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

Republican vote (for the Republican party
very gcnernlly voted the Harris ticket
with the Democratic vote Of 1874 it viii
discovering there we're but COZ Democratic
reformers, as they termed themselves, in
the reform movement. compared with
the Democratic vote Of 1873, there were
$3.50 reformers; and an examination of
the vote Of 1876 will exhibit the fact that
Harris received ia 1875 but 4lG 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 il. The arrogance, then, noted by
the Democrat, was the arbitrary action Of
80, 454 Democrats 10 overriding the 1880
Democrats who supported the ticket Mr..
Wallis was on.
No convention ever gave entire satislae-
ton. Perfection in anything is not given
to man, and harmonious life must be
one Of concessions. SO with harmonious
party. If Mr.. Carroll's 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 a bargain aud sale,
whose fault was il, If the people scposed
confidence in delegates who were bought
and sold, as the Democrat charges, aud
misrepresented them, they must look to
their delegates for redress, not 50 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 his party because Que man was not
elevated whom he desired to see honorcd
If such feeling prevailed, party or
ganizatiou would amount to nothing, and
its principles never be triumphant.
Mr.. Hamilton, claims the Democrat,
was the choice of the people for Governor,
and on account Of the manner Of his de-
feat was the reform movement Inaugural
ted To be consistent with their profess
sious they should have nominated Mr..
Hamilton, and insisted upon his acceptance,
Party feahy aud devotion to Democratic
principles, which they claimed to possess
to such large degree, and their professed
objects, would have suggested bis nomina-
ton, or, at least, Of some one holding
Democratic doctrines. But, what was their
course2 j. Morrison Harris was nomina-
ted for Governor. Mr.. Harris was not a
Democrat, and held principles in direct
conflict with those Of the Democratic party.
Twice previous, if We mistakc not, he had
run for Congress on the Know Nothing
ticket, upon platform Of religious pro-
scription and ostraeism Of foreign. born cit
izcns. In 1876, the year following his
candidacy for Governor, he was the Re-
publican nominee for Congress in this dis
trict against Hon. Chas. B. Roberts. His
election in 1875 would have been tri-
umph Of Republican principles, aud every
man who voted for him voted, in effect, to
overthrow Democracy. Mr.. Wallis was
the reform candidate for Attorney General,
aud Col. Wilkins, Tor Comptroller, the
third man on the ticket, was and had been
a 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 beeu elected, the State Govern
ment would have been Republican, and
for that reason the Republican party sup
ported the ticket. What sort of party
fealry and devotion to Democratic princi-
plies, then, did Mr. Wallis and his sup
porters exhibit in the campaign Of 1852
The professions Of Mr. Wallis aud his
friends to the contrary, he was in open hos
tility to the Democratic party, and labored
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
himself loyal to the orgamsaiioa. welay
stress upon organization, for without or
ganization there can be no united action
and no success Of either man or principles.
We have no complaint TO make against
any Of those engaged in the reform move
ment. Every man is free agent in poll
ties and at liberty to vote for whom he
pleases. Many voted the reform ticket
under misguided judgment, aud were not
fully aware Of the results which would
have been consequent upon their success.
Others were habi.aal place seekers, whose
only principles were self aggrandizement.
But our position is, aud we believe Il is
the position Of the Democratic party which
stood firm iu 1875, that those who became
antagonistic to the Democratic organiza-
ton and its principles in that year, espe-
eially sr. 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 hcnorea who
most honor the party those who have been
steadiass supporters Of both the party add
its principles. The success of the reform
movement would have been a triumph Of
Republican principles and death 70 De.
mocraey- success for itwouId have drawn
to il all the floating vote Of place hunters
andiss overthrow would not have been easy.
We have said this much in support, or
rather in explanation Of our position to-