Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1884-07-21

The REPUBLICAN in abiding TO the
Chicago National Democratic platform
took occasion to mention the fact that
there was nothing whatever in it 70 pre-
vent Democratic administration, with
u Democratic Congress at the back OF
it, from pensioning rebel a. we'll as
Union soldiers. The following is the
plank in the Democratic platform re-
lating to that subject /.
''The system Of direct taxation known
as the internal revsnce' Is WAT tax,
aud SO long ~ the law continues the
money derived therefron should be
sscrtdly devoted to the reli 4 Oft the PEG.
pie rom .he rem aiming burdens of the
~ar, aud be made fund to dofray the
expense Of the care and comfort of
worthy soldiers disabled in line Of duty
in the wars of the Republic, and for the
pay ment of such pensions ~ Congress
may from time ~ time grant to such
soldiers"
1t will be seen from the above that
the word Union soldier is not mention
ed once, only soldiers disabled in the
line Of duty in the war Of the Republic. "
Were not rebel soldiers engaged in
the wars of the Republic ?" All Re-
publican platforms that have been
adopted for the last twenty years OF
since the ending of the war, specially
mentioned soldiers in the Union
army" and in referring TO the families
as the families of "Union soldiers. "
But nothing of this kind can be found
in the Democratic platform. Why
should there be so much difference II
the Democratic Convention meant that
Union Soldiers only should be
pensioned, why did it not say so?
But there is a well founded reason
now given to show why such an am
biguous phrase was used, and it was
left to the Chicago Journal to unravel
the whole mystery. We have no means
of knowing how that Journal got its
news nor does it matter, as it is fully
able to take care of itself if its veraci.y
is questioned. Here is what it says
1t is fact that the question of pen.
sioning the soldiers of the rebel army,
who fought 10 destroy the Govern
ment and the Union, equally with the
soldiers Of the Union army, who fought
seriously entertained by the Committee
on Resolutions at the late Democratic
National Convention. Here is the form
In which it was first presented IN the
Committee :
90 Resolved, That internal revenue
Is a war tax, and that SO long as it con-
tinues the money so raised shall 60
toward the relief of the people from the
burdens of war, by paying pensions
and providing for disabled soldiers,
whether Confederate or Union
1t is not difficult now to see why the
resolution was manipulated and boiled
down to such an ambiguous mass as
we 6nd it in the Democratic platform.
But what more can be expected of a
party that will adopt an ambiguous ar
ticle upon the tariff which, Mr.. Hurd
and Mr.. Watterson declare, means
free trade, and Mr.. Randall as en-
phatically says means protection? The
attempt of the platform tinkerers TO de-
| ceive the people win fail, and ignom.
| inious defeat will be the reward of suet
double dyed hypocrisy. If the peopl,
do not want to be taxed to pension rebe
soldiers who fought in the wars o
the Republic" but who fought TO de
stroy it, let them vote for Blaine ant
Logan and the Republican ticket.