New-York tribune., 1901-10-24

Each group must be regarded as a unit. The
TWO groups are as follows:
mSgaS 0@ss. s.,5 Fusion Democratic.
Controller Edward N Grout ". W. Lsdd M shepard
Board Of Charles Y. FOrne. c. NJ Van Hoe,en.
Had Mr. Shepard been put at the head of the
1uslon ticket his entire municipal record up 10
MS acceptance of the Tammany nomination
would have justified his selection as the leader
OF the anti-Tammany forces Had Mr.. Low
been nominated by Tammany, the act would
have been the substitution of shock and trick
Tor logic and honor in politics O. result equally
reproachfuI TO Mr. Low and TO Tammany. The
nomination of Mr. Shepard by Tammany his
acceptance of it. If not a shock was SURPRISE
and Mr.. Shepard's Democracy could save il
from the charge OF trick only by city ticket
completely In MIR. Shepard's likeness. ANY other
course would justify the suspicion OF a purpose
10 use his fame to carry in with him colleagues
who would hamper him. If they did not neu-
tralize him. in the Mayors office
The men on the city ticket with Mr. Shepard
are not in his likeness. Mr.. Ladd is a clerical
desk lawyer. was deputy OF Richard Croker
when Chamberlain. and has been a hardened
Tammanyite. mute amid any kind or degree of
municipal wrongdong defiance OF public
opinion. I on Mr; van Hoesen was long negative
ana dignihed judge OF a minor court who has
habtually yielded to Tammany pressure exact
~ where 1t should never be yielded to-in the
SchooI Board He would be Mayor, if elected
should anything happen 10 Mr. Shepard
On the contrary, the ticket put up with Mr.
Low compliments him and is an insurance of
tion- Mr.. Grout and Mr.. Fornes are reform
Democrats Both have broken with Tamuany
Tor conscience reasons Both are men of large
ability; the first, a leader at the bar; the other
one or the masters of the business world in
Manhattan. and the equal of the head of the
ticket in character and capacity.
The second and third man on the Shepard
ticket contradict the whole record of the head
or 1t. Tammanyism itself is contradiction Of
the whole record Of its own nominee before he
became Its nominee. The conclusion is required
that Tammany willing to avail itself of Mr.
Shepards reputation and tolerant of his in
creaslngly bold talk on the stump, has sur
rounded him with ticket TO make the MAYORS
once prison of energy instead OF fountain
or power for the public good should he be
elected. The two tickets are separate wholes
The head of each is only third of each The
shepard city ticket is two-thirds against and
one-third for what the people and Mr.. Shepard
himself want done. The Low city ticket agrees
with itself all through and with what the
people and Mr.. Shepard, we must believe as
well as Mr.. Low. want done.
Under these circumstances Independents who
vote for Mr.. Shepards ticket vote for Ladd and
van Hoesen as we'll. Those who vote for the
Low ticket vote for Grout and Fornes as we'll
Inc equality of Low and Shepard in character
capacity and sincerity need not be questioned.
Inc significance OF a vote for the ticket headed
Dy each cannot be avoided or evaded or be-
Lifted by men who are either serious or honest.
me Eagle has decided this question for it
SELF after mature reflection and frankly against
the ordinary drift of It's unreserved and his
torical preference for Democracy to Republican
Ism. whether the latter be considered by itself
or as arected by fusion with varied recall
consideration, the conclusion is established that
the election of the fusion city ticket headed by
Mr.. Low. will be for the best Immediate and vi
innate benefit Of the people,