Arizona daily citizen., 1901-08-19
TRUE DEMOCRATIC CREED.

dressed to Henry Watterson, W.
r. Hearst, II. w. Seymour and
Clark Howell concerning the ele-
mental creed of Democracy and its
application to the imperialistiC
problem. 1t is almost incompre-
hensible how men so familiar with
Democratic history As Watterson
and Howell can reconcile Demo
cratic principles with foreign
policy so utterly inconsistent with
the theory of the republic. AS Mr.
Windle suggests, there is ample
room for disagreement among good
Democrats upon questions of an
economic nature, but it is difficult
to Justify disagreement upon n
fundamental political question
which inspired the original party
division under Hamilton and JEFF
ferson. If any one document cGn
be said to contain "a concentrated
expression of the Democratic
creed it is probably the Declara
tion of independence. The whole
Of the Jetfersonian philosophy was
crowded into that immortal chal-
lenge, and if that document has
any meaning, it means that gov
ernments derive their just power
from the consent ofthe governed,
and that taxation without repre-
sentation is tyranny" Mr.. Jeffer-
son, in his first inaugural address,
enlarged upon the principles of
the declaration, but every princi-
plo of a political nature thoroin
enunciatcd was but a development
of tho elemental principles of the
Declaration. Mr.. Windle is justi-
fed, then, in the assertion:
The creed of Democracy and the
creed of the republic are identical.
The Democratic party and the
American republic are based upon
the proposition that all men are
born with equal rights among
which is the right Of self-govern-
mont. This being true, it becomes
the imperative duty of every Dem
ocratic editor to help SO mold par
ty policies as to make them con-
form to the doctrine and practice
of self-government. The Demo
cratic party and the republic of
both rest upon the i'm
pregnable rock, that governments
derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed"
There is nothing in Democratic
history or principle to recommend
the oppressive foreign policy which
Watterson and Howell commend
to the favorable consideration of
the Democratic party. For the
Democracy to accept their advice
in this particular would be for it
to renounce the principles of poll
tical liberty, Constitutional Gov
ernment and strict construction.
It would mean the condemnation
of the democratic republic which
the Jeffersonian party has always
advocated. 1t would mean the
complete Generalization of the
party.
While lamentable that two such
eminent Democrats as Wattcrson
and Howell should assumea a posi-
ton scout of tunewith party princi-
pie there is no danger of their re
ceiving any marked encouragement
from the rank and file. The great
Democratic masses have never
shown a willingness to sacrifice
principle to party eXpedience.
They are thoroughly permoatcd
with the spirit of the republic
which is absolutelrirreconcilable
with the imperialistic policy. They
believe in the righto of every nation
to determine upon its own form Of
government, and to have voice in
the imposition of it's own taxes
They despiso oppression, whether
in the concentration camps ol
South Africa or in Porto Rico OF
the Philippines. They believe in
Jeffersonian liberty for every peo
| pie over whom the flag of this re
public floats, and they are deter
mined to renew the fight. Messrs
Watterson and Howell will always
receive attention from the Demo
cracy. which their long and honor