Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1880-07-12
From the New York Tribune.
A Real Danger.

lnc dctlOH pIoposcu ~ ONnSA'
is 1876. as if there were danger that the
democratic party might now seize the
Presidency, are told by the insinuating
and plausible supporters of that gentle
man that ''the only party which ever gave
..up the Presidency, when all its own
members and many of the opposition
Thought its candidate elected, was the
democratic party. which is now charged
"by its opponents with intending to seize
1.-THE government, whatever the result
"may be- This is one way CT stating it.
1t leaves out of sight two or three essen
tial facts, however. In the first place,
the only claim they ever had for the cleo
ton of Mr.. Tilden was based upon the
fact, which cannot be successfully contro-
verted, that in two or three Southern
States the colored republican vote was
suppressed by intimidation and violence.
Had this suppression not been foreseen bv
those who gave the blacks their freedom
and the ballot, or had it not been provid-
ed against by statute law, the claim might
be made with technical justice. But the
conspiracy was foreseen, and the remedy
provided; the enforcement of Just laws
defeated the conspirators. The democrat
ic claim is that except for these laws and
their legal execution, their candidate
would have been elected. Leaving them
out, perhaps he was elected. But there
they were, and they stood stubbornly in
the way The democrats ''gave up the
Presidency because their leader knew
the weakness of their claim.
But the party did not, in fact, 'give up
the Presidency" Mr.. Tilden did. and it
was simply. as stated, because he knew
his claim was not sound and could not
stand. There were miscellaneous men
enough IN the party to have undertaken
resistance and revolution, haG he but con-
sented to take the lead and give the word.
How much credit is due the party, or the
leaders of the party. for their great act of
self-denial in giving up the presidency, is
well shown by their unsparing condemna-
ton of Tilden's cOwardice, and their re-
pudiaton of his claim for denomination.
So much of self-denial as they showed
they were driven to by his refusal to act
That refusal left them without leader;
and how could they demand the Presden-
o,- orr p,,La a ,novamauf toward SpiziuU
it, without having some one on whose be-
half to make the demand? 1t is a mis-
take to attribute to the party the peaeea-
BILE surrender that was made, or give them
credit for retaining from violence through
motives of patriotism or unwillingness to
disturb the peace. They were willing
and eager to undertake the seizure OF the
Presidency. And the difference between
the situation in 1877 and the present is,
upon their own showing. that whereas
then they had candidate who was too
timid to assert what they call his rights,
now they have one in whose favor the
strongest arguement, and the one most
constantly dwelt upon, is that he Twill
take his seat
The fear that they will seize the Presi-
dency is far from being groundless. The
fact that they did not seize it in 1877 is not
only no proof that there is no danger now,
but rather increases the danger. For they
now say openly that Tildcn's backward
ness and cowardice stood in their way be-
fore, but that this time they have a candi-
date they can depend upon. What does
all this mean, and what does General
"Baldy" Smiths talk about Hancock
willingness to recognize Tilden in 1877.
mean, if not that they are prepared to
take desperate measures to get possession
of the government? The nomination of
General Hancock. taken in connection
with the dissatisfaction at Tilden's course.
the arguments used with delegates in
Hancock's favor. and the outburst OF fiery
enthusiasm from the men who like General
Preston. of Kentucky. "want little pow
der and ball." will bear no other interpre-
tation. These men propose to elect Cen
eral Hancock If they can. but whether they
elect him or not to "seat him. The fear
that they will seize the Presidency is not
idle or groundless.
People who are called upon to rem. M
Der how they ''gave up the Presidency in
1877, will remember "a we'll the excellent
reasons why they gave it mp. And as for
the record of the party furnishing any
guarantee for their keeping the peace,
nothing could be more absurd. They tell
US it is the only party that ever gave up
1.-THE Presidency" On the contrary. it is
the only one that ever refused to abide by
the result of an election: the only one that
ever rebelled and appealed to arms; the
only one that in the past forty years has
not been increasingly engaged either in
making war against the government or
it. If it has nothing but its
record to appeal to in proof of its pacific