The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1894-01-03
EST BIZ .ISHED 1865.

coinage ofsilver with the simple ques
ton: "Is this demand in accordance
with the Democratic platform?" And
is this the best that can be done? Yor
set out to show that it did not conform
to the Democratic platform. You only
ask us il. it does. Assuming that yol
ask in good faith, we, at least, will no
evade a direct question, so we answer
unhesitatingly, yes, it does; and was sc
held by the brainiest and best Demo
Gratis in the United States Sens uct
men as Morgan and Daniel, s 1rb.
and Butler and s host of others.
To borrow smother choice phrase di
rected to us fand which we are assured
is stsdiously courteoas), "you have, VI
suppose, read the Democratic platform
and if you compared itn with the ocals
you'llsee that both oondemn the Sher.
man act. Thus far they are identical
The ocala then demands sin lieu
thereoe1he free and unlimited coinage
of silver. The Democratic goes on te
say: aWe hold to the use of both gol6
and silver as the standard money o.
the country and to the coinage of both
gold and silver without Discrimination
against either metal or charge for min.
tage.n The meaning is precisely the
same. The reading public vii. note
how signally you have failed not only
to JUSTLY your charge that mo man
who upholds the Ocala platform can
properly ciaim to be a Democrat" but
even to show that the platforms are
wholly antagonistic.
Yen think ia sufficient answer
to our demand for the ownership OF
railrosd and telegraph lines, in certain
contingencies, that it would cost sew
eral times as much as the civil war.
Snpposing this were true, that does not
prove it is undemoeratic-and that is
what you set out to show, mark you.
You ware to prove thatssno man who
upholdsn this can properly claim to be
. Democrat and you simply argue
thatit 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
expedieney! Let us probe these ques-
lions to the core, and if the principle
beicorrect and best for the masses OF the
people ietus maintain them though they
cost myriads of money and men. That
wasthe spirit that animated the Demo-
cratic party in 1860. They did notstepto
count up costs when the rights of the
people5&ere threatened. The rights Of
the people whether tbs people shall
own the railroads or be owed By tttein.
Alreadyin this State insolvent rail-
roads refuse to pay taxes and boldly
bid defiance to the people. But are we
shutinto buying these roads already
built at the fraudulently inflated yalua-
ton of watered stock? If the fraudu-
lent water were squeezed out of them,
the actual cost Woui, 'robably not ex-
ceed fourth of the amount claimed.
What is to hinder the government from
building its own lines? Certainly such
an enterprise would be God send to
the three.-million men who are to-day
moneyless and homeless, with starving
wives and dSchiidren around them, sim
ply becauseghe national bankers panic
has stopped the wheels Of industry and
damned up misery upon the people. A
Democratic administration is spending
millions q year in permanent structures
for the safety and distribution of the
mails. What would be the difference
in principle between doing this and
constructing lines for the transmission
ofthose mails? A measure that at the
same tiine protects the Invaded rights
Of the people and furnishes general
relief from an overshadowing menace,
looks very distinctly Democratic to US;
and it will take something more. Gen
eral, than an exaggerated estimate OF;
cost to frighhten the people from it.
5. You say in regard to our demand
for the election Of United States Sena-
tors by the people, that it will require
i 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 it is dis
tlnctly demand to change the Con-
stitution. You fail utterly in this, as in
previous instances, to addGce single
why it is undemocratic to
propose needed change in the Consti-
tution. You say you "hardly think
that the change will be made in time
to allow any of the present youn. as
pirants of the Alliance to test their
strength before the people" Just what
bearing this little fling at the 'young
aspiEants of the Alliance" has upon the
ondemocracy of the demand (that il
whatyou were to prove Dis notapparent.
You say you "have never denounced
the Alliance" Perhaps not; but covert
aings at its leaders has been a favorite
way of trying to injure it among people
who for political reasons dare not de-
nouncs it openly.
6. Yes, 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 inconsistent
with the Democratic? "You have, we
suppose, read" the Ocala platform. and
if you did you must have seen that it
makes no reference whatever to State
banks. What bearing then has our
individual opinions upon your PROPOSE