The sun., 1901-01-05
aefamers of its people. What are the

defamers OF Its people. What are the
facts?
First let us say, there is law organic
and statute for the prevention of such
things as the Governor of the State, and
Every Evening, declare exist to the
shame Of the State and heimminent dan
ger Of free government.
Second, the Governor who makes thi' J
declaration was authorized, and obi
gated, to enforce the law to prevent jus
such conditions as he deplores, and 70
the punishment of violators of that Law
Third, the Governor admitting know
ledge of this law, and also knowledge /,
that it was being violated, did not enforce
it.
Fourth, the law for the prevention of
the evils complained of is either ineffec
tive, or the evils exist because it was not
enforced.
Fifth, there is no record of an attempt
to enforce the law on the part of the
Governor.
Sixth, there having been no attempt to
enforce the law, there is no proof that
the law if enforced would not prevent
the evils complained of. 1t follows:
First, that the law is effective.
Second, the Governor did not enforce
the law.
Third, the evils complained of exist
because of the non-enforcement of the
law, or they do not exist
Which alternative will the Governor
and Every Evening adopt?
The fact is, the apparent proofs in
this case are against the contention of
the Governor and Every Evening. We
are not ready to believe that Governor
Tunnel wilfully violated his oath of Of
flee, by winking at what he knew to be
violation of the law, and knew to be
frought with such evil to the State as is
described in his message. And yet, ac-
lcepting what he says to be true, there is
no escape from that conclusion. We arc
| lltllituy tltTtlDIt, tO give ullll the DpIlt
fit Of the doubt, and accept what he says
about bribery, corruption and intimida
tion walking brazenly through our State
at the last election" as sap thrown to his
!efeated and disappointed political col
leagues, to ease the smart of their
wounds. That may not be creditablc
view of the Governor, but it is a better
: one than that from which we would be
: compelled to believe that he was wilfully
remiss in the discharge of his duty.
Another view Of this matter. is that
which reasonably supposes that the Gov
t arnor's knowledge of the character of the
: political work Of the last campaign is
Z entirely Democratic. 1t is reasonable t.
+ suppose, being the actual head of the
Democratic party III the State, that he
. knew what the Democrats were doing
g 1t is also reasonable to suppose that
p whatever information he had OF Repuh
Q lean political work was isl hercsay in
J, formation. His knowledge III one east
T ought to be positive from personal con
e tact. while in the other-the Republican
> >ide-it is second hand. The latter ma,
q he convincing and be sufficient basis fo
q an opinion, but cannot be positive proof
7! IN this case the Gutnrnor is making
g positive statement not giving an opinion
u Ii iu.!ow- hat lir information is no
y derived from reports brt from persona
g contact tna nu >sariiy Democratic
II k!-owiedge u democratic bribery, col
e ruption and intimidation" But til
50 difficulty here is the same as that whic
n arises from taking the bribery corruI
II ton and intimidation paragraph Of hi
ty message seriously. 1t compels the COZ
At clnsion that knowing Of violation Of tn
De law. violation Of the law which he b,
ld leved endangered the life of the Stat
q he failed to enforce the law for its pr
St vention. That conclusion, as we have Il
d. ready said, We are not ready 10 adopt.
IL Therefore. from careful review of Il
ry facts relating to this, apparently pc
paragraph OF the Governors messag
IT. spread so ostentatiouSly before the pu
nd lie by Every Evening, we are compel,
on TO doubt and reject it. There is no pro
II" that the conditions described exist in til
is state. In sustaining this judgment, '
cd recall that the Court, at Dover, in di
missing the only bribery case tried in Il
State Courts, declared that there we
no proofs OF guilt SO we prefer to g
IA. the Governor the benefit of the doul
"a credit his serious imputation of t
States honor to mistaken partisan ze
4 decide, despite his own testimony, tn
IA he was not remiss in the discharge
ast his duty, and that his deplorable d,
ly,:; cription Of the States political conditio
II, was Il -- mistake.