The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1890-08-21
THE PLATFORM .

iourned is the shortest ever placed be-
fore the,Texas Dem ocracy. Yet it is alb
solutely comprehensive, it covers every
question save one that should have
been presented to us for action. The
one exception was the failure to pro-
nounce for the adoption OF the Austral-
ian ballot reform system. Texas and her
cities are growing into srch populous
size as to find need for having in the
interest of honest elections that excel
lent ballot system.
The platform as a whole is
uniquely good one. 1t covers with
admirable clearness, pointedness and
briefness a States relation to the
Federal government. 1t we'll puts
the sterling Democratic objections
to Federal encroachment OF power.
1t does this in incisive sweep
ing objection and then fails not
to hold up to particular aversion those
outrages upon the dignity OF state
hood proposed by the present congress.
The platform in this respect is thor
oughly dignifed, and could hardly
have been stronger.
The endorsement of the University
and the Confederate Home, and the
demand upon the legislature that they
should be properly maintained and
encouraged, was nobly done. Respon-
sive to such demand there should be
no doubt that both will receive such
support as will enlarge them and place
them on such plane of usefulness as
becomes the hope that gave them
birth.
The only part of the platform to
which objection can and doubtless will
be taken is the commission plank. 1t
has been claimed this plank makes
vote on that amendment test OF
ones democracy; that the exigencies
of the case did not demand such test
should be established and that the
convention exceeded the bounds not
only OF good taste, policy and poll
tics but OF its power, to thus establish
such standard of Democracy. The
STATESMAN cannot and does not put
such construction upon the meaning
of that plank. Its readingis therefore
we favor the amendment to Art. L,
Sec. OF the present constitution re-
lating to railroads" etc. That SEN
tence is merely the echo of the senti-
ments of the successful majority OF
the Democratic party after heated
contest over the nomination OF can
didate for the governorship whose
single platform plank was commits
sion. 1t certainly was an Endorsement
Of the commission policy, but
not such an Endorsement as to
set up a test of Democracy upon
that single issue. The Democratic
party was established long years
before the time of railroads and
commissions. It's principles have
been handed down to us as established
entities for generations, and mans
adherence to those principles can not
be affected by the determination Of
some state policy, however important
that policy may be. A part of those
Democratic principles is that the ma
iorily rules. In that convention were
delegates the vast majority of whom
had been instructed for a commission
and it was the duty of that majority
in performing the trust confded to
them, to so express themselves in the
platform of principles they were
deputised to create. Their endorse
ment has been given in the form o
earnest advice, but there is about il
HOIulllS vi " IolOh'POois h"'
view of the case is further supported
by the facts connected with the writ
ing of that plank. The original planl
as reported by the subcommittee tt
the committee on platform read "there
fore, we favor and will support" but a
reported to the convention and by l
adopted the plank reads, "therefore w
favor" with the words, "and will sup
port" omitted. Is not this concluslv
proof that the question OF a test wa
discussed in the committee and by l
eliminated from the plank? In
whole case may be taken as yer,
analogous to the prohibition contest
There were at that time honest dill
ferences among DEMOCRATS, and toda,
on this subject there are honest dill
ferences. In neither case will man
1. i.