Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1873-04-17

~ss~~y "rssS~~ sS'~
statements made over the signature. Ts~s
Hse, dceming the siasemesss apnsde dsp-
gefess 70 the very lsss Jegrss ssd noss
pernieicus. alike in inception and in pos
sible results. A doubt existed in my
mind whether the blow thus sought to be
inflicted upon the Democratic party vas
aimed by some misguided follower Of the
party itself. or BY some cunning and in
sidious foe. lurking in Sleeps clothing
within the limits of our intrenchmenis.
The article in your issue of the Bird in
s'ssi. in response 10 ny "reprimand and
reply" leaves no doubt - TO the gentle
mans affiliations. OF the Democratic fol-
lowing. be is ye. the party's foe. He who
can see aught Of pearness in Democratic
principles 10 even moderate Republican
ism. who cso IS matter of party princi-
pie and action recognize and give adhe-
sion TO the backward strides OF the past
decade. who can 50 calmly give his quasi
endorsements to political acceptance of the
passing Of many of,be governmental views
Of the fathers into abstrsaions with oih-
ers yet to follow. is surely no true MEM
Der Of that wonderful party Of progress.
that. founded by the fathers, and inbued
with their views and doctrines. and hold
ing with them in the Interpretation Of the
organic law one faith, led our country on
ward from comparative nothingucss to a
position without peer. Least Of all can
such man DO recognized as holding pow
er-to teach and to cxpound within the
Sauhedrim walls. In turning bis back
upon the foundation principles of his par
ty. be has bowed the knee to Baal aud
has passed without the pale.
Permit me a word or reference to my
previous communication. upon which o
forced construction has been placed.
therein simply deprecated further yield
ing to the passions of the hour. claiming
implicitly that all our yielding in the past
had brought Us only shame and mortifca-
ton and defeat. Turning to Trae Blue.
took his statements rs they stood. and
without endorsing or denying them in airy
way. using his own weapons against him.
| sought to exhibit the iDconclusiyeuess Of
bis final position BY species Of reIuctio
od otsard"m. 'as fair a weapon. and Of
ten as effective. as any in the whole Par
liamentary armory." So far am from
acknowledging the correctness of the origi-
nal postulate. that I deny utterly the fact
assumed by True Blue that We are in a
minority. and BY consequence deny thst
either Of the alternatives presented BY him
needs serious consideration. The Con.
vention candidates in II were beaten. it
is true. and the Radical ticket led in 70.
Do these two facts establish the nccessa-
~ failure Of the Democratic party in fu-
ture contests? We take counsel Of our
fears il We answer "yes." In II the
fight was against nominations and not
against the Democratic party. The idea
was. by the supporters ofthe Independent
candidates. most Indignantly repudiated.
that those candidates would, il elected.
give any support to the party in opposi-
ti"n. II is fact beyond dispute that the
Independent wing voted for THEMSELVES,
and for themselves alone. BY what prom
iscs they succeeded in gaining the Radi-
cal vote ! know not. But IL tina. support
was conditioned upon corresponding sup
port. the condition was not fulfilled.
can scarcely imagine that the Radical lead.
ers would have been willing to throw their
whole influence in favor Of the Iudcpen-
dent faction on the promise of the leaders
Of the latter to hold of and vote only for
themselves. The Independent vote must.
in the very nature Of things. have been Of
fered to the Radicals in exchange for their
own. Now. looking at the matter simply
ss practical question. in view Of the very
probable results that would arise from such
course rs affecting themselves politics.
". would the Independent leaders have
made such promises. a. assume they
must have made. with the deliberate inscn.
ton Of violating them-or without such
prior Intention would they have dared the
violaiionf ! should say not. Though
the close vote. and especially the falling
Oh in the vote Of that Legislative candi-
date who had not received the seal Of ap-
prohasiea Of the Independents caucus.
(Which was amer oil very close .kiud d
. ssnioasioa b. sslf-sppoia,ed delegates.
would be IN Ugly thing for them 10 explain
were they called upon % 70 do. The nat
ter wears an ugly aspect for them. must
confess. aud il they are found guilty d
the breach Of contract a above indicated.
there nnss BE- some hard feelings among
some Of our Radical friends which they
can scarcely smother to the extest ofsgain
supporting the men sho betrayed them.
Bas | rather incline 10 the ssppcritiop
that the Independent leaders eosld no,