The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-10-19
DEFILED DEMOCRACY
CHICAGO AND INDIANAPOLIS CON
 MENTIONS COMPARED.
The True Democrat will Seek in Vain to Find Platform Meeting His Views The Only Thing to Do is to Vote for Me Kinley.

Ktnley.
 New Haven, Oct. IA, 1896. To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 There are many democrats who all their lives nave been democrats who are asking themselves to-day whether they are still democrats according to either of their party's platforms, and if they are not platform democrats, what are they? In fact what is democrat to-day and what are so-called demo- cratic principles?
 In old times-and not very old either the differences between a democrat and republican were clear and dis tinct. The democrat believed in a strict construction of the Constitution and in the sovereignty of the separate states. He believed or professed to be- lieve, that rights and powers not con- veyed by the Constitution to the uni- ted States remained in the states, and that whenever the language of the Con- stitution was so vague. as to leave doubt as to it's exact meaning, the doubt should be weighed in favor of the states and against the United States according to the old legal prin- ciple that grants by sovereigns are to be construed in favor of the sovereigns op5 a ora n tpaS
 The republican believed Just the con- trary. He maintained. not only that the Contribution created 8 new sover- eighty, but that it also terminated the separate sovereignties of the different states. He claimed that the new sover- eighty created by the Constitution held all the innate rights of a sovereignty not clearly withheld by the instrument, and that in construing the Constitution the new sovereignty was entitled to all benefits of all doubts He affirmed that there could be but one sovereignty within the same geographical limits, and that the theory of the existence of separate independent sovereignties, within and under one overlying sover- eighty, was pure nonsense. From these radical and fundamental differ ences sprang differences of policy and of political activity. The republican claimed that the United States had x,4,I,n Is.tt ak e pleased, and that where the laws of the Union conflicted with the laws of any particular state, there the state laws must yield to the United States laws, The republican attributed to the Union many of the powers of an autocratie monarch, the right to issue paper mon ey the right to do the banking of the country, the right to confer pensions, the right to create corporations and trusts and to protect them by such ta- riff and other legislation as substan- tially elevated them into monopelies. All these things were stenches in the nestrils of the old fashioned democrat. He could find nothing In the Constitu- tion giving the United States power to issue paper money, to create banks, to confer pensions or to frame a tariff that reached beyond the actual necessi- ties of revenue, He believed in as great an independence among the states as the Constitution could be con- strued to permit. The republican, on the contrary, believed in as complete centralization of power as the ,Consti- tuition could be construed not to abso- lutely prohibit The parties stood over against one another in clear light. No citizen had any difficulty in defining his position or in selecting the party of his choice.
 The republican party has remained true to it's faith. It is the same party to-day it was thirty years ago. Its thirty years of consistency have sub- stantially established its policy as the policy of the nation. The United States does issue paper money, does do the banking of the country does confer pensions, does protect corporations and trusts and has passed tariff and other laws which virtually create and confer the right and the power of monopoly. The republican platform of to-day would have been acceptable to the par ty at its birth. It only differs in detail from the platform of the sixties, the seventies and the eighties But where stands the democrat? And where stands his party? Shall the democrat accept the Bryan platform? The Bryan plat form is the confession of the failure of republican form of government and substitution of the extreme doctrine of the Supreme court, it attacks all the other courts of the country; it attacks law itself and would substitute for law the desires, the passions and the lusts of the lawless. Yet Bryan is the regu- lar nominee of the democratic party and the platform on which he stands is the regular platform of the party. The regular democracy cannot escape the responsibility of it's nominee, nor of it's platform. The gold democrats are se- ceeders and holters. According to the discipline Of the party they have no right to call themselves democrats. They might better, perhaps, emphasize their departure from the party by call ing themselves by some new name; for 1nH nhah h to of ha ptx