El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-04-27
The New Democracy Defined

The New Democracy Defined.
Richmond Times Dem.)
Mr.. William j. Bryan's letter to tn
Milwaukee Journal, published day o
so ago, deserves more notice than any
thing of political character that ha
appeared for some time. 1t ia address
ed to the question of what terms will
be granted democrats who seeded
from the party in 1896 as the condition
upon which they will be readmitted tt
the party. Mr.. Bryan says they must
not only humiliate themselves, but
must declare their unqualified accept
ance of the Chicago platform. Blu
his definition of the real aim of the
Chicago platform, and that is express
ed in the following passage in the let
.If they do aspire to prominence
they will have to convince their $3.50
ciates of the sincerity of their purpose
to aid the party in its fight against
plutocracy."
We learn, therefore, from Mr.. Bryan
that true democracy ia to be found in
the Chicago platform only. and that
the scope and aim of the Chicago plat
form is suppression of plutocracy.
Democracy, then, according to the new
idea, is opposition to plutocracy.
We have long felt tf at this was at
the bottom of the whole business, but
this is the first authoritative declara-
tion of the fact that we have met with.
Now, 1t must be admitted that this is,
at least, q new definition of democracy,
however satisfactory it may be. 1t is
the first time, as far as our knowledge
extends-at least since the French days
of Marat, Robespierre and Dsnton-
that it has been authoritatively stated
that q rich man could not be q demo-
crat. We have never heard before
that democracy closed it's doors upon
rich men and refused to allow any of
them place in ISIS ranks.
Who is to be considered q rich man,
or q p,utocrat barred out of demo-
cracy's ranks? Are only.those worth
fifty millions to be considered pluto
Gratis? May we take in those worth
only twenty-five millions? But if we
may come below the fifty million mark
at all why should we be confined to the
twenty-five million mark? Why should
we be not allowed to descend to the ten
million or the five million or the one
million mark? And if we may come
down to one million, why may we not
come down to five hundred thousand,
and if to that, why not to one hundred
thousand; and il to that. why not to
one thousand? and If we may come
down to thousand, why may we not
OOWI1 W Ouc Ii WedlIu
is to be the line, there can be no
difference between owning one dollar
and owning fifty millions of dollars. |
The principle involved is that wealth |
Is an urclesn thing and that no man |
should soil his hands with it; and if |
wealth soils, one dollar degrades as eff
fectively as fifty millions of it.
We have long felt that the Chicago
platform must lead its votaries logical
y and inevitably to this conclusion,
though Mr.. Bryan is the first one of
hem who has had the prescience to
see it and the candor Eto acknowledge
t. The fpht between owners and
hose who hope to acquire something,
,pon the one hand, and those who
nave nothing but hope to get some
hing by plumber, upon the other hand,
vas made when the Chicago platform
vas adopted. The fight is on, and it
an never be arrested now until the
'otaries of the Chicago platform are
that mountain of votes
which will be piled on them in No
EN- Der. 1900.