The sun., 1900-10-02
LAME DEFENCE BY D. B. HILL
TRIES TO EXPLAIN why NE rs
NOW SHOUTING FOR BRYAN.

| quesce In the Result Humorous Dennitio
OF Is 10 I-Gum shoe Bill spoke. Too
The Academy Of Music In Brooklyn was file,
last night with Democrats who went there e1
pectinR TO hear some OF the old eloquence o
David B Hill. who was advertised IA the prin
cipal speaker at a ratification" meeting ar
ranged by Hugh Mclaughlin and the vii
loughby street managers. Mr. Hill spoke. o
rather read. long speech Although he wa
created with finttering round OF cheers wheI
he stepped TO the front OF the stage his speecl
soon began 10 grow tlresome to the audience
| and he ELECTED little applause until he reached
his peroration and wound up with the an.
nounoement that the Democrats were united on
10 to /. which he took pains to explain meant
si1teenNvotes for Bryan to one for Mckinley
| EI Gov Stone OF Missouri also spoke
| The meeting began about on time, When
| Mr.. Hill came down the centre OF the stage 10
| his seat he was greeted with cheer which began
well but soon ended. Bridge Commissioners
John l.. Shea stepped forward AT once and intro
duoed as presiding offloer District Attorney
| John +. Clarke OF Kings county. The latter
began by explaining why Comptroller Bird y.
Coler was not there 20 preside. as II had been an
nounced he would do He read telegram sent
by Mr.. Coler from Buffalo In which the Comp
trolor said he had arranged TO speak in Lock-
port last night and couldn't break tho engage
ment.
Mr. ain was evidently in poor voice He
could hardly be heard at times even at the
reporters table. fifteen feet away Further
more, he didn't rouse his audience at any time eI-
cept when he got OF some catch phrase and
they were very few and far between Mr. Shea
and the other Democrats who were sitting in
their seats began to look very glum, but Mr..
ipataah pf hatt
He frequently moistened his thumb on his
tongue while he was in the middle Of a sentence
as he had difficulty In turning the pages Of his
speech.
Mr.. Hill. after announcing that the personal
request Of Hugh Mel .au ghlln was one Of the
things that brought him 10 Brooklyn. began
with this defence Of himself for standing on
the Chicago platform Of 1900;
Il make no apologize to any one for my
activity in this campaign ! participated In
the conyention at Kansas City which framed
the platform and nominated the candidates-a
convention which treated me with marked
courtesy from the commencement to the end
Of lie PROCEEDINGS and as an honorable man
deliberations. II is true as Is well known,
that sought to secure modification Of the
pSppS p5S9pSSSfed pa0T os IN ,y some pHTuGuar n
but being reasonably satisfied with its utter
ances on the questions which seem TO form
! expressed my intention at the convention
In Seconding the nomination oi our national
candidate for President In behalf Of the masses
10 give the ticket not merely my acquiescent
adherence but lny active support. and that a.
surance | am now fulfilling.
While my personal views OF certain portions
Of the reafnrmcd platform may not have changed
particularly as 20 their wisdom and expediency
II does not follow that either honor, duty or
consistency requires me TO withhold my active
COOPERATION in eleciing the ticket which was
fairly and regularly nominated Much less
do such considerations require me TO cancel /
my party ties, or Ioin another party. or sup
port another Gke 6TepGdate the idea
trinaires that every time citizen is 'T oGtvoted
in a convention, church. a corporation or .
Is in honor bound 70 BOLT and form another
party. establish new church, set up rival /
corporation or organize second society.
This is Government controlled by great |
political parties the respective organizations Of
which are formed and maintained by those who
largely agree upon certain policies of admins
tratlon, but it Is not expected. nor is 1t prac-
tcable, that such parties will at all times fully
or accurately represent the sentiments Of every
individual member. II Is sufficient that some
leading principles in which a citizen believes
are advocated by the party with which he IS
associated to Justify his support Of that party
tlons which he may or may not approve. He
need not indorse every line or plank = plat
form ~ In order TO MAINTAIN his orthodoxy. A
different policy would diSntegrate great parties
and create factions without number. Najori-
ties must control in political parties as well as
The question after all. is not one Of mere
Is never n vital natter
but whether ones own political party. as a
The opposition party, and the solution Of that
problem must always be determined by the
,lector himself according 70 his own best Juds,
nent II Is submitted that II Is the duty If |
Democratic citizens everywhere to support
he nominations Of the party regularly and
airly made, even though some party policies
nay not meet their entire approval 1 am
easonably sure that the platform Of no other
,arty will suit them rs well
Then he devoted the bulk of his speech 10
imperialism. which he insisted was real tsSue
He renewed the assertion that the Constitution
verybody under the fag, and reverted TO the
)red Scott decision as follows
Men less versed IN the law than the learned
luorney-Generh CrlggS, men like senator
)epew and lesser lights seem 10 regard the !
proposed colonial scheme A. nothing unusual |
Ome OF them in their eagerneSs to adopt the |
British colonial system regardless of all tou.ti-
utional and other objections have gone so far
= 20 question the binding authority of the de- .
ison OF the supreme Court OF the nited States |
h the famous Dred Scott case. and some assert
ng that such decision has been informally re-
er.ed, whatever that may mean, and others
sserting that II was oyerrIled at Fort Pillow {
nd Appomattox, which may be n conclusive
Iar argument. but can hardly be called or dig
lfled as a legal argument
Il beg TO inform these gentlemen that the l
'red Scott case has never been reversed either S
Informally or otherwise. and IL binding author
upreme Court of the nited States. IL has I
ever been OverTuled either at Fort Pillow or 1
ppomattoN or anywhere else. but the decision | I
pom the main question involved II no longer
practical importance simply because Oi the | n
lbsequent amendments to the Constitution | r
! the United States abolisiing slavery. While \
ne Court, III that case. was divided upon the .
nncipal question involved In IT, viz: as 20 the I
gal status Of an American negro and as to | r
hat the Constitution recognized In relation n
hereto, there was no substantial difference be-
Seen the prevailing opinion OF the Chief Justice
I'D the dissenting opinions OF such anti-slavery o
ldges AZ Mclean of Ohio and Curtis of Mas Il
Ioh husetts. in rerard to one most important
inclusion. TO wit, that the provisions OF the a
whatever their legal effect might 5
,. extended TO the Territories OF the United Il
ates. n
1t was boldly asserted at the Depew meeting in
-ooklyn that the supreme Court of the United I
ateS has decided in the Mormon Church 1
ise as Mr.. Hill perfectly well knows, that A
ere Is no Limitation to the power of Congress n
its territorial legislation. With due defer 7
ce to those who diner with me on any sun r
IT, l deny that there Is any such decision @
] the contrary that court has decided directly J
o reverse of the proposition iOrwhich some n
Sc Of National Bank W County OF NanktOn. lDl | N
; X ,l?9 decided in 1879, Chiei Justice Waite 81
1tlng the unanimous opinion of the CouID ! n
lich Il an authority for the proposition tlat ! 90
. power Of Congress to legslate Tor the Ter | r.
ores, Is subject 10 the limitations expressly Va
ilnplledy imposed by the Constitution c5
the case TO which reference was made AT | h'
? Dcpew meeing-'thc Mormon Church case In
omon Church vs. United State, 1856 L = I2) ! VI
? court while asserting the general doctrine I1
AZ the power Of Congress over tho Territories "
COmpetp, vet qualified that statetnpnf bv III