Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1880-09-04
BUYS AND SELLS EXCHANGE
COUNTRYMAN.
He comes Out for the RepudfntiOm
Candidate and Asks for Inform
ATTAIN
[Nashville Ameriean.l

charges that are made here agains'
you and your party.
They charge that you have not
been consistent. When a democrat
fails to be consistent he gets to be
something else.
The worst part of the business is
that they sustain these charges by
the evidence of our own friends
Col. Robert Emmett Thompson says
that you called Lee Head a repudi-
ationist once, because he wanted to
settle the whole debt at rs cents on
| the dollar; that you voted to settle
the debt at 50-4 when in the legisla-
ture in 1877; then you spoke at
Gainesboro in favor of settling al
50-4, after that measure was passed
then when you concluded that the
measure was not SO popular, you
snapped ends, and came out against
it.
Now, how can ] answer this?
VIII you allow me to pledge the
faith, honor and credit of the state
that you will never do it again
How could it be right to settle at
50-4 at one time and wrong to do it
a few days afterwards? Of course
/ will say you were actuated by
principles but at what precise age
does principles change? If Judge
Heads bill to settle the whole in
debtedness at rs cents on the dollar
made him a repudiationist and tarn-
ished the good name of the state,
how is it with y0u when you are adj
vocating a settlement of no cents on
the dollar?
These are questions that will
trouble me in my speech, and want
you to tell me how to answer them.
Again, Senator TolIey wrote a
letter to you, which was published
in the Banner, and in It he said :
''The only difference between you
(Wilson) and me was that ] pro-
posed to anticipate the litigation
between the bondholders and rail-
roads, and offer such equities to the
latter in advance, as you proposed
to give at the end of the litigation,
in the event it were unfavorable to
the railroads." Now, this letter
was written by Tolley in reply to
one from you, and | have never
heard that you denied that Tolley
correctly stated your position. Well,
let's see; if you stand now where
you did then, you are in favor of
the state paying to the railroads
whatever judgment the bondholders
get against the railroads.
In corroboration of Tolley's state
ment, Col. Thompson says that you
told Col. Tom Claiborne that you
favored paying whatever equities
the court decided against the state
in the railroad lawsuit. If the
court decides that the railroads owe
the debt, it will decide, that they
owe it all; won't it? Then your
position is that, if the railroads have
500, ,OO0, 900 to pay to the bondhold-
ers, then the state should pay that
sum to the railroads.
But suppose some fellow asks me:
"What's the use in waiting if you
are going to pay it anyhow ?" What
reply shall / make? Perhaps you
had better think over this and see If
you can't change again. One more
change would not be a very serious
matter to you, and it would aid me
very greatly in explaining your po-
sitiOn to the crowd. If you carry
out your notion when you get to be
governor, it will make you higher
tax man than Wright is; he don't
want to pay but about half the debt.
There is one thing-they can't
charge you with being inconsistent
in hunting for offices, can they?
When / first saw you, you were a
member of the house of representa-
tives; then you got yourself pro-
NOTED to the senate; while in the
senate you accepted the Office of
estate lawyer" at 5000 (dO you re-
member the time you tried that
hrGeas corpus case at Gallatin p, and
had to draw two salaries at Once."
Il see that your platform favOrs tax
ing salaries.) When / next heard
of you, you were out for congress,
with the senatorship and lawyer
business still on your hands. Then,
before you had fairly made up your
mind that you couldn't beat Nc
Millin for congress, you were rum
ming for elector for the state at
large, and when you got left on that
YOU run for governor. Gosh! how
YOU do climb! Tolley said that you
was an aspiring fellow. Well, | can
show the boys one phase of your
makeup that's consistent, anyhow.
There is another question that
will hurt you if it's not answered.
They charge that you are running
Just to break up the democratic
party. The chairman of your con-
vention admitted that you had gone
out of the party. 1t does look lit
tie that way. When the compro-
mise platform was offered by our
state-credit fellows every one of
your folks voted against it; if they
had voted for it, it would have been
carried. 7 was delighted with the
ingenious management displayed
by your folks in getting out of the
party. And still now it appears
that YOU were kicked out. OF course
YOU could have controlled the con-
Yention if you desired to, because
the people were all with you, you
know. But, instead of trying to
control it, the "people" only sent
100 delegates, while them +otheP
fellows" sent 1920. The "people"
Just wanted an excuse to quit DEM
ocracy. and they had a suspicion
that 1900 would not surrender to
100, if the 200 were any account at
all. 1t tickled me all over to see
how YOU worked it. The 400
wolves" got together and sent. an
atLtinaGtana to the 1000 fellows, de-
manding an unconditional surren-
der of ''side-arms, baggage and pro-
Visions" They got ''skeered" and
offered to give up all this lin their
compromise resolutions), and then
your folks got "skeered" for fear
they would Surrender, and demand
ed that they must all sign a paper,
acknowledging that they had al
ways been sneaks or fools, and agree
ing that they might be kicked as
they passed out of the "FOrt" "
Well. that was about as cheeky as
it would have been in Brownlow's
militia to surround Gibralter and
summon a surrender.
If they had offered you the plat
form and candidate on condition
that the /, 200 fellows be allowed to
stand up around tho hall, would you
have accepted 1t and staId in the
party?
But you all took the right posi-
tion: You assumed to represent the
whole people, and those ] 200 fell
lows had no business there. You
looked back to the election on the
5O-4 proposition for your credentials
] as delegates to that convention; but