National Republican., 1883-02-03
A Grave Constitutional Question.

Mr.. MURPHY, an apostle of modern dcmoc-
racy, took up his carpet-bag in 1880 end pro-
cccdcd to the state of Indiana to onlightcn
the voters of that state as to the tenets of his
party, the character of its candidates, and the
benefits to be derived by its asccndency
in the presidential election. He declares
that, in addition to his partisan zeal, an
other consideration him therounto NOV
ing was the promise of reward held
out by one WILLIAM II. ENGLISH,
then riding double land bchind) on the
democratic Rosinante with WINFIELD
SCoTT HANCOCK. Tho labors of Mr. MURPHY
in the Indiana vineyard were marked by
twenty-five exhaustive and oXhausting
speeches from various rostrums in the state.
His price for these efforts was Il mere song.
So near did virtue come to being its own re-
ward in his estimation that, to make up the
deficit, he imposed but the triling tax of $40
per effort. His cash expenses for five weeks
were but $3.50, which amount. with free passes
(if any, and the blandness of Hoosier hospi-
tality, enabled him to live and move and have
his being while educating the average Indiana
democrat upon the duty of the hour, which
was to overcome all prejudice against Mr..
! ENGLISH and rally for HANCOCK, victory,
and the spoils. OF this claim for 81 $50 but
500 was ever met. Wherefore the plaintiff
brings suit, &C., &C., &c.
To all of which thus Mr.. Vice Presidential
Candidate WIN. II. ENGLISH replies: First.
lie never employed Mr. MURPHY. Sec
ond. Mr.. MURPuY's speeches were "poor
and unworthy of consideration" Third.
Mr.. MURPHY "spoko Of his own interest
and desire; and fourth and last says
Mr.. ENGLISH, "the alleged contract was
against the policy of the common law, repug-
nant to the constitution and law of the United
States, and against public policy and void"
We have nothing TO do with the question of
veracity raised between these two democratic
chieftains by the avermcnt and the denial as
to employment. Nor do we care to attempt
an estimate of the quality or value of any
speeches that could have been made by
Mr.. MURPHY under tho circumstances
which surrounded him. That Mr.. MURPHY
should have spoken for the nero love of the
business may have been true, but few will be.
licye that Mr.. ENGLISH could be sincere in
accusing any person of what would to him
have seemed such n folly. 1t is with the con,
stitutional question that the readers of TIL
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN will be most con,
, cerncd. 1t is not that they care so much
? about the present application Of the principle
but they will be hungry for reply to the
f great inquiry; as it lawful to pay fol
D a stump speech" negative response woult
III their souls with dismay. The judge be
9 fore whom tho case was argued on demur
rcr to tho last branch of the defense rulet
4. against ENGLISH and in favor of the consti
4 tutionality of paying MURPHY whatever sun
s had been agreed upon for his efforts on thu
r stump. Unless higher court shall reverse
p it, it is therefore now the law in Indiana tina
G IL man may be hired to make politica
{ speeches. This will enable one or other o
/ the great parties of the day to engage at.th
0 usual rates the peripatetical, super@sthetlca
t CARL scHURz to carry Indiana on reform
A principles in 1884, Let us hope that MI
S MURPHY WI s>g establishing this great prin
K ciple, havey as%d in being allowed t
Q turn Mr.. a>9ckotbook the inne
: side out, q = feel how sharpe
r thanas is TO have II demo
= cratic y .vr the vice presidency.