Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-10-29
HARRIS TO COLYAR.
Response to COlyar's Report Of t
Debate at MHrfreesbOrO,
Gov. Harris AdministratiOn-Tri
umphant YindicatiOn.
From Memphis Appeal.

MEMPHIS, Oct. 25, 1872, Editors AppeaI
i see In the Aedldnche of this morning
what purports to be report Of the discus.
sion between Col. A. s. Colyar and myselt
at MuIfreesbOrO on the twenty-frst inst.
AT MurfreesDoro and elsewhere / insist
ed that Andrew johnson was unworthy the
support Of the Democrats and Conserve.
tives of Tennessee, because he is a canli-
date in defiance of the expressed will Of the
party, and by his independent candidacy
seeks to disurg2niZe and divide the marty.
thereby eDdangering the success of Demo.
cratic principles, which would have been
certain but for the disorganization ana al.
vision produced by his course.
In assuming his present position he saws
more plainly than words could proclaim II.
that he is more devoted TO the petty aspira,
tons Of Andrew johnson than he ia to the
principles Of the Democratic party. and
that he is resolved to rule or ruin the Marty.
He knows iull well that but for the division
produced by his running. that -Cheafbam
would have been elected by an oyerwhelm-
ing majority and Democratic principles tri-
umphant, but with this division, while It ia
certain that Cheatham win beat him from
twenty TO thirty Thousand votes, it is quite
uncertain whether that vote will elect him
over his Radical competitor, Maynard. To
this
COLONEL CoLYAR
answers that Johnson was nominated BY
mass meeting a. Nashville. | also insisted
that Andrew johnson was not entitled to
the support Of the Democratic party, be-
cause Of his desertion of that party, after
having denounced Abraham Lincoln all
over Tennessee in 1860 as the candidate of
a party which found nothing In the Consti-
tuition to restrain it from encroachments
and aggressions upon the well-dehned
rights of the SoHth, and which party de-
rived its chief strength from its aggressive
spirit. He warned the people that the cleo
ton Of Lincoln would be the saddest ca
lamity that could befall them-he Jealous
" supporting and appealing to all
Democrats TO support what was called the
fre-eating secession ticket Of Breckenridge
and Lane, Yet,
IN 1864, end
you find him deserving the Democratic par
ty; deserving Democratic principles; turn
ing bis back upon his old friends who had
stood by him through life, and who had
made him all that he had ever been--and
more than he ever deserved to have been
and seeking and obtaining a position upon
the Black Republican ticket, for Vice Pres
ident, behind the same Abraham Lincoln
that he had so vehemently denounced 40
1850.
The only answer that Colonel Colyar
makes to this Radical change In political
position is that certain gentlemen and GER
tain conventions have, since that time.
said they could, under certain circumstan
ces, support him.
This declaration, however sincerely
made, wholly fails to blot from his polite al
record the sin of the Abandonment and de-
eerion OF principle, especially when he now
bases bis claim 10 support upon the ground
that be is, and has always been consistent
Democrat. l also argued that
ANDREW JOHNSON
had violated the fifth article of the amend |
ments Of 1871 to the constitution, which |
provides that "nO person shall be held to |
answer for capital or otherwise Infamous |
crime, unless on presentment or indict- |
meRt Of grand jury" When he held |
Mary <. Surratt 10 answer the charge Of be- |
ing accessory TO the crime of murder, with !
out pfesentment or indictment having
been found against her by grand Jury, he |
grossly violated this provision, and also the
sixth article, whicl provides that Gin ali
criminal prosecutions the accused shall en-
JOY the right to a speedy and public trial.
by an impartial jury OF the Stale or district
wherein the crime shall have been commit
ted" When be denied her ga trial by an
jury" and dragged her before q
military commission composed of nine SOL
1iers, no one Of whom had probably ever
read law book (howeser well versed they |
may have been In SCOTS tactics), and
her TO stand q trial for her life
before thai tribunal, he ignored, disregard
ID and violated this provision. And that
be violated the ninth section Of the
FIRST ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION,
which provides that
"The privilege of the writ Of habeas cor
1us shall not be suspended, unless when in
;ases of rebellion or invasion the public
sfety may require it," sG -
BY suspeDdiDg the writ Of habeas corpus
N the 9Th Of duly, 1865, which Judge Wy
lie had issued in the case Of Mary E. Sur
att, at time when there was no rebellion
Or invasion, and when the "public safety"
Gould not have possibly been ieopardized bY
giving to the poor old woman a fair trial
'by an impartial jury" which the constltu-
Ion declares she was entitled to.
And that he violated the latter part of
he fifth article Of the amendments of 1871
which provides that no person GshaIl he
deprived Of life, liberty or property without
lue process Of law, in each and every in
tance wherein be arbitrarily arrested and
Imprisoned citizen, as well as in each case
4 arbitrarily assessing citizen and en-
orcing payment at the point Of the bayonet.
In each of the
FIRST CLASS
cases he deprived "a person II his lib