The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-09-18
A Frank Answer to an Insidious Question.


From the ~. Y. World
According TO the policy thus authoritatiuely
proclaimed, IL will be incumbe on Mr. Sey-
mour, If elected, 10 set aside the new Govern
ments as null and voil, and with the help of
the military to dsperse them and re-estaolish
Tue order or things which Congress abolished.
This programme Involves the forctble destruc-
tion OF Govern nmenLs organized under the law,
and whose validity Congress mas recog nized;
the overthrow of constitutions wAich have
been ratified by sjoriJy of the people; the
disfranchisement of the fret dmen in def snce of
ex listing law; and the restoration 10 power of
Rebel leaders In spite of The disability i'm posed
by the fourteenth amendment
"Mtll The Worid give it's opinion frankly
touching the pIacllcaI application of the Blair
doctrine as 10 tie dispersion OF the Southern
Governments and the disfranchisement OF the
ireedmen by The mere oIder OF "A Democrats
President? VIII IL explain how IL Teconciles
us professed resnect for law. and It's acKnow
ledgment OF the de lacto authority of Toe new
Governments. with IT'S support OF candidates
who are pledged TO defy and violently over
throw bolh p From the Times.
This strain of remark aud request for infOr-
nation proceed upon tho unwarranted sssump-
tion that General Blair's letter is part of the
Democratic platform. But there Is no process
Of fair reasoning by which it can be made to
appear so. The Democratic National Conven-
tiOn adopted its platform before ballotiug for
candidates, and without any expectation that
Mr.. Seymour would be its nominee for Presi-
dent or General Blair for Vioe-P President.
Whatever candidates had been nominated,
| their acceptance would have bound their per-
| sopal honor to the support OF the platform,
although it might have conflicted, in some
| respects, with their own declared views Gov
eInor Seymour, not long before the Convention
met, made noteworthy speech on the payment
oil the public debt. DOES the Times believe, or
! does anybody believe, that in nominating him
! the Convention indOrsed all the views expressed
| in that speech On the contrary, everybody
admits that Governor Seymour, by accepting
the nomination, yielded whatever in his pre-
vious views did not fully accord with the plat
form. The same reasoning applies to General
Blair. He is bound by precisely the same obli-
| cations of personal honor. Ii there is anything
i'll his Bredhead letter inconsistent with the
platform, he renounced 1t in accepting the
nomination, just as Mr.. Seymour made a SINH
| lar remuneration if there was anything iucOn
sistent with the platform in his financial
/ speech. The candidates OF great political
party stand in a representative capacity. Their
| honor, which forbids them to accept the homi-
| nation of the party unless they have previously
| agreed with 1t in essentials. binds them to sink
minor differences. Whatever the Times may
think of the ethics of such matters, it cannot
be permitted to make a different rule for the
two candidates of the Democratic party. Our
contemporary must either hold that the Demo-
cratic party is pledged to all the previous
views OF Mr.. Seymour, or else admit the party
is not pledged TO all the views expressed by
General Blair previous to his nOmination. The
Times may take which horn OF this dilemma
it pl6ases, but we shall force it upon one of
them.
In our opinion, the contingency cOntem-
plated by General Blair in his Broadhead
letter, is never likely to arise. The example