Birmingham state herald., 1897-07-29
STAND BY PRINCIPLE.

The Birmingham State Herald has had so much to say recently about what 1t thought should be the qualifications for participants in the democratic primaries next year, and has said it in so many different ways, ard has also called upon the state executive committee to hold a meeting and do some hing, the exact na- ture of which we confess that we do not understand, that it has so confused Its position that we do not understand ft. neither do we believe that it is clear to any of its readers. So we desire to ask that the State Herald define hs posfUion by answering the following questions:
 l. What changes does it think the stale committee should make in the qualfioa- tons prescribed ait It's last meeting?
 ?. Does the Slate Herald think the men who supper ed the democratic nomine 5 last year in both the state and national elections, but who do nd; indorse the Chi cago platform should be allowed to par dicipate in the primaries next year?
 Does it insist that only those who t' leve in the free and unlimited coin age off silver should he allowed to vote in tlle primaries?
 These queleiors are asked for the pur- pose of getting such answers as will make the positions of the State i1erald under stood.-Anniston Ho- Blast.
 The State Herald can easily answer the Hot Blasts interTogatories jointly as they pertain to one and the same thing. Would say. however. that we do not be- 1ieve the Hot Blasts editor is as stupid as he pretends. for the State Herald's position on these questions has been made not only plain but so clear and pointed that the meaning could not be misunderstood, or in the least warped out of the direction of straight line.
 The qualifications as prescribed at the Q St neatino nf 10 f aa comes near filling our views. We would go one step farther and require of each voter to pledge himself orally on casting his ballot at the primary that he will stand to and abide by the results of said primary, both as to the principles to be enumerated shrdlu etaoin hrdlu mfwypa enurciated and candidates to be named. Not that such a pledge would be neces- sary in every instance, but as an evi- dence of good faith. An honest demo- cratic voter will not object to making such pledge and a dishonest one ought rot to be allowed to participate.
 As stated on divers occasions the State Herald favors keeping down the bars and allowing any voter of whatsoever party to participate who will pledge himself to support the ticket, be he republican, populist, Palmerite or greenbacker, but that the door be closed against each and every one who refuses to make this pledge.
 The State Herald believes that it speaks for a large majority of the democrats of Alabama when it states that no man has the right or should be allowed to take part in party council who states openly and above board that if the platform and candidates suit his personal views he will support them, but if not he re- serves the right to act independently. Such a position is not only rnmanly but dishonest, and no self-respecting man will do it. Of course, there are mitigat- ing circumstances when honest men have been guilty of such action, but not when they boldly proclaim before hand that it is their purpose to do so.
 The State Herald believes there are honest men who voted in the democratic primary last year who afterwards voted against Mir. Bryan and for Palmer or Mckinley. They did so with the full de- termination of supporting the ticket mat ters not who was nominated at Chicago or what principles the convention would adopt. The platform adopted was so foreign to their personal views they felt they had the right as free American citi- zens to yield party pledges for what they considered would be for the best interest of the country. This was an ex- ceptional case. Very few democrats, if any, boldly asserted before participat- ing in the primary that if the Chicago convention endorsed free silver they would not support the ticket. In fact, a majority would have been insulted had it been charged that they would have so voted.
 Conditions are different now. Men claiming to be democrats and imbittered against the adopted party platform say they will not support the principles of the par.y if the state adopte them, and asks that the objectionable features to ihem be ignored Does any reasonable man suppose that the majority will yield to the minority and accede to such de- mands? They would not do it even