Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-02

deliverance of Attorney General Hcgg,
and the sum OF these commentaries is ac-
eentnated with the pregnant criticism
that the gist Of Mr.. Hogg' g argument
and eloquence, as foremost advocate and
great captain IN the plenary commission
enterprise, resolves itself into the pro-
verbal and historic plea Of tyrants, ne
cessity. With this view of what Mr.
Hogg and his fellow commissionists are
thinking, meditating and driving at,
Judge Clark is naturally distrustful of
the genuineness of their Democracy. He
is satisfied indeed that no Democrat,
true to traditional articles of Democratic
faith, could advocate a measure that
would merge lawmaker, judge and exc
cutioner in one monster of arbitrary and
uncertain discretion. Judge Clark can
conceive how Republican, bred in the
school of Capitalization and paternalism,
might plausibly defend his position as an
advocate of such a measure on party
grounds. He can conceive why the
leading spirits in order and leagues agi-
tating for gigantic strides In national
policy of paternalism and socialism
should favor, as they do favor, such
commission as Mr.. Hogg proposes. But
he cannot conceive how Democrat,
bred in the faith that distribution of
power into distinct departments of gov
eminent is Indispensable to free institu-
tions and that the best government is the
one that interIeres least with the pri-
vate interests, private pursuits and per-
sonRl liberties of citizens, can advocate
such O measure or lind any plausible de-
Tense for it in the generally recognized
tenets of his party. 1t is very obvious,
however in these days of chaotic
tumult of ideas and tendencies in poll
tics, that there are Democrats and Demo-
Gratis. Mr.. Hogg represents an element
of the party infected with the spirit of re-
action against conditions and guarantees
of individual liberty and toward absolu-
tism Of power in a discretionary magis-
tracy claiming to act for like absolutism
in voting majority. Judge Clark re-
presents the school of Democracy which
holds that the fundamental object of
constitution is to limit alike power of
magistrates and of majorities, and that
to sweep away the foundations of
government of law and liberty. Demo-
Gratis of this school, while they believe in
reform, believe that the true way of re-
form is not to multiply new laws, but to
repeal mass of old ones: not to olothe
government with new powers and new
missions, but to divest it of some func-
tions that have already been I'M
wisely conferred or unwarran-
tably arrogated. Democrats Of Mr..
Hogg's persuasion, on the other hand,
believe or propose to the contrary of all
these tenets and contentious. Now, as
Judge Clark has propounded a formida-
BILE string OF interrogatories to Mr.. Hogg
and his colleagues, it may be in order to
inquire how Judge Clark and his col
leagues expect 10 ma intain their standard
of Democratic faith in the practical bust
ness of holding primary meetings, elect
ing delegates 10 a Democratic state con-
vention and organizing that body and
conducting its work. Are they ready to
recognize as competent voters in the pri-
snsries persons VIGOROUSLY allied with
enemies to the Democratic party at
large? Are they ready to affiliate in the
primaries or in the convention with per-
sons who VIGOROUSLY hold in contempt or
in adherence principles which men of
Judge Clark school hold to be the es-
sence of true Democratic faith and the
only security of free government? If
they are ready for all this, then it is not
seen where or how they are to make a
successful stand for their cause inside of
the mechanical organization of the party
with its lines extending around a vast
medley of homogeneous elements. If they |
are not ready for all this, then what |
next?