Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-06-22
,r,,r -rIcTYoY OF A NAME

chatespeare wanted 10 KIM"
on'Ne rs, ana seemed to think that 1t
80 little difference what anything ol
a~nhodv was called. Had the Immortal
Sny ,,.ad in these times he would NOT
have thought of asking such 'oo'ls
ansstlop Everything, from pa'fn'
1ood,c,ne 70 n political party, must nave
unmo and a great deal depends on 'ne
1tuis attractive, the patent meu'
,clne sells, the political party creS'ss
cir ia mistake is made in the cno'Ie
= :, name 10th fail dead. Everything -
Now there's the Autobiography party
,.stance and the Peoples party
These names are as popular IN 'i'e "D
aao,o,nre Of politics as John ana MARY
omong persons Of both sexes. Tnere hu.e
Saon more Autobiography and Peoples
'' nor,,es brought into being within inc ias'
- ave wears than one can count on MS ~.
gors They are all dead me h"in'
n. 9,an,t save them. The fate oil tnelr pre-
o. aaooasors has not however, had ue'
ID torrent effect upon the opposition IN ! az
~. ..,, county They have named their ON
P' spring Anti.Monopoly, alias the reopi'
oH party r,,,rIarit,
., .hose names, any more than for fatality
fST There 10 nothing pretty or euphonlous
,dd the sound. The records OF those tna' nav
-er. 49,, before reflect little honor on thel
namesakes. There is nothing 10 enooul
ace expectations of high honor OF i on
es' iWe Nothing at ell. The only expian
NY tion. the least bit plausaole' Is 'na' y
nana NAV catch some simple YOU
- who imagines that an antI-nohopo
my nortv ia composed Of people ana
"N ecared by leaders who wouldn't
- ariltv Of using monopoly II they n
one. They are the people, therefore tr'
. party is the peoples party An"' 10
rely best we can make Of it.
'usn But WI at is the matter win Ine Den
'ted crot,c party2 Isn't it composed Oh
N'',''S ----., ,'uiS 5u5uuu' ny
inc others. There ought, therefore, to
~ about 100000 more people in the Der
~, cratic party than In all the combined
oAeu position. Why shouldn't the Democrs
party be called the peoples party, tooF
the And as to anti-monopoly is the Der
rded cratic party party of monopoly?
lint deed, Is not opposition TO monopoly
ken distinctive character of that partyp '
do not recollect what 1t has done
promote monopoly, but mu
win, that II has done to break
why that evil. The last state platform ,
am. claredthat "our incorporation laws shor
liter be so amended as to prevent, rather tn
~ 1t encourage, landed aud other monor
Hes" Legislation has been in the dire
tlon of carrying out this principle of I
Wv platform. If the Democratic party h
NY any record at all, 1t is one opposed
% monopoly, and If there is any ant. IN
'is' nopoly party In the country, that ia it.
inic Why, then, should we have new AMI
monopoly party where the Democra
already ruler When and where have Ii
seli-appointed leaders of the new amale,
nation shown their hostility to monopC
70 lyf Let their records be produced, an
Judge them by what they have done. an
-, they will be found, generally, set of ad
~ Venturers with no claim upon the people
who are trying to scramble into Ollie
ms under the name and pretense of anti
m. monopolists. They call themselves anti
ON monopolists because it is just as easy t,
az adopt that name as any other, and the,
n. hope that II may be used to deceive som,
Nv lew, who Judge from the name rather
an than the substance of the party. Sensibl,
I'D people will be well enough satisfied with
the anti-monopollsm of the Democra IL
party and win stick to il.