers that our
attack was made upon the parties to
the fraud in question, and not upon
the Constitution. We have attempted
to convey the idea by our complaint
against these parties. that We had been
deprived by their action of free choice
in the matter, so far as the Constitu
ton itself was concerned, and were ne
cessitated to endorse it as superior or
preferable to the one of 1865. No
matter how Objectionable it might be
even in that superiority or preferable
ness. We think that we are fully I'M
derstood by our readers, as complain
ing OF . fraud which no one dares to
deny or justify, perpetrated by Ger
tain members Of the Convention upon
the rights of the people. and that there
are several things in the new Constitu
ton highly Objectionable to us, yet we
have not undertaken to advise its re-
lection We think it would be unwise
to do so. after carefully, cautiously
and honestly weighing the weighty
questions depending upon its adoption.
The difference between the Constitution
of 1856. and this new Constitution, up
on the question Of suffrage, is simply
this: the first DISTINGUISHED the intel
ligent and honest portion of the peo-
pie, and granted suffrage to the igno-
rant and negro population, the other
proposes to enfranchise the intelligent.
the ignorant, the white and the black.
We would be understood then as adj
hitting that the new Constitution is
preferable TO the one of 1866, and that
neither are suited to our feeling or
taste. that they are two evils and that
the new. Constitution is the less Of. the
two, and that as We are compelled to
endorse one or the other, the practic-
ability Of our nature suggests the only
wise course for US to pursue. and that
is to take the less evil of the two
There are many other proposed chang
Go in the new Constitution which could
be stated If necessary, to increase the
faith Of the idea that It is preferable to
the one Of 1855, yetthat cannot remove
the unpleasantness Of the thought that
the people long for something differ
ing materially from either Of these two
and expected something different from
those they had coufded in to mould
and make Constitution under which