Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-05-09
oPPosrrrox PHANroMs.


cause OF the contentious advanced by
the opposition to the movement, Il w"uiI
he we'll for them to give final and seriocs
consideration to those contentious. win
n view of ascertaining In how far they
bave any substantial basis. with the
ma siding of Tomorrow the waverers VIII
have mlssed their opportunity to iden-
tify themselves prominently WIN a."
issue that Is as sure to triumph as '"''
they live. move. and have their peihs'
They will have thrown away 'he'
chance OF aiding in pushing virginia
again into the leadership OF the states III
. c,use that is not only dear 10 the
boorts OF her own people. but OF the peo-
ple throughout the Union.
We believe that serious cons'oe'a'io"
az the several positions taken by 'he OPP
Moments of the, conference can ie"u W
bu,t one conclusion. That Is 'nh' '"''
have NOT a leg to stand on. one by one
,h.,r contentious have gone down peiorc
40 foc,e Of the case like houses OF carus.
When the call for the conferences ""'
red the cry was raised that IL was
insrreJ by persona, ambition, ana U"'.
,ha Gathering would be in the interest Oh
some particular aspirant lot seh"'o.. ~'
,o,ors As TO this. not only was us
zinc, disclaimer made by those most
,,ro,p,pent in the movement. but an ex-
ANIMATION Of the names In the aggregate
eiqnea 10 the call made Vt apparent tiia'
the cry was little less than absuru-tna'
rho opnosItion was frightened at a phah-
tom of their own cOnjuring. Moreover
the manner in which the papers tha'
gaze support to the movement 're"'eu
tho subject, made IL Impossible Ior 'no
sianers OF the call not 20 Keep ia'''''
Even If these had not intended from INC
beg nr!ns that the gathering shouiu p'
exact, what they proclaimed II "ouiu '''
the lines on which the supporting papei'
sustained the call put the sisners III
position any deviation from which "ou'u
damn them in the eyes OF the peop'e'
Even it, in its incipiency, the mo'einei.
ala rot represent a fight for gred.
principle-a fight for the reasseruoh "a
the doctrine that the people are 'he
source of all power-the papers thd'
- ad,.ooated the conference have mace
il such. :,
Next our friends Of the opposition de-
olared that the conference proposed TO 90
fomething unconstitutional. We give them
credit for all honesty, but mere theS
raised another phantom that meits away
hefora the LIGHT of facts. The conference
was called for
.'the nurpose of adopting such mea-
sures as may be deemed best TO promote
the election of senators of the united
states NV the direct vote of the people
md until that result is accomplished. the
SELECTION of party senatorial cahuiud'eS
ly some popular method. g..
What does this mean? 1t means, hrst'
that the conference proposes to give prac'
tical impetus to the sentiment In iaVor
Of a change in the Constitution that VIII
admit of senator's being elected by the
nopular vote. Is there anything unconsu-
tutional or revolutionary in that! Is there
ANYTHING unconstitutional or revolution
arv in the coming together OF the
noon,e for the purpose OF exercising the
right of petition and appeal? AS 10 th'
second object of the conferenoe-what IL
homes TO accomplish pending an amend
ment 10 the Constitution-we let the Lees
burg Washingtonian answer as to whe-
thor that is constitutional or not. Inc
WasEingtonian says:
.The argument that the expression OF
the people, by primary election as 10
their choice tor senator, Is uncohstitu-
| tional. is without force. The Consutu'ion
docs not bar the people from expressing
their choice for the members OF either
house OF Congress. They can, by theii
| pr,maries. say whom they want, and when
| the delegates are elected TO the Legs
lature they will, as the Constitution pro-
| vides elect the senator they want, VINO
Will most certainly be the one whom they
will have been commissioned Dy tneli
constituents 10 elect
| "Were such course unconstitutiona
| we would be placed in the condition OF no.
| having had a constitutional-elected Presl
| dent for the last half century or more
| az I'm all our presidential elections th'
| people vote to express their choice fol-
| President and Nice-President at the
polls, and the electors merely perform
| a perfunctOry duty in casting their votes
for them in the Electoral College, which
the Constitution requires to make the
election legal"
Exactly. To this there is nothing tC
be added. 1t effectually disposes of the
| anti. constitutional contention.
| But the contention upon which some o.
| the opposition have rung the changes
most vigorously is, that the May con
| fereice is d fractional movement. There
1 never was from the outset, any GROUND
for this contention. The assertion that i
| Is fractional for any man, or set OF men
| within the Democratic party to endeavol
| TO infuse new life into cardinal Demo
cratic principle is contradiction II
terms. The breaking down of the frs
two contentious of the opposition renders
| their third contention all the more un
worthy Of exerting influence. from any
| point Of view 1t is looked at. However
granting for the sake of argument, tina
the movement was factional in the ini
tiative, if we accept the oppostion's de
finition of faction" its growth and in
oreasing popularity have resulted in put
ting the boot on the other Leg That Il
to say. the Overwhelming sentiment IL
favor Of the objects of the conference
that has developed has made the opposi
ton the faction.
In view of all this, will any man wh'
fayors trusting the people in so vita
matter be justified by the argument
OF the opposition in holding aloof from the
conference, if it shall be possible 70
| him TO attend? We think not. And W