New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1896-12-30
a New Test Of Loyalty.

a New Test Of Loyalty.
We have got q new test Of loyalty.
The New York Tribune lays it down. AZ
near as we can make il out it applies ON
~ to the minority. It is, briefly, that the
minority party is guilty Of disloyaltY to
the nation uRlcss it gives assistance to
the majority in the enactment Of such
Legislation as the majority may desire.
This test Of loyalty is made to fit the
case Of the silver Senators. We are told
specifically that any Senator who in ac-.
cordance with his convictions, votes to
amend tariff bill so as to provide for
free silver coinage, marks himself as a
rebel. But, pray, who does Senator
represent il not the people who elected
HIM? Is he constrained to alter his views
and record his vote in accordance with
the dictation of Wall Street, all because
Wall Street triumphed in the last cam
paign? 81
The Senator in Washington speaks for
those who sent him there. And if the
majority of the senators so sent there
speak in opposition to Wall Street,
Wall Street is in the minority in the
the senate, not the majority.
and loyalty demands that Wall stree sub
nit. It makes no difference that the
House of representatives votes different
ly -- that the president-elect. holds diff
erent views. The senate was constituted,
as it is, as check to hasty and ill-con-
sidered action. In standing out against
the House of Representatives and presi-
dent-elect it is doing just what 1t was
intended to do by the trainers of our
constitution. To assail senators for
pursuit OF the right given and duty con-
ferred upon them by the constitution is
to assail the constitu ton. If that instru-
ment is faulty there are ways to amend
1t, but to assail men for exercisingrights
conferred by the constitution is disloy-
atty. Anger and disappointment at ina
bilitv to inauguratc schemes of currency
contraction or high tariff without regard
to the interests of those represented by
the senators who stand out against such
course may palliate, but cannot excuse,
such disloyalty. 1t IS no time for those
who assall the constitution to accuse
those who are exercising rights conferred
by the constitution of disloyalty.
And word to the Tribune directly.
Why did it not apply the same test of
disloyalty four years ago to those repub-
lican senators who stood in the way of
tariff revision? The verdict of the people
was clear. MI. Cleveland, pledged to
tariff reform, had been elected by de-
cisive majority. The republicans were
in the minority. Why did not the Tri-
bune call upon republicans to aid the
democrats in overthrow1ng the Mckinley
tariff Republican senators did not do
so. They were not accused of dlsloyalt
by friend or foe. Why, then, accuse
silver protectionists, populists, demo-
Gratis, of dislovalty now :? They hold
control of the senate. Why should they
abandon it ? Did a majority in the SEN
ate ever in the history Of GU, government
aid a minority to pass legislation obnox-
ious to them because such minority par
ty was IN the majority in the other house?
Of course not They would not have
fulfilled their duty under the constitu-
ton if they had done 50. Let us hear
no more of disloyalty. Let not, those
who would trample ruthless]y upon the
constitution point to those who act I'M
der it as rebels.-The Phila. American