The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-20


of Drake, and brakes venomous speech in
reply TO Schurz while the nomination is still
pending. Drake has the strongest motives
to please the President. Mr.. Schurz can get
back only by contrition; and his pride, con-
victions, and victory forbid him to take the
stool of repentance. Why should he endea-
vor at impossibilities? Even if he could get
forgiven, forgiveness would bring him no
personal advantage, for he could never be
reelected in Missouri as Republican. The
assured ascendancy of the Democratic party
in that State, to which he has contributed is
his objectionable sin, which must forever cut
him off from the Republican communion.
But although Mr.. Schurz's position as a
Republican is politically weak it is logically
very strong, and his personal vindiea-
tion is triumphant In the convention which
nominated General Grant he offered an
amnesty resolution as an addition to the plat
form, and procured its acceptance. He
claims that he was therefore bound, by prin-
ciple and personal consistency faithfully to
carry out resolution which he offered and
the Republican party indorsed. AS a dele
gate to the State Convention, this year, and
a member of the committee on the platform,
he drafted a resolution affirming that the
time had come for restoring the elective
franchise to all who had been deprived of it
and when that resolution was rejected he
and the other friends of enfranchisement
bolted and started a new organization,
which, reinforced by the Democrats, carried
the State by a heavy majority; a majority
which will be increased in all future elections
by the readmitted voters. Mr.. Schurz de-
fends himself against the charge of party
heresy, on the ground that amnesty was
part of the Republican national platform.
The reason why this defense will not be ad-
mitted is, that the amnesty resolution of 1868
I1,o ol1 &c o,,il,
piece of party clap-trap, as hollow and insin-
cere as the declaration in the same platform
that the regulation of the suffrage rightfully
belongs to the States. If the author of that
suffrage resolution had made a campaign
against the fifteenth amendment proposed at
the next session of Congress, he would have
been summarily read out of the party, as Mr.
Schurz is now, in spite of his unanswerable
logic. Instead of seriously adopting Mr..
Schurzs resolution of amnesty in 1868, the
Republican convention merely connpived at
it as party trick to entrap liberal voters,
meaning to kick it aside as soon as the cleo
tion was over. Mr.. Schurz's reasoning is con-
elusive, if Republicans grant his premises.
But the premises are lame in assuming the
sincerity of the Chicago declaration. The
Republican party said what it did not mean,
and Mr.. Schurz tries to hold it to its word. 1t
is the most provoking and exasperating thing
he could do. 1t is like insisting on the strict
fulfilment of promise made in Jest, or as an
idle compliment.
There is no longer any place for Mr.. Schurz
in the Republican party. He differs from it
on the two important questions of amnesty
and free trade, and on these questions he has
bolted the organization and made coalition
with Democrats. The party leaders would
not quarrel with his opinions, if he pulled
straight in the party traces. 1t is an adyan-
tage to- the Republican party to have some
free traders and amnesty men, SO long as
they serve as mere decoy ducks to liberal and
simple minded citizens. They prevent deser-
tions and help to hold the party together.
The Republican party could we'll afford to
have two-fifths of its members disagree with
it in principle, if they would always vote the
regular ticket. The three-ffths could easily
control the caucuses and select the csndi-
dates, compelling the minority to vote against
their own principles But as soon as the
minority rebel against party discipline, they
cease to be decoy ducks and their example
tends to disintegration. Carl Schurz's am
nesty resolution in 1868 was accepted as
an excellent deeoy; but when he bolted in
favor of amnesty in 1870, he put himself
hey ond the pale of Republican mercy. He
shows less than his usual perspicacity in
making vain attempt to recover his lost
patty status.
10 10 sure, Spo6Cn lOOhs u tu6 pOSSi-
bility of new party. But in this he under
rates the force of present party ties, and mis-
calculates the effect of principles. Every
member of the Democratic party, without ex-
ception, favors universal amnesty; SO there
is no need of new party to carry that mea-
sure. The Democratic party desires free
trade, and large majority of the Republi-
cans are protectionists. Party lines cannot
be redrawn on this subject; and yet this is
likely to be the great question of the i'm
mediate future. What unoccupied ground
is there then for new party to stand on
| Obviously none. Neither the protectionists
in the success of the Republican party and
with so large a body of assured supporters
! and the possession of the Government thai
party is not going to dissolve. 1t is absurd
! to expect that it can be successfully opposed
except through the Democratic organization
TANINIANY AND THE PRESIDENCY.
From the NJ Y. Times
The Leader, a weekly journal representing
the Tweed faction, publishes an article re
pudiating Governor Hoffman as a candidate
for the Presidency in 1872, and declaring
that Tammany Hall-which now only mean
Tweed, Sweepy, and James Fisk, Jr., with
perhaps, Mayor Hall thrown in-will be opei
to choose any candidate who happens to b.
approved by the West. 1t would be idle t,
argue in serious spirit with any ''nani
festo" which proceeded from this particula
quarter. People who look upon polite
as they do upon a scene in pantomime
who regard the public as fools, and gov
ernment as a piece of mechanism for en-
abling kpaves to swindle them-woul
think it an excellent idea to put forward al
article of this kind as ''joke." Neverthe
-. 4.