Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1874-02-28
THE LEAF VS.. CHANGERS.


could be expected from that quarter.
That We were not mistaken in our es-
innate, will be apparent to all who |
read that sheet, this week-its leader |
is especially replete with fulsome self
conceit, mean spite and gross false
hoods. We notice it now, not be-
cause of its dirty filings at us, but be-
cause. over our shoulders, it strikes at
the Tobacco Council and the whole
body of Changers.
The first item of the long array of
charges is, that we, by unfair means,
Influenced the Committee of the
Council to recommend the CHRONICLE
TO the patronage ofthe Oranges. That
this is utterly false, in intent and state
ment, we Internationally assert, and
call upon the committee and the Coun-
Gil and every Granger in the county, to
bear witness to the fact, that no at
tache of this Office has ever sought
their patronage by any other means
than an honest and public advocacy of
the Order and its patriotic aims.
Another item is in these words
we are not competing with the organ
(CHRoNIcLE) nor considering it in our
way" Then why travel out of its way
to throw its filth at us? Why the eff
fort-more than once made-to con-
solidate the Leaf and the CHRONICLE?
This is very small matter, but serves
to show the intent of the entire article
and that plain facts are disregarded
when malice seeks to make point
against a journal too contemplate to
be the competitor of an institution
which stands like Colossus, with one
foot on Nashville, and the other on
Louisville, and GAINESVILLE between
Its legs.
For that reason and with that view
we brought the leading Grange men
here, Col. Thurston and DR.. Max
we'll"
So says the Leaf, and without calling
in question its reason and view, it is
devilish queer that, if sincere in its de-
sire to aid the Grange movement, it
should have gone back upon its invited
guests and the cause they came to ad-
vocate, by making a speech against
both. We have no report of that sig
nifcaHt effort, but many, who are now
Changers, heard the speech, and if they
have not resented it, we presume it is
because opposition from sucha source,
they assume to be more beneficial to
the Order than such support as it now
claims to be giving That this may
be true, is rendered probable by the
fact that the leading Changers, or
ganize grange even whilst the elo-
quent voice of the founder of the Or
der, was being repeated by echo-from
the surrounding hills. 1t is rumored
however-we vouch not for its truth
that the invitation to the leading
Changers was a trick to swell the
crowd of 10000, which was to congre-
gate, on that occasion, to see how the
Leaf elected bellies of Montgomery
county, and how adroitly it pulled
wool over the eyes" of those who love
to be humbugged.
Again, the Leaf charges that We
have written in favor of the Oranges,
land then apOlogized to the merchants
for having said it." This is bald
falsehood, and we call for copy of the
apology. We did that for which
Changers have thanked us-we drew a
proper distinction between merchants
and middIeinen; but have never apol.
ogized to merchants, or any other class
of men for our advocacy of the grange
movement, and would not go back
upon our honest convictions, for al
the advertisements in GAINESVILLE
though we may stand alone on thi:
position.
But when this movement began tt
take shape, We announced our hearty
sympathy with it and our belief that i
would sweep the country, and was oul
only salvation" So says the Lea
again; but it began to take shape il
this county, at the cave. Was its sym.
pathy announced on that occasion? L.
it announced in this weeks issue, by
its unprovoked censure of the Com
mittee which was the mouth piece o.
the Council, which is the representa-.
tive of the oranges a? If so, we give
the following as a specimen of tina
sympathy; as well as the Leafs regard
for accuracy when preferring gray,
charges against gentlemen: They,
the committee" have blindly re
commended that the cheapest work
could be had at the Office of the organ
because it was friendly to the grang'
movement" The committee made ne
such recommendation-said not wore
about cheap work-knowing perhap:
that we have none of that groYellinl
spite that would prompt us to work fol-
roth;no rothar than tho Leaf shoulC
get the job. The committee may be al
black as the Leaf has painted them
but without better proof than ha!
been adduced, we will not believe it.
The Leaf says it is no monopoly
against which the Oranges need direct
their efforts; but since it accepts it:
own assumptions as ground for accusa-
tons against us, may We not assume
that, as the organ of the Chancery
Court, it is a monopoly? Not a
big one, we admit, but still it has a
monopoly of the Court printing, and
may we not pertinently ask by what
underground, dark lantern" trickery
it obtained that monopoly? That il
bears upon its face, the semblance Of
Partially and injustice, is apparent tC
many, but no murmur against it has
the public heard from our lips, but
when the committee is said to have re,
commended the CHRONICLE, as friend