New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-04-13
DEMocRATIC SRLkRESTRALNT.


When the Democratic party is conscious that
it had better hold its tongue, the world will
wonder what atrocities might have been uttered
if the party had dared to speak. So many in
famous things have been said by leading Demo-
Gratis, so many Infamous deeds have been de-
Tended or excused that one naturally asks
whether it was possible for the Democratic
party to perpetrate any greater folly or wicked
ness if its speech had been unrestrained. 1t is
astonishing, too to find in Democratic quarters
any recognition whatever of that loyal senti-
ment and public sense of decency which that
party has so often affronted. If Democrats
have discovered that there is a loyal and law
abiding public opinion, and that there arc limits
beyond which it cannot safely be outraged, the
party has really taken new departure, and
may effect some surprising self-imprOvement in
the end.
But the Democratic party has chosen n bad
time for its first lesson in self-restraint. 1t
does not profit to say insolent and dlslOyal
things, but it profits stll less to insist upon the
enactment of laws in defence of which nothing
can be said In order to hold Its tongue with
safety and advantage, the Democratic party
should first have suppressed its disloyal and
| w uVu u PuitJ pAO-
poses formidable change in laws of the most
vital character, it is bound to show reasons for
that change, to meet objections to it, or at least
to make some pretence of appealing to public
opinion. If it puts a gag upon itself at such
time, the inevitable inference is that its mea-
sure is so bad and its purpose so base that no
miscOnception caused by it's silence can possibly
do the party harm. UnquestiOnably the Demo-
Gratis have damaged themselves greatly by too
much dislOyal and revolutionary speech. But
they have chosen, for an eloquent passage of
silence, the one occasion upon which silence is
more damaging than any speech.
The pending Army bill, with its political
rider, is but one of q series OF revolutionary
measures which the Democracy tried, even at
the cost and risk of an extra session of Con-
gress, to cOerce the Executive into accepting.
The bullying failed; the coercion did not
coerce and the elections of last Fall told what
the people thought of the revolutionary pro-
gramme. 1t is an absurd mistake to suppose
that the Deople have forgotten these measures,
or will he ignorant of their character if the
Democrats Ia the House refuse to explain or
defend them. Still more foolish is it to imagine
that the people will judge of the Army bill by
itself, without reference to the other steps in
the revolutionary scheme. The object, in the
whole series OF measures, is to cripple the
United States Government, 80 that it shall be
powerless to enforce its laws, to protect its
citizens or officials or to preserve purity of cleo
lions. In order to make this radical change in
the laws in spite of the refusal of the people TO
give to the Democratic party votes enough to
overcome the Presidents constitutional power
of veto, that party has resorted to coercive
legislation by attaching the proposed changes
to bills making appropriations for carrying on
the Government. To this hour, the party sticks
to the disloyal measures which it proposed at
the extra session, and to the revolutionary
method adopted to coerce the President, and
the people understand the case whether Dem
ocrats speak or not.
1t will remain for the President to say what
he thinks, after Democratic nullfers have done
their worst. In O former message, he distinctly
stated his objection to the connection of political
legislation with the appropriation bills, because
it was calculated and designed to deprive the
Executive of opportunity to exercise with free
dom his constitutional power The issue thus
Joined was appealed to the people, and their
answer was an overwhelming Democratic de-
feat Thus sustained by popular verdict, the
President may see fit to veto every measure of
O coercive nature, though he agrees in part or
even wholly with it's provisions, on the sole
ground that legislation of that character ought
to be considered by Congress and by the Presi-
dent entirely apart from bills making the ne
ceSsary appropriations. There is before him
no evidence that the political features of such
bill have been independently considered, as
they should have been, by members of Con-
grcss, while it was plainly the intention not to
permit him so to consider them. If the Presi-
dent sends back with his veto every measure 80
framed the Democrats will learn at the election
next Fall how little their silence has helped
fhau