The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-02-21
WHAT Is DEMOCRACY ABOUTg


that is, the place holders cannot turI
its crank and make it give forth sucl
notes as please them alone, while th'
people are outraged by its false notes
5 1t tells the truth. not caring where il
$ falls, whom it affects; popular neces
sites guide it in its expressions
Hence it secC:"- vns of such as
! hope to deceiSe, who least
think, when entrusted M:h place. oil
the people and wholly of individul in
terestS aad personal ambitions. 1t
holds, as does THE STATESMAN,
that the public officer is the public
servant, not some one to be moulded
into different shapes, when public
measures present themselves, to per-
petrate deceptions. Had the Sentinel
been published in Texas it would have
espoused the cause of the people in
opposition to creating slave-owners
for state convicts; it would have
espoused the cause Of the people in
favor of public education, by abolish
ing free grass and giving at once,
to the free schools S1,200OO0 annually
for their maintenance and as relief
to property taxation. This being its
character the Sentinel does not pro-
pos n ide the misdeeds Of Congress-
IL A:,,lllng themselves Democrats,
~ abandon the popular cause and
take up that of individuals and a
specially privileged class. In asking
s"what is the Democracy about" it
says:
Some time ago we asked in these
columns that the Democratic senators
and members of the House should
hold a caucus and take some steps,
through some committee or otherwise,
to define what Democracy is. We
stated at the same time that there was
no possibility of the party ever
being successful in q presidential cleo
tion as long as there was no concert of
| action and every Democrat differed
with the other as to what Democracy
meant.
Nothing has since been done in that
direction, except that the Democratic
chaos has become still more mixed up,
if that be possible. Nearly one-third
of the Democratic members of the
| House will vote with the enemy on
Republican principles and interests,
and cowardly turn their backs on
their party, because they have Repub-
licans at home supporting them, who
might otherwise, if they stuck to
| Democratic principles, refuse to vote
for them at the next election. Hence,
| with over seventy majority, the Dem
ocrats frequently fail to carry through
Democratic measures.
There is, for instance, the personal
liberty question. The national Demo-
cratic platforms have for years de-
clared against sumptuary or force
laws. On the other hand it cannot be
denied that the Republicans have es-
poused prohibitory measures as one
of their party issues. Everywhere,
and repeatedly in Congress, they have
shown that they are unit on that
question. No more than three, and
they mostly adopted citizens, have
had courage enough to vote against
such measures when they came up in
the House. AS consequence the
friends of personal liberty in the
states have been forced to leave the
Republican party at the last election,
and the enormous Democratic majori-
ty in the House is the result thereof.
Now common sense should make !
everyt ody believe thai the Democrats
of the House should follow the ex-
ample of the Republicans and like
them be a unit on question which
has been so beneficial to them and
which, if strictly adhered to, willopen
the portals of the White House to
them. But what did we see, when one
of the smarteSt Republicans of the
House, Reed, of Maine, made move
to crafty the prohibition element and
bring the question of prohibition into
the national Congress? Did he not
first capture leading Democratic CAN
didate for the presidency, in the COM
mittee on rules, in the person of Sam
Randall? And did not Sam Randall
and fifty nine Democrats follow Reed
in the House, and do what the latter
and the interest of the Republican
party desired?
1t is true that Mr.. Randall has since
excused himself for treachery on the
plea that the liquor traffic committee
may kill the prohibition question COM
pletely by making good report, and
that that was the reason for his hav-
| ing voted for it. But that will not do.
| 1t is true that Mr.. Carlisle, unlike Mr..
Randall four years ago, has appointed
an exceptionally good committee, and
taken care not to put on the same
single one of those Democrats who
fooIishly followed Mr.. Randall. But
that is not Mr.. RAndalrs fault, for he
had nothing to do with the appoint
ment of the committee. And even ii
the majority of that committee should
make the very best report possible,
there will be also minority report,
and speeches will be delivered on the
floor of the house, thereby making
that question national one and furn-
ishing material for the state legisla-
lures and food for the fanatics. The
appointment of that committee was.
under all circumstances, blunder. 1t
demoraliZed the Democratic forces and
destroyed the confidence which many
friends of personal liberty had placed
in that party, and encouraged
the Republicans to make that
question one of their party issue.
That tariff reform is necessary is
not denied by anyone. When in pro-
lection states like Pennsylvania thou
sands of people are starving or work
lux db Dual NoGlOA PllSOC, tllC
consumers of the protected articles
pay from one to two hundred per cent
more for them than they really are
worth, there must be something
wrong. When our treasury is over
flowing whilst the country is suffer-
ing, there must be some mistake, and
steps should be taken to let the money
thus unnecessarily covered into the
treasury remain with the people.
Colonel Morrison has introduced a
, bill which will relieve the people and,
| if not wholly, greatly diminish the
causes of complaints. The better
class of the Republican papers, such
as the New York Times, are eulogiz-
| ing his bill. But what ore our Demo-
Gratis doing? Are they Tallying around
him and assisting him in the laudable
and truly Democratic undertaking. 2
| Oh, mol There is no unanimity on
the Democratic side of the House
even on this question-and why, be-
cause there are not few men there
called Democrats who are no Demo-
Gratis, but Republicans in heart, policy
and principle, and traitors to true
Democracy.
| In our opinion that sort of uhprin
| cipIed Democracy" will never be sue
cessful, and indeed it ought not to be.
What could not be done in the present
House if the Democrats would act as
| Democrats? What splendid campaign
material could not be unearthed by