New-York tribune., 1900-10-28
A CAMPAIGN NOVELTY.

During this campaign a disposition has been
manifested at numerous political meetings to
PROFOUND questions for the speaker to answer
or to dodge he might prefer, though with
decided preference on the part of the inquirer,
and probably also of the audience in general,
for reply rather than an evasion. In some
instances the intention has doubtless been mere
ly to cause n disturbance and put the speaker
in an awkward position from which he would
be unable TO extricate himself. But in other
cases the questions have been asked, if not in
a wholly friendly spirit respectful manner,
yet with a justifiable desire to elicit opinions
which the speaker seemed unlikely to express.
For the most part we think, the answers TO
such interrogatories, whether exactly responsive
or not. have been given in good temper, real or
feigned, and on the whole the exchange of fire
has produced respectable and useful results
1t is interesting to speculate on the possibility
that from this beginning a feature may
be added TO political campaigns in this country.
In England the process of heckling, it is
called there, has long prevailed. While it is
naturally grievous to speakers who know that
they are i'll prepared or fear their cause is
weak, and occasionally runs into insults ard
turbulence, we suppose it is still regarded as
a legitimate and valuable method of rstimat-
ing a candidate and getting light on the prin-
ciples that he processes. In their own way,
which lis not a bad way, the people of the
United States courteous people, and posi-
bly, to this fact is largely due their long estab-
lished habit of listening to political speeches
without dissent or interrogatOry, and keeping
silent when they are not disposed to applaud.
At all events the stump has usually enjoyed
the immunities of the pulpit, and audiences
have carried away from it only such measure
of instruction as its occupant was competent
or willing to bestOw upon them voluntarily
We should regret degeneration of the orcer-
ly political meetings to which are accus-
toned into batting matches or occasions for
the unmannerly display of passion and pertness.
But it is by means certain that American
fairness and common sense would permit such
an extreme TO result from the introduction of
practice in campaigns. Nor is it
clear that any injustice would be done TO cpm-
paign orators by subjectng them to the reces-
sity of answering avoiding pertinent Ques
tions. Not merely in the running debates of
Congress- but often in set speeches of which
notice has been given, the speakers have to
submit to Interruptions. and usually find their
advantage in submitting with a good grace
There would seem to be no conclusive reason
why a similar challenge as to facts and Cpn-
ions should be resented on the stump. If the
process put a premium intelligence, canGOr
and facility, much the better. Americans
are prOverbialy quick witted, and would not
| need TO shrink from an ordeal which their Eng
| lish brethren consent to encounter; or If once
in while a speaker should disclose a mental
or moral incapacity to bear such test the re-
suit might be Illuminating. and, in case of his
complete discontinue, there would assuredly be
orators enough left for all the essential pur-
| poses of a campaign
The incidents which have been reported with
| increasing frequency of late may be quickly
| forgotten and not repeated in years to COM,
but we should not be altogether sorry to sup
pose that they indicated a tendency toward a
modification of the conditions of campaign ora
| tory in the United States That is field in
which it would be particularly gratifying to see
| the principle of the survival of the fittest tri-
| umphantly demonstrated