Ceredo advance. [volume] (Ceredo, W. Va.) 1885-1939, 1901-07-17
A BUGABOO Exploded.
The Party of the Contented In Grow
ing Notwithstanding Efforts of
the Disconteated


In his Phi Beta Kappa address az
Harvard recently MIR. Wayne Mac
NeaSh gave MS in substantially its
original form the prophecy of Aris-
totle, now over 1000 years old. Us 20
the danger to republic which turks
in death grapple between the HAYES
and the have nots. Mr.. MacVeagh did
not trace it 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 rapid accumulation OF
property in few hands, and 10 render the
great mass Of the population dependent
ard penniless. In the nature OF
things. those who have not property and
see their neighbors possess much more
than they think them 70 need cannot b.
favorable TO laws made for the protection
OF property. When this clays becomes
numerous II grows clamorous. 1t looks
upon property as its prey and piunder. and
Is naturally ready at ali TIMES for violence
and revolution"
That differs only in phraseologv
from Macaulay's famous passage
which he closed with the portentouS
sentence: AS for america, we appeal
to the twentieth century" Well, the
twentieth century is here, and the an.
swer is squarely against Macaulay:
yet, curiously enough. Mr.. MacVeagh
does not seem to realize this. lie put
into his address on The Value OF
Ideals in American Politics the same
prophetic passage on this point that
has appeared in 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 invariablc basis for
making it, When that point in the adj
dress is reached Macanlay and Web
ster are certain to rcappear with their
echo of Aristotle, ard we are sure to
get modern application of 1t from
the orator. Mr.. Ma cVeagh gave IL to
us as follows:
NOW II IL at least quite possible that In
the Eot-dlStant future American politics
may transform Mr.. Webster's warning
into history, for our electorate IS alreaCv
beginning TO be divided. and must. I'm obedi-
ence to the law of social evolution, con.
tinue more and more to be divided. by that
sharp cleavage which separates those who
are contented with their lot from those
who are Disconnected with their lot. Under
whatever DISCUSSES, called by whatever
names, inheriting or selling whatever
partisan organizations, the alignment or
the TWO great political divisions OF Amer
lean voters. who Will sooner or later struE-
gle against each other for the possession
of the government, Will inevitably be upon
the basis l have named. The party of the
corteEteG VIII be ranged under one banner
ard the party OF the Disconnected will b.
ranged under the other and that alignment
will steadily develop increasing sharpness
or division until the PARTY of the discon-
tented. being the ma jority has obtained
the control of the government. to which.
under our system. thew are entitled and
then they VIII be sure to remodel the pres
ent system for the distribution of wealth.
unless We have previously done so. upon
bases wiser and more equitable than those
now existing"
Well, have we not just emerged tr-
umphantly from two "alignments."
two divisions of the electorate" OF
precisely that character? Bryan's
candidacy of the ''discontented" was
the product of the hard times between
1913 and 1895. Those times produced
exactly the conditions that MacauIay
based his prediction upon, and they
came on the very threshold of the cen
fury TO which he had appealed for his
answer. Neithe Aristotle, nor
Macaulay, nor Webster. nor Mac.
Neagh could conceive of more dan.
gerous candidate or leader for the dis
contented han Bryan was We had
the sharp cleavage which separates
those who are contented with their
lot from those who are Disconnected
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 in
1896. and it was also the result at thu
second cleavage in 1900. Does NJ.
MacNeagh think that there would he
any different result in 1904 If third
cleavage were to be made thcn?-N
y. Commercial Advertiser.