Arizona republican., 1903-10-11

and done many things that he sincerely regretted. "A man." he declared. who claims he has never erred is dishonest or a fool, and man who knows that he has erred but has not the courage to rev erSe lis action is q coward. 1 could inform the senator from West Virginia. if he had come to me, of many mistakes or my part which he has not mentioned, but it is a waste of time to examine and criticise per sonal records on dead issues when there is such an urgent demand for attention to duties now pressing upon us.
 MT. Vest frankly admits that he en- tered the United States senate with a very strong prejudice against MT Sher- man. Like all other Democrats, Nc. Vest cherished a deep prejudice against all the men who had been instrumental in deprivins Tilden of the official vote of Louisiana. The events of 1876 are now so distant that they can be dis cussed coldly as a part of history, and it Ihust be conceded that there was ground for Mir. Vests prejudice against Sherman-from the Democratic stand point By deal with the democratic politicians of Louisiana-who had a much greater interest in recovering control of the state that they had in electing d democratic president-John Sherman and other republicans so ar ranged it that the electoral vote of Louisiana was counted for Hayes and the popular vote against Packard, can didate for governor. although Packard votes than Hayes. Sherman and his associates honestly believed that the republican ticket, both national and state, had won on q fair count, but the democrats had the best of the ar gument when Packard was declared de : feated and Hayes elected-especially when Packard was placated by the fat office of consul to Liverpool.
 But MT. Vest confeses that he was mistaken iii holding this prejudice against Mir. Sherman. He found MT. Sherman to be both a statesman, with broad and enlightened views, and q
 
 necessary to obtain party success" !" MT. Vest perhaps unconscious ly permits his democratic proclivities to color his judgment however, when he reaches the conclusion that 'Sher- man was an extreme federalist. believ- | ing--like Alexander Hamilton-in d strong central government and with 1 little sympathy for the masses, who, in his opinion, should be governed by their wealthy and educated fellow citi- Zens. He was an optimist. with abso- lute confidence in the resuorces of the country. and had no doubt that in time the doctrines of Hamilton would sub stantially control the policy of our gov : ermnent. Impassive, self-contained, with strong intellect and sublime cour- - age. he grappled with the most diff ficult problems of statesmanship, never losing confidence in himself and always lowers.
 MT. Vest is entirely wrong, of course, in his sly implication that, whatever may have been the doctrines of Hamilton. it is any part of the re- publican doctrine of today that the masses should be governed by their wealthy and educated fellow citizens. Enphatically, the republican doctrine is the doctrine of Lincoln. that the government at Washington must be a | government of the people, by the peo- pie for the people"
 Summed up. MT. Vests judgment of John Sherman is that unflinchinG courage was the most striking note in the character of the Ohio senator. il was not until the last two years of his life were clouded by ill health which affected his strong intellect that Sherman ceased to be one of thl great leaders of the nation. The wish of all of MT. Vests countrymen is that his own rarely gifted mind may remain as it is until he shall ''cross the bar.