The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-10-26
THAT some IDEA.o

THE STATESMAN accuses the EE-
press of not being Democratic pa
per because it does not agree with
Judge Hancock ON the tariff ques-
ton. According to it's own admis-
sion the STATESMAN has but zone
ldea," and that is in connection with
the tariff question. 1t is bitterly OPP
posed to the ideas of Hon. Colum-
bus Upson on that question, and has
fought his position tor the past two
years. If Upson had been nomi-
mated at Austin, would the STATES
MAN have abandoned the only idea
it possesses and advocated his cleo
tiOn2 Will the STATESMAN please
answer that question ? The Express,
possessing more than zone idea,"
can support Hancock IN everything
except his tariff ideas.-S. A. E.c-
press.
The Express, we repeat, is not a
Democratic paper. 1t has taken ap.
parent pride in presenting this fact
to the public for q considerable
time, and, being uudemocratic, it is
quite reasonable that its opinions on
the tariff should be tinctured some
what with Republican ideas,
for the only potent enemy of De.
mocrscy is Republicanism. The
STATESMAN, on the other hand, is
Democratic, and hence it Is opposed
to this iniquitous Republican meas
ure, by which the consuming masses
of this country are forced to pay tri-
butte to a favored class, made so to
meet the emergencies of a cruel war,
and continued to perpetuate and
keep active the corrupt agencies by
which public malfeasance, which
mostly characterizes the Republican
party, is kept alive. As to Mr.. Upson,
his Democracy has been often as
serted, and, though he was mention
ed in Washington undemocratic
paper. some months ago, as the pro-
bable Independent candidate for
governor of Texas, we have had faith
in the truth of this assertion. The
Express will remember that the
STATESMAN often referred to
the fact, in advance of the
congressional nomination, that no
man could get such nomination, not
in harmony with the Democratic
party on the tariff question. The
Express seemed to speak for Mr..
Upson, and it then asserted that Mr..
Upson wss with the Democratic
party, and yet this may have been
more of an assertion than fact. 1t
turns out, at least, that Mr.. Upson is
with the Republican wool growers
on the tariff, for it is pretty plainly
demonstrated that he is not with the
Democratic wool growers. Mr.
Upson and the Erpress assumed
little too much, and they got
their feet in it, and now they
find themselves housed with Repub-
licans and not with Democrats, and
in opposition to true Democracy as
subscribed to by John Hancock
The STATESMAN asserted that no
high tariff man could be nominated,
and the result proves that we were
correct, and developments show, at
least, that Democrats, whether wool
growers or not, are with us in this
canvass. Had Mr.. Upson been
chosen; he would have been nomi-
mated on the doctrine contained in
the Cincinnati and the Galveston
platforms, and being bound by them,
we could have sustained him.
The STATESMAN substantially made
this declaration in advance of the
Austin convention. Mr.. Upson
could have been nominated IN no
way to preclude support on the part
of the STATESMAN. Here is the diff
ference between the two papers, the
STATESMAN and the Cypress. The
one endorses Democratic nomina-