The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1900-03-15
REPLY TO "CITIZEN."
"Hoosier" Points Out Some of the Ineon-
sistencies Of the Democratic Party.
IL MI - D..

sistencies Of the Democratic Party.
TO the Editor of The Republican.
"Citizen," in last weeks issue of
the Democrat, shows very plainly
that he felt the force of the facts
given in my last communication, and
wincing under the Indictment of the
Democrotic party for their inconsis-
tent position and abandonment of
the principles for which they once
contended, without one line in refu-
, tation of the facts contained in my
letter, he follows the advice given to
a young lawyer, when you have a
bad case and no other defense, abuse
the opposing attorney This seems
to be his predicament, and unable to
refute the facts given by me he shows
very clearly that he is fully equipped
with that strong (?) Democratic ar
gument-abuse.
won't say that Citizen" is insin-
cere, nor will / charge him with writ
ing only for buncombe, nor shall he
draw me away from the question of
the terrible outrage perpetrated
upon the people of our county by the
passage of the law which is intended
to rob our people of their rights under
the law.
By his reference to little side issue
which he tries to get up in his criti-
cisms of the faithful members of the
Legislature, to whom | referred,
Ravenscroft, Moon and Jacobs, we
shall not attempt to discuss the bill
to which Citizen" refers, which rela-
ted to the Late unpleasantness, -
although there may be, and no doubt
is, gentlemen who disagree with the
conclusions of "Citizen." Suffice it
to say that while the bill was intro
duced by Delegate Moon and passed
the House it did not pass both Hous-
es, 'as Citizen" asserts, "but failed to
receive the signature of Gov. Lown-
des." In this, at least, Citizen" you
are wrong, and were l so disposed |
could say of you as you did of me,
that Citizen" lays himself Justly
liable to be accused of insineerity,
and writing only for buncombe.
will not SO charge him, but then he is
badly mistaken. The bill did not
pass the Senate but the Committee
M Finance made an unfavorable
,port, which was adopted See page
$40, Senate Journal, session of 1898.
So, fellow ''Citizen," you are mista-
IN in this point at least. So far as
-ur Senator is concerned, the record
in the Journal does not show that he
ever endorsed the bill. So much for
your ''solemn and emphatic protest, :"
as far as he is concerned, but / shall
not be led away from the main ques-
tion, that of the peoples rights, by
no side issues, nor by abuse. While
| do not quite agree with the CORES
pondent who was in favor of getting
ourshOt guns" we propose to agitate
this question and show the people the
inconsistencies of the Democracy. and
when the people are heard from next
fall you will finG that the intelligent
voters of Garrett county will not en-
dorse any such outrage of their rights
and privileges.
What is the record Eof the Dem
oeratic party in reference to the
law giving us the right to elect
our school commissioners and exam
liner, when the bill was before the
Legislature giving our people the
right to which they are entitled, and
which the people of the most progress
i've states and countries enjoy? The
Democratic party went upon record.
II. the ~ sssion of 1898, when the bill
final passage in the House
not single negative vote
ere were forty Democratic
of the House, but not one
lxious to keep the schools
itics" that they would vote
his just and progressive
out on the other hand every
who voted was in favor of
How about the Senate :?
e eight Democrats; seven
ted for the bill. 1t was a
re then. The Democrats
,sed to GENERALIZATION of
en- and the record shows
out of the eight Demo
tors actually voted for the
the people of our county
due them and the right to
ballots whom they wan
uct the educational affairs
0unty. Among those who
she bill was the present
of the State, Senator
itor Crothers, another
enator, was so strong a
: measure that he was
General bill for the whole