Litchfield enquirer., 1872-03-14
THE ISSUE.

The leading parties of the past fifteen
 years have both deyiated from Their sworn
 lines of action; disturbing clements have of late noticeably increased social issues
 have assumed political shape: a general
 nreaking up. of the old, with portents of
 the new, is discerned. .-Register.
 Is the foregoing statement true? The
 Republican party organized on the prin-
 cipal of opposition to the extension of
 slavery Did they sser dsxiate from that
 ''sworn line of action?" Then the war
 broke out, and they proposed to restore
 the supremacy of the Union. Did they ever deviate from that line of action? then they fought for emancipation, forre- construction, and, last of all, enfranchise- ment. Every one of these ends they sought and reached in succession, with out deviation. So far the Register is ob- vioasly wrong; but how was it with the Democracy, in the meantime? They tried to '9et slavery aloneT That policy failed Then they endeavored to save the Union by compromise. Then they cried alter nately "for vigorous prosecution of the war, " and for "peace at any price," Then they took other 'ssworn lines of action, ' and opposed emancipation, reconstruc- 'tien and enfranchisement, successively. Each time they entrenched themselves and asseverated that they had reached positively their very last ditch; and each time they managed to "moye on." In other words, facts and accomplished re- suits have compelled the Democracy to deviate from their sworn lines of opposi- ton to Republicanism, in every instance since the formation of that party.
 This spring, finding it useless to at- tempt the maintenance of those sworn lines of action any longer, the Democracy say, in effect, "We give it up. We have seen the folly of last ditches, sworn lines of action, and that sort of thing. and propose hereafter to take matters as they are. We conclude, in short, that here- after, the government must be admins tered on the principles that you have al- ways advocated, and that we have always opposed. Now what we propose is to take the administration on those principles. We mean to be just as good republicans as any of you, and deal purer and hon. ester." It is on this matter of superior purity and honesty that Mir. Hubbard. the Democratic candidate for Governor. bases the Democratic claim. Does the Democratic record justify any such as- sumption? In New York city, where the party is at its strongest, the greatest poit- ical corruption ever known is to befound. Were the administrations of Pierce and Buchanan purer than those of Lincoln and Grant? It can hardly be claimed. Furthermore, are not the corrupt ways that have lately brought disgrace on the New York custom house legacy of cor ruption from Democratic administrations of that same public trust?
 Were the question barely this, "Shal Republicans or Democrats, supposing them equally honest, be set to administer ourgovernment on Republican principles?" there could not be moments doubt re- garding the proper decision. Of course the authors of a policy are its Attest, saf- est, thoroughest administrators, unless there is the gravest personal unftness for the trust. Is then the Republican party so corrupt and the Democratic party so honest that the Democrat can be more safely trusted to carry out a Republican policy than the Republican himself? Such is not their reputation with indifferent parties. Especially since the box-stuffing practiced by them in New Haven, last year, such has not been their reputation in this State, 'a