The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1890-07-15

| writer has carried torches and rode IN
horseback professions in honor OF
Vance, even before he was old enough
TO vote. In fact the writer has hol-
Tered" himself hoarse and has been as
big a fool about Senator Vance as any
OF the average citizens in the State.
So far as we have heard, our
farmer friends generally approve OF
the editorial in last weeks paper.
They all say that they think Senator
Vance has done wrong-made a mis-
take, and that the criticism was called
for. Some few think it was rather
harsh.
The truth is, there is always two
sides to a question, and generally
there are paIliating circumstances at
tending things which we too often
overlook in our haste to commend a
thing we think is right, or condemn
what We think is wrong. The Pro
GREssIvE FARMER is an Alliance paper.
It is not run in the interest Of Sena-
tor Vance, nor of the Democratic
party, nor the Republican party.
However, it has given Senator Vance
more advertising in its columns dur
ing the past six months than any
paper in the State. The name Of
Vance has appeared in its columns
oftener, editorlally, or in communlca
tions, and having more than twice
as great a circulation in the State as
that of any other paper, and all this
being praise of him partly on
account of his supposed advocacy
of and willingness to push the Sub
Treasury bill, or a good substitute,
and partly because of the great con-
fdence of our correspondents and
ourselves in him as a man. After all
of this you are bound to admit that
we think oOe haze good reasons for evem
Severe criticisms.
If you ask the reasons, here are
some of them: Is Senator Vance a
King? In eye olden time" there
was a belief THAI the King could do
no wrong, OF something of the kind.
If you thought he did, you were not
allowed to say so. But We live in a
free country. Everybody "a do and
say what he thinks, to a certain ex
tent, and as the freshman said
"Bejabbers the man who will not do
as he pleases in this free country
ought to be compelled to do So"
. If the writer has done Senator
Vance an injustice, all have failed to
produce the proof. They put forward
his record as a public official and de-
fend that. We have done the same
before to day and volunteer to do so
again if necessary. We did not at.
tack his past record, and will say
right here that if that record had not
been above ~r9proach, we would have
hit him a great deal harder for the
present offence.
Now a few words about the wrong
done. Senator Vance says he told
Col. Polk and DR.. Macune that, in his
opinion, the Sub Treasury bill was
unconstitutional when first presented
to him That was all right. B 1T we
will say here that Senator Vance was
never a great success as a lawyer. He
was popular as a lawyer, as stump
spe sker and as a man; but never was
considered a great lawyer. So he
may be mistaken about the constitu
tionality of the bill. Aside from his
popularity wherever known, we have
never heard that Senator Vance has
exhibited extraordinary ability in
anything except as a tariff debater.
Along that line he probably is the
equal of any man in America. We
repeat that he is liable to be mistaken
as to constitutionality. The Economist
says that the Legislative Committee
of the Alliance give Senator Vance
authority to change the bill so that it
would be constitutional, and says
further that he did change it. Sena.
tor Vance's duty was to get the bill in
as good shape as possible and to have
watched its course, suggested changes,
offered amendments and the commit.
tees in each house should have done
so, too. Neither Senator Van;e nor
the members of the committee decide
the constitutionality of anything. The
Senate al a body itself cannot decide
constitutional questions. The Supreme
Court makes a specially OF that.
In our editorial we said in sub
stance that if the Sub Treasury bill
was not constitutional, Senator Vance
should have continued to work for it,
as he is paid to do, until the TURNER'S
sad stop; ue WU abandon this bill.
We stand on the same immovable
platform. We are now going to
take Senator Vance's oaOn aOords in
support of this. In the Washington
news published in the State Chronicle
on last Friday, we find that Senator
Vance has changed over to our side.
The silver bill was under discussion
in the Senate. MI. Plumb said: Chat
in the particulars which he regarded
as essential the bill was comparatively
7n0hIn0tI0nn h11