Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-09-24
nnYAx AND PALMER.

dIately after the boilers decoy ticket was
nominated at Indianapolis. the Richmond
Times turned itself loose as follows;
1--WE cannot say compare. but contrast
that whI;o-headed and venerable Demo-
cratic statesman. General Palmer, with
the cxcltaDlo and emotional boy who has
been brought upon this stage by the chi
cagoiets. The one has performed "A man
part through all of his long and varied
career; he IS covered with honors, ana
he carries with him wherever ne goes
the love the esteem, ana the respect OF
all who have ever known him. The othcr
Is scarcely more than a beardless youth.
who has heretofore been but little known
TO his llow-countrymen. and not favor
ably known to them, even in their brief
experience with him"
Can this be the same Times that. In
discussing General Palmer's Homestead
riot speech said:
1--WE must enter our most emphatic
dissent from the doctrine. Not only so.
tIt we must be allowed 10 say that II
is the most foolish and puerile PROPOSE
ton that we have ever known TO come
from any man claiming 10 have ordinary.
everyday common sense. and too foolish
and puerie for us to be justified in
mhNlNE a SERIOUS cAFoSuiS VI 10 Nv"
sense"
And can II be the same Times that. I'm
the same year, paid this neat compl-
ment to Mr.. Bryan:
Hon. William j. Bryan spoke on
Tuesday i'm Cuipeper, and made a strong
impression upon his audience. IL was
not the least interesting feGturs Of his
address thas IL was delivered ia the com
~ in which his father was born. and
whore the Lones OF many OF his ancestors
are buried This IS tho third speech Mr..
Bryan has made in Virginia in the last
few months, and in each instance ne
has sustained the fine reputation which
he acquired by his first speech in Con-
sress."
DO statesmen enunciate foolish ana
puerile" propositions, and Is It not rather
remarkable that one who in 1896 IL an "ex-
ctable and emotional boy" heretofore
but little known to his fellow-country-
men. and not favorablv known TO them
even in their brief experience with him.
should in 1892 have had already "nne
reputation? Really, in the light OF the
paragraph first above quoted from our
contemporary, and OF date September
4. 1896, If Il were not for the Times's
consistent record for Inconsistency. the
public might be forced 20 conclude that
IN 1892 it got Bryan and Palmer sadly
mixed. and in its confusion said Of the
former what 1t meant to say Of the
latter. and vice versa. Certainly, IL
the Times's present estimate OF Palmer
and Bryan is correct there was a misht
in 1892 i'm its comments upon them.
And. by the way. speaking OF "con-
trasts." what do the people think Of the
contrast" between the Times's late eu-
Iogy of General Palmer and what the eX-
Confederates of Bath county, KY. had
to say Of him IN their opon letter 10
General Buckner. giving their reasons
for refusing 20 support the latter? After
complimenting the General upon his adj
ministration as Governor of Kentucky.
these veterans note that the Indianapolis
convention was silent on the subject OF
Breckinridgeism. and that Buckner's
running-mate, Palmer. while in the full
pride and pomp of military power In
Kentucky, issued an order DISTINGUISHING
not only you and us, but also depriving
our fathers. brothers, and friends. who.
through affection and friendship, gave us
food and clothes when we were hungry
and naked. OF the right to vote or 80
near the polls on election-days, under
penalty of arrest and trial by military
authority Notwithstanding many Of
them were strong Union men"
Study the contrast" Virginians!