The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1879-05-24


reformers, as they termed themselves, in
The reform movement As compared with
the Democratic vote Of 1873, there we're
$3.50 reformers; and an examination Of
the vote Of 1876 viii exhibit the fact that
Harris received in 1875 but 4l6 more
votes than Hayes did in 1876. This is
the record, aud the record shows at the
most that only $3.50 persons voted against
the Democratic party who formerly voted
with ii. The arrogance, then, noted BY
the Democrat, was the arbitrary action Of
85,454 Democrats in overriding the 8, $50
Democats who supported the ticket Mr..
Wallis was on.
No convention ever gave entire satisiac-
ton. Perfection in anything IS not given
to man, and harmonious lie must be
one Of concessions. So with harmonious
party. If Mr. CAROLS nomination was
not an expression of the will Of the people,
the people must bear it, because they did
not properly manifest and uphold their
choice. If there were bargain and sale,
whose fault was il If the people reposed
confidence in delegates who were bought
and sold, as the Democrat charges, aud
misrepresented them, they must look to
their delegates for redress, not go to work
to break up party and beat down its
principles because their trusts were viola
ted by delegates who gave the convention
over to the control Of the supporters of Mr..
Carroll. Principles, not men, should be
the controlling motives with party. What
sort Of party man Is he who would de-
stroy bis party because one man was not
elevated whom he desired to see honored
If such feeling prevailed, party or
ganization would amount to nothing, aud
its principles never be triumphant
Mr. Hamilton, claims the Democrat,
was the choice Of the people for Governor,
aud on account Of the manner Of his le-
feat was the reform movement Inaugural
ted. To be consistent with their profess
sions they should have nominated Mr..
Hamilton, and insisted upon his acceptance.
Party fealty and devotion to Democratic
principles, which they claimed to possess
to such large degree, aad their protested
objects, would have suggested his nomina-
ton, or, at least, Of some one holding
Democratic doctrines. But, what was their
courseg j Morrison Harris was nomina-
ted for Governor. Mr. Ilarris was not
Democrat, and held principles in direct
conflict with those Of the Democratic party.
Twice previous, if We mist0kc not, he had
run for Congress on the Know Nothing
ticket, upon platform Of religious pro-
scription and ostraeism Of foreigu-born cit
izeus. In 1876, the year following his
candidacy for Governor, he was the Re
publican nominee for Congress 10 this dis
trict against Hon. Chas B. Roberts. His
election in 1875 would have been tri, /
umph Of Republican principles, and every
man who voted for him voted, in effect, to
overthrow Democracy. Mr.. Wallis was
the reform candidate for Attorney General,
and Col. Wilkins. Cor Comptroller, the
third man on the ticket, was and had been
consistent Republican. His election,
also, would have been a Republican tri
umph. Mr.. Wallis was sandwichcd be-
tween two Republicans, who would have
had all the patronage Of the State under
their control. Had Harris, Wallis and
Wilkins been elected, the State Govern
ment would have been Republican, aud
for that reason tho Republican party sup
ported the ticket What sort Of party
feally and devotion to Democratic prinei
pies, then, did Mr.. Wallis and bis sup |
porters exhibit in the campaign Of 1875? |
The professions of Mr.. Wallis aud his
friends to the contrary, he was in open hos
tility to the Democratie party, aud Iabored
to overthrow both its organization and its |
principles. For this act, he is not entitled
to any Of the honors within the Gift of
the Democratic party until he has proven
himselfloyal to the organization. We lay
stress upon organization, for without or.
ganization there can be no united action
and nosueeess Of either man or principles.
We have no complaint to make against
any Of those engaged in the reform move
meut. Every man is a free agent 10 poll
tics and at liberty to vote for whom he
pleases. Many voted the reform ticket
under misguided judgment, aud we're not
fully aware Of the results which would
have been consequent upon their success.
Others were habitual place seekers. whose
only principles were self aggraudizement.
But our position is, and we believe il is
the position of the Democratic party which
stood firm 10 1875, that those who became
aniagonis,ie to the Democratic organiza-
ton and its principles IN that year, espe
eially Dir. Wallis and other leaders Of the
reform movement, although now in full
accord with the Democratic party, should
be kept on probation until their loyalty Is
fully tested, Those should be houored who
most honor the party those who have been
sieadiass supporters Of both the party and
itsprineiples The success Of the reform
movement would have been triumph Of
Republican principles aud death 10 De
mocraey-- success for il would have drawn
to il al the floating vote Of place hunters
andiisovertbrow would not have been easy.
We have said this much in support, Or
rather in explanation Ct our position To-
ward Nj. Wallis. We do not intend, as
We stated ia the outset Of this article. d
DO drawn into controversy with the DEM
oerat on this subject. The position il as.
-. 49,. Il