St. Paul daily globe., 1894-06-13
UNION VERSUS FUSION


the state discussion of the union of
the elements in opposition to the hepub-
lican party. Usually the term fusion is
used in place of union. but the underlying
ideas are disslmilar. Fusion III politics
is the coalition of two parties or factions.
1t means the temporary joining of forces
opposed to each other for tie purpose Of
attaining some immediate end. 1t in
wolves the subordination of principles
to success. Union means the combin-
ing of parties agreeing as to principles,
but disagreeing as to details, joining to
obtain control. and leaving details for
subsequent consideration.
1t is needless to repeat the position of
the GLOBE on the proposition of fusion.
We are uncompromisingly hostile to it.
We are told that governments are CON-
promises; that all legislation is but a
bundle of compromise; that the social
fabric is but a compromise of conflict
ing interests. The line between princi-
pie and detail is entirely lost sight
of by those who thus argue. When the
principle is conceded methods OF apply
ing it are properly matters of give and
take. Concessions then to conflicting
OF differing plans are necessary and
right. But when the principles are an
tagonistic compromise is Impossible;
concessions then are surrender simply.
Where, then, is the conflict of princi-
Plies of government which distinguishes
the Democrats and the Populists and
prevents fusion or union? Where is
there similarity of principle but
difference rs to detail which pre-
vents union? If there Is no diff
ference of principle, why should
there not be union? If at base the
principles are identical. why should
there be. a division and opposition which
only results in the triumph of CON-
mon foe? If the Democratic concept of
government is really that held by both,
why should portion stand atoof and.
by taking separate action, defeat the
incorporation of the common principle
in the governmental policies?
If the Omaha platform is to be taken
as declaration of principles, it is the
most incongruous tumble of opposing
and radically antagonistic principles
ever assembled in one platform. When
it declares that wealth belongs to him
who creates it, and it is robbery to take
it from him without compensation, the
Democratic principle of indlyidualism is
stoutly asserted, but this principle Is at
once antagoniZed Dy the demand for
free coinage at ratio which would give
to the silver miner dollar of wealth not
created by him for each one produced.
When another plank demands the is
suance of money in loans to the people
and the establishment of the sub-treas-
ury plan. SO called, the doctrine of
socialism is adopted in all its purity,
plank they Immediately nullify by de-
manding that the state and national rev.
enues be ''limited to the necessary ex-
penses of the governments" When
they demand the election of the presi-
dent and senators by direct vote of
the people they indorse the Democratic
principle of government by the people
and refuse the paternal concept which
| actuated the Federalists in remov-
ing these offices from the peo-
pie because they distrusted "that
great brute, the public" Wnen, too,
they demand governmental control of
natural or artificial monopolies. they
stand on solid Democratic ground; but
| when they veer off and ask that .'ihe
| powers Of the government be ex-
| panded" and applied to plausible but
utterly impracticable purposes, they
open the door of State socialism wide to
all projects for interference with the
| individuals freedom of action.
This incOngruous platform mirrored
the mass represented in the convention.
On the one hand were the socialists of
all degrees. whose views found no SYM
pathy even in the party which had par
TALLY applied their principles. Nd
whose sole recourse was in independ-
ent action. On the other hand were
the people, indiyidualists at heart, who
| distrnsted the sincerity of the Demo-
cratic organization, believing that it is
controlled by influences in sympathy
with those which dominate the Re-
publican party. We are forced to admit
that the present session of.congress af-
fords ground for this distrust to those
who take narrow view and judge the
whole party by the acts of few men
accidentally iu place where they can
defeat the wishes OF the party. OF these
two elements Mr. Donnelly and MIR.
Owen are fairly representative type s;
the one believer III the divine origin
and power and mission of government:
the other in divine origin of man and his
power to regulate and conduct his own
affairs for himself better than they ca,,
be directed for him. The one prescribea