The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1894-01-04

III
that 1t would cost sew.
eral times as much as the civil war. |
this were true, that does |
not prove 1t Is undemocra 5ic-and that |
Is what you set out TO show, mark you.
You were to prove that mo man who |
upholds this can properly claim to be |
a Democrat and you simply argue |
that 1t is costly. Again we ask-what |
have honorable and spirited men to do
with cash where principle is involved |
Away with such SOTuid standards of
expediency. Let us probe these sues-
tions to the core, and if the principle
be correct and best for the masses of
the people, let us maintain them
though they cost myriads of money
and men. That was the spirit that
animated the Democratic party in
1860 They did not stop to count up
costs when the rights of the people
were threatened. The rights of the peo-
tlOn whether the people shall OWa the
railroads or be owned by them. Al
ready In this State iuSOlvrnt railroads
refuse to pay taxes and boldly bid de.
fmce to the people But are we shut
into buying these roads already built
At the traudulpntly inflated valuation
OF watered stock? 1t the fraudulent
water were squeezed out of them the
&C ual cost would probably not exceed
fourth Of the amount claimed. What
Is to hilder the government from
building its own linasp Certainly sucn
an enterJrise wodld he a GodSend to
the three millien men who are today
moneyless and homeless, with starving
wives aud children among than, sim.
ply because the national bankers panic
has stopped the wheels Of Industry and
damned up misery upOn the people.
a Democratic adminl3t ration is pend
Ing mllllonS year in permanent
structures sUr the safety anI dIstriDu-
ton OF the mails. What would be the
difference in principle between doing
this and constructing lines for the
transmission of those mails? a meas.
ure that at the same time protect the
invaded rights OF the people and fur
nisheS a general relief from an over.
snaIow,ng menace, looks very dis
Inctly Democratic to ns, and it will
take something more, General, than an
exaggerated estimate of cost to fright
en the people from 1T.
.. on say in reparI to our demand
for the election OF United States Sena-
tors by the people, that it will require
a change OF the Constitution to effect
THIS. There Is no news in that. "N on
have, we suppose, read the demand"
as printed in the body of your article
and you must have seen that it is dis.
tinctly a demand to change the Con
Stltution. You fail utterly in this, as
IN previous instances, to adduce q sim
gle argument why Is it undemocratic
TO propose,a needed change in the Con
stltution. You say you "hardly think
that the change will be made in time
to allow any CT the present young aspi-
rants OF the Alliance to test their
strength before the people" Just what
bearing this little Hing at the young
aspirants of the Alliance" has upon
the undemocracy of the demand (that
Is what YOU were to prove, is not ap-
parent. You say you "have never de
nounced the Alliance" Perhaps not but
covert iiro. at its leaders has been
faVori'O way Of trying to injure it
among people who for political rea-
sons dare not denounce it openly.
.. es, as rule we as individuals
oppose the State bank proposition of
the Democratic platform. But what
has that to do with the Ocala platform
which you set out to prove inconsist-
ent with the Democratic? "You have
we suppose, read the Ocala platform,
and II you did you must have seen that
III makes no reference whatever to
State banks. What bearing then has
our individual opinions upon your
proposition that "nO man who uphOlds
(the Ocala platform), can properly
claim to be Democrat? :"
But II we are to be kicked out of the
Democratic party because we as indi-
Vlnuals oppose one plank in the party
platform, we will have a goodly con-
tlngent In our company. We will have
a majority Of the Democrats in the
nG of
view of the silver plank
OF that platform and we will have with
us TIE great masses OF the American
people.
What constitutes the test Of a DemO.
crat any way IN this degenerate day?
Is 1t unIuestioning adhesion to every
plank of the Democratic platform Is
1t fidelity to principles? Certainly not
If we are to Judge by the practice of
the party. We have gold bug Demo.
Gratis and greenback Democrats, free
trade Democrats and protection Dem
ocrats and tariff for revenue Democrats.
The party of free trade elected more
than once high protectonist to the
highest position In the gift of Demo
cratic Congress; and even now form
er Republican candidate for the Pres
ldency occupies the highest place IN the
cabinet 10y appointment of Democrat
tc President who had behind him a
Democratic Congress and the whole
Of government. If adher-
ence to every plank of the platform
were necessary TO constitute u man Il
Democr ,t, then Samuel J. Randall, a
protectiCnlst. could never
have been speaker of Democratic
Congress, and Walter =. Gresham,
former Republican candidate for the |
Presidency, could never be chief ad |
wiser OF Democratic President. What |
hen is the solo test of mans Democ. |
'acy under the practice OF the party?
Evidently it is his support of the nom
nee in the general election.
FINALLY, after all your somewhat
engthy discussion, you find only live
ut of twelve points upon whicl you
axe issue with the Ocala platform.
,Ou distinctly agreed with two, as
oes "every Democrat" you say. TO
hat extent you yourself uphold the
'cala platform, and under your own
ullng you cannot "properly claim to
e Democrat"
The most casual reading of our let
,r will snow that we made no Obipc.