The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1919-08-15
NEW CONSTITUTION.

Nashville Banner, Aug. 5, 1919
A correspondent, who is farmer
living near Thompson Station, Will
hanson county, and whose commu-
nication appeared in the Banner yes
terday, said the proposal of conven-
ton to prepare a new constitution
sis being framed up by a few slick
politicians who have an ak to grind
to make the far
mers pay more taxes" Well, If the
farmers believe that, why don't they
take the matter in charge, elect del
egates of their own choosing to the
convention, and devise q constitution
that will make the other sort pay the
taxes? They can do it if they like.
This same correspondent at another
point in his letter boasts that the
farmer vote can defeat that of the
large cities in the state. That is en-
tirely true. Why, then, are the far
mers afraid of the alleged slick poll
tician whose aim is to Cypress them?
There is not an individual in Ten
nessee of the "slick politician" class
who would antagonize the farmer
vote. On the other hand, all of that
class assiduously court the favor Of
the agricultural hosts. Furthermore,
the "slick politicians" are not the
men who pay taxes or who have a
personal interest in a sound public
economy. They are office seekers or
Office brokers, and therefore cultivate
the favor of the majority.
There is no possible antagonism
between the cities and the farmers in
Tennessee. Each exists for and by
the other. Their intcrdependence is
wholly obvious. There is nothing the
cities desire more than the prosperity
and building up of the rural sections
from which they derive their support.
Nashville could double it's population
and commercial Importance if the
farms of Middle Tennessee were
brought to full capacity of produc-
ton. The thrift and prosperity Of
adjacent cities as it does for the far
mers themselves, and neither Nash
Vile, Memphis, Chattanooga or Knox
vile could exist without farming re-
gions through which the goods they
sell and the articles they manufacture
may be distributed.
The fancied antagonism between
the cities and the farms is absurd.
1t has no weight in the argument
pro or con for constitutional con-
vention, and if it had, the farmers
would have all the best of it; they
control large majority Of the votes.
This same correspondent makes
loud complaint of the evil of public
conditions in Tennessee. He, for in
Stance, desires to abolish our sys-
tenn of sending men to the Legisla-
ture every two years." and goes so
far as to propose a substitute plan.
How does he think that could be ac-
complished except by change in the
constitution?
The correspondent uses frequently
the pronoun they" in reference to
the movement in behalf of new con-
stitution. He would doubtless find it
difficult to give it a personal applica-
ton. 1t has been for some years an
admitted fact that the constitution
needs revising, and this conclusion
is entirely disinterested. 1t doesn't
mean any class movement more than
the same sort of sentiment did in
1884 and in 1870 when Tennessee
adopted new constitutions, or than
it did in the contiguous states of
Kentucky and Alabama, each of
which has in times comparatively
recent come under new fundamen-
tai law.
The farmers of the state can de-
feat or carry the call for consti-
tutional convention if they like. Their
votes will, under any conditions, elect
the large majority of the delegates
to sit in the convention If it be called,