The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-01-24

to our demand for the ownership of
railroad and telegraph lines, In certain
contingencies, that it would cost sew
eral times as much as the civil WAR.
Supposing this were true, that does
not prove it Is undemocrasic sic-and that
Ia what you set out to show, mark you.
| You were to prove that "no man who
! upholds this can properly claim to be
a Democrat" and you simply argue
that it Is costly! Again We ask-what
have honorable and spirited men to do
with cash where principle is involved ?
! Away with such sordid standards OF
| expediency! Let US probe these ques-
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 tho 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-
tion whether the people shall own the
| railroads or be owned by them. a!
| ready IN this State iusolvent railroads
refuse to pay taxes and boldly bid de-
| fiance to the people But are we shut
into buying these roads already Dullt
| at the fraudulently inflated valuation
| of watered stock? If the fraudulent
water were squeezed out of them the
actual cost would probably not exceed
q fourth of the amount claimed. What
is to hinder the government from
building its own lines? Certainly such
an enterprise would be Godsend to
the three million men who are today
moneyless and homeless, with starving
wives and children among them, SIM
ply because the national bankers panic
has stopped the wheels Of industry and
damned up misery upon the people.
A Democratic administration Is pend
| ing millions year in permanent
structures sor the safety and distribu-
| tion of the mails. What would be the
difference in principle between doing
| this and constructing lines for the
| transmission of those mailsp A meas
| ure that at the same time protect the
invaded rights Of the people and fur
nishes q general relief from an over.
shadowing menace, looks very dis.
tinctly Democratic to us, and it will
take something more, General, than an
exaggerated estimate OF cost to fright
en- the people from 1T.
5. You say in regard to our demand
| for the election Of United States Sena-
tors by the people, that it will require
q change of the Constitution to effect
this. There Is no news In that. You
have, we suppose, read the demand"
as printed in the body of your article,
and you must have seen that 1t is dis
tinctly demand to change the Con-
stitution. You fail utterly in this, as
| in previous instances, to adduce sin
gle argument why is 1t undemocratic
| to proposes 8 needed change In the Con
stitution. You say you "hardly think
that the change will be made in time
to allow any CT the present young aspt-
rants Of the Alliance to test their
strength before the people," Just what
| bearing this little fling at the "young
sspirants Of the Alliance" has upon
the undemocracy of the demand (that
is what you were to prove. is not ap-
parent. You say you "haYe never de-
nounced the Alliance" Perhaps not t;but
covert Hings at its leaders has been
favorite way of trying to injure 1t
among people who for political rea-
SONS dare not denounce 1t openly.
g. Yes, as a rule we as lndlVldualsI
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 tnconsist-
ent with the Dsmocratic2 "You have
we suppose, read" the Ocala platform,
and If you did you must have seen that
1t 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 a Democrat ?"
But If we are to be kicked out of the
| Democratic party because we as indi-
vinuals oppose one plank in the party
platform, we will have goodly con-
| tingent In our company. We will have
majority of the Democrats in the
| United States Senate, who opposed the
administration view of the silver plank
OF that platform and we will have with
us the great masses of the American
people.
What constitutes the test of a Demo.
crat any way IN this degenerate day?
| Is it unquestioning adhesion to every
plank of the Democratic PLATFORM Is
it fidelity to principles2 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 protectionist to the
highest position in the gift of Demo-
cratic Congress-; and even now form
er Republican candidate for the Pres
idency occupies the highest place IN the
cabinet by appointment Of a Democrat
ic President who had behind him a
Democratic Congress and the whole
machinery of government. If adher-
ence to every plank of the platform
were necessary to constitute a man a
Democrat, then Samuel J. Randall,
pronounced protectionist, 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
then is the sole test of mans Democ-
racy under the practice Of the party?
Evidently it is his support of the NOM
inee in the general election.
Finally, after all your somewhat
lengthy discussion, you find only i've
out of twelve points upon which you
take issue with the Ocala platform.
You distinctly agreed with two, as
does "every Democrat" you say. To
that extent you yourself uphold the
Ocala platform, and under your own
ruling you cannot "properly claim to
ha q noro oorofO