The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1873-12-20

MI. Fernando Wood voted twice On the bill
# earlier stages Of he proceedings, and both
times his votes we're favorable 70 itsadoptiQn.
Il Is alleged lhaf Ne once changed bis vote 70
snro i from defeat VIII The Advocate make
moth Of theSe faeis7 Also Of that other slg,
ni6caot hct-ihe speech Of Alex, H. Steph-
ems, OF Georgia, one.9f the most prominent
members Of the House Of Representatives,
nncoaditionally iavorinN the salary grab. Mr..
Stephens says the Democrats are as much re-
sponsihle for the passage Of the bill rs the
Republicans. How does the advocate like
his ioeiog Il seemEto be sound. Fernando
Wood favored the grab and pocketed the
proceeds, vet heis supported for the speaker
Ehipof the House BY the Democratic members
A larger proportion of tie Democrats than Of
the Republicans in the House voted for t.
Mr.. Stephens, the great Southern Democratic
header advocates the continuance Of the law.
VIII the Advocate makea note Of these Actg
--Sentinel
The Advocate challenges the Senh-
nets aiacts, and asks for the proofs. 'Itis
alleged, says the Sentiasl. Agreat many
things are aallegedp that are not true
Allegations cannot be accepted as ''facts,"
Il unsupported As to Alexander H.
Stephens, he is not an exponent Of Dem
ocracy his utteranees arc his own, and
must pass only for what they are worth,
like those Of other men. Every Demo
cratic Journal, and every Democratic con-
vention that has assembled since the salary
bill passed, have denounced it, These are
the exponents Of the Democratic party,
and not Mr. Stephens Nor Is Mr.. Wood
the exponent Of Democracy. Admit, for
the sake Of argument, that he did all that
the Sentiaei alleges il proves nothing
against the Democratic party he is but
one man, and not the party; and his en-
Edorsement for Speaker BY his fellow mem
bsrs, proves nothing. What more could
have been expected Of men some Of whom
at least voted for the salary bill, than that
they should have endorsed one of their
own number. But Mr.. Wood did not vote
for the bill, and we have his own assurance
through the New York World, that had he
been present in Congress he would have
voted against ii. The Sentinel knows thai
the Republican party had nearly a two
thirds majority in Congress when this bill
passed, and President possessing the vet'
power, who could have defeated the meas
ure with the utmost ease, but he did no
do it. Has the Ssntinel ever condemned
the signature Of the President to that bill
Dare it do such a thing7 II is swift Il
denounce few mistaken Democrats 70
: voting for it, let it show its consistency, it
Independence, its manliness. BY denounc
ing the President for signing the bill
Come, now, no eraw-fshing around thi
most palpable duty. If it was wrong TO
Democrat TO vote for it, it was equal,
wrong, if not more so, for the Presiden
of the United States to sign il. Where i
your virtuous indignation against this ac
Of u. s. Grant? What If a majority Of
J the few Democrats in Congress did vote
for il, that does not make the Democratic
party responsible for It, forthe Democratic
party in all its conventions since have re.
pudiated their acts. Why can't the Sen.
tinei be as honest as Harper's Weekly, and
acknowledge the responsibility of its party
for this measure, and bestow it's censure
where it is most deserved2 Until it does
| this, let i be silent about Democrats,