The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-11-07
ruespAYs ELECTIONS.

The defeat OF Tammany in New York city was not
a party defeat It was the sequel of revolution
against ring rule socaIled occasioned by the alleged
corruption OF the police department of disgust with
nachiuo methods Whether the change Effected viii
prove change for the better is the future to show
however with the chances i'm favor Of negative re-
suit as. from am appearances, New York's citizenship
has merely voted to supplan Boss Croker with Boss
Plat.
Ordinarily New Works mistake, provided it is
mistake would become a subject OF local concern only
but ii would DE unfortunate it, at this time when re-
form i'm municipal government is general issue. IT
should turn out that that oitys step in the direction of
cleaner administration of its affairs was false one
In Philadelphia, where conditions are far worse
than in New York the machine won though lts rotten
ness is unquestonable Backed up by a crimeprotect
ing police department and aided by the influence Of
franchise grabbers and other benefcares OF the job
berry it countenances and fattens upon, the organza
ton which holds the Pennsylvania metropolis in its
grasp trumphed at the polls
Fusion fused in New York and failed to fuse in
Philadelphia Tammany's defeat wasm made possible
by the votes of faithkeeping democrats who voted
for pronounced republican in the interest of reform
while the Philadelphia rings success was the direct
result the cast by withdrawing republicans,
whose party allegiance superior to their love Of
pure government. In other words, republicans, as a
rule always vote the republican ticket matter how
pear thereon and can not be depended to help in
working reforms promoted without regard for party
algnments.
In New York the reform war, so-called, waged
against democratic administration, hence the solid
republican vote cast for Low the reform candidate
who is republican and who running on an all>sed
Inonpartisan ticket TO gather democratic support In
| Philadelphia the war, which was just one, was
waged against republican administration, hence the
lack OF republican to help carry it on to sue
cessful issue though the democrats We're enlisted
therein almost q and fought TO the last to rio
their city Of the pestilential burden under which
groans,
The lesson to be learned from the New York anC
Philadelphia elections by the democrats is plaiI
enough It teaches them that nothing the loss o
parry prestige need be expected from fusng with re
pubhtans and that the latter will not scrupe to over
reach them whenever they simple enough to pa
faith in republican reform movements.
And speaking of fusion is in order for thos
e heightened New York democrats who hurried to tn
polls to vote for the republican Low, to revise thei
opinion of Mr. Bryan for approving fusion in the West
In their eyes fusion with popusts and silver repub
e cans to bring about democratic abou
+ nation, What, then is fusion with uncompromisin
republicans to accomplish the defeat OF democrati
y ticket? Had fusion in New York realy meant fusio
to effect a necessary change of city government Their
q would have been excuse for engaging therein Br
: such not the Support of Low simply mean
support of movement to help the republican macbn
to power and such New York democrats as voted f
i Low participated in a fusion designed TO overtime
their party. No more, less.