The age-herald., 1898-03-02
Fromthe St. Louis Globe-Democrat.

Fromthe St. Louis Globe-Democrat.
 If President Mckinley leads in the finan- ciai contest in congress and in the elections of 1898 and 1s0O-and it is popularly sup posed that he will-he will be doing what several of his predecessors did on import ant issues. Not all presidents have led either their country or their party. The majority of them led enither. Moreover, many of these were able, conscientious and public-spirited and made acceptable pres idents. The party to which the president belonged was wrecked in the first Adams, Buchanan's and Cleveland's days. In neith- CT case did the entire blame belong to the president, and in fact in the Buchanan in- stance very little of it belonged to him. But if the president had been a skillful party leader, or even an adroit politician, the wreck-save, perhaps, in the Buchanan case-might have been postponed, or have been less disastrous, though, of course, the conditions made the crash inevitable very soon. Madison, Monroe, the second Adams, Van Buren, Hayes and Harrison, all of whom made good presidents, had compar- atively little influence over their party. on the other hand Washington, Jefferson, Jackson Lincoln and Grant had great suc- cess in devising or shaping policies, and in determining the course of their country's history. Taylor probably would have ex- erted much influence on the politics of the time if he had lived through the fight on the Clay compromise measure of 1850, as he was opposed to the programme of the ad- justers.
 Washington's influence as a leader was revealed decisively in 1793, in the contest precipitated by the war between France and England, which began in that year. As nation the United States was only four years old at that time, and 1t had not yet separated itself wholly from Old world interests and prejudices. Until after the close of the war of 1Sl2-15 foreign is- sues largely shaped the course of American politics. In the war between the two big nations of Europe in 1793 the people of, the United States promptly "took sides" Party lines were not rigidly drawn on this question, but the majority of the federal ists favored England, and the majority of the republicans tthe forerunners of the democrats) Jefferson's party, favored France. An active element of each party wanted the United States to take part in the war. Naturally the sympathies of the majority of the Americans were on Frances side. She was republic, she had been Americas ally in the war which ended dozen years earlier, and she was lighting against Americas old enemy. Washington, however, saw that interfer- ence on either side would be disastrous to the United States. He told his cabinet that strict neutrality should be observed by this country. The cabinet unanimously agreed that this course was wise, and neutrality proclamation was issued on Aprli 22, 1793.
 This date is an important time mark in American history. In the neutrality proc- Iamation of 1793 was the germ of the policy which was broadened and extended by Monroe thirty years later in the immortal declaration which, directed against the Holy Alliance, warned Europe that she would not be permitted to make further conquests on the American continent The policy of Americas exclusion from Old World alliances was urged by Washington in letter written by him before he be- came president, and it forms an important part of his farewell address, issued in 1796, in the last year of his presidency. "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations," he said in that political testament to his countrymen, lis, in ex- tending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations or collisions of her friendships or enmities."
 The wisdom of Washington's course in observing neutrality between France and England in 1793 Is obvious to everybody now, yet the policy was opposed by few federalists and by most of the republicans, although Jefferson, the founder of the re- publican party. then secretary of state, mildly favored it, but Madison, the re- publcan leader in the house, was against It. The contest in congress on the neutral ity question helped to extend and make more rigid the lines between the federalst md republican parties. which were first drawn in the bank contest two years earlier, in 1791. The policy prevailed, and soon afterward received the sanction of even the party which had originally op posed 1t. 'Washingtons administration" said Sumner in his life of Jackson, "had