The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-11-14
M'KINLEYIsM's TRIUMPH.
What "A Correspondent Sees in the
Election of Nov. 3.

To the Editor of the Globe.
In your editorial Of Nov. z. referring to the
sound money Democrats, under the head
ing, THE Work of Our Hands, you say
many true things, but when you ask the Re
publican party to go back on the first prin-
ciples Of McKinleyism and favor lower tar
IFS you are requesting something that no
one has a right to expect. Every Democrat
who voted for Mckinley or Palmer did so
with the full knowledge that he was voting
for exactly what he had always voted and
fought against every time he had cast a
Democratic vote. These Mckinley and Palm
er Democrats doubtless acted honestly and
patriotically, for they knew that they could
hope for no recognition from the Republicans
in case Mckinley was elected; they also knew
that If Organism" triumphed they would
have no part in that so in either case thew
would be out in the cold, without home or
party, and with the probability that they
might not be able to get into any fold dur
ing the present generation.
I have the highest respect for every DEM
ocrat who, understanding this, disregarded
all hope Of personal gain and rose above
partisanship to such degree that he could
vote for Mckinley or Palmer.
1t seems to me plain that it was McKin-
leyfsm that has triumphed in this contest
while nothing can be said against Mr.. Nc
Kinley personally, he is certainly not a
not try to use the methods Of 'The Boy Ora
tor OF the Platte to influence men to vote
for him from sympathy. and against their
sober judgment The people that supported
Mr.. Mckinley did so because they believed
in protection. One great cause of the
'silver craze" getting many Republican
votes was that the Republican voters had
been educated to believe in paternalism from
their childhood; and many of them looked at
the free silver idea not much different
from the protective theories that their
own party had always taught them. They
saw that "free" silver was really protected
silver, and they argued that If the govern
ment could raise the price of wool or any
other kind Of merchandise by it's fat 1t
could also regulate and raise or lower the
real value Of money by the same means
They reasoned logically, but they started
from wrong premises.
Now the Republican party Is pledged to re-
store McKinleyism. In his letter of accept
ance Mr.. Mckinley himself speaks of the
tariff as "a supreme ISSUE" and in most of
view Now is 1t wise or patriotic for any
of US who are defeated to try to thwart the
clearly expressed will of the majority Of our
countrynen, and obstruet legislation as the
Republican party did in 1888? Is it not our
duty to cheerfully submit to what we are
compelled to endure, and not sit down and
whine because we we're out-voted?
It is no excuse at all to say that the Re
publicans did just this thing and that they
continued to sulk until Nov. 4, 1886. 1t is
true that they did Just that, but we as Demo-
Gratis should scorn to follow SO childish and
unpatriotic example.
We must never forget that In a republic or
democracy the majority must rule right or
wrong; any other course is anarchy and
will surely end in the destruction Of free
government.
IF the Republicans had been sincere In their
professions of faith in a gold standard they
would have told the Democrats that IL they
would throw aside party ties for once and
vote for Mckinley and save the country from
the disgrace Of Reputation, the Republicans
would meet them half way and allow the
present tariff to stand SIS 1t IL during the next
four years, subject only to such changes as
the two parties might mutually agree on
as necessary and beneficial to the country at
large.
The gold Democrats elected Mckinley, and