The Russellville Democrat., 1882-10-19

centralize and imperialize our gov. ernment. Opposed to this party is the democracy, party that has ever been the party of the people, and one that believes the government is, and should be administered by the people for the people; in other words, the greatest good to the greatest number" We present herewith the two theories of government, the dem ocratic and republican:
 The democratic doctrine of local selfgovernment was well expressed by the lamented President Garfield, whose liberal sentiments often brought upon his head the severe condemnation of his party. In his inaugural address he said, in speak ing of the results of the war:
 "This decree does not disturb the autonomy of the States, nor inter- fere with any of their necessary rights of local self government; but it does fix and establish the perma- nent supremacy of the Union." Is not the foregoing noble senti- ment but the keynote of true democ- racy? But look on the other side; The republican theory of govern ment as illustrated by the danger ous tendencies of that party-partic- ularly during the Forty seventh Con- gress-is of the Hamiltonian order, not as actually embodied in the con- stitution, but as Hamilton would have stamped that document if he had succeeded in his imperial ideas. In speech upon the floor of the House May 4, 1882, MT. Morrison, (Dem. of Illinois, called attention to the republican tendency as fol- lows:
 "The form of Government propos- ed by Mir. Hamilton was not adopted, and is not the one under which we live. He said in the convention to form the Constitution:
 All communities divide them selves into the few and the many; the rich and we'll born, x and the mass of the people. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give, therefore, the first class-the rich and well-born-a distinct, per manent share in the Government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second-the mass ot the people and < < will ever maintain good government. Nothing but perma- nent body can check the imprudence of democracy.
 Thus it will be seen that, great as Mir. Hamilton was, he believed none but the few he called the rich and well-born capable of governing and maintaining good government. His form of government was rejected, but are we not drifting to it's substance2 How else are we to account for the growing popularity of his opinions? No one knew better than he that la boring men are never legislated into his governing class, and the men do not attain riches from the labor of their own hands, but from the profits of the labor of other men. The hard ship of this truth is not helped but aggravated by tariffs and by any and every system professedly in the interest of any class. The real friends of labor never attempt such legislation but from mistaken views. In every race for legislative benefits labor obtains less, capital more than it's share. Individual enterprise and the legitimate accumulation of cap ital cannot be interfered with, but legislation which helps an unjust distribution of property or an unfair division of the proceeds of labor is a great public wrong. Aside from land, the value of which depends up- on the use made of it, all the capital of the saving of labor in the richest State never exceeds three years con- sumption, and as to food we are all ways nearer than year to starva- tion. The earnings of both capital and labor must be paid from their joint product. When capital takes too much, labor receives too little. Official statistics show that under this system in many industries cap ital takes to itself four times the earnings of its ordinary employment, the rates of interest, and leaves to labor less than it's legitimate earn ings.
 If Mir. Hamilton desired to foster and perpetuate divisions in society and the fortunes of men, the protect i've policy was wisely selected for the purpose"
 Voters of Pope county, what do you think of the two theories? Which will you choose? There can be but one answer, and that will be, an un- broken democratic congressional del egation from Arkansas. Ohio has spoken in thunder tones against the pernicious republican tendency of centralization, Indiana will follow in her wake, as will also New York and Pennsylvania. Will Arkansas do less?