New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-02-09
THAT VOTE on SILTER.

The Democratic newspapers which have been
urging with apparent sinlc Gritty the repeal %
the Silyer-PuIchase act. is matter OF good
faith Oh the pant OF the Democratic party a.
well as Of public policy, have i'll some in
stances s'n-c the defeat OF Senator Hills mo-
ton 10 take MP the repeating bill. shown Il
al position t. make political capital ont OF the
vote in the Senate by putting the entire re-
sponsibility fer the result upon the Repub-
Iicans. Our Democratic contemporary 1.-The
Ncw.Yolk Wo.d.'' f r instance, which a little
while ago was calling upon Democrats in Con
gIcss in It's usual earnest manner to carry ont
the promi.e of their platform on this subject,
cmpha izng its demand by peppciing its edi'o-
rial page with the resolution itself printed in
italics with distressing frequency in every
column. now turns upon the Republican ma
iOr.ty in the Senate for having refused t. aid
Democrats in repeating the law because OF a
miserably partisan desire to cmbarrass the
coming Democratic Administration with an ap
proach to National disaster" "NO editorial
wriegling,' it says, "can save the Republican
rarty from the responsibility It's representatives,
in the Senate have deliberately assumed
The wrigglng" we submit, is on the other
side. The assumption that Republican Sen
ators were actuated by a desire to embaraSs
the incoming Administration is not only q atI-
tous. but wholly unfounded. Nothing APP
peared in the course of the discussion t, war
rant it. There is much better ground to as
sumo that Senator Hill in making his motion
was actua,ed by q desire TO embalrass Mr..
Cleveland. That theory has been advanced
with great pOsitiveness by high Democratic
authority, and it comes from sources usually
well informed in such ma tiers tina. Mr.. Clevc-
land himself takes that view of it. 1t is only
fair to say that this too is pure inference, with
nothing to substantiate it except conjecture.
But accepting Democratic authority on this
point why is it not just as fair to presume that
the Republican Senator's who voted against
Senator Hills motion did SO in order ~ de-
feat his purpose to emharrass Mr.. Cleveland?
1t would be a singuaily par0dGXcal situation
if Mr.. Hill in making the melton int nded, "a
some very influential Democrats say he did
to embarrass Mr.. Cleveland, il Republican Sen
ators voted against il also to embaIrass Mr..
Clove'and. Before charging the Republicans
with pariisanship in voting againet Senator
Hills motion it would be well t. get il c'eaily
settled precisely what the Senator's purpose
WIS. nc tNO L jHc.I'IOHS Vi WI. Olt''lluuS
friends arc quite inc; mpatible.
The truth is that the vote in the Senate was
practically without significance. SO many other
considerations entered into the question as il
was presented on Mr.. Hills motion that the
vote upon it disclosed nothing as to the real
attitude of the Senate upon repeal. The vote
was i'm no sense test. The public Is a pretty
keen observer and accurate Judge in such mat
tcrs and public opinion of the impo tance Of
the vote was clearly shown by the course Of
the markets. That, on the whole, is a better
gauge than the comments of partisan news
papers. TIFF TRIBUNE has from the begin
ming urged the importance of action by III"
present Congress. And while we do not sit in
Judgment upon the IN tivcs Of Republican SEN
at0rs who voted against Senator HIS motion.
many Of when we know 10 be as earnest adj
vccates of repeal as any who voted for il, we
are free to say that we should have preferred
a different result. Having NJ question of the
wisdom of repeal as mater OF public policy
we believe that, from a merely partisan point