Middletown transcript., 1895-06-29

TO IT,. Is IL nOGT DO6S Cno ECory
Evening tell the truth? 1t admits in
the same article that only one DEM
crat in the Senate voted in favor of
the bill, where they had majority and
controlled legislation, and only one
Republican voted against it. Under
such circumstances can any honest
man say the record of Republicans is
not better on the work house bill than
the record of the DemocratsP If the
one Republican had not been found to
vote against the bill, the entire Demo
cratic vote would have been against it.
Of the entire vote cast on the bill the
Republicans were all for it but one man
and 10! according to Euery Erening he
makes the Republicans equally respon-
sible with the Democrats in its defeat.
Who is so gullible as to accept any
such Handy conclusions? Has not the
Zone paper" proved its case?
But the EUery Evening tells one
truth in the above evidently by acci
dent. 1t says: "As a general thing
nobody attempts any defence of the
course of Republican members in the
recent session of the Legislature, and
it tells falsehood when it says: cit is
given up as an impossible undertaking."
The Democratic papers as part of
their policy denounce the action of
the Republican members, always failing
to specify any particular offence, and
the Republican papers, except the
TRANSCRIPT, make no defence
This is very unjust. Because there
were two or three bad men in the
Legislature all should not be denounced.
And for every specific bad act by a
Republican we will find two by Demo-
Gratis, always barring the Addicks-
Watson conspiracy. The Republicans
in Wilmington let the Democrats get
control of the municipal government
because Of the senatorial struggle. 1t
was childish reason and they will
regret it before two years are out.
We recall case that specially illus
trates the denunciation of Republicans
by theDemocratic papers and the failure
of Republican papers to make ''any de-
fence" The accusation was false, but
Brother Handy said recently that lie
we'll stuck to is as good as the truth,
and this was we'll stuck to by the Every
Evening and its partners in spreading a
falsehood. The charge was this:
That Mr.. Frederick E. Bach, private
secretary to Senator Higgins, was draw
ing two salaries from the government.
1t was false, of course, and it is silly
to think the government would pay
two salaries, but all during the cam
paign Of 1890 the changes were rung
on the charge until Republican editors
asked in whisper, els it true?" We
repeat most emphatically that there
was never an iota of truth in it. The
charge was, and is, false in every par
ticular. Some of the silly Democratic
editors tried to prove the charge. They
said, "See! Mr.. Bach is private secre-
tary to Senator Higgins and he is clerk
of the Committee on Civil Service Re-
form. Two salaries! The wicked mani"
They knew not that Senator Gray's
secretary had been guilty of the same
charge, ~ that is of being clerk to the
committee of which his Senator was
Chairman, but for which every private
secI etary to Senator draws only one
salary. But had it been true, and had
salary attached to the clerkship and
another to the private secretary, Mr..
McFee would have been commended,
in private, for his shreWdness, and Mr.. |
Bach would have been denounced as a
rogue by the same papers. Oh! the diff
ference between tweedle de and tweedle
dunn! And to think the editors of Re-
publican papers make no "defence"
as the Every Evening boasts.
But to return to the work house bill.
The Every Evening says it "was not |
one of the reforms promised to the |
people before the election" Of course
not, since it was defeated by Demo-
Gratis. But what were the reforms
promised and in what way did the Re-
publicans fail to keep their pledges?
Was the repeal of the "bottle law"
passed by the House and defeated by |
the Senate, one of the reforms? The |
Every Evening favors (?) good govern
ment and can tell how it feels on this |
act of the Democratic Senate. Will it |
tell? We challenge it to do so.
The TRANSCRIPT has proven it's |
case in t1e work house bill and SUBJ
mits it in confidence to its Democratic
readers, knowing they love fair play
and despise such hypocricy, as the
Every Evening shows. There are
honest Democrats in every locality |
who have no use for Every Evenings |
methods; for its sophistry. A pro-
minent st. Georges hundred Democrat |
said to the writer few days ago, "the
party must throw off those fellows"
Handy and his class, ''or they will drag
the party down to another and hope
less defeat.'
But give us another case. Make
other specific charges against the Re
publican Legislature.
The June Honeymoon.