Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-10-19
SOUTH CAROLINA.
A REVIEW or The RECENT DEMO-
CRATIC CAMPAIGN.
An Admirable Argument in behalf Of she
Regular Democratic Ticket
Haskell In Revolt.
columbia Rsg,s,or.l

The reasons for not sustaining the Has,
6ell movement are clear before calm,
circumspect view OF the whole situation.
To begin with, we went into the field
with tho rillmsn men "a Democrats,
whatever we're the wrongful aud irregu-
/ Jar methods of the March convention.
y Iillman and his supporters came into
she field with the express declaration
'Athat they would submit 10 the decision
Of the nominating Democratic conven-
ton. fairly expressed.
IL the Iillman men, by their action in
putting up q candidate outside Of the
regular IN thod aud organizing for his
support, placed themselves outside the
Democratic pale. IL was our night and
duty o. Democrats 20 declare them ont
Of the party. and 20 meet them rs such
under the lead Of the regular. organized
Democracy. Did We DO TINS? Clearly
ne did net.
. he candidates we put in the field
both Bratton and Farle-cme befoio
the people OF the State with the une-
quivoc4l declaration that il 1illman was
the pomiuce Of the Democracy they
would abide the decision.
Brattons letter Of acceptance clearly
and undeniably took the position that ii
was our duty AS Democrats and citizens
60 accept such n decision, however I'M
fortunate. as the best solution OF the is
sues involved that our society was capa-
bic OF at this juncture of affairs. All the
straightout candidates did the same
thing
Now, these men either expressed our
views by their declarations or they did
not.
As we continued them in the field
without dissent TO their repeated decla-
rations. our silence gave our consent, IN
all fairness
We could not take the benefit Of such
declarations and disown them at the
same time. We consented then to take
the field with these IIlman men as
Democrats, and stood pledged with them
b. abide the issue before the Democracy
Of the State.
This is all clear IL is undeniable, and
he who would avoid it would avoid that
Which is true.
TIRE QUESTION OF IDENTIFICATION.
Put il ia now claimed that the denun-
citation Of the Democratic adminslra-
ton OF Affairs, of the Democratic off
cials and Of the society of the State de-
barred the Tillman candidates from any
claim on our support as Democrats Rnd
citizens. Il is said that these charges
we're shameful and utterly and vilfully
untrue, and that as good and worthy
citizens we cannot lend them our coun-
ienance by voting for those who have 80
traducod the State, her officials, and her
people. The question arising just here IS
whether when we consented to go into
the field with these men they had not
made the same or like charges. II so,
we cordoned their offence and con
seute2 10 meet them before the people
with al their wrongful and injurious
conduct on their heads.
II is undeniably the fact that Tillman
mad made all those charges, or what
amounted TO tho same thing, again and
again in the public press and at various
farmers conventions before the sitting
of the March convention, and IN the call
Of that convention in the Shell manifesto
sounded the depths Of detractlon IN the
plainest and most unmistskable words.
With all this Wholesale traductlon before
us then. We consented to meet
these men in the field as Dem
ocrats. and our recognized Demo
cratic organization took not the hrsi
step to declare such conduct as placing
these men outside OF the party pale. Al
this il plain truth, which 1t IA not worth
the while to deny. We submitted our
selves to trial before the people as e
who should he the nominees OF th'
party. If we had won we should have
clearly claimed the support OF our OPP
ponents. How then shall We deny then
our support
These Iillman nominees have beef
chosen by a large majority OF the Demo
cratic Convention, notwithstanding TN
grossly unfounded charges they pre-
ferred. Not because they were believed
but because the people chose to dlsmlS
them as idle campaign thunder.
II is claimed next That the Tillmai
men, notwithstanding Their PLAIN deman
in the March platform for the prinar.
vote in the choice OF state officers, rt
fused to accept primary vote when tn
straiehtouts proposed 1t. This was,
course, grossly Inconsistent, bnt IN
straiehtonts at first advocated the COZ
veption method of choosing these of
GERS. and we only changed sides Wit
our opponents late in the campaign. 1
all fairness the Tillman men had as niue
right TO change their views with occaslo
SO We had TO change ours.
THE AUGUST CONVENTION.
But convention was called in Augu
70 settle the matter between us. III
YnmAn men captured that conventlo
by large majority, and by 1t dete
mined 10 continue the existing metho1
by which every State ticket had bee
chosen from Hampton 10 Richardsoi
Clearly the Inconsistency Of the Illlms
men did not vitiate the action OF u
August convention any moro than II
had carried it our change OF base "ou
have so done. >,
Ii is claimed, however. that the dei
gates TO that convention were not ialf
chosen that Tillman men had manip
lated the choice OF its delegates so tn
the people were not duly representa-
That may be so but II such were u
case 1t was the duty OF tho straiightou
10 show II. Failing IN this, the Dos
must stand in all fairness as iegltima
md regular. No proof, 10 fact, here
elsewhere, is too clearly the rule.
But ii is claimed that the conventit
lrauscended its Jurisdiction. Lett
admitted. Did that vitiate the action
the body where 1t individually had Iur
5iction5 Clearly not. When. then,
MAS decided to choose State officers by
Convention that decision was competei
whatever else was not.
TIE SEPTEMBER CONVENTION.
Now, as to the September conve
ton. that body was called by the
regular Executive Committee. 1t "
chosen under that call and came togetl
under that call. IL matters not who G
may have called or pretended 70 can
when. then, that convention asSempi'
"a. al euph hn1Ipa In