The commonwealth. (Greenwood, Miss.) 1896-1923, 1897-09-30
The Future Of the Democratic Party.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2.

Of Is to !; we declare a pledge Of our sincerity thai, if such coinage
shall thereupon be suspended.
he says, in his Forum article. it was the height of folly 10 declare for
mage at a precise ratio" why did he ask the convention to do so. And
he affirm that his advocacy of independent free coinage of silver at a
10 was based on the belief that such coinage would effect" and main
parity, etc" at the ratio Of IS to II These glaring Inconsistencies re cit.
pr the purpose Of discrediting the senators powers of discrimination, but
nee his insensate animosty against the convention and all of its works,
impacable purpose to destroy the influence of those now in control of
ocratic party.
n a subject 81 abstract and philosophical as the future of the democrat.
iztion might have been made free from the aspersions and resentments
to disappointed ambition, and yet the senator takes a gloomy view of
IRE OF his party because. a ne says speaking OF the convention, fair
democrats who had learned to respect the me,honored usases of the
ere astonished at the revolutionary proceedings of that body in arbitra-
unnecessarily rejecting, contrary to every democratic precedent. the Sc.
# the national committee for temporary chairmmL" The temporary
n thus selected was Senator David B Hill himself Here, then, is the
ton of the passionate prejudice and the infinite unfairness of this proluc-
title OF which justified the expectation that it would be impartial, dis
ting and doctrinal
one ever questioned the right of the convention to adopt or reject the re.
the national committee. Mr. McDermott of New Jersey, the first speak.
rprt of the committees report, freely conceded the riSht Of the conven-
low, then, can a matter of this kind become a factor in the question of
ue of the democratic organization" whose chief conversion is 'abso-
uiescence in the decisions Of the decisions of majoritess' With which
principles Of Jefferson would Senator Hill contrast this act of the con
Can he find in any of these IS principles any sanction for his attack
income tax? Nay! If he will consult the father of American democ.
title more closely, he will find that Jefferson is o N record in favor of an
tax, In a letter to Madison dated Paris Dec $, 1854" he says:
les should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the indi
md and the s1 1sb s%PiS'i B ss'i It would S' d'bb e bstts sst to sn syy she IS s snms Z" su sSy1 oH
nee of that labor when collected in the barn of the farmer, because then,
Oh the badness of the year he made little, he would pay little.
hat time agriculture was almost the only source of income. Can the dis
led senator from New York find in any of the IS principles or in any of
ings of Jefferson, any justification for his criticism of what he is pleased
the attack upon the supreme court? Will he invoke principle number
h declares in favor of arrangement of all abuses at the bar of public rea-
Would Jefferson, if, it living, agree with the senator " with the conven-
Would Jefferson explain that, when he declared in favor of all abuses at
pf public reason, he did not mean abuses by the supreme court?
en Senator Hill says, as he does, that "the true democratic theory is that
has no constitutional power to issue any more legal tender paper money
hid not issue any whatever, does he attack the supreme courtY
eferson were living, and were reduced to a choice between paper money
Y government and paper money issued by banks would he hesitate for a
ia declare far the former, as did the conventiony Or would he make an
bl defense of the national banks as did Senator HillG
lin, the senator says;
DESTINATION de- 99stts9 that .at "W " ear, ar opposed OF nss to n the asici issuing n v of ii Interest nSf6, 9enring
jefferson ever favor the issuance Of such bonds? Would jefferson, if
have defended those in charge Of the government when they violated the
of the United States, and made this nation the plant instrument of a
tie, which enriched itself while looting the treasury and saddling upon the
kn interest bearing, 3Oyear debt of *?6s, OO. 600? Did jefferson refer to
actces when he declared for economy in the public expense, that labor
he lightly burdened {? Would Senator Hill dare, before the people, to
defend those scandalous bond syndicate transacionsY Shall the party of
mle overloo1 such crimes2 Did not Washington, in his farewell address,
that zone method Of preserving 1t, public credit is to use cit IS sparing
bossible'g Not ungenerously throwing upon poshrty the burden which
bselves ought to bear? And yet, because the democratic national conven-
|lopted this very sentiment, Senator Hill charges it with population and
It on our national credit. :" The convention did not deny the legal validity
BE bonds; it assumed that they must be paid fraudulent and corrupt asthey
and denounced the placing of such needless burdens upon the people for the
be of maintaining the policy of gold monometalism. Does 1.-The future of
|mocratc organization" lie in the direction of matchmaking such just and
some sentiments as this uttered by the convention?
Fnator Hill also objects to that resolution of the convention which declares;
te denounce arbitrary interference by the federal authorities in local affairs
iolaton Of the constitution of The United States and a crime against free in
to DANGEROUS eer ws f enat Of OPPRESSION pessie II By Which federal RI jag in Contempt 20 of the
f the states and rights of citizens. become at once legislators, judges and
senate and now pending in the house of representatives, relative to con
in federal courts and providing for trial by jury in certain cases of con
bn Senator Hill point out wherein this conflicts with any of the IS princi-
i jefferson? Was jefferson in favor of government by injunction? Did he
for the freedom of person under the protection of the habeas cor
and trial by junes impartialy selected'y Did he not declare for the
h of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent ad-
frations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti re-
IAN tendencies?
Senator Hill had repudiated jefferson, he would have been at least consis-
But to denounce the convention while adhering to Jefferson is the very
/ of absurdity, for aside from those legislatures which adopted the famous
of 1893 and 1890 no assemblage on earth ever resolved $ completely
Fmony with the teachings of Jefferson as did the Chicago democratic con.
bn of 1896. If the senator believed, therefore, that its platform should not
the future doctrine of the party, he should have frankly declared that
Son $ doctrines are obsolete.
enator Hill is Mortified at the spectacle of the disconnected and distressed
hits of the population hocking to the democratic standard. What and
would the democratic party be without themy Did he seriously suppose
/ could any longer compete with the republican party for the favor OF the
and powerful, the capitaNstic classes, IS it did during the Cleveland as
Has it occurred to the senator that but for economic oppression and
istress which doom three millions of men to idleness and millions of po-
penury, suffering, and starvation, there would be n crowd OF popuhsts
republicans, single tax men, old greenbackers, professional labor agitators'
lists, and Adullamitcs generally? If he rejects all these, and all whom the
of pain and the instincts of justice and humanity cast with them,
reject the entire American people save the immensely rich and the vicious
nts Of our metropolitan populace.
gain he says:
is neither good politics nor is it honest to teach the people to expect the
nment to provide a living for them.
rue, but did the Chicago convention do so, Does the reformed and resen
democracy, the restored and reclaimed democracy of 1896, teach any snch
or to lead them to believe that all the ills to which the body polite is natu
subject, can be cured by legislation.
7hen and where did the democracy of 1896 ever say they could be? Butthe
assertion Of the senator is pregnant with apostasy to popular r1shs nj
that it is useless to attempt to right existing wrongs by legislation