The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-04-17
The TwO-Thirds Rule.


gerness to meet the defense of the
two-thirds rule made by THE STATES
MAN, makes a very serious blunder,
two of them, in fact. 1t finds where
Alex. Stephens made speech against
the rule year or two since, and 1t re-
produces it. Why not bring out one
of the many speeches made by Horace
Greeley on the same side of the same
question. They are more forcible and
are clearer and stronger in every way.
The second is that it assumes that the
editor Of THE STATESMAN is a Geor-
gian, and therefore Alexander Ste
phens' views on the rule ought to be
adopted by this paper. Now, then, if
ever the advocates or foes of any
measure were harder put to to find
something to say for their cause we
have never seen them or heard of
the circumstance. Alex. Stephens
was never even for day democrat.
That is no reason, however, why he
could not have been great and good
man. He was one of those men who
get up so far above the ordinary par
tisan life of the people that he was
disregardful of all party rules. In his
early life and down to the close of the
war, or rather until the republican
party superseded the wings, he was a
whig, and of the most intense order.
After that event he refused to
be acknowledged as a democrat,
and yet the people of Georgia
recognizing only the wonderful
ability and purity of the man kept
him in Office until the day of his
death. Thus it was that you could
put no sort of party rule on Alex
Stephens and of course he could put
none upon any party whatever. 1t is
passing strange, and more, that SO
alert a paper as the Gazette should
make such blunder as this. 1t could
with the same propriety put out re-
publican principle and insist upon its
adoption by the democracy because
Blaine or Morton or Arthur advocated
it, or insist upon the abrogation of a
democratic rule because, they were
opposed to it.
We have some strange experiences
in our party life in this country and
the raid made by democratic papers,
professed straight papers, upon the
two-thirds rule, is one of these. There
is no cause for it, no one single intelli.
gent or logical reason why this screed
should be sounded now. The only
shadow of cause is found in the fact
| tt at some unsound democratic papers
covertly working in the Interests OF
the foes OF democracy, and which
habitually fight the rule just prior to
every election, raised the cry, and
without due reflection, hasty
democratic papers committed them
selves to it, and they are
now ashamed to come out and
acknowledge their error. The Ga
zette's last article indicates plainly
that its democratic conscience is
pricked-is uneasy and it must do
something to ease the pain, even If
that something Is unreasonable and
illogical to an almost incredible de-
gree. We are not disturbed, in fact,
we regard the matter as indicating a
promising degree of uneaslness, which
must inevitably result in landing the
Gazette among the honest, conscien-
cious advocates of the retention of
the rule. The callous conscience
which feels no sting is hopeless for
reform, but while the power to blush
remains, there is hope in the mate
modesty which is only planted in vir-
tue.
Now when in the future the Ca
Zette would assault the rule it ought
to bring up democratic objections.
The quotation it makes from the
speech of Alex. Stephens is perhaps
the strongest argument it could have
offered in favor of the rule, and in
vindication of the position of THE
STATESMAN. We have claimed all
along through the discussion that the
assault was not being made by real
true democrats; and this has never
been the case, or else the Gazette
would not have been compelled to re-
sort to Alex. Stephens for matter
with which TO fight rule sustained
now, as in the past, by the mass of
true party-men, and only opposed by
those whose democracy is under sus-
pieion, to say the least of it.