The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1880-08-05
philadelphia North American.) }
English on Entails.

Mr.. William Ii. English is right Laws of
entail have not been favored by our system of
government. In our system the people are
privileged to change ther rulers every four
years. They have sometimes reelected Presi-
dents, but only when the country at large. was
content and desired no change, and in such
cases we assume that the people were compe-
tent to arrange the matter, and did arrange it
in their own way What Mr.. English wanted
to say was that it was bad for the country
when one partysrules twenty years consecutive
y Mr.. English is getting on in years, and age
may have brought wisdom. 1t cannot be un
reasonable to ask him since when has he, or
any other Democrat, protested against consec-
utive rule for twenty years? Mr. English was
no chicken in 1852, at which time, as he and
other Democrats maintain, the Democratic
party had been practically in control of the
government twenty years. We do not allow
that there was any Democratic party as it has
been known for thirty years earlier than 1882,
but it can be admitted for the time, for the
sake Of the argument put forward by Mr. Eng
lish. t.f ...f..rE rt rrff hst a,o
Well, MIR. English was no chicken in 1852,
but we can find no record of his protest to the
nomination and election of Franklin Pierce.
He was still less a chicken in 1856, and we do
not find him arguing against ''entails'' at that
time. He was still older in 1860. but he
entered no protest against an extension of
Democratic rule at that time, when, according
to Democratic chronology, the party had held
the relns for thirty years. IL is possible that
he had III mind the dreadful ending of Demo-
cratic rule when he prepared his argument
against entails. II so, he Is justified. But 1t
ed the disastrous effects of consecutive rule as
illustrated by his own party. Perhaps he left
that to be supplied by the intelligent reader.
Mr., English thinks the perpetuation Of Re
publican rule four years longer will not be in
the interest OF the millions who earn their
bread by honest industry. Perhaps not But
will he tell the public whether the right and
the opportunity to earn that bread by the toll
ing millions is not to-day the result of Repub-
lican rule? To four millions, at least, tho right
to work for wages has Injured through RepuBli-
can rule; and had Mr.. English and his party
succeeded in destroying the Union, in 1861 and
later, what would have been the condition of
the forty odd millions OF white men and wo-
men to-day? Had not the Republican party
borne rule, would we have any Union at all?
Would we have any protective tariff, under
which the Industries OF the country are now
operating on a permanent basis, and increasing
earn their bread by honest industry? He does
well to return thanks to bountiful Provi-
dence for prosperity an act of which he was
not guilty while. the Democrats were in power.
The Democrats in their day of rule never
thanked God for anything. They attributed
everything good to the party. But Providence
only helps those who help themselves. The
Republicans have furnished the conditions OF
Providential help, which is to their credit The
Democrats took care of the party and left the
care OF the people to Providence-or chance.
The letter Of Mr.. English is characteristic Of
the man as he is known in history. Always
selfish, always narrow, always seeking to win
by trick rather than by direct methods he
turns up twenty years later with the same col
lar on his neck, having neither learned nor for
gotten anything. His letter will not help Con-
eral Hancock.