OCR Text |
Show A NEGATIVE CROWD. The speeches delivered during the past six weeks in Congress make clear the purpose of the Democracy of making their next campaign on an arraingment of the war in the Phillipines, trusts etc a revised and intensified edition of their late campaign. The old Whig Party was a most gallant political organization, but it fought the Mexican war, and indirectly in-directly sneered at the American Army, and it died. In 1801 the Democratic Party took up the abuse of the American soldier, it has covertly continued it ever since, and it has won but two national triumphs since, one because of dissentions in the Republican ranks, one because of the scare which it succeeded in raising over the McKinley tariff, and because of the hue and cry over the Homestead lockout. It would have been as dead as the Whig x'arty long ago except for the' solid south, and it should have learned long ago that the American people are both a martial people and a fair people, that the boys in the army have mothers at home and, finally, other things being equal, the abuse of the American Army will kill any political party in the world. Regarding Trusts, there are several features of the question which arc liable to come up to vex the Democracy. The first one is that when last in power the party made no effort to punish trusts; it failed to carry out the work which the Republicans had inaugurated to restrain them. Then perhaps three of the most zealous opponents of trusts were Messrs. Mills and Hogg of Texas and Ex-Senator Jones of Arkansas. Alas, where are those champions now? Can it be true that a change of fortune can change the principles of great champions in the Democratic party ? Are a little oil in Texas and a cotton bailing machine in Arkansas sufficient to hush the ancient Democratic cry for justice to the "common" people in those states? Again a tremendous and widely spread series of strikes are now on in a dozen states. Can the Democracy Democ-racy frame a trust law that wnl not jeopardize those strikers combined interests ? The Democracy count upon the mistrust and discontent dis-content of the working hosts of tnc country for support, sup-port, that is, they count on success by exciting the mistrust, discontent and apprehensions of those working work-ing hosts. Can they succeed by .advocating a law which will make a combine of those hosts to better their fortunes a crime? For nearly forty years they have demanded recognition and power, not on their own merits but on the demerits of their chief opponents. oppon-ents. Arc there not brains and patriotism enough in their ranks to form a platform which will appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the country, and cause the people to desire their success on their merits and not on the demerits of their chief adversaries adver-saries ? |