The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-02-08

/ tOhu " DIAhS up Qdlh VI lHdb uht6
such as comparing the vote for Cover
nor Hogg and Judge Clark in vaIious
counties with that for president by
local candidates for office and in
this way bring up the split in the
party and thereby open the old
wound, in the various connections
| Let us look for moment to the vote
for governor in 1890 as basis. In the
first place the governos vote
! is the we'll established pre-.
| cendent. In the second place, il is
the last vote for governor
preceding the division. In the third
place, the Democratic party was
then united. Is there sufficient reason
to set aside the foregoing; the objec-
tion usually made is that all those
were not Democrats who participated
in said vote of 1890. 1t must be ad.
mitted that there are those now act
ing with a separate organization who
were acting with the Democratic
party at that time; voters have a right
to cease to act with the Democratic
party whenever they see proper to do
so; does this settle the question that
they were not true Democrats ? Do
not voters frequently change from one
party to another, and are they not
counted as of the party with which
they act and for whose nominees they
vote? However, when we compare
the vote for governor in 1890 and that
for president in 1892 the differ.
ence is not sufficient to pre-.
vent harmony in the Democratic
party that is if all hands are of har-
monizying disposition as 1 see from
statistics published in the daily press.
In about one hundred counties the
vote would be the same in the state
convention. In Travis county under
vote of 1890 We would have Is votes,
uuder that of 1892, II votes. On the
basis of one vote in the state c0nven.
ton for every 800 votes and fraction of
Is or over, there would be only Ga
votes difference in the state conven-
ton, counting 800 for every vote in
the state convention; this would only
make 1900 voters lesson presidential
than on said gubernatorial vote. When
you divide his out among the various
counties it is 80 insignificant that it
ought not to be a fatal objection.
These g. votes are less than one tenth
the whole vote as on either basis the
whole vote is between 800 an 900
votes. The most important question
in this connection, it seems to me,
is not who participated in the conven.
tion of 1890, but who are entitled to
participate in the various Democratic
conventions in Texas in the year 1894
The objection that the Populists par.
ticipated in the Democratic conven-
tion in 1890 will, doubtless, be elm
mated this year, for the reason they
low have an organization of their
own throughout the limits OF the
state, and they seem to be marshal
ing their forces with good deal of
energy; and, therefore, we may rea.
sonably conclude that if the Demo.
Gratis should unite Populists will not
be "in it.n Then, with the party
pruned of all but proper members
when it meets in state convention, it
can adopt such platform and resolu-
tions as truly reflects the principles of
the united Democratic party. The
convention alone can do this; the ex.
ecutive committees can not, no such
power has beer delegated to them;
this is not within the scope of
their agency. In this connection
the point is sometimes raised by a
follower of the Matlock executive com.
mittee that the followers of the Baker
committee do not sufficiently endorse
the national platform and President
Cleveland. Where is the highest
authority in regard to these matters?
Is it not the state Democratic con-
veation? 1 submit the following por-
tions of the late Democratic state con-
vention, of whose executive commit
Tee w. s. Baker is chairman, from the
first plank in the platform and the
first resolution respectively:
"First-We,t the Democracy of Texas,
in convention assembled, pledge anew
cur devotion to the time honored prin-
ciples of the Democratic party epunci.
ated in the state and national Demo-
cratic platforms"
The national platform referred to
the enc on which Grover Cleveland
was elected the last time. That con.
vention also took the following &C.
ton:
''Be it resolved by the Democracy of
the state OF Texas in convention as
ssmbled:
"First-That the confidence of
the Democrats of the Union
in the reform principles, capacity,
firmness and sterling integrity of
Grover Cleveland, manifested on
more than one occasion, has signally
justified by his persistent, unswerv-
ing contention that it Is the duty of
congress to lessen the burdens of the
masses so that they may enjoy the
blessings of good government,
economically and honestly admins
tered. and that by the power of pur-
pose, the energy and ability which
charact erized his administration in all
0uraffairs at home and abroad, we
have a guarantee of return to better
government with him as president"
These are the last authoritative an
nouncements by the regularly organ
lied Democrats of Texas. Are they
not as strong as could be reasonably
desired? If there should be placed
In Democratic platform I'M
found planks the way to get shed Of
them, as democrat, is by agitation,
discussion and education within the
party and have the Objectionable one
taken out and subs tituted Units place
800 Al .ELzo.,t % b or ~ bnt