New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-09-07
CHAIRMAN HENSEDS KEYNOTE.

No virtue approaches so near to being i'm
maculate as the political virtue of Democrat
who happens to reside in a Republican State.
Chairman Hensel of the Pennsylvania Demo-
cratic State Committee illustrated this truth in
the keynote speech he made in that State
last Monday evening He Is said to believe
that the prospects of the Pennsylvania DemOc-
racy are not so hopeless az they are generally
supposed to be, and consequently the note he
struck was pretty high and strong. 1t doubt
less outlines the position from which the De-
mocracy will contest the canvass of this year.
Charges of Republican misdoings abound, OF
course, and claims Of Democratic superiority
are equally numerous. Mr. IIensel appears to
be a Democrat much after the pattern of the
notorious John G. Thompson, of Ohio. They
both believe apparently that the prime re-
quisites in winnBg victory are to present bold
front to the enemy and to impress an opponent
with the conviction that they are in earnest
AS might have been expected, Mr.. Hensel
made vigorous defence of the course pursued
by his party in the Legislature on the appor-
tionmeDt question. lie was particularly elO-
quent over his desire to see "A fair division OF
the State into Congressional districts. And
fair division, in his opinion, is one based upon
the vote cast by the respective parties. That is
an impartial and an easy position for Demo-
crat to assume in Republican State. But If 1t is
a good rule to apply to the Republicans, why
Ia It not equally applicable TO the Democrats
Suppose the Democratic Legislatures of South
Carolina and Mississippi had followed the plan
laid down by Mr.. Hensel as the right one in
arranging Congressional districts. In each of
tIar Ia al irnn
majority of 10000 or 10000 votes, but 10y
ballot-bo stulfing and false counting the
Democrats gained control Of the Legislatures
and consequently of tho reapportionment. In
each State the mos. unblushing gerrymander-
ing was resorted to to cheat the Republicans
out Of their rights. One district in Mississippi
and one in South Carolina was conceded to the
party in the majority, and the minority party
grabbed every other district. Does Mr.. Hen
sci call that an apportionmeDt according to the
strength of the respective partesY His opinion
on tho subject would be interesting. These are
only two instances among a dozen which could
he cited to prove the unfair and grasping spirit
shown by the Democratic party wherever it has
control. So if Mr.. lIenscl is anxious for fair
ness in politics. he can find an ample field for
exercising il within the lines of his own party
without assuming n virtue in n locality where
he has not the power to put it into practice.
There is one other point in Mr.. Hensefs
speech which deserves attention. He favored
the abolition OF the internal revenue system, but
IL it was continued he urged that the revenue
resulting from the whiskey and tobacco tax
he divided among the counties. This, as it will
be readily seen, is Only n odilied form of the
plan advocated in the Pennsylvania Rcpub-
lican platform of disposing of the surplus rev.
enue The latter plan was to divide this sur
plus among the States. Chairman Iense
proposes to divide it among the counties. Tho
Democratic press has been particularly elo-
quent over the enormity Of the Republican
proposition. Ii was assumed that the Repub-
lican party throughout the country was COM
mitted to the plan, and great haste was made
to manufacture as much political capital as
possible out of it. Now that the chairman Of
the Pennsylvania Democratic Committee has
advocated a proposition which to all intents
and purposes is tho same 1T will be curious to |
see how his advice will be received by the |
papers Of his party.