The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1901-07-13
A BUGABOO EXPLODED.
The Party OF the Contented In Grow.
fnE Notwithstanding Efforts of
the DiscOntcnted.

In his Phi Beta Kappa address at
Harvard recently Mr.. Wayne Mac
Veagh gave us in substantially its
original form the prophecy of Aris-
totle, now over 1000 years old. as to
the danger to republic which turks
in death grapple between the HAYES
and the have nots. Mr.. MacVeagh did
not trace il farther back than Macau-
lay, and he set Webster's version above
Macaulay's as coming nearer to his
own ideas, citing il as follows:
''The freest government would not be
long acceptable II the tendency of the laws
was TO create a rapid accumulation Of
property In few hands and to render the
great mass of the population dependent
and penniless. In the nature or
things, those who have not property and
see their neighbors possess much more
than they think them to need cannot be
favorable to laws made for the protection
of property. When this class becomes
numerous 1t grows clamorous. 1t looks
upon property as Its prey and plumber. and
is naturally ready at all times for violence
and revolution"
That differs only in phraseology
from Macaulay's famous passage
which he closed with the portentous
sentences: AS for America. we appeal
to the twentieth century" Well, the
twYntieth century is here, and the an
swer is squarely against Macaulay;
yet, curiously enough, Mr.. MacVeagh
does not seem to'realize this. He put
into his address on 1.-THE Value of
Ideals in American Politics" the same
prophetic passage on this point that
has appeared i'm every similar address
for nearly or quite hundred years.
Things are going on smoothly
enough now, but beware of what may
happen when times are less prosper
ous!" This IS the invariable basis for
making it. when that point in the adj
dress is reached Macaulay and Web
ster are certain to reappear with their
echo of Aristotle, and we are sure to
get modern application of 1t from
the orator. Mr.. MacVeagh gave il to
us as follows:
Now, 1t Is at least quite possible that in
the not-distant future American politics
| may transform Mr.. Websters warning
into history, for our electorate Is already
beginning to be divided. and must. in obedi-
| ence to the law of social evolution, con-
sharp cleavage which separates those who
are contented with their lot from those
| who are discontinued with their lot. Under
whatever DISCUSSES, called by whatever
| names, inheritirg or SELLING whatever
partisan organizations, the alignment OF
the two great political divisions of Amer
| lean voters, who will sooner or later strug-
gle against each other for the possession
| OF the government will inevitably be upon
| the basis | have named. The party of the
contented will be ranged under one banner.
| and the party Of the disconnected will be
ranged under the other. and that alignment
| Will steadily develop increasing sharpness
Of division until the party of the dlscon-
| tented, being the majority. has obtained
| the control of the government to which
| under our system, they are entitled, and
| then they will be sure to remodel the pres
ent system for the distribution of wealth
| unless We have previously done so, upor
bases wiser and more equitable than those
| now existing"
! Well, have we not just emerged tri
umphantly from two 'alignments,
two "divisions of the electorate" ot
| precisely that character? Bryan's
candidacy of the "discontented" was
the product of the hard times between
1898 and 1895. Those times produced
exactly the conditions that Macaulay
based his prediction upon, and they
came on the very threshold of the cen
tury to which he had appealed for his
answer. Neithe Aristotle, nol
Macaulay, nor Webster, nor Mac
Veagh could conceive of more dan
gerous candidate or leader for the dis
contented than Bryan was. We hat
the sharp cleavage which separates
those who are contented with Their
lot from those who are disseminated
with their lot" and what was the re
suit when the count was made? Why
that the contented outnumbered the
discontinued. This was the result IL
1896, and it was also the result at tho
second cleavage i'm 1900. Does Mr.
MacVeagh think that there would b'
any different result in 1904 IL thirt
/ cleavage were to be made then?-N
Y. Commercial Advertiser.
|