The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1889-03-27
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE TALKING OF.
The Republican Party Traditional Defer
of Law-some Curious Predictions of n
Washington ClairvOyant-Sugges-
tions On Various Topics.

To THE EDTToR-Sir: Whenever and
wherever the republican party or any section
of it finds itself antagonized by law, then the
disloyalty of the party asserts itself through
the party press and party 'stumpers."
This has been the history of the party from
its formation down TO the present moment. 1t
is not now nor never was a party of principle.
In its so-called days of purity it was party Of
sentiment, appealing to passion, prejudice and
ignorance TO gain political ascendency for OFF,
cial spOils. That was and is its only excuse for
existence.
BY word, act and deed it resisted national
law enacted during the administration OF
and approved by President Fillmore.
In many states the founders OF the G. o. p.
were in armed resistance to the enforcement
OF this law.
Later. when the supreme court of the United
States, Salmon p Chase chief justice, declared
the 'greenback act" unconstitutional, the dis
loyalty aud disregard OF the republican party
for the law was again manifest by its denuncia-
ton of that decision.
The same dislOyalty was also seen by its op-
position to the decision of the same court, be-
cause it decided that bred Scott, not being
citizen of the United States, could not bring
suit in the u. s. courts.
Its opposition to and denunciation of the de-
eisiOn of the supreme court of Indiana in 1880 is
another instance of the outcropping of its dis
loyalty.
1t is a fact that no lawyer will deny that an
enactment of the congress of the United States
or OF any state legislature is law until repealed
or pronounced unconstitutional, and that TO
resist the enforcement of any law is dislOyal
guess the late Emory A. StOrrs of Chicago.
staiwart republican, knew what he was talk
ing about when arguing the case of the an
archlsts before the supreme court of the state
of Illinois, He declared that what they said
about thrOttling the law was no worse than
what the founders of the republican party had
said about the laws of the United States, and
that if they (the anarchists) were hanged for
what the record showed they had said and
done, then should the founders of the repub-
lican party have been hanged, for they coun-
seled resistance to law and opposed its execu-
ton.
The position of the republican party in re-
latlon to the laws passed by the Indiana legis-
lature is dislOyal. The laws may be bad. may
be unconstitutional, but neither democratic
citizens nor the democratic press have ever yet
advised resistance to the law. The principle of
democracy is to obey law. If the law be bad,
democracy says repeal 1t, not resist its enforce
ment. If it be regarded as unconstitutional,
democracy says obey it till the courts set it
aside. The line OF demarcation between de-
mocracy and republicanism is broad clear and
distinct The former is patriotic. national,
loyal; the latter usurpation, sectional. dis
loyal.
When democracy shall hold up to public
gaze the disloyalty constantly coming to the
front in every act OF the republican party in
state and national affairs, honest men will be
ashamed that they ever had any connection
with the dislOyal, sectional spoils party.
Obey the law instead OF advocating nullitca-
ton. JAMES A BROwN
Delphi, Ind, March 10.