New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-11-12

dnntjal election with year Of congressman
elections only.
At IeoSt twenty five Democrats IN nun
drod b,ve failed or refused 10 vote l'r
Democratic tickets. of whom not lar rom
f., in -, hundred have voted for Republicans
direc,lv. An ovcrlurning 50 tremendous cannon
H.. ,t,riI,uteI to local causes. The horrible cN-
no.urcs of vice and crime in New-lork' Inc
srcndid upri>ing Of the people against m'inic-
in,I corruption IN Brooklyn and Buffalo anu
Jersey civ. did not produce after all loss "'
Democratic vote materially greater than was
seen in widely separated States Ike Maine anu
OREGON. Massachusetts and Texas. CONNECTICUT
and Iowa. The loss in New England Wa' Il
shade greater than in the Middle states ana
the loss in the great Central States OF me "'''
about ~ large in proporton Where the Demo
,r,ts have won heretofore by aid OF the IoP-
rIists ;heir loss is about the same aS III Stal'S
whore ,hcv have this year Il Republican anu
PopuliSt combination against them. WIN men
- INV, norsonol character like Professor Will
son. Of West Virginia. their loss is about rs
,, ~ with th.. most shameless demagogueS.
such rs Hill Of Ncw-York. All these things
show bcvond possibility Of mistake that the
Great cause of Democratic defeat was or Ma
ocroti, conduct. not in city or State bn'
in the United States and particularly Win '''c
Democratic Administration and Congress.
II is a grave mistake 10 suppose that no part
of This chorus of popular ceHsurc is directed III
the President In States where MS cioN'S' '''''
mos, devoted pcrsonal friends had entire drec-
ton " the Democratic party, rs III MchSa"
and Wisconsin, the overthrow WAS complete
,i.,ftt~ ..'. rr.lsli
in STATES like Now-York and Maryland. where
his personal resentment 1T the support Oh MS
ucr,onal foe, led many to expect that his
friend, would strike back No man asSan'h
IN. President more bitterly than Senator Cor
man. but he comes out Of the catastrophe Win
less Of personal loss or rebuke than senator
Villas. or senator Gray. or Senator RAINIER. II
there is Il difference. indeed. The popular roOah"
appears 10 have been more indignant ana en-
,hatic in States where the Democratic party
heartily sustained In" President than IN oih'r
State, where it treated him with contempt
The only cause which its and explains al the
facts i the Indignation Of Democratic WORKING
men hccausc the policy Of their party has done
them harm This single force Is 50 much more
powerful than all others that even the AStouhd-
in. cXpD>ur,> If rojt"nn'>S IN \"W-l ork hlll'
the Democratic loss scarcely greater than IL
was in States where no personal corruption OK
i>t,d II {, ~ il he men who were affected
by proved mrcondurt and rHScalliy could be
counted by hundreds. but the men who were
affected 10y the prl-'raion of their industries
could lc counted 10y thousands II is con
cu,ion not Gathering 10 The Democratic voters.
But II l. nevertheless The lesson which Tie r.
turns mmi-iakably teach. that the Democratic
worlincmcn have become profoundly disguised
with the National policy for which they voted
i'm 1872 and 50 Disguised. that even The worst
cxposurcs If infamy have had olly a Subor'li-
nate influence.