Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-11-25
SATURDAY. NOVEMBER 25. 1893.
The Times Again.

The Times Of yesterday says:
ON reply TO the Dispatches article OF
Yesterday. We ask IL how are reforms in
ones uarty to Doe secured if not by dis
cussing the necessity for them"
II depends on whether we discuss the
rrorosci reform with our friends. or
with our enemies For our part. we do
not believe in taking the whole world
into our confidence. II there were any
such meg as the dirty linen of the
Democratic party ms we do not for a
moment think there is, we should not
dream Of calling upon the Republicans
or upon the world at large TO assist
in washing IT, Rather would we. like
Noah's sons. perform the hlial duty Of
keeping family matters within the
family.
Tho Times further says
III abuses have crept into the party
Government and management that
threaten 90 imperil the existence OF the
Marty itself wc insist II ~ the duty OF
"A good party man to point them out
and demand that they shall be cor
IcCtcd"
Point them out?" TO whom? Surely
mot 10 "all The world and the rest Of
mankind" The deadly enemies Of the
Democratic party will always be glad
20 assist any Democrat who will point
ont" what those enemies are always
ready % pronouuccs abuses"
Again: The Times says;
.-rhat IS the way TO secure good
Iarty government. and that we hold to
be every good citzcn's duty as opposed
90 the usual plan of kicking out OF the
traces and Joining so-called 'independ-
euts' II our party adheres to the abuses
that we have discussed we shall have
40 disposition 10 explain our utterances
away In the next campaign. We shall
Dec able 10 do no more than deplOre
.he necessity for them
n the Times has not gone az far as
Any independent in denouncing what
&C styles abuses We are greatly mis-
taken.
In a word. It Is not possible for n
good Democrat to separate himself from
his party. Whoever tries 10 set himself
up as better than his party will find
himself and his party indlssoluby asso-
ciatcd together.
Now. 1t is not for us to deny the
Illness right TO be independent of the
Democratic party. II it really believes
that MIR. O'Ferralrs nomination was
fosted upon the Democratic party" then
il had the right 10 say 50. We do not
believe any such story.
Finally the Times said recently that 1t
was not against Colonel O'Ferrall indi-
viiually that it raised its voice in pro-
test but against those machine
methods now 50 familiar to practical
politicians" What were these machine
methods? Who were the guilty parties?
Where was il that these machine methods
were resorted TO? Was 1t i'm Richmond?
So FAR as We know or believe 1t was
not necessary to resort TO machine
methods" either to nominate or 10 elect
Colonel OFerrall.
Only three days ago our nelghbor
said:
There Is a growing belief amongst the
people that the use OF money and patron
axe I'm our politics has converted the
whole party of the state into vast
machine. where principles are not longer
thought Of but humbuggery of the peo-
pie TO secure salaried places for men Is
the entire party object"
Money" indeed! We doubt If the
State Committee had at its command
enough funds TO enable 1t, If 1t wished.
TO apportion $50 to each county In the
state. We dare say that in no state OF
our population and wealth Is so little
money used to influence elections as In
Virginia. And as 10 patronage II Is
saying little for our party TO assert that
It (and money! has converted 1.-The whole
party into vast machine. where princi-
pies are no longer thought Of" etc.
We believe no such thing.
This growing belief has no doubt
been strengthened by the Timess arti-
cles. n Il was not caused by them.
But enough II we succeed in con-
vincing the Times that II has gone
ustray" in this matter. we will have
done a good service 70 the Democratic
party.