Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1898-02-16
An Alabama pouulist attempted

An Alabama populist attempted the other day to assassinate demo cratic editor because of the bitter warfare the latter had inaugurated on the populists. Alabama demo cratic editors have not yet learned the tact displayed by some demo cratic editors elsewhere of batting pops on the back while preaching democracy. Nothing like diplomacy even in the editorial business occa- sionally.
 The Phenix Republican pald high compliment to the JOURNAL MINER on Saturday by copying bodily a recent interview with H. A. Strong, which appeared in this paper in regard to properties the latter is developing in Mohaye county and appropriating it all as original in that paper. To be quoted without any credit, by paper which appro- priates column after column, un- credited, from such papers as the St. Louis Globe Democrat, Wash ington Post, and other great metro politan dailies, ought to be an honor which a common, every day daily in Arizona ought to be proud Of. In fact, it makes us feel quite large.
 Senor de Lome. the Spanish min ister at Washington, is accused of writing a very undiplomstic letter in regard to President McKinle7. The letter was written to friend and fell into the bands of the Cuban Junta, who delivered it to the State Department at Washington. Official notice has been taken of it, and a communication has been forwarded to Minister Woodford, at Madrid, asking for de Lome's recall by the Spanish government. Anticipating such action, however, on the part of the government, de Lome cabled an admission of the authorship of the letter and at the same time tender ing his resignation, which was ac- cepted.
 Our contemporary in somewhat lengthy article this morning gets its politics slightly mixed. It takes up a cudgel on behalf of republicans in their direst hour of need," speaks of an invading army" which should "cause all partisanship to be laid aside" and a 'crisis with bandits being imminent" and says "the idea of a non-partisan legislative ticket is purely original with the Courier" and at the same time re-asserts its unswervering adherence to democ- racy, though it is not the democratic party or its organ. It evidently realized the mixed condition it got itself into, though, as in another part of the same issue, in order to satisfy itself where it stands, shout ed: "Rah for free silver, home rule and unadulterated democracy" Un- adulterated democracy on one page and non partisanism on the next.
 Our contemporary, which has been following, politically, for some time where B. O'Neill leads, this morning throws of its democratic yoke, and announces its policy as follows: Democratic conventions should lay aside partisan lines on legislative nominations and pick competent and true men for such positions, where they can find them. The hearts Of Arizonans, regardless of party, beat in unison m a desire to rid the terri tory of the rule ot McCordites; then let them work shoulder to shoulder against common enemy aud let n O party consideration enter into legis- latire nominations at the hands of the democratic party. Free silver, anti-corporation rule men of all parties should be eligible to such nominations, according to the opin- ion of the editor of this paper, let the gold bugs do what they may. Free silgerites, regardless of pre- vious party affiliations, should make nominations for the legislative ticket and the council"
 Our contemporary recently made a flaming headline of "A Victory for Home Rule" stating that at a recent debate at a literary society at Flagstaff the debaters advocating home rule were given a decision Tn their favor. It is not presumed for moment that our contemporary intentionally misrepresented this little affair, but rather that like on many other subjects it drew its in- spirations and obtained its informa- tion from totally unreliable sources. The subject of the debate was "That we favor home rule for the terri tories of the United States" The official report of the debate by J. NJ. Simpson, secretary pro tenn. says: "The chair, after summing up the argument at length, going into de- tails of each speakers points, using nineteen minutes in summation, decided in favor of the affirmative, aud placing the subject to vote of the audience, they enthusiastically | decided the negatives won" From this It does not seem that home rule won such a glorious victory after all, even in this debating so- ciety.