Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1875-01-14
A worn ro QUA LEarsLArORs.

A WORD TO OUR LEGISLATORS.
Some Of the noisy adherents Of Andrew
johnson in Memphis claim that they
worked and voted at the November cleo
ton for the Democratic ticket, and that
but for their sapportoftb ticket Messrs,
Overton, Haynes, Peters, Greer and their
colleagues who compose the Shelby
county delegation in the present Legis
lature, would have been defeated, and
the Smith theridgs Radical -Indepen.
dent ticket elected. Under the system
Of voting BY ballot. which obtains in
Tennessee, it is of course impossible to
determine for whom any man casts his
vote, unless the voter voluntarily opens
and exhibits his ballot before placing it
in the box. Therefore, when the cheeky
partisans Of johnson assert that they
voted the Democratic ticketin November
we have no means Of positively deter
mining the truth or falsity Of
such assertion. Inasmuch, however,
as, with few exceptions, the prom
irent friends Of johnson in Shelby
county are not only not Democrats, but
boilers and se~lfstyled Independents, We
incline to believe, as we have heretofore
stated, that the great majority Of them
voted against the Democratic aud IN
favor of the Radical Independent nomi-
nees. And why should they not? Upon
the leading and most important CUES
tons that entered into the discussions Of
the canvass, whether upon the stump or
through the columns of the newsps-
pers- opposition to civil rights; the
repeal or modification Of certain fea-
lures in the funding and assessment
laws; low taxes; reduction Of salaries
and fees Of office; abolition Of all IN.
necessary officers; in 3 word, upon all
important measures of retrenchment
aud reform, the tendency Of which
would be to lessen the burthens
of taxation, and to relieve the
people, the candidates upon both tickets
occupied precisely the same grounds.
And as far as talent, attachments, legis-
latiye experience and general capacity
are concerned, the personnel Of the Dem
ocrstic ticket was, to say the most. GER
tainly 10 no respect superior TO that of
its opponents. Upon cne point, how
ever, there was a difference between the
two tickets. On that point they were
widely ssunder as the poles. We allude
Of course to the position they occupied
with reference to the Se~nstorship. While
in public the Democratic nominees we're
silent on the question, in private they
were all, with one exception, pronounced
in their opposition to Johnson. The Ia.
dependents, on the contrary. publicly
and privately declared themselves unani-
mously for him as their FIRST choice for
the position, pledged themselves to vote
for and support him through thick and
thin, first, last and all the time. With
these facts all before them, and perfectly
understood as we have stated them, to
support the adherents OF johnson,
regarding his election 10 the Senate
as the question Of paramount impor.
lance to come before the Legislature,
would discard a ticket solemnly pledged
for him, and in lieu support one whose
members we're known 10 entertain predi.
lections hostile to his election, would be
to suppose them guilty Of conduct
strangely stupid and perverse. We do
not believe they did it. II, however, the
Shelby county members permit them
selves to be persuaded they owe their
election to the support Of Johnson's
friends, the latter will have lost nothing
by the defeat Of their own ticket. But
in that event a deceived aud betrayed
constituency may well consider whether
they might not have gained something
by 1.-The election Of the Radical ticket
May such a contingency never arise.