The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1893-12-28

was in 1892. Gov. Nelson is pretty
close to the people,.
neighborng paper recently quoted prom
inent Delnoc rat as saying that the recent cleo
lions were, after all, really Democratic victor
ies,* Here are some Observation-Disclosures
ADVANCE.
The ADVANCE then quotes comparative tables
of election returns for 1892 and 1S93 1t is hafd-
ly fair to quo te my remarks without quoting
the reasons by which arrived at my conclus-
ions. Perhaps should have been little more
explicit in order to suit the intelligence OF some
ofmy readers l might have said the Demo-
cratic party in turning down corrupt candi-
date for office, had achieved MORAL victory
over itself, aud that the Republican party In
eecting corrupt official had met moral de-
feat If, as Horace Greedy has said, 1T is bet
ter to be right than to be President, Is 1t not
much better to be right than to be victorious?
Or, in other words. il victory against wrong Is
victory is not the Democratic party victorious
and is not the Republican the defeated party?
A. SCHAEFER
Mr.. Schaefer evidently belongs to
that very honest, but misguided, class
known as "faith-curers." Anyway
he tripped himself, tumbled over him
self, and rolled all over himself. His
reasoning, no doubt, is quite logical
to him but he fails to make his audi
ence clearly understand just what he
terms "moral victory" He says lis
it not better to be right than to be
victorious" True. But the demo
cratic party never thought of being
fright" until showed under in New
York by $1,000 majority-they never
knew what ''moral" victory they
we're going to achieve until an out
ragged people rose up and buried the
ballot-box thief, this great "moral"
party had nominated for Judge. Not
word was said against Judge May
nard until he was so overwhelmingly
defeated. The party that nominated
him saw much in him to admire
never occurred to them that they were
going to achieve a great "moral vic
tory" in the defeat of their nominee.
Friend Schaefer's Growing is ill-timed.
If the democratic party ever expert
enced "moral victory" it was because
it was forced upon them. This is a
matter of history.
In the election of Jackson, in Iowa,
Mr.. Schaefer says, the republicans
suffer ''moral defeat" What a
reasoner! IT'S true the democrats
maligned and traduced Mr.. Jackson,
but that does not prove anything.
They also maligned and traduced
Gov. Boies when he was republican.
They had no kind words for Garfield,
Grant, Blaine or Harrison; it does not
signify that they achieve "moral vic
tory" just because they hump their
backs and spit like an exasperated
Thomas Cat-that is no indication
that they are enjoying "moral vic
tory;" they are simply following the
tenets of their party.
AS we said in the beginning of this
article: Friend Schaefer evidently
belongs to the faith cure party, and
has succeeded in making himself be-
lieve that his party has really done a
commendable piece of work-if the
"spell' ever works off he will be
forced to admit that he was only
dreaming, and his fondest hopes were
mere vapor.
In conclusion we would like to ask
Mr.. S. if he wants bis party to reap
another such "moral victory" in 1861