The sun., 1901-12-18

gins. Which of the two then, Mr.. Ad- |
dicks or Mr.. Higgins, adhered longest
and with fatal results, to the idea of "me
or, nobody"
We imagine the reply to this will be
a repetition Of the old story about the
agreement which it is alleged that four
! supporters of Mr.. Addicks entered into
10 solidly support Mr.. Addicks during
the final voting. That is the last ditch
defence OF Anti-Addicksism. The ques-
ton about that is. whether it was a re-
suit of voluntary assent and action upon
the part of the.men making that agree
ment, or was it the result of Commands
and threats" given and made by Mr..
Addicks. as alleged by the Anti-Addicks-
tics? There has been no evidence adj
luccd in the discussion of this matter to
in the least degree indicate any resort
to commands and threats by Mr.. Adj
dicks His presence at Dover during that
session of the legislature is the only fact
upon which that charge can he hung.
1t proves nothing. The charge is alb
Surd 1t is that he, Mr.. Addicks, by as
Suming autocratic power and authority
lid with Commands and threats" issued
| to and made against the four men who
| voted for him. defy the will OF the ma
| iority and defeat the election of a United
| States Senator. There is not word Of
| truthful testimony. nor a particle of cvi
| dcncc in all the discussion over that
point, to sustain the charge. There is
plenty, Of absurd talk about "honsctop"
| proclamations, and like extravagnnt as
Sertions that Mr.. Addicks did this and
that: but these all bear the imprint of
| untruth in the extravagant language
nSrd. and necessary to attract attention,
and faSten tho untruth upon minds
made susceptible to such influences by
prejudice and upon the memory Of the
ignorant whore sound passes for sense.
But how about Commands and
threats" upon the other side? Abont Mr..
ite. personally, we have nothing to say in
this regard. except, upon personal ac-
uuaintancc with some of them, to suggest
the bare possibility Of some such unholy
method in their politics--they are not all
saints, nor vet are they all bishops and
priests This. however, we know. that
Nd other set OF men in Delaware politics
for the last forty years. were ever So
abused, 50 commanded and threatened.
10 force them TO political surrender,
as were the men who supported Mr., Ad-
dicks in the legislature Of 1926, The
newspapers of the day We're full OF IT,
: Personal abuse from Anti-Addicksitr
paliSans was ~ daily occnrance: prof
T frs of bribcS ana threats Of injury We're
I frpaurnt, nor were these proffcrs, those
] abuses and threats confined to these
] men personally; their wives, their child
rrn. their aged parents aud their friends
wrrr All included Social ostracSm, po-
: Iiticnl isolation ana business injury Were
{ all in the program Of Anti-Addicksitc
I propaganda: these things wer" the imple-
! mrnts aud their character indicate the
: methods" of the saints in Delaware no
! Itics. of whom Every Evening, and IL
; Ani-Addicks contemporaries. are thr
? champions.
We are not forgetting the point st IS
+ >un. To our knowledge, there has never
e b,,n ANYTHING like commanding or threat
rning in Union Republican politics. The
: ofor4 n .Nnti-Addickssm to disproy'
h Mat statement have all failed On theli
{ assumed ability q 40 that they have
: hing their hopes to confirm by proof
!. thn false impression they have mad'
II relative 70 the Senatorial voting in lS99
2, Ana III this failure falls all their charges
II TN, facts as We have here stated them
;. show that Anti Addicksism is guilty o
thr very crimes it charges upon its up
II lnnruts. And now Every Evening con
frSsrs, repeats It's confession, vouchcs fo
~. truth of what has been told i, an
il declares upon trustworthy information
j. hat Senator Higgins had adopted III
me ar nobody policy il 1895 lrfore tn
Senatorial voting bcgan-that he wa
I first in that order, persistent IN i. an
must, therefore hr responsible for II
:" augnrating that policy. and for it re
~ut>,