Arizona daily citizen., 1901-06-28
THE QUESTION or PARTY PRINCIPLE.

great harm to both The former lie in the opportu-
nifty for clearing the atmosphere and making plain
to the people the situation that conrouts them; the
latter lie in the danger of confusing the minds of the
people and binding their eyes to the real peril of the
Republic. Both of the disputants are men of great
ability, but both Of striking literary style
and that means liability to make strong expressions
which are subject to misinterpretation. Further
than this there two distinct problems involved in
their discussion that not kept seperate. One is
party principle and the other party leadership AS
the dispuants keep the former in mind they are en-
tightening. AS they drop into consideration of the
latter they become confusing and harmful. The
question of importance now is, How shall we be
sayed?' Salvation, if it shall come, will be from the
people and not from candidates There is ample
time for consideration of the latter question here
after. The former needs immediate attention
The immediate cause of the discussion is car
toon proposed by Mr.. Watterson, representing the
United States in 1901 and in 1901. In the former
the nation is represented infant with toy drum
marked independence and toy cannon marked
freedom" In the latter Uncle Sam is portrayed as
leader at AGAR table, with exposed cards before him
marked peace" order" religion" humanity"
Around the table are the other nations and back of
Uncle Sam is mastifF, ready to spring, lebeled
words: Il bank this game" To this cartoon as de-
picting proper Democratic sentiment Mr. Bryan OBJ
jects and the substance of his objection is included
in these words;
1t would be difficult to illustrate more forcibly
the change that has taken place within the last two
years. 1t is hard to conceive of scathing con-
demnatlon of the innovation wrought by the Re-
publican administration. From the child dreaming
of love to the successful gambler is a transition in
deed The remarkable thing about it all is that men
who, like Mr. Watterson, recognize the change
should attempt to defend it should counsel Demo
Gratis to accept it as final The question that must
occur to every reader is Is this change necessary?
And if not necessary, why should it be submitted to
as a matter of destiny? Is freedom only toy can
non, and independence noisy drum? Is there no
other future for baby Jonathan than the career of
fortunate gambler? Is it not possible to conceive OF
republic developing and expanding without the
abandonment of ideals prineiples2
We imagine that this will strike the average
reader as very forcible and very true. Indeed, Mr.
Watterson virtually admits as much in his reply in
which he says
Il urge Mr. Bryan and through him upon the
Democratic party, the wisdom of accepting accom-
plished facts for which not responsible, end
OF addressing ourselves to the altered political sua
tion brought around by those accomplished facts |
The philippines are with US to stay. In my opinion
we shalt be there century hence unless some power
turns mp strong enough to drive out The cartoon
tho difference between 1900 and 1900 The baby
Jonathan grown to manhood is going the gaits 1t
may be wrong But moral platitudes will not stop
him. My idea is to regulate what we cannot change
to reduce these outlying Territories to proper
ton, to hold the party in power to its responsibility
for the administration of their affairs and LAYING
down no hard and fast rule OF policy promise to
deal with each several exigency as it arises. Mr.
Bryan calls this immoral. He would pack bag and
baggage, haul down the flag and sail away from Man
lila, leaving the Philippines to be reclaimed by Spain
as derect, else become the sport and prey of Eu
ropean diplomacy. This may be good enough moral
philosophy OF the copy book variety, but it is mighty
poor craftsmanship
This is saying plainly as be, Uncle Sam has
started on an immoral course but he is bound to go
ahead and therefore it is craftsmanship to advocate
that course instead of trying to stop him" From
moral standpoint Mr. Watterson does not seem to
catch the grotesqueness of his gamester playing
"peace" and religion as winning cards in his i'm
moral game; and what is worse he overlooks the in
consistency of popular sovereignty backing game
OF subjugation and imperialism. Such conception
is possible only when popular sovereignty" is re-
garded as dog-a beast-loyal to q master and
ready to do his bidding whatever it may be-but that
very conception overthrows all former concertions of
popular sovereignty that the American mind has
held And here attention may be called to an ele
ment OF confusion on both sides. This is not mere
Iva moral question. The moral question ia largely
involved. 1t may even be called predominant But
beyond is the great social and political question,
Shall we retain popular soveregntyY' Shall we
follow leader not only into immoral paths but into
Unconstitutional paths? Shall we discard the right
OF the people to amend their Constitution and accept
the accomplished fact that Congress and the Supreme
Court may amend it, in order that Uncle Sam NAV
play his game Of imperialism
This is the vital issue before the American peo
pe and the great issue that will now be settled eth
or Willingly or gnorantly by the people There is !
no escape from it. It is not merely question of