The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1903-11-28
5port the Democrat

After this statement OF Mr., Folk. The
Star was conspicuously quiet for some
ume, and We all waited anxiously for
Mr.. Folk TO issue his statement OF to
make a speech. He returned from JEFF
fersOn City and refused to do either.
Then again The Star commenced its
editorials of Call Joseph W. Folk"
or why does not Folk speak?' or
II Folk supports the Democratic tick
ct we will then know it is worthy OF
support, and other like editorials. The
campaign closed, the election was held,
and Mr.. Folk had not spoken for the
Democratic ticket. But in spite Of Mr..
Folk and the Republican press the
ticket was elected by an increased ma
jority.
Practically the same thing occurred
in the spring Of this year, when the
Democrats elected a council ticket. Mr..
FOLK was written TO and asked to
speak, and he was solicited by personal
request to make speeches for the party,
and he again refused, and again his re-
fusal became a campaign issue in the
City.
The only reason that has ever been
obtained for Mr.. Folks failure to sup
port the Democratic State and City
ticket was that his support of the tick
ct would lose him personally the sup
port of the Republican papers in St.
Louis.
This tacit trade by which he failed
to support his party in consideration
of the Republican papers supporting
him, was, in my opinion, an act of
barter in which he sold his party
loyalty in return for Republican news
paper adulation.
1t is now being claimed by some of
Mr.. Folks friends that his refusal to
support his party nominees was no
worse a political crime than the sup
port of Rolla Wells for mayor, who
had twice failed to support the Nation
al Democratic ticket. 1t seems to me
that the two cases are not parallel. In
the first place, MIR. Wells had not been
a beneficiary of the party. Mr.. Folk
In the second place, Mr.. Wells's
refusal to support the Democratic par
ty was not a campaign issue. Mr..
Folks was. In the third place, whom
Mr.. Wells did or did not support did
not make a great deal of difference,
as he did not hold official position,
was not prominent in the public eye
and was under no debt of gratitude to
the Democratic party. In the fourth
place, while Mr.. Wells did not vote
for his party nominees, he did not do
so because of a difference in principle.
In the ase of Mr.. Folk there was no
difference of principle. 1t was simply
a question with him as to the effect It
would have upon him in securing
united Republican newspaper support.
Mr.. Folks attitude was wrong, not be-
cause a principle was involved, but be-
cause Mr.. Folks own personal self
interest was involved. No man can
draw an analogy between the two po-
%sitions, and in any case Mr.. Wells II
not seeking the nomination for gov
and Mr.. Folk is.
Mr.. Folk could not claim that he did
not support the Democratic tickets be-
cause OF the character of their candi-
dates, as the Democratic candidates
c%onspicuously better men in ev-
cry sense of the word than their Re-
publican opponents. But, granting
hat they were not, for the sake of ar
gument, why did Mr.. Folk in previous
campaigns, when the Democratic party
had sunk to a low ebb in its organiza-
ton and its party nominees were NOT
any way equal to those in this
support them cheerfully?
And, in fact, why did he always up to
time of his W election support
any, all kinds and every description
Of a candidate that might be placed on
MS ticket and then after his election
% office draw fine distinctions?
The main developments of the sit
nation are these: First, that Mr.. Folk
lid not support his party nominees;
second, that since his refusal to sup
port the Democratic nominees he has
been himself supported by Republican
papers. There may not be any connec-
ion between these two facts. Neverthe-
ess they are true, and l am PERSONAL
y convinced that there is a connec-
ion; that is to say, that Mr.. Folks
to support the Democratic a n
iidates brought to him the support of
he Republican press. Let the Demo-
of st. Louis decide this question
their next State primary-there will
no doubt about their verdict.
/ do not know in the whole City Of
Louis o the State of Missouri one
single Democrat who has assisted his
party in the past in any material way
who did not condemn in the most bit
-er language this betrayal of his party.
Il was a fruitful topic Of conversation
the streets Of st. Louis and there
we're a great many Democrats who be-
.ieved at that time that It meant that
Folk would seek the nomination
Tor governor at the hands of the Re-
publican party, OF that he would be-
come an independent candidate. They
could not conceive how he could treat
his party In the manner he did and at
the same time consistently ask for
honors or future favors al its
hands Nv ToIlr ~, -. | -