Evening journal., 1888-12-10
LYING DOWN.

the lying down policy in Kent county on
the part of the Republicans of Delaware,
it had most disastrous effect on that
party in this county. and therein lies the
answer to the question which the Milford
News and Advertiser asks rather lightly,
IL not factiously in its issue on Satur-
day when IL wants To know why New
Castle lay down so effectively this year.
We believe that the News and Advertiser
is sincere when il says that lying down in
1886 produced the victory Of 1888 in Kent
and therefore we shall answer it seri-
ously. We regard the proposition as
false on its face. but there are inherent
reasons which prove That the lying down Of
1886 had nothing to do with the result in
1883 except to deprive President elect
Harrison of three electoral votes and the
protectionists in Congress Of the support
Of Mr.. Charles H. Treat We believe
that the News and Advertiser miscon.
ceives the cause for an intelligible and
welcome effect We believe that It is
mistaken when Il thinks that the policy OF
the Republicans had anything TO do With
shat action Of part Of the Kent Demo.
Gratis which brought abont the present
result.
Conviction is a powerful motive for po-
litical action Love for office Is still more
powerful than conviction; but factional
hatred is the most potent OF all inhu
ences in politics fractional hatred is its
own handspring It needs no prompting
from extraneous sources: but 1t moves
from its own constantly renewing i'm
pulses and is sufficient INTO itself. It
was not the helpless condition Of the
Republicans. but the circumstance OF
Senatorial election that made the Demo.
cratic split in Kent county. II there had
been no occasion TO elect Senator Sauls
bury's successor there would have been
no salisbury movement But this
occasion having arisen under the
laws Of the state the movement" accom-
panied it without regard TO the Republi
can party, the weather, the crops, or any
other matter. Wolcott's destruction was
absolutely necessary to the continued
rule Of the Saulsbury's and they de-
stroyed him. That they accomplished
this under the most unpromising and dis.
couraging conditions is proved by their
own after election statements to
reporter Of the EVENING JOURNAL, in
which they said that they could not
entrust their plans to the accredited OIL
rial organization Of their allies. We
merely refer TO this to show
how intensely strong and hostile
their purpose to defeat and destroy VOL
colt must have been. The saulsburys
would undoubtedly have done this work
In 1886 if their party enemies had sue
eeeded in nominating Mr. Edwin R Coch
ran for governor. But Governor Stockley
had made it possible for them, by his IN
popular and fractional appointments, to
nominate Mr. Biggs, and the shoe was
put upon the other foot The other foot
lacked the nerve to kick. But Mr.. Biggs's
small vote demonstrated then that if the
Republicans had not lain down they
would have been able 10 elect candidate
for governor by the aid Of the luke-warm
ness Of the defeated Wolcott faction.
There is no precedent within the his
tory Of the Republican party where lying
down accomplished anything but demora.
hzation. The party in several of the
SoutherR states affords sh'aing illustra-
tion Of this fact. On the contrary, persis
tent and unrelenting opposition has in
variably brought good fruit Did the
Democrats Of Pennsylvania lie down
at any time daring the last
twenty-eight years, and did their
courageous and sagacious persistence pre-.
vent the independent Republicans Of that
state from defeating General Beaver for
governor when the machine" ran him
the first timer Did the Republicans Of
New Jersey ever lie down? And have
they not had almost constantly one Of
the United States Senators and
repeatedly a majority Of the mem
bers Of Congress as we'll as very
useful majorities in the State Legisla-
turef 1t was a Republican Legislature
that gave that state its present temper
Ance reform law. Did the aggressiveness
of the New York Republicans prevent
the late John Kelly from defeating the
Democratic candidate for governor when
Governor Cornell was elected? Or did
Democratic persistence forestaI the de.
feat Of the late Secretary Folger for the
same Office by the New York Republicans
in 1882 Has either party ever lain down
IN Connecticut, and are not honors easy
between them for their courage and vigi-
lance? Did the Democrats Of Rhode
Island at any time halt in their furroW.
and did they not plough up a governor
two years ago7 Have not the Democrats
Of New Hampshire pegged away in that
Republican stronghold until it is a strong
hold no longer2 Did that party ever relin-
quish its organization in Senator I'd
munds's state, or ever in the state Of
Blaines Even Kansas has had Demo
cratic governor, and Michigan, Wisconsin
and Illinois have been al but wrested
from the Republicans time and again by
their indefatigability. Is any one foolish
enough TO assert that Sussex was carried
by the Republicans this year because Of
their lying DOWN They did not lie down
IN Sussex. They were all supporting the
Temperance Reform movement in 1856.
Here then is precedent upon precedent