Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1884-10-23
Folly on the Stamp.

An immohse deal Of fapdoodIe fs mt
forth IN Presidential camDai fool
ish and uss,ess g. uG when serves only
10 consume me and eOntr5 butte abs0-
luteiy moth az TO the en- ight nment Of
the Poop e. TIE stu p 0rations are
usually o this eharaGs err, but some
thing better N ght have been exp cted
from Judge D 90 little when 3dd - ing
an assemh lage like the oVA emocrat-
&c STATE Convention. His 8 eeeh was
d voted "a gelY 10 q eulogy of tie Dem
OcrAtic can Il s. Q for PresiIen
VIII ca he made the mos Ia (. crous com
parsons. Ii is not ~ rth while 70 fol-
low out the spe -ch n Il all. A sngle
sample will suffice de declared
among other tn rs that Cleveland
e atiress Z" the com nitge5 " h0 O c:at-
y in 'orned h N of lis nomination, an
his recent lett Of &C eptance. are
models worthy of W ebster and Jack
son"
ulog'es do not as a rue attack the
YEA est points OF their SUI ect. but
Judge D0olit lie had Set out to euloaf e
an he was forced 10 content himself
with the weak points. People ha g
FORGOTTEN CjevelanJ's brie reply TO the
committee when he was Motif his
nominal on, hecaUSe purpOrted TO g
nihcance But the rem mo r the let
ter o AcCe' lance. 7 leY wa tel for it
a lon Z me, and had been Id to ex-
poet Q ct things from it. The Dem ~
cratS longed for q pubic addre s 40 the
hands 0 their candidate which wOu 4
mat.h b aine's letter. The result Was
q T d cUiOus mouse h ter he TnCu tain
had RDOred. The letter was fat. sta q
and Improbable. Il WAS bun no in
style and impover;sh q in materia.. it
evlBced no comp. ehHHsjOa OF the issues
of TN day and he'd out no prom Sc Of
personal alb l,ty in contending with the
or ais ana EN- arrasSments OF Nat Ou.l
pOlti g. 1t was universally voted 10
be a failure.
How 5sur and rutle { is, then. to
tell the p ,Ople that tuis letter was a
model worthy OF We IS o. or of Jack
SON.! TIE cho ce o names used for
COMPARISON betrays the nse .esness of
the GU Og 4 VI sbsterian model and
8 acksOnian model are two very diif0r-
eut thin g If Cleve Rud's letter WAS IN
the style Of Webster. then it wa; not in
the style of ia kson, and vice versa.
jackson ne. er eat about the bush:
/ Weoster's sentences wee rhetorical
mas erpe es. As a Is tier Of TACT.
cleveland lette had 40 20 nts o re-
FemUlauce W tn the utter ances OF eithe
e., acKs, or We s!sr, aud could not
ma g zen q model of DO at the same
tine No Ody knows al this any bet
ter than j dye DOoLtIIe, and in tax ny
! n such a strain he must have been
counting ON the ignorance OF a ;
bearers
The pro essfoBal political ora'or
/ should cha lge his style. II may e vel
enough 10 indulge in hghis of ancy,
bu, they should not be such ut er
sregard of popular Ormauon as to
/ he re ugnan-, If q I'D "a 4 o little cou d
/ tn anything ia Governor lev land s
/ y iyate life 10 commend. or any thing IN
! his public career ID vet1 mes Il. Is
! to Gu OgI q, he might have done h.s
/ c IudIdaCe 50 ne service. but when he
/ compared Clevelanj's Vap.d Letter nth
/ the ute aness of b, Ia Wubs.er and
] ia .ksOn in one and the same hreat b
hes bra 81 tae poverty Of bis ma al
fDE euios lstic purpose. --gtc &c Arso-