New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1893-11-01
Reflections Of a Democrat.

Now we have a compromise, the Lord
be praised! We Democrats can get to-
gether. We.have differences? OF course,
but now we can unite-one triumphant
party. On principles? Oh, Of course,
all have to yield something in order to
agree, and the Administration yields the
principles, while the other elbows prom
Use to do something by-and-by, If they
don't change their minds. That is the
blessing Of compromise. All yield for
the sake of the party. " ~,
Is it all for silver, and nothing for no.
body else? But we did the best we could
do. We must do something, or be dis
graced. We could not adopt Tom Reed
rule, and count men who were in sight
That would be infamous. 1t was lntln-
itely better to let business walt and Ian
guish. The great thing is that we have
a compromise and can agree.
A Republican act? Well, so much the
better. The Republicans have a faculty
of passing acts, which we cannot afford
to repeal when we get power. They
know something about the country, and
what they do is apt to stay done. So in
extending Republican actor two years
we are doing very safe thing. We
don't know what in thunder might hap
men If Democratic measure had been
adopted. But there is no danger in ex-
tending any act that the Republicans
have passed.
Humiliating to the President? The
man had no business to take Democrat
tic nomination if he was not ready to
abide by the acts of his party. Was he
a swindler in accepting? Of course, he
meant to co what he could for his own
ideas, and then to stand by his party.
That is the Democratic way. Is 1t a
question of principle? Pshaw! Demo-
cratic principles mean the election of
Democratic candidates.
Does it mean disaster to business?
Have we SAID that the Silver Purchase
act had caused all financial woes and dis
asters and panics? 1t is quite likely
we have said many things, with the idea
of making Republicans responsible some
how for all the disasters that MIG htpossi-
blv result from a Democratic return to
power. Of course, it is a bad act, we
said so in our Democratic National plat
form, and we said it ought to be repeal
ed without delay, and that its continu-
ance every month would mean bankrupt
cy to many people. But what does all
count i'll comparison with the unity of
the Democratic party. Did we aot
clear that we could not unite on any
other measure?
Pledges? Well, they are made to DE
broken, like pie crust. But we dld not
pledge ourselves to repeal the act one
hour after date Any vote for uncondi-
tional repeal, two years or four years al
ter date, is a compliance with the pledg-
es of the party. Did we say repeal should
be immediate? Yes, but that meant as
soon as the party could afford it:
Shall we get into trouble two years
hence9 After us, the deluge. We can
not be in a more disgraceful or disastrous
state than we were last week. Think of
that contemptuous speech of John sher-
man. We had better vote for the worst,
bill conceivable than to have Sherman
tell us that we cannot agree on his own
bill? Bothel; it no longer is his, for he
proposed its repeal year ago. 1t be-
longs now to the great Democratic party
which has picked it up, and is very glad
to use it when the Republicans have done
with it.-New York Tribune.