The New Orleans crescent., 1868-10-20

| Nortnern etectons known tnan the New Ut
leans Times, with the feeble arrogance char
acteristic of that paper, demanded change
of the Democratic ticket-demanded the
withdrawal of the nominees of the Demo
cratic Convention-demanded change which
was evidently impractlcable, and which, i
not impracticable, would have been ruinous
and disgraceful. In this the Times pre-.
tended to follow the lead of the New York
World and the Washington Intelligencer.
The World and the Intelligencer are accred-
tied and influential Democratic journals, and
their suggestions to the party, however ILL
timed, are at least, entitled to consideration.
But the Times, which persistently declares
that it is not Democratic paper, simply
makes itself ridiculous when it attempts to
dictate to the Democratic party. Indeed, if
there were no other reasons to believe that
the support which the Times has ostensibly
given to the Democratic ticket is the support,
not of a sincere friend, but of an unwilling
recruit-not of q volunteer, but of a con-
script-the celebrity with which it hastened to
predict the election of Grant, and to announce
the defeat of Seymour and Blair as the sure
result of the canvass, would be sufficient and
conclusive proof. The facility with which it
deserted the nominees of the party, at the
first reverse, is an indication of the prompti-
tude with which it will abandon the Demo-
cratic party in case of defeat at the election,
as well as conspicuous commentary on the
disreputable versatility of its past political
course. Under the title Of "The Political
Crisis" the Times, on Saturday evening and
Sunday morning, published the following
article:
Desperate ailments require desperate remedies.
That the Democratic party cannot succeed with
their present candidates s now universally admit.
ted; that they may succeed with a judcious
change Of command is not only possible but pro.
bable. What patriot, then, will permit his own
selfish considerations of policy or propriety to in
terfere with consummation 30 devoutly to be
wished? Tilden. Belmont and Schell telegraph
that the proposed change is impraticable and
would be equivalent to disbanding of the Demo-
cratic forces. That is all nonsense. In less than
the two weeks we have now before us the des-
TIMES and dynastes of empires have been wholly
changed. The Democratic forces-thst is to say,
the raDk and fle OF the party-are too well drilled
and too sternly devoted to principle to become
demoralized by change of command under exist.
ing circumstances. The only trouble is that such
men as 1ilden, Belmont and Schell might find their
own local schemes disarraDged by the change pro-
petty individual advantages for interests which
are merely national and in which the common
people OF the country-the hard handed toilers-
are alone concerned. If the Democratic party SUBJ
NIT longer to the dictum of such men, they must
expect to be disappointed. When the voice of
the people is subordinated to that Of few schem-
ing leaders, the result can only by accident prove
eats lactory.
Since the above was written, we learn by a tele.
gram from New York that there will be no change
of candidates.
We cannot but regard this determination as a
suicidal mistake, which, ere three weeks pass. |
will become apparent. Thus will 10 ever be when |
party cliques assume to control and override the |
voice of the people.
We beg that our readers will carefully note |
the contents of the above article 1t is not
only an unequivocal prediction of the defeat
of the Democratic candidates, but an equally
unequivocal accusation that the Democratic
organization is governed by very small
clique of interested and ambitious men. In
other words, the Times declares that the
judgment of the National Convention must
be annulled, that the candidates of the party
must be set aside, at the dictation of a few
individuals who alone, it seems, are inspired
with the capacity to judge correctly, and to
act efficiently. What can be more exquisitely
absurd than the declaration of the Times that
the refusal of the Democratic committee to
submit to this dictation is disobedience to the
voice of the people? What could be more
Eisibly the effort of clique than the attempt
Of two or three newspapers, and of half
iozen unnamed politicians to usurp the
functions of the party, and to nullify the
deliberate action of the National Convention?
Where are the ''people" who have demanded
his thing? AS far as our observation ex-
ends the suggestion has encountered an al
most universal opposition from the
Democracy of the country. Everywhere
has met with reprobation and
las been viewed as the consequence
# umanly panic, or contemplated treachery.
the attompt had succeeded-if the Demo-
ratio committee had yielded and usurped the
'ower of changing the Democratic ticket
he result would have been the triumph of
clique, at the expense of the honor, the
integrity and the success of the party. And
Tho has the right to say that Seymour and {
'lair are not as strong as any other candi-
ates that could be presented? Whose are i
he magic names which would win victory {
'om the defeat which the Times so confidently 1
redicts? By what authority do the "swap- 6
ers assume that they are better able to 6
ldge and decide for the Democratic party, I
nan the Democratic party itself? There is v
o such right there are no such names, there a
no such authority. The Democracy intend t
} fight out this battle under the honored ?
aders whom they deliberately chose for their Il
lndidates and their champions They have P
nbounded confidence in the staunch DEM S
'racy and patriotism of Horatio Seymour il
I'd Frank P. Blair, in spite of the aspersions C
hich the Times covertly casts on those s.
ntlemen when it intimates that their DEM u
racy and patriotism should have induced
EN- to withdraw from the canvass
The Louisville papers say that Indianians a,
m hava visitaI that oitv o;voo A. orooA:- |