Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-10-16
YEAS AND NAYS.

We are often asked, "What is
your Objecting to referring the debt
question to the people?' Our an
swer has been mainly the impossi-
bility of getting it settled that way,
on account of the intrigues of those
who are interested in keeping it I'M
settled. We want it settled by men
who have received their instructions
from the people and then discuss it
and vote upon it in the face of day
light without leaving room for
secret intrigue.
Those who are familiar with do
ings in congress or in state legisla-
lures know well the magical effect
Of calling the yeas and nays. A
question will be voted upon in the
ordinary mode and the vote reported
by the tellers, and then some men,
Der will call the yeas and nays, and,
though the same members are pres
ent, the vote will be entirely re-
versed. The reason is that then
every member knows that his name
will be printed and his constituents
will know how he voted. HeVotes, in
short, under a sense of responsibility,
and that is the way every man
ought to vote whose vote decides a !
great question. When that is so a
man cannot talk one way and vote |
another; he can't make highly virtu-
Gus state-credit talk about the neces- !
sity of a settlement and then vote |
and work against any settlement |
that may be proposed, as thousands |
did last year; ne can'taccept COM
promise and then vote against it.
Moreover, we know the grounds of
a mans opposition if he opposes, of |
his support if he supports it. What |
do we know of the motives and |
views of the people from the vote
upon the fifty and four proposition
of the last general assembly? In
the first place, there was not much
more than half the constituency |
which voted at all. The people |
themselves do not seem to have
thought that the method for settle
ment was practicable one or they
would not have abstained from the
polls; and those who did vote
what were the grounds of their
vote? What they were nobody
knows. We know that there were
men among them who thought that
any abatement of the entire amount
of the debt was reputation, and
voted against it as such. We know
also that there were others who
honestly believed that no railway
debt at all was justly due, and who
voted against the compromise as
unjust to the people. Again, we
know that there was a very large
number who believed that the sixty
and six proposition had emanated
from the bond-holders, but that the
fifty and four did not, and who
voted against the lower proposition
on that account. Then we know
that there was large diversity of
opinion as to the exact amount
which ought to be allowed in COM
promise, and that men were dis
posed to vote against any sum that
did not tally with their views as
being either too much or too little;
and we have no means Of knowing
what might be the numbers of those
who We're swayed by one or another
of these opinions; in short, the pop
ular vote OF 1879 was no index to
public opinion at all. Every day
we hear that vote quoted as proof
that the people disallow the validity
of the debt altogether, and yet we
know that thousands of at least pro-
fessedly state-credit men voted in
the majority.
But so far we have only spoken of
voting that may be supposed hon
est in .ntentiOn-how much more
was there which was the result of
intrigue? The repub-
licaR party makes the highest pre-
tensions to honor and integrity as
regards the state debt, but we also
know that most Of them voted
against the proposed settlement and
induced hOrdes of negroes to do the
same we know that the leaders of |
the lOw-tax party agreed to the pro- {
posed settlement in the assembly
and worked like beavers against it s
when it came to the popular vote. I
We acaEt 10 call The yeas and nays a
ON all these men.
We Vv0ut mon fo vote ON fhic ,