Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-06-15

=
one or more OF the members OF the
House Of Representatives who vo'ea u
other dap In favor Of the Cox p,n p.'
n. vote upon the ground That tne
cr.,,c National Convention Of 1874 had ne-
c,arsd in favor Of the abolition OF '"s
20 ,.r cent tax upon the circulating notes
- state banks. Before the Clerk "aa
proceeded very far in Calling Tue .o",
there were no doubt good many o'.'
xeak- kueed Democrats who pesa" '"
think that they were trying to stand upon
a rotten plank Of a good platform. Inc
.ound-,noney men Of both parties raii'eu
IN the standard OF the opponents OF
debased and denationalized currency anu
threw their votes and influence agaihs,
a wildcat currency and d'scre"i'e'
scbene for enabling capitalists to issue
circulating notes based upon debt. THESE
sound-money men would not countenance
for a moment the proposition TO aiiow
State banks TO issue three doiiars Oh
notes for every dollar OF securities whlch
they held In their vaults or elsewhere
for the redemption of those notes. NO.
IKE MFR. Lincoln, they put their 1901
down" and thus set bounds to the de-
mands OF the debasers and denationai-
lzers OF the peoples currency
However. We do not wish to DISCUSS
that point just now, but to call a'teh''o"
10 the fact that the vote on the COX Oil
fully sustained the contention OF the DIS
patch that platforms prepared ana issue"
by Democratic national conventions couiu
not be considered as Indefinitely pihoihs
upon the Democratic leaders. Particularly
did we call the attention OF the New
York Sun to the fact that one or more
Randall protectionist platforms had been
set aside by the Chicago Democratic Ma
tionai Convention of 1882, and ask that
bright luminary to throw some hght
upon the subject. How long, we asked,
&c a national platform binding upon good
Democrats. and how soon may they pro-
coed to step down therefrom? How were
the Randall protectionist platforms dis
posed of? How could those platforms
have been set aside and the Chicago
platform of 1892 substituted therefor. I'M
less the anti-protectonists had the right to
agitate for their repeal? And II the anti
Randallites had the right to conduct "a
campaign of education" how could II be
otherwise with the Randallites? Had not
the latter the same right as the former
70 try to have a new tariff plank incor-
porated into the national platform of the
Democratic party?
What was the Suns reply? 1t was that
with reference to the country in general
and its own honor a party was bound 10
stand upon It's national platform until
it carried out its declarations. That is to
say, the Sun and all other sound Demo-
cratic papers and politicians were bound
to support the Cox bill ~ abolish the
tax upon the circulating notes OF State
banks, because the Chicago convention
OF 1892 declared for It's abolition. We ven
ture TO say that the sun will not here
after be found occupying this position.
however and wherever it may have stood
week ago. We predict that 1t will not
trouble itself to conduct campaign OF
education on the subject Of that tax. IL
will not FIJI It's columns with articles
showing or intended to show that re-
gard for Democratic principles requires
the Democrats In Congress TO carry out
the declarations OF the Chicago platform
in reference to taxing the circulating
notes of State banks. That paper has not
gone clean daft" and taken up the
a.. ,l.aal L.
natics. 1t has its wits about It. II knows
that it's contention, as herein exposed
and commented upon. is one that can
not successfully be maintained.
Answering our interrogatory further.
the Sun proceeds to say that Tin refer
ence to its power Of review and reversal,
a party is bound only until the next
national convention" So that in 1896 the
Democratic National Convention VIII
have the right to review and reverse
the action OF the Chicago convention
not only upon the question of the aboli-
ton of State bank tax but upon the ques-
ton of the tariff. And II all good Demo-
cfats will have that right In 1886, why
may they not begin at once a campaign
Of education upon these subjects? Must
they wait until the next national conven-
ton assemblies before they proceed to
inculcate sound doctrines upon the rank
and file?
Our New York contemporary must re-
wise its creed. and reverse the judgments
which it has rendered in the two cases We
have discussed in this article.