West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1888-12-07
thomas H. Mason, Business Manager.
THE CAUCUS.

USISbsuO bhN0 '1tNl VI S~AAA0tASH 10
now used to thwart the public will.
They see men like Wallis, Cowen
and Marshall in Baltimore; Bran
non, Raymond and John J. Davis in
this State; Conrad, Mcdonald, and
Mart inVirginia; Mcdonald in In
diana, and Thurman in Ohio, (-and
these columns could be filed with
similar instances,-)as completely
from the public service as though
convicted of crime! While other
men VIGOROUSLY corrupt hold al
most every place Of power. 1t is
evident to all that party orgOniza-
tiou as now used is simply a meth
cd by which the bosses prevent the
rank and file from electing men who
mean what they say and who say
what they mean. Every one must
see that as things are now conduct
ed the legislation most needed to
check the aggressiOns of the money
power is not even discussed much
less enacted.
This is why the Democratic in
West Virginia is lost.
Our Legislature stands 45 Re
publicans 46 Democrats. If our in
formation be correct, land whether
correct or not it will serve as an il
lustration,) "A ofthe Democrats are
committed to the support of a par
ticular candidate for the United
States Senate and % are against
him. In other words, % Democrats,
rejecting their constituents, believe
that it is best for the public inter
ests not to elect this candidate to
the Senate. These % Democrats
added to the Republican make 81
against this candidate as compared
with only "a for him. Now the
question is, whether, according to
our theory of representative govern
ment, these a shall override the
CT?
According to the doctrine of our
modern managers of party politics,
every Democratic member of the
Legislature must go into caucus or
be outlaWed. According to this
new doctrine a member Of the Leg.
islature, although elected upon his
pledge to vote against this candi-
date, must violate that pledge and
vote exactly contrary to the way he
promised his constituents to vote.
In other words, q man elected to
represent a constituency must mis-
represent it.
Now the question is can our
party afford to go before the peo-
pie on this issue? We put the ques-
tiOn to thoughtful Democrats.
This doctrine Of caucus dictation,
this doctrine that the caucus must
be obeyed rather than the voters at
home, was promulgated at the last
Legislature, and our managers of
politics succeeded in preventing any
discussion Of it during the past
campaign; but if it be promulgated
again they will net be able to sup
press discussion two years hence.
The notwithstanding class are
unanimous that it is the first duty
of member of the Legislature to
reflect the wishes Of his own consult
uents.
The Bosses say it is the first duty
to obey a causus. Shall we commit
cur party to this doctrine of the
Bosses?
Shall we shoulder this load: Is
it wise to do so? Shall we take up
q load, that is certain death, simply
doing so will advance the personal
fortunes of one particular candidate?
Is the party to be destroyed for the
benefit Of one man?
Let us put a case by way ofillus-
tration; suppose % Democrats and
also 40 Republicans offer to support
W. L. Wilson or Gov. Jackson or
Daniel Lamb or Chew or FlOurnoy
or Judge Wood or any one Of five
hundred other citizens Of this State
equally true to Democratic princi-
pie and equally trusty as the candi-
date who has "A votes. J Shall the
81 outyote the 81? Has our party
a fetch called Caucus?
But suppose the next Legislature
stands 46 Republicans to As Demo
Gratis; suppose "a Of that party are
pledged to q Republican candidate
for the Senate whose election wnnld