The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1907-11-14
THE RING VS.. PATTERSON.


Governor n second term, which custom |
may be taken as an endorsement by
the people of his work and policies dur
ing his first term. The cases in which
the custom has been departed from
have served only to prove the rule, as
almost all rules are proved and
strengthened by the exceptions made
thereto.
The grounds for such exceptions
may be various, as, for instance: diff
ferent party may gain the majority of
the votes, thus rendering the policies
of the existing Governor obnoxious to
the majority; or the Governor may
change his policies, so as to be out of
accord with his own party; or he may
90 conduct his Office as to be unworthy
OF an endorsement by the people. OF
course, where there is change Of the
majority the Governor is not expected
to be endorsed by the opposite party.
The intent and custom is, when the
same party remains in power, to en-
dorse the administration of the man it
has elected for one term, by giving
him another, because of his faithful
service to the people of the State.
There is an effort on foot to break
away from this custom and to refuse
Governor Patterson such an endorse
ment, and the question arises: upon
what ground is this based? Has he
changed his policies, so that he has be-
come out OF line with the majority of
his party? Has his conduct of his Of
fee been against the best interests of
the State? Has his conduct been such
as to render him unworthy Of the posi-
ton he occupies? There is no proof of
any such charges, if they be made; and
careful analysis OF the situation re-
veals the fact, that the fight against
him is being waged by the same old
ring that the people smashed when
they elected him. The members Of the
ring are endeavoring to regain control
Of the State, as we'll as to wreak ven
geance on the man who led the fight
which downed them; and they are u.s.
ing a faAorite son of the State, who
has an overweening ambition and
therefore poorly balanced Judgment,
as the weapon with which to make
their attack.
That the attack is not made on Pat
terson because he has changed his pol
ioies, or because he has not properly
performed the duties of his office, is
shown by the fact that it was begun in
in the first days of his official life-aye,
even before he was inaugurated. II
was necessary for him to be in office
for some reasonable time before he
could demonstrate to the people a
change OF policies from those announc-
cd in the platform on which he was
elected, or that his administration OF
affairs was inefficient and not to the
public interest; but no time was given
him in which to meet the demands
made in the platform or the or the ex-
pectations Of the public. The real fact
is, therefore, that he is being attacked
onpre-election policies-on the policies
announced in the platform on which he
was elected-on the conditions which
brought about his nomination and cleo.
ton. Logically, therefore, the fight is
made upon the party, or portion there
Of, which nominated and elected him.
OF course it will be conceded by
those making the fight, that it is being
waged against the majority Of the dem.
ocratic party in the State; but it will
be commended that it is against Patter
son alone. Yet it is easy to see that he
Is used as blind by those people, from
behind which they may shoot at the
party which he represents. And THU
is all the more strongly shown by ths
fact, that those who fought against hil
nomination are actively fighting him
TO this day. Indeed, those who refus
ed to support him as the democratic
eominee are still posing as demo Gratis
and fightin him, ostensibly, in the
democratic ranks.
If the reader will let his mind rur
back over the past few years, he vii
remember that the democratic party
became very much aroused against 1T
leaders for q time before Patterson'l
election. Practices we're INDUCED in