Daily globe., 1882-08-02
THE sTALWART PLEA
For Democrrtic Nominee tn the Fifth
District.


District.
To the Editor of the Globe:
ST.. CLOUD, July 81, 1851 clip from your
issue of the 2Sth inst. the following editorial
paragraph:
The Democratic Fifth district committee fulfilled
its mission yesterday by doing just what 1t should
not have done. That is apparently what Demo cratic
committees are for Whether Intentional or not, the
action OF the committee is simply designed to aid
aud strengthen the Wsshburn- Nelson ring of the
Republican party and to do what is possible to aks
Democratic success ct any future period i'm
possible. This ought to cheer the Bourbon .art.
The Bourbon is never SO happy when he sees
step taken backward.
Permit me space in your columns to say few
words in reply to this, and other items of like
character, recently in your paper, equally
broad in assertion and just as barren of ar
gument. do not propose defense OF the
committee-no vindication is necessary for a
plain duty, performed in good faith. My
purpose is to lay before your Democratic
readers succinct statement, with facts and
figures, of political affairs in this district, and
leave them to render the verdict. am moved
to do this by the fact that the GLOBE, while
carefully refraining from stating the relative
strength Of the parties in the Fifth district,
has designated as "Bourbons" those who
favor Democratic nomination. If to be a
Bourbon" is to be placed in the same politi-
cal category as the Seymours, Thurmans and
Pendletons of the party, then, for one, am
proud of the appellation.
In.lSS0, the presidential vote in the counties
now comprising the Fifth district was as fol.
lows: Republican 15,442, Democratic 8,5O7.
Assuming their claims to be correct, and
that the two Republican candidates
for congress will equally divide their
party vote, each would receive
7,72l, or 1856 less than the Democratic vote.
At the same election Gen. Sibley received in
these counties 1855 votes, showing thatsthere
were that number of citizens in the district
who preferred q Democrat to Washburn.
Granting that the GLOBE is correct IN desig-
mating Nelson's candidacy as scheme to
strengthen the Washburn ring, Is it not rea-
sonabie to assume that these 1856 votes will
continue to record their ballots against that
ring? Not only is this feature OF the outlook as.
suring, but 1t is an acknowledged fact that there
are hundreds of Republicans who will not vote
for either Of the candidates now in the field, be-
cause of the disgraceful proceedings at and
prior to the convention, and for the addition
al reason that both are regarded as unfit per.
sons for the position.
With purality Of from 900 to 900; with
our opponents disrupted and weakened by dis
sentions; with an s'off years. in which 10
failed to place candidate in the field, and
prosecute an active canvass, we would GER
tdinIy make a Democratic success at any fU-
ture period impossible. This is the lightlin
which our Democrats regard the situation.
Permit comparison in order to illustrate
the GLOBES Inconsistency. The counties now
mprislng the Fourth district gave Wash
burn majority of $40 over Gen. sibley, one
of the purest and most widely respected of
Minnesotians. (W.'s majority in the present
Fifth district was 5,104) Washburn is sgain
a candidate, and the GLOBE is, very properly,
preparing for a red-hot campaign against him.
1t is 10 be square issue between him and the
Democratic nominee - no third candidate.
Now, il it is q commendabie project for the
Democrats of the Fourth district to make a
fight against the Washburn ring and its 5 ,442
majority, will the GLOBE explain why it is not
equally meritorious for the Democrats of the
Fifth district with plurality in their favor of
rom 900 to 1,600 to wage war upon that
same Washburn ring? Any other course
would be dishonorable, and hence would not
be "Bourbonisn."
But, says the GLOBE, the nomination of
Democrat will elect Nelson. Suppose, for ar.
gunent's sake, that 1t does have that effect,
will the Democrats be any worse off with
Nelson than with Kindred? Will the latter
not vote with the Republicans on all ques-
tions? By this admission of Kindred's weak
uesS \Wltu WHICH 40 uO5 dRree) the ULOBE
acknowledges that he cannot hold one-third
of the entire voc, yet it advises the Demo-
cratic. 40 per cent. of it,sto go over to him
he stronger going to the weaker, instead of
rice versa.
Ia my opinion, Democrats gain nothing by
aiding to pull down one Republican ring, only
to assist IN building up another. What diff
ference does it make to us whether it is a
Ramsey, Window, Dunnell or Washburn ring
which holds power and dispenses patronage?
1t were better for US if they were left alone
to fatten and become SO corrupt that the
people will arise and demand a change of
parties in power. The GLOBES missionary ef-
forts for the regeneration and publication of
the Republican party, by the destruction of
it's corrupt rings and the installation of a
new set of Republican officials, if successful,
will certainly tend to strengthen that organi.
zation in public confidence; but how such a
course can aid in promoting Democratic as
tendency is something cannot perceive.
In calling the convention, the committee
but voiced the unanimous wish of the Fifth
district Democracy. To have doRe otherwise
would have been dishonest and dishonorable-
hence not "Bourbonism." We feel that Eve
have "good fighting chance" and were it
not for the sire in the rear,'' which comes up
from st. Paul, we could confidently predict a
certain victory. OF course; there is no
"Bourbonism" about the st. Paul Democrats,
who thus treacherously stab US in the back.
G. F. MACDONALD.