The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-02-02
THE UNION SOLDIER MUST GO.

THE UNION SOLDIER MUST GO.
The marvellous love of the Democratic party
for the Union soldier has been commented on
by the Journal from time to time. We have
shown that since 1864 that party, as nation
al organization, has never commended the
federal soldier, never mentioned him spe-
officially, but has, in each and every instance,
studiously avoided the unpleasant duty of
lauding his patriotism or his merits above
those who bore arms against the life Of the
Union. 1t is Impossible to point out single
unqualified sentence in his favor uttered by
the Democracy in twenty years that does not
| equally include the confederate veteran Nor
lcan platform always lauding the Union
veteran, the platform builders of the Demo
cratic party have carefully abstained from
such utterance. 1t is apparent enough that
while the Democratic party needs and must
have the votes of men who were loyal
and patriotic during the rebellion, it
dare not throw them crumb
that is not equally shared by the
| men who followed Lee and Hood. In other
words, the Democratic party is SO constituted
| that it dare not discriminate between loyalty
aud treason. For twenty years that party
has not uttered word against rebellion and
treason, for the simple reason that to do SO
| would ALLEVIATE tens Of thousands of its sup
| porters who believe in those rights" and
who in going into civil war did nothing of
which they have since repented"
The latest manifestation of Democratic
dread of offending the Democratic majority
is evinced by the action Of the House com
mittee on reform in the civil service, which
has just made an adverse report on the bill to
prohibit the removal of any honorably-dis-
charged Union soldier sailor or marine, or
widow or dependent relative of any deceased
Union soldier, sailor or marine, from any
office in the civil service of the United States,
except for specified causes. What is the
matter with such bill, except that it
stands in the way of Democratic greed
and the prompt installation of ex-rebelsG
Democratic speakers and Democratic news
papers have prated from nomination to cleo
ton, in every campaign, about the party's
love for the Union soldier and in this State
were greatly hurt because certain Union sol
diers failed to get the Republican nomination,
although others did, But now, when it comes
to test between efficient Union ex-soldiers
in Office and hungry xrebels that want places,
the former must 60 What do the delectable
mugw jumps think Of this Interpretation of
civll-service law-that loyal and efficient public
servants must be thrown out without cause9
The plea is that the executive must be left
perfectly free in this matter since he and his
party must be held responsible. If this is an
improvement on the plan that held before the
civilservice scheme was introduced, we fail to
see it. No complaint would be made but for
the reason that the Democratic party
has, throughout the loyal States, talked
loud and long of it's devotion to the Union sol
der and of it's admiration for civil-service
reform, whereby the Nation was to be lifted
out of the evil ways into which it had fallen
under Republican rule. Mr.. Hendricks gave
voice to the sentiment of his party when he
declared that not less than so, 900 federal of
ficials must ego" without regard to merit or
deserts in order that place be made for the
hordes of Democracy. Union soldiers will &C
cept the fiat without murmur, but hereafter
will probably not place SO much confidence in
Democratic professions of love for them, al
though, be it said to their credit, they never
have to any great extent come to trust the
Democratic party, or to have any sympathy
with it. Democratic hypocrisy can be beauti-
fully illustrated by comparing an average
Democratic campaign speech and the commit
tee report just noted.
D11AA.1AsE..MM
TMD0prAnT ppnuTprTTnN NnupMrrT