Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1877-03-03
WISE AFTER THE EVENT.

Conversation has been rife on our /
streets since the decisions of the Elec-
toral Commission which, as we think, |
imperatively calls for serious consider
alton. Men are saying that the cause
of the people has been betrayed by the
peoples representatives. who are
spoken of as responsible for the hate
ful result Of the Electoral Bill which
they voted for and which has given
us Radical President when Demo-
cratic one was elected. We have even
heard the name of our respected re-
preventative, Mr.. House angrily alluded
TO, and suggestions made Of another
choice being made when his term is
out in consequence of his course in the
matter.
Believing these sentiments to be
most unreasonable, and especially most
unjust to our able representative, we
also believe that the whole question
demands scrutiny to the bottom, and
feel that our duty as an Editor does
not admit of any reserve in doing so.
We are conscious that our discussion
of the subject may give offence tosome
with whom we most wish to cultivate
friendly relations, to some whose in
fuence is potent in directing the course
of the Democratic party in this city !;
but, as an organ of the Democratic
party, and not of any local section of
it, we feel that we have.no choice but
to speak out.
We will then define our position by
contending that those who condemn
the majority of the Democratic repre-
sentatives, are bound to say what other
course they should have pursued. The
Republican party had announced their
e intention to place the Republican can
didates in Office by process which
every dispassienate man in the country
believes to be unconstitutional and
illegal, and of backing that wrong by
the exhibition of strong military
force which was already concentrated
at the Capital. Now here was an emer-
gency in which action of some sort had
to be taken, and one of two courses
was plainly the alternative; the threat
ened wrong had to be met with either
Constitutional or a-Constitutional
resistance. If the former, then some
method of solving the question must
be adopted in which both Senate aud
Representatives could be induced to
concur if this could not be done then
there was no other resort but the latter
alternative of Unconstitutional re-
stance, and this means nothing or it
means a demonstration of force OPP
posed to force.
Now let us examine these two posi-
tions in detail, the Constitutional one
first. We stated when the bill creating
the Electoral Commission was first
published, that we entertained grave
objections to the measure, but have
never stated in detail what these OBJ
iections were. We will do so now ::
Two most Objectionable points -ere,
first that the House gave up its right
never before questioned of interposing
an objection to the vote of the State
which should be conclusive with, or
without the concurrence of the Senate.
mother word sthe admittance ola dis
puted vote had been hitherto matter in
r,,sk aona,,r ~
der to count it; it was now determin-
ed that, unless both concurred in re-
jecting it, It must stand. This the
House did with its eyes open, the pro-
vision was plainly stated on the face of
the bill. The other defect they were
deceived and betrayed into admitting.
The bill no where contained any direct
assertion that evidence of fraud then
before the House and Senate, could be
taken apart from Cor diiuRde as they
called it, the certificate of canvass
ing Board. There were provisions
which seemed to imply this and the
Democratic members were led by re-
prosecutions of Mr. Edmunds to be-
lievo that these implications would be
acted upon. Their error here was a
Venial one if an error at all, that of
assuming that among Senators and
Statesmen an understanding as be-
tween gentlemen would be deemed in
violable. We blame no man for be-
ing slow to believe the reverse, but the
Democratic members of theioint COM
mittee were undoubtedly betrayed by
placing too much faith in such guar
rantees. These were our objections
but then the further question stared
Us in the face and demanded plain
answer, if we were not satisfied with
this bill, were.we prepared for the Sec
ond alternative, that of meeting force
with force.
No better bill could be had with
the concurrence of the two houses, the
Senate would certainly have refused to
pass one which in these two respects
could satisfy the Democrats in the
committee and in Congress. Ought
then the Democratic party to have re-
iected it in the House of Representa-
tives, where obey had certainly the
power to do so, having a large majority
in that House. The answer to this
question depended entirely upon the
answer to that second question, were
they prepared for that second alterna-
tive of opposing force by force? II
they were it was unquestionably their
duty to reject it, if not it would be fu-
tile to do so-the Republican candi-
dates would have been indicted by a
much simpler process.
We have to face the second alterna-
tive then, and consider whether it was
incumbent on our Representatives to
embrace it. Ought they to have urged
on their people the resistance of force
by force2 There was time when
this was contemplated in these columns
n II