Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1878-09-28

privilege of voting for the one or
the other of these two. The vote
both of Stewart and Montgomery
was divided between them, and DR..
West got the majority in joint con-
What more concessions should
have been made to Stewart it is diff
ficult to see, unless our contempt
rary thinks that Montgomery ought
to abnegate altogether her interest
in the Floaterial representative.
This seems to be the demand of the
Courier. He says, "Itis understood
by the party in this county that |
Stewart was entitled to the nomina-
ton" Where is it so stated In !
the Constitution or law ofapportion-
ment? That law gives both coun-
ties a voice in the matter, their
votes being taken according to their
respective populations. 1t is true
that Montgomery county, having a
representative of her own, has for
eight years conceded as a courtesy
to Stewart the nomination of a Stew
art county man for Floater, but even
that is only courtesy and could be
withheld without any detriment to
the strict legal right of the latter
county. The demand for more than
this courtesy seems extravaganza; it
is virtually that, when the law as
signs a representative to two coun-
ties jointly, that one which has two
to one the larger population should
have no voice in the matter; and
yet, because so prepOsterOus a de-
mand as this is not complied with,
he says, sit has lost the party hun
dreds of votes in this county" Here
is where we join issue with him.
We have a better opinion of the
reasonableness and common sense
of the Stewart Democracy than he
has. We believe they will see the
justice of the position taken by the
Montgomery delegates and act as
good Democrats rather than as I'M
reasonable sOre-heads. Mr.. Atkins
was not the unanimous choice of
Stewart nor DIR. West that of Mont
gomery; delegates from both cOun-
ties voted according to their judg-
ment and DIR. West got the majority
of votes.
Since the above action DIR. West
has withdrawn, and we infer that
: both counties will unite on Mr.. At
kins. Now we interrogate the
editor of the Courier would it pay
for him to involve his county in 8
quarrel with Montgomery? OF the
three counties, Robertson, Stewart
, and Montgomery, Stewart has the
Senator all to herself and Floatel
too, neither of the two other coun
ties, which together muster more
than treble her population, having
il voice in either. Does the COurie
| imagine that any such quarrel a
; his editorial is calculated to eXcitt
? | between the two counties would
| leave Stewart in as advantageous ;
5 position as that? But there will b.
: no variance between them ; tn
r Stewart Democracy are wiser thai
2 he gives them credit for being.
: Since writing the above we hav
/ been in conference with some of tn
/ delegates who attended at Indian
Mound from GAINESVILLE and learne
Y something of the true inwardness
b the caucus there held. From thi
we learn that those of our delegate
= who voted for DIR. West in prefer
g ence to Mr.. Atkins were actuate
O by representations which came fror
n Stewart county and not from an
O urged in the interest of MOntgOn
n cry. 1t has already been mentione
n that the delegates of three district
# left the Stewart cOnve':tiOn WithOJ
taking any part in the nomination
1t appears that these gentleme
? took that course in consequence I
what they deemed unfair treatmer
e of another candidate still (Mr. Lee
: better whose name does not appef
l. in thereport Ofthe Courier. Wekno
l. but little of this matter, which is
o a family quarrel, only it is plat
rs that the nomination of Mr.. AtkiI
1f was very far indeed from being ;
q unanimous as appears in the fin
Is vote.
e Iftheunreasonable claim urged b
le the Courier is TO be maintained tn,
D. Montgomery is not to vote at all
y the FloateriaI Convention except
IL blind submission to the dictatiOn
Al Stewart, it ought at least to appe;
p that Stewart is unanimous in Whi
IL she dictates.