The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1894-01-04
A LETTER TO HAMPTON,
mEsSERS. EVANS AND STOKES AN
SWERS THE GENERALS LAST.


mands are Endorsed by a srpj orlty of
tho Democrats in Congress and A.Ls
Further Questions.
Hon. Wade Hampton, Washingt On, d.
g.
Dear Sir: Your letter addressed to
us aud published in The State and REGIS.
tor OF the 9th instant has had our care.
iul attention, and candor compels us 90
say that as reply to the questions we
propounded it is great disappointment.
1t will prove disappointment to the
great organization of farmers We repro
sent, whom you attempted to read out
OF tho Democratic party. 1t will prove
grlevous disappointment to the great
mass OF our people who honestly believe
that the principles underlying the Ocala
platform are Identical with the Dsmoc
racy OF Jefferson and the party he fouod.
cd; yet. moved bv memories of past az.
ISOLATION and confidence, were willing
even 10 hold conviction itself in abey.
ance until the man they had trusted
in the past might at least give reason
Tor the bull OF accommodation he had
issued against them.
IL Will be disappoint ment because
you distinctly decline to answer the
questions asked-oerfectly PLAIN uues
tlons-that embodv everv principle in
Volved in the 0cala platform and that
might have been answered in much less
space than you have actually used. II
ls a dlsappointment all around and more
tnan all because your remarks are not
characterized by your accustomed straight
forwardness and courtesy.
remembering that the people of this
etate mad repeatedly honored you tor
your reputed hberality and statesman
IKE cast OF mind, we purposelv dis.
carded verbiage about which more or
less prejudice bad collected and asked
you to discuss great pri ,ciples that lie
behind that verbiase. You decline TO
dis cuss principles and talk about plat
forms. Since you have chosen after n
month of dellberation to bring the Dis.
cussion down from the broad plane OF
craftsmanship upon which our questions
put II and place 1T apparently upon the
low plano OF narrow factl0ual politics in
thls State, why, perforce VIC must TO some
extent try to play the Politician, too.
L. In the hrst place, then, you dis
pose OF the first Ocala demand. against
tne national banks, thus: mo such
demand ls made by the Democratic par
~. 1t may have escaped your memory,
II you ever knew the fact, that these
banks bold charters which do not expire
until 19O7, 80 that there will be some
d1Mculty In the immediate abolition OF
the natlonal banks" Indeed, and, be.
cause, torsOOth, there ls difficulty in the
way 1t is undemocratic Chat is what YOU
were to show, 10 agitate it, however
righteous the principle. Is that the posi-
tion, General, to which you would com
nit yourself and us? Wrath are honor.
able men of spirit to do with dlMculty
where principle is involved? But are
you sure, General, that no such demand
is made by the Democratic party?
To borrow your own choice phrase.
ologY toward us (whcn The State as.
sures us ls studiously courtcous) ut
NAV have escaped your memory if YOU
ever knew the fact" that the Democratic
platform 1856 contains the following
plank: "Congress has no power to
charter national bank. We believe
such an Institution one of deadly hos.
tility to the best interests Of the coun.
try, dangerous to our Republican nstltu.
tions and the liberties OF the people, and
calculated TO place the business of the
country within the CONTROL of cOncen.
trated money power and above the laws
and the will of The people," Moreover,
lit may have escaped your memory, ifl
you ever knew the fact" that this plank
was reaMr ned in the platform 1860,
coupled with the declaration that
democratic principles are unchange-
able in their nature when applied to the
Same subject matters.' cit may have
escaped your memory" too, ''if you
over knew the iact," every Democratic
platform ever uttered by the party (save
the lirs } down to 1864, contained pre-.
ciselY that Same strong language against
national banks. 4i, then. as the party
has more than once declared its 'pln.
ciples aye,' Interchangeable" it is a little
ditficulD to find justification for your
charge of political heresy against those
OF us who in 1893 held to the principle
that from 1910 to 1864 was the height
OF Democratlc virtue.
z. You say the suh.treasury idea is
unconstitutional. Well, really, honored
Sir, we thought it rather beneath your
dignity to go cracking political chest
nuts like that. Your reading must
have been exceedingly limited if You
did not know that as prominent Dem
ocratic LAWYER az Judge Norwood Of |
'ICOlSio uIu OClltI6 vi cQudl pIolnl- |
nence had expressed a contrary Opin- |
ion. But suppose we admit that the |
scheme is unconstitutional, does that
debar us from agltating it? If it be a
Good thing for the masses under the
changed conditions and progress of the
nineteenth century, why should the
Constitution forever stand between the
people aud it's enjoyment? Are you Sc
rious. General, when you teach by
implication that it ia undemocratic to
seek any change in the Constitution
however righteous and desirable that
change may be? And mark you, it was
the Democracy Of this demand you were
TO discuss.
3. You dsmiss our demand for free
coinage OF silver with the simple ques. a.!
ton: "Is this demand in accordance !
with the Democratic platform? And is =
this the best that can be done? You =
set out to show that it did not conform =
hA -. .1--If