The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1884-09-13

cd vote Of 50 over 20 was 1871, of
which Hancock received 3.5O6 or u
G-lUU per cent in the citV. These
figures show the largest increase in
llancOck'~ vote over Iidcn was where
laumauN cYcrlcd her influence. and
the final vote shows that 80 rural
counties reduced their democratic vote
in 10 H. compared with that of 20.
In 90 'Ijldcn and Hendricks, carried
- counties. but Hancock and English
received mniUritic- in only IL coun-
ties. and that although the democratic
vote in New \ FORK county increased
10, ~ in so over '76. over 90 per cent
yet of the democratic vote of the rest
of the stat" shows an increase of 2.O77
only. or less than one half one per cent.
Fine same gain of 80 per cent through
out the state in the democratic vote
that was east for him in New York
county would have
CARRIED me EMPIRE STATE
for Ilancoch by II larger majority than
was given ridden in 20. II will be
thus apparent to any unbiased mind
that the defeat of General Hancock
cannot be- charged to 1ammanN hall
organization. and no fair minded man
who will examine these figures can
doubt the entirely loyal support of
lrnuanN hail IL General Hancock.
Win these SANDERS resting upon H.,
amt believed in a great part even 10y
those who are inclined To admit or
influence and power H. II political
body. our opponents were ON the
alert. and prepared for lis at Chicago
an atmosphere of
poUBr ANp SUSPICION
through which all our acts were to be-
viewed. While We were celebrating
the anniversary of our national indie
pcudcncr our opponents took every
occasion tn prejudice the minds of
delegates at Chicago against us We
presented our arguments to indivId-
ual and assembled delegates 10 the
national convention, and were dcbar-
red the right to speak except by con
sent of the delegates from the other
states. and were even prohibited.
undcran undemocratiC unit rule from
casting our ballot, for the candidates
Of our choice We failed. not in our
duties to our constituents. who sent
rs. nor tothr party whose representa-
tivc> We were, and any mistake has
been made it j. not of our doing, and
cannot hr charged to H.. The cand-
dates of the democratic party having
been nominated, and following the
uniform and unbrokcn record of our
I organization, we acquicscrd IN the
will uf the majority of the representa-
tiVr> of the party, although We be-
lirvcthnt will to have hcrn uuwi>r-
/ ly expressed. There was bat
/ one alternative lett us-to sever our
/ connection with the democratic party.
This We cannot and will not do. In
justice To our constituents and iudg-
mont We cannot pursue that course.
We believe that time will di,cunnect
the great democratic party from the
LEADERSHIP OF ME>
who have used their power unwi>cly
and drtrimcntally To its success. We
arquic>cr in although protesting
against the unwi,c and iniudiciUus
course which they pursued We say
with John Adams: There i, no good
for republic is an empire of law
and not of men. The mistake, of
men cannot blind IL TO the beauties
and
IMMORTAL PRINCIPLES
of the democratic party. and for the
perpctuatiun of those principle, our
organization was established. II,
founders protested against the mon
arChial tendencies of the tcdrrali>t>
and We OPPOSE the same centraila-
tion of power in the republican PARTY
!u-day We believe in the retention
of all constitutional safeguards. They
would destroy them and resort To all
kind, OF prolligatc expenditure, and
corruption in maintaining an over
flowing treasury by unjust taxation
Wrrng from the people. We advocate
the restoration of the public domain
FOR ACTUAL. SETTLERS.
The present republican senate pre-
vented the forfeiture ofland grants to
railroads declared in the resolution
passed 10y the present democratic
house of representatives, by which
nearly forty millions of acre, of land,
were granted railroads and were to be
returned To the public domain
for non tulillmrnt of contract. Tn
der the de nucratic party the citizen /,
PROTECTED An HOME AND ABROAD.
and the speedy release of Martin
MuuZta j. an instance to show with
what celebrity the protection of II e
| nitcd states was thrown around an
American citizen under de nucratic
administration. Contrast the con-
duct ui II secretary of state like VIM.
l.. Marcy in rhi, case wtiithe doubt
/ ing and hating policy of the rcpubli-