The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-08-06
Are We RIGHT

In copying the Tupelo Journals ire
greet at some declarations made in our
issue of July 2, and making reply there
to, We did not intend to be censorious;
but we could see 50 little in what we
had said to justify the "regret of the
journal, that We were led to call our
esteemed contemporaries attention to
our exact position in the hope that it
might be induced to change its views as
to the policy and the wisdom Of TIE
CLARToS's course, and its duty as the
recognized central organ Of the De-
mocraey of the State"
The particular expression which
called forth the regret" of the Journal
is as follows:
We are for the nominees, tariff or no
tariff, and We do not hesitate a moment to
say so, and We are for that declaration con-
corning hetariff which will secure the most
electoral votes for the nominees, whether it
be phrased by Mr.. Morrison or Mr.. Ran
dali.
In our comments upon the ,J0urndFs
regret" we said, substantially, that
there was no difference between the
Journal and ourselves, except that we
announce beforehand that we will sup
port the platform and the nominees Of
Democratic Convention, while the
Journal keeps as quiet as little mouse
until after the platform has been con-
structed and the nominations made, and
then makes its announcement, which is
the same as The CLARIoN's. In this
we thought that we occupied the van
tage ground. The journal, seeing the
force of our position that the only diff
/ ference between US is that We act from
foresight, and not from "hind-sight, y
replies by asserting "that there were
men who aspired to the Democratic
nomination for President whom we lit
would not have supported had the stand.
ard of the party been committed to
their hands" Was it probable that the
Convention woald nominate any of these
Objectionable aspirants? Is it not fact
that The CLARION, with its usual fore
sight, had informed the Journal that
none of these candidates could be nom
mated? Whether such information was
furnished by us or not, is it correct liy.
ing or thinking to base our rules Of
action on possibilities instead of proba
bilities? Is it not more comfortable to
anticipate from the party of our choice
blessings instead of "eyery inquiry I?
We think so, and if the journal could
try it awhile we predict that it would
think so.
Our esteemed contemporary has culled
from its exchanges utterances similar to
its own from as many as two newspapers
in this State. Our replies to the Vicks-
burg Post and Ashland Register seemed
to be full and complete, and we COM
mend them to the journal. The Bran
don Republicans declaration that eff
we It'll thought the platform was an
evasiye, hypocritical, lying, sham and
fraud we It'll would not vote the ticket"
we endore most fully; but the Repu6G-
can, like The CLARION, has too much
faith in Democracy to believe that any
such language could ever truthfully
describe Democratic platform.
The CLARION claims to be able to
tolerate and discuss differences in the
proper spirit, and comedies as much to
the journal, but it is hardly fair in our
too complimentary contemporary to
overlook most important part of our
reply to its "regret." We repeat it:
To get our esteemed contemporary to
the point of its criticism, we will ask it
to say, whether our public duty "as the
recognized central organ of the Democracy
of the State did not require us to favor
such declaration concerning the tariff as
would secure the election OF the nominees?
Or does the Journal think that the tariff
should have controlled every other issue
of the campaign, even if it secured the
defeat OF the Democracy? Seeing now that
Mr.. Morrison and Mr.. Randall have both
agreed upon the tariff plank, does It not
show that we were wise beyond our gener-
alton in saying that it made no difference
which OF the two phrased it