Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-02
THE AUrHOR.rses.

THE AUTHORITIES.
{ The Banner yesterday published lis
authority for its assertion again and again,
until it became to be what Fzistaff would
can ''damHable iteration, ;, that,he Demo-
cratic members of Congress with whom
1t was ia ssti'ai'atesTapted coDsna,0aicd-
ton, had insisted in their address that
no man should be elected who could not
take the ''ironclad !" in other words,
that it was all wrong for the Democracy
OF Tennessee 10 vote for Jno. Nj. Bright,
Ed. ]. Golladay, w. c. Whitthorne, and
Robt. T. Caldwell, because they could
not take the test oath. We have insisted
from the beginning that whatever Mr..
Randall, of Pennsylvania, or any other
Democratic member of Congress may
have thought as 10 the policy of electiDg
Mr. Bright, Mr. Golladsy, Mr.. Whit
thone, or Mr.. Caldwell, the law of Goa
gress was plain and unequivocal, and that
the Democratic members of Congress in
their address had only advised against
the election of persons whose disa-
bilities had not been renewed, or those
who could not take the ironclad.
We referred particularly to Gen. Lewis,
Of Kentucky, and Col Sherrod, of Ala
bama, whose signatures were appended
10 that address, and both of whom were
in Congress, had been in the Confederate
army, had their disabilities removed; the
former was q candidate for reelection,
land reelected the latter urging the
election of enc (Mr. Sloss, now elected, }
whose disabilities he had procured to be
removed in the last days of the last ses-
sion, (after the signing of that ad-
dress) in order that he (Mr.
SloSs) might become the candidate
of the Democracy of the CORTLAND
district. AS the evidence of the author
ity upon which we based the right and
title of Messrs. Bright, GOlladay, Whit
thorne and Caldwell to their seats over
Mullins, Prosser, Cypert and Nor
man, we have referred to the
laws of Congress which stand un-
repealed, and now propose to refer to
letters from two of the gentlemen
upon whose authority the Banner pro-
poses TO stand. First is letter from
Gen. Lewis:
Franklin, KY, Sept. 10, 1S7O.-Ben-
ton McAIillin, Esq.-Dear Sir: answer
your letter at the earliest opportunity. /
took my seat in Congress without having
the 'fron-olad oath" administered to me.
The act of Congress relieving me of my
political disabilities, and giving me right
to a seat in Congress was passed upon the
assumption that was guilty of the very
thing that / would, if that oath was adj
ministered, be required to swear | had
not been guilty of. Hence l could not
enjoy the right intended by the act to be
conferred upon me without committing
perjury. Therefore, unless the act of
Congress is an absurdity and mockery,
was not only relieved from disabilities,
but also from the ''iron. clad oath. !"
Congress cannot nOtO or hereafter require
more stringent oath than the one took;
for my rights, and the rights of others
similarly situated, have been ascertained
and determined by Congressional action in
my case. Truly yours,
Jos. H.'LEwIs.
The next is letter from Col. Sherrod
of Alabama, who CHANGED to be in the
city yesterday, en- route for Washington.
In reply TO a note asking the intention and
understanding of the Democratic address
to which his name was signed, and upon
which the Banner has so frequently re-
lied for authority, he replied:
To the Editors OF the Union ANA American:
NASHVILLE, Dec. l, lS70.-Gentlemen:
Yours of this date is, received.
have carefully perused your note, and
also the card of the Democratic members
of Congress dated June "a, 1870, 70
which my name is signed.
l remember distinctly the various meet
ings of the Democratic members of Con-
gress, which resulted in the address 10
which you refer, and I knOW what were
the views of all the Southern members
and of such Northern Democrats as
Wood, S. S. Cox and men of that class.
| was member of Congress
who had been IN the Confederate service,
Whose disabilities had been removed and
who had been admitted to my seat upon
taking the modii fed oath. So it was with
Gen. Lewis, of Ky. Certainly we would
not have signed any address which we
thought would have tendency to exclude
us or those in our situation from seat in
Congress. Gen. Lewis was acandidate for
reelection, and | wss at the time of the
address endeaYoriDg TO get removed the
disabilities of friend whom l wished to
become candidate for Congress frommy
district. We could not, therefore, stultify
ourselves so far as to insist in an address
that it required 'test oath" man to get
into Congress.
of Mr.. Randall, of Pennsylvania, and for
his views of policy; SO Of every other
Democratic member of Congress; but of
this | am sure, that through the last Con-
gress there was but one opinion enter
tanned by us, and that was, wherever we
could, we would get removed the disabili-
ties of one who could probably be elected
rather than stand the hazard of one who
had no disabilities For the simple reason
that our experience and observation had
taught us that he from the who South pro.
fessedto have no disabilities was in greater
danger OF Radical rejection, than he
whose disabilities had been removed by a
two-thid vote Of a twO-thirds Radical
Congress.
Begging your pardon for the time ]
occupy, l am very respectfully,
w. {. SHERRoD.
We leave the Banner to digest the au-
thorities with the patient and perscvering
hope that Bright, GOlladay, Whitthornc
and Caldwell may all get TIER seats, not
withstanding the fact that neither is "a
test oath man"
- -.
"REVIVING."
The Banner in its persistent adherence
to the Independent movement in this
Congressional district, which was the most
successful failure of the age, accuses the
l:-.-..-:..-- o..