The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1903-09-12
n DIFFERENCE.

There Isl difference broad and dee
between the corruption unearthed IN
the departments at Washington anC
the Doodle sensation in Missouri
The post office department and tn,
interior department have been found
10 be rotten through and through.
The agriculture department, TOO, has
been full Of m~isfeasance and grating,
Nothing approaching the abuses 10
the Indian Territory and in the
management Of the public lands
everywhere in the West has ever
come to light 10 this country, not
even the army contract scandals
towards the close Of the war between
the states, and the Pacific railroad
thieverieS. Misfeasance 10 office in
one place does not justify or palliate
1t In another place, but the difference
consists in this, that the scandals 10
the national government are admin
istration scandals. The thieves hold
appolntive offices. II boodling and
grating have been rife there, it
reflects upon the administration and
the party which the administration
represents. Perry Heath held an ap.
pointive once. He is still a member
of the republican national committee.
Payne holds an appolntlve office. He
is still a member of the republican
national committee, Hitchcock holds
an appointive Office. All Of the
grafters and thieves in their branches
OF the government hold appolntive
offices, and if a very great deal of
grating and thieving has been going
on 1T is no unfair presumption that
they were appointed for this very
purpose. If President Roosevelt's ad.
ministratlon is saturated with corruu.
tion and fraud, as Arthur's was. the
head Of the government and the
party he represents is responsible and
should be held responsible. If these
reports are true, and nobody denies
them, there is justice and propriety
in honest republicans rising up and
demanding the unceremonious retire.
ment Of the "ringsterS" and "ganV-
sters" and machine" There would
be perfect propriety In demanding a
reform ticket for president and vice.
president consisting say of Bristow
and Brosius. 1t might be entirely
proper to insist upon dismissing in
disgrace all the present active national
leaders OF the republican party.
But in Missouri the case is entirely
different. Not a breath OF suspicion
attaches to the present democratic
administration, not a breath OF suspl-
cion attaches to Dockery, Cook, Allen,
Williams, Crow, Darlington and the
rest in the performance Of their
Official duties. Whatever OF boodlinp
there has been is chargeable to repre-
~sentatives and senators chosen directly
by the people. What sense is there,
what Justice, in talking about retir-
ing and disgracing all the present
leaders of the democracy in Missouri
because of the misdeeds Of represen-
t%atives, democratic and republican
mostly republican-elected directly
by the peop'e? There is Of course no
wonder that the republican press
insists upon such a programme for
the democrats. Why don't they in
Sist upon such a programme for their
own national party? II people can
be deceived upon a proposition like
this, then popular government is a
hopeless experiment indeed. There
is no objection, not the slightest to
Mr.. Folk wanting to be governor of
Missouri. There is no objection, can
be none, to any man preferring him
to the other candidates upon his own
merits, his ability, his character, his
public service, II the voter sees it that
way. But to urge Mr.. Folk, as the
metropolitan press is doing, on the
ground that the whole democratic
party is rotten, the present leaders
all thieves and grafters and Mr.. Folk
the only honest public official in the
party is putting it a little too strong.
The election Of Mr.. Folk on such a
platform would be party defeat.