New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-11-12
CROKER'S "INDISCRETION."

The coroners jury now sitting on the Demo
cratic party of New-York seems 10 have hard
task i'm deciding what did tt Some witnesses
say il was RooSevelts personality. Some say
II was the strength the spirit gave 10 the
ReDublican party Some say 1t was trimming
on free silver and cutting the State organization
off from the Democracy Of the Nation. Some
say it was the attempt of Tammany TO rule the
State and 10 boss Judges, and some say II was
the inactivity of the country Democrats. Some
say Hill did ID, and some say Croker. But most
OF the Democrats who protest that they are not
Tammany Democrats. though they generally
fiud an excuse to support Tammany candidates.
incline 10 he opinion that Croker did II by 'aiK-
ing TOO much Therefore there are loud walls
for more discreet leadership.
Now Democratic leadership does not partlcu'
larly concern us. 1t is for the Democrats them
selves 10 place the responsibility for the mis-
takes of their own campaign management; but
It IS n tribe amusing to notice the sudden HOOD
Of INDIGNATION over the "indscretion' or croker
H. so boldly giving such bad reasons for turning
down Justice DAILY. If Croker wanted to turn
Justice Daiy down, they say, he should nave
been more diplomatic. found some more plausi-
BE excuse. made the voters think that he did 1t
because Of Justice Days age, or otherwise con
ccalcl froG ,hem the nature of his attack upon
the independence of the judiciary. In that case
be ui.L; have punished Justice DAILY, placed his
own candidates upon the bench and secured all
that he desired without arousing suspicion and
alternating votes from Mr. Van Wyck. These
people also crltcise Croker for ostentatOusly ad
yoriising his determination to boss the State as
well as the city OF New-York. That, too, was
an "indiscretiOn' The fact that he actually
was bossipg the Democratic party did not dis
furb them in the least 1T was only his advcr-
tisemcnt Of the fact, to the breakdown of the
campaign Of false pretences, that Disguised
them. They supported Mr.. Van Wyck though
they knew he was Cookers nominee, though
they knew just as much about the character Of
Tammany and Of It's ambitions TO rule at Al
bany as they know now. They continued To
support Croker's pretenslons even after he had
avowed them and alienated fonest voters; they
told people that they msjudged him, that the
fear OF rammauy domination was only boyle
and the talk about independent judiciary only 4
pretence Of his enemies, and they urged theii
friends 10 ignore it all and help him elect his
whole ticket or nj most only 10 scratch ii just q
little bit To teach him he shouldn't give indis
Greet reasons for Furnishing good judges.
OF course. ii was iDdiscreet In Croker 10 show
honest voters SO uHlulStdhdDiy tnc iic"hiHe an"
menace Of Tammany, but Is II not something
worse than indiscreet for Democrats who pride
themselves with being Democrats OF superior
order TO complain because he was not less
straightforward? They say that he loaded down
Van Wyck with himself but would Van Wyck
have been any less his man IL he had done his
campaigning in concealmcnt? Would the evil
abf Tamnapy rule of State and city in combina-
l,3on have been any way iessened by getting the