The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-04-24
What 1t Means.


in this part of Texas have wondered
at the Gazette's ardor in the cause of
opposition to the two-thirds rule. We
long since ciphered the problem out
to demonstration, but rather than
be the cause of any split or schism in
side the lines we have hitherto re-
Trained from making our deductions
public. However, the time has come
to do so at any and all hazards, and
we do it and challenge the disorgan-
izers, the conspirators to deny 1t.
Counting noses in the state convention
to assemble in Houston in August,
will reveal the fact that north Texas
has a majority of from twenty-five
to twenty-seven votes. With the
majority rule in force she will have
the parceling of the party patronage
absolutely and can carry any scheme
through which she desires. With the
two-thirds rule in force, all parts of
the state will receive recognition.
Here is a lesson of value to those in
discreet papers in southern Texas
now rending their hair so frantically
for the abrogation of the rule. "None
are so blind as they who will not
see." The Ireland papers do not see
that the raid on the two-thirds rule
Is made to beat him, and that
that is the true secret of the Calves
ton News energy in the cause, yet
they helplessly follow in the wake Of
the papers leading off for the shelfng
of their idol. We confess that our
defense of the rule is not altogether in
Ireland's interest, but we would have
to be much more bitterly opposed to
him than we are if we could get our
own consent to double deal in the way
indicated, or to sacrifice a known
and accepted policy of the party,
to beat him. We give North
Texas the credit Of saying that
we do not believe that the
masses of the party are in the
scheme, but we do mean to
say that the policy was long since
formed and adopted by the leading
newspapers, and unless the scheme is
pretty thoroughly exposed they will
carry the point and force the danger
Gus condition upon the party. Let us
drop one little hint right here. 1t is
this: If the majority rule Is adopted
| of I0,11tAo Tnhn Tralon6 r1ri11 c11rnlxy
NOT be the nominee. He may not be
nominated under the two-thirds rule,
but if not, it will not be because of the
gag process.
One cannot but admire the
adro1tness of the scheme, and
the skill by which it has been so
silently carried forward thus far
The Fort Worth Gazette, by far
the ablest paper in opposition to the
two-thirds rule, has skillfully thrown
sand in the eyes of the press. 1t was
faultless piece of work from parti-
zan and journalistic standpoint, but
from the standpoint of the party's
best good. it was and is evil purely
and simply. North Texas has a de-
cided majority in the councils of the
party, and if she chooses to exert it,
of course we cannot stand before
hel for a moment. But when she
does so resolve, what will be said of
the papers of this part of the
state which were so vociferous
in their clamor for the abrogation
of the great equalizing safety princi-
pie of party life-the two thirds rule ?
Our only hope is that there will be
enough of democrats from principle
in the convention even from north
Texas to sustain the rule rather than
concede it even to win sectional
triumph.
The Gazette of the 18th, still persuing
its dangerous policy, has an article I'M
der the specious caption, Joined to its
IDOLS in which it arraigns the correct
ness of The STATEsMAN's position on
the rule generally, and upon the worth
and value Of Alex. Stephens declara-
ton against it. 1t claims that we
do not attack Mr.. Stephens logic.
We don't have to. We are arguing
the proposition inside of the dem
ocratic party, as rule of par
ty policy alone, and not as
general principle affecting directly
the interests of all the people, ire
spective of party considerations, rs
did Alex Stephens. We have credited
the Gazette with the same purpose
and intent, but its later course con.
vinces us that it not only adopts Ste
phens' heresy on this point, but that
t affects that exalted disregard for
all considerations of partisan condf-
ditions which characterized the great
Georgian. We make no such claim.
We are arguing the merits Of the rule
purely and alone as democratic party
measure, not as patriotic purpose or
a non>partisan principle OF govern
ment. The Gazette still I'M
frankly claims the democracy of
Stephens, when It must know
if it knows anything, that notwith-
standing Mr.. Stephens received demo
cratic support since 1856, yet he dis
t1nctly, and often publicly and une-
quivocably denied being q democrat.
He occupied about the same position
as that occupied by David Davis to-
day. He did not reject or refuse dem
ocratic votes but he emph atically re-
fused either to call himself democrat |
or TO advocate or adopt democratic |
theories. Discussing the two-thirds |
rule as party principle or policy and |
inside party lines, we of course reject |
Mr.. Stephens dictum, and refuse to
be led by his reasoning.
The Gazette says Senator Coke
occupies the same position that
stephens did. We reply: Only