OCR Text |
Show Miscellany The Democratic View. The Democratic view of the acceptance speech delivered by the Republican candidate can-didate for president Is well illustrated by the New York AVorld'a editorial on the subject. The editorial, which lias been wired throughout the country by the Democratic National committee, Is as follows: fol-lows: A candidate without a policy. Mr. Hughes's speech on acceptance ia the public confession of a candidate who is without an issue and without a policy. Half of it is devoted to an attack upon the foreign policy of President Wilson, but Mr. Hughes doesn't say what he would have done that Mr. Wilson left undone, or what he would have left undone that Mr. Wilson did. A fourth of it is devoted to preparedness and to censuring cen-suring the president for calling out the National Guard, but here aeain Mr. Hughes refrains from telling the American people how ha would have obtained a larger measure of preparedness prepar-edness than the president has wrung from congress, or how he would have dealt with conditions on the Mexican border without calling out the National Na-tional Guard. Mr. Hughes's Mexican Mexi-can policy is to be one of firmness and consistency through which alone we can promote an enduring friendship. friend-ship. 13 u t what form are the firmness firm-ness and consistency to take? War? Intervention? t(,'and"ldates can talk about firmness and consistency in foreign for-eign affairs, but presidents must deal in concrete matters. They must de clde definitely to do this thing or that thing. They must decide, even at the risk of making mistakes. In spite of Mr. Hughes's long and bitter indictment of the president's course in Mexico he himself has nothing affirmative af-firmative to offer. The Republican candidate follows the same prosecuting prosecut-ing attorney tactics in dealing with the president's European policies. "A tlrm American policy" is the thing that was needed, but again, what does Mr. Hughes mean by a firm American policy? Mr. Wilson lias guided the country through a great crisis through a period which Mr. Hughes himself describes as "perhaps more critical than any period since the Civil war." Without surrendering a single American right he has kept the country out of war and compelled the most powerful military mili-tary government known to history to conform its military policies to American Ameri-can demands. Now conies Mr. Hughes as the nrch critic of that president to say that the president was all wrong in the way he did it, whatever the results may be. Would Mr. Hughes have gone to war over the Ivusitania, or would he have sought first to exhaust ex-haust all the resources of diplomacy? If he would have gone to war he does not say so. If he would have a t first exhausted the resources of diplomacy, in what respects would he have handled the case more wisely and more patriotically than President Wilson handled it? Here again Mr. Hughes confesses by his silence that he does not know what he would have done or he Is afraid to say. Perhaps nothing is more characteristic 'of Mr. Hughes's speech than his treatment of alien conspiracies. He denounces all plots and conspiracies (n the interest inter-est of any foreign nation. And then he proceeds to hold the administration administra-tion responsible for them. "It was its duty to stop them quick," ns if the administration had not secured dozens of indictments and a score of convictions. But there is one plot and conspiracy about which Mr. Hughes is discreetly silent. We refer to the German plot to make him president presi-dent of the United States because President Wilson refused to permit the Gernjan government to dictate the foreign policy of the "United States. Mr. Hughes's speech will be searched in vain for a solitary word, a solitary syllable, repudiating this infamousattempt of a foreign monarchy mon-archy to control the political affairs of the United States bv punishing a president who has offended it. and rewarding re-warding a candidate who tacitlv invites in-vites the support of the hyphenated. Mr. Hughes's "dominant Americanism" American-ism" halts when it contemplates the political possibilities of the German vote. Mr. Hughes's speech is all sound and reverberation. There Is no substance sub-stance to it, and because Mr. Hughes great lawyer that he is, could not present a case. As a partv candidate candi-date he can criticise the president and find fault with the administration, but in spite of his ability he can frame no substitute policies of his own upon which he would dare to go before the American people. All of his speech is destructive; none of it is constructive. construc-tive. The Progressive voter will read it in vain for a word of hope or encouragement. en-couragement. It Is the partisan utterance ut-terance of a partisan candidate appealing ap-pealing to a partisan vote that can see nothing to government except physical possession of the federal patronage and the protection of property prop-erty and privilege. It might havo been delivered by William Barnes or Boies Penrose or Joseph G. Cannon or any other standpat Republican It is only when Mr. Hughes begins to argue in behalf of Republican tariff that he becomes positive and vehement vehe-ment and appears to have convictions of his own. Mr. Hughes puts his denunciation of President Wilson into the scale against the record of President Wilsons Wil-sons splendid achievements and asks the American people to choose There ought not to be the shadow' of a possibility of doubt as to thojr decision. The World recently expressed ex-pressed the opinion that no civilized country in the world would be insane enough at a time like this to overturn over-turn such a government as President Wilson has given to the United States and embark upon a sea of experiment That conviction is strengthened tenfold ten-fold by Mr. Hughes's speech. No intelligent man could bv any process of the human mind find in It one logical reason for putting Wood row Wilson out of the presidency and nutting nut-ting Charles E. Hughes in. Mr Hughes has spoken, and his speech is an unanswerable argument for the election of President Wilson |