The anti-monopolist., 1876-07-20

ment alreauy prepGareu, WHICH, was a0Opte0 Dy
sections.
Mr.. Daniel Bassett objected to the second
section, which mentioned the democratic
party as the one principally concerned" He
wanted name which would attract all voters
opposed to the republicans. What we want is
votes for tine campaign, and it is not policy for
the club to adopt any language which will
drive away those anxious for reform.
Mr.. Falk thought the word democratic was
good enough, and should not be changed.
Mr.. Bassett again demanded name which
would not drive away the reform voters.
Mr.. Robinson was anxious to catch the votes
of ali reformers, and favored every reasonable
change of name calculated to gain accessions.
But the democratic colors had never bee n
grounded in vote-catching excursion, and it
should not do SO now.
Frank Mead thought it was simple quibble
over words. It meant the election of Tilden
aud Hendricks.
Ed. Cramsie did not quite believe that demo-
cracy and reform meant the same thing, but
be favored the adoption Of the section As it
stood.
Ed. A. Stevens proposed the following SUBJ
stitute for the debated section:
ITO secure retrenchmeut and reform a gov
ernment Of the people, by the people, for the
people, by the triumph Of true democratic prin-
ciples, and especially by the election Of Tilden
and Hendricks"
voters, but we were here to organize demo-
cratic club, and those who were not ready to
hail the democratic cOlOrs to the mast might
absent themselves without detriment to the
cause.
MIR. Bassett again came to the defense of his
position, but he had belonged to party which
had been in the habit of expressing its views,
even if the old wheel horses did not approve it,
If the language was modified it would not
modify our principles.
Mr.. Lochren remarked that he did not wish
to deter the expression of opinion, and claimed
that the last speech Of Mr.. Bassett was the re-
suit Of misapprehensi0n.
been framed as tcnderly as possible, SO as not
to offend any one who approved the Jefferson
ian qualifications Of honesty and capacity.
BAssett was voted down rociferonsly.
Mr.. Lochren did not feel quite 50 in
tolerant year and half ago when he
was receiving the votes Of grangers,
Anti-Monopolists and disaffected Repub-
licans for United States Senator. We
are sorry to see him SO narrow-gauged
now.
The Democrats arc in . minority in Min
nesota and inthe nation and II they are to
win it can only be BY obtaining the
support Of the independent voters who
are not Democrats. They will find it
easier to vote down their allies ..vocifer-
ously," in caucus, than to vote down the
Republicans at the polls. A drop Of
honey will catch more flies than q gal.
Ion OF vinegar.
Take Carl Schurz's case as an exam
pie. Carl was dissatisfied Republican,
an independent, a liberal. He cooper
ated with the Democrats in Missouri and
brought over to the party hundreds Of
thousands OF German Republican votes
throughout the nation. He was elected
to the Senate BY the united opposition
and played conspicuous part there,
waging most effective war on the ad-
ministration. When his six years were
up he sought reelection. But the Dem
ocrafs OF Missouri rallied against him !:
he was not q iull-blooded, true-blue dyed
in-the-wool. hereditary Democrat; and
SO they threw him over board and elect
ed In his place some nonentity whose
name is known to-day only to the God
who made him and the clerk that calls
the roll OF the Senate; while Carl goes
into the world as a '.free lancer and has
since dealt Democracy some of the most
deadly blows. Last fall when Ohio was
the pivot OF the national contest the os-
tracised Carl threw himself into the fight
and brought victory to the Republican
standard. Where was then Missouri's
nondescript who had taken his place in
the Senate? Why did he not meet Carl
on the stump in Ohio?
Ageneration of defeats seems to have
taught some Democrats nothing but in
tolerance.