New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-26

]
/ -. -,o-,oor,ts In The distractions OF the sla-
g., struggle they were again for a tine SUD-
/ merged. But they are coming more and more
1 70 light again in the contrasting attltuces as
ruu,eI by the Republican and Democratic par
/ ties OF to-day.
~ Brown asserts-and tusty-that the two
! ra-r{es We now recognize as the inherltors OF
! Federal AID Republican traditions eth repre-
sent with reasonable consistency. the Two great
ideals Of Government, the two sets OF interests
go ~. ,-ro Great types Of character. which IN
modern self-governing communities have usually
/ iss, ~ the base Of party systems" one party
e+,-5s for an effective government. The other
co. q free government. one seeks an eQuaIiza-
,,o- ~ welfare and opportunity, the other Dull
srlrs she rights Of property. "One is the party
% ,6eas and ideals. the party OF liberty. Inc
other IS the party Of practical achievement the
party OF authority and order
The civil War upset party traditions and al
tered ra-tv tendencies Put in hopeless opposl-
ton. the Democratic party surrendered many O1
its views end through continued negatohs
seemed ut times to become conservative. DU'
~. -,-,, Of Jefferson and jackson, the RADICAL
ism which Il its birthright could not De
openched. and in 1896 It brushed aside the mists
- oo-,servatisun TO show Itself in its true his
,oricsl character There are many superficial
observers who insist that genuinely Democratic
tendencies and purposes were not reflected IN the
revolt of 1896 against the leadership and poilces
Of Mr.. Cleveland MT Brown reads party MS
tory more clearly than that So does frOIessoI
,voodburn. Commenting the Democratic
schisrn OF 1896 the former says:
So far as Organism was definite pTosrlIn mn
Il was contrary TO many Democratic preeeueiIS'
n antagonized many interests when nave a.
yyaxs looked 10 the Democratic party 10Y ue-
fence But in so far as 1t was a popular move
rnent. so far II was an affair OF iilpulse, ,i
far as Il reflects character. II dld ilot
differ from any Confessedly Democratic uPals-
ing Of the past To CRY out against inequallIy'
whether Of wealth or power, and 10 Try Dy SONS
.,-b DEVICE as an income tax or cheap money
70 shift the burden onto the shoulders OF ne
rich: 10 look with suspicion upon mat oepaIL
unert OF the government. the judiciary Whlch
Is least responsive TO popular MOODS 10 enter
tain wild ideas about public finance. WHlCH o.
all governmental work is the haFuesI u :, ll.nho
plain to the popular mind-these are all Eehu-
inelv Democratic impulses They may al DC
DANGEROUS. Gu unwise policies. but they are
all Jeffersonian and JacksoTuaIl.
And again he says:
To consider the Democratic character in
more positive aspect. the men who, IN the VIZ
GINA and Kentucky resolutions OF 1'9N SCI
forth their demand for the right or free speech
ard their sense Of brotherhood with the a lSa
driven 20 our shores, would have heIpeo IN ID
10 overthrow King Caucus, to take away from
the officeholders at Washington their privilege
Of naming candidates and making platforms
and 10 set up the American nominating conVen-
ton instead. To-day the same men would look
favorably on the plan OF choosing Senators by
popular vote and in 1896 they might even nave
foined in the attempt TO reconstruct me nllsl,-
clal system Of the world IN accordance with
the popular conception Of money
Professor woodburn is equally frank IN con-
Tossing that Organism involved no genuine de-
parture from the spirit OF teachings Of Jeffer-
son He says. on page 129 Of his Political
Parties and Party Problems IN the United
States:
Both the Cleveland and the Bryan element IN
the Democratic party claimed 70 be Jeffersonian,
and the lneal inheritors Of Jacksonian DeInoc-
racy. The gold wing were regarded by their
opponents as standing for the wealthy. the
aristOCratic and privileged classes Of the coun-
try and II was against these that jefferson and
Jackson contended. To the Bryan Democracy
the struggle was against plutocracy, against
the Cleveland Democracy il was struggle
against socialism. disorder. dishonesty and
anarchy. The radical, progressive social de-
mocracy represented by Mr. Bryan had now
come 10 look on government not merely as
means Of repression. as Il was regarded in JET
ferson's DAY (whO therefore sought 20 prevent
the enlargement of governmental royve~eD but
as an agency OF a democratic state for the pro-
motion Of the peoples interests. With this new
and larger Il not truer, democratic tendency
in the party II drew 20 its support IN 1896
many who had never supported It before.
We have heard a good deal recently about
a return TO sanity in Democratic policy. Mr..
Cleveland, IN magazine article published
month or two ago. proclaimed the virtues Of
conservative Democracy" The ex-President
and those who follow him do not seem 20 real
ize that they deny both jefferson and Jackson
when they seek 10 turn the Democratic party
from the path Of radicalism. They pursue a
paradox when they seek to harness the party of
Jefferson and Jackson TO the gocart Of conser-
vatism. Historically. the Democratic party is
the party Of unrest Of agitation, OF revolution.
The view that can accept II as an agency Of con-
seTvatism is unintelligent and shallow. Yet Il
is held so widely and expounded 80 industriousIy
that we must welcome any additional demon
stration Of its utter lack OF scholarship and