New-York tribune., 1904-10-09
4 FANTASTIC TcSrF

What has become of the alleged political IS
sues on which the Democratic party under
took 70 prosecute the Presidential campaign?
We look in vain nowadays In our Democratic
contemporaries for any serious discussion OF
the tariff, Of Imperialism or Of trusts Even
The Big Stick" is no longer brandished BY
eXcitable critics OF the administration Con
sutuuonatsm" as an issue is lapsing into "in-
nocuous desuetude." So far as we can see, the
only motive force left behind the Democratic
canvass is the agOnized complaint that the Re
publican cause Is being aided BY contributions
based on implied pledges" Of future compensa-
tons and future benefits. We have tried 10 in
duee the eomplainants to supply the evidence
OF some concrete instance" some definite
pledge, express or implied, given by Chairman
CortelyOu % any campaign contributor. In
stead q furnishing such proof our contempo-
racies take refuge In vague and cautious gen
eralities. arguing that contributions, il given.
imply" a pledge OF immunity or benefit and
that there Is therefore no need Of substantial
ing any alleged offence
But DO the Democratic managers and key
nOters realize the absurdities 10 which this hys-
tericai logic is carrying them? The mere fact
Ot q contribution Of money or other assistance
20 q political organization or candidate i'm
plies" they say the existence OF a compensat-
ing pledge" VIII Mr. Cortelyou's assailants
accept this reasoning in the case OF Chairman
Taggart and Judge Parker? Henry G. Davis
Is alleged 60 be q generous contributor to the
Democratic campaign fund. Have his contribu-
lions been based on q promise, express or i'm
piled, that Democratic success shall not en-.
danger his personal interests? Has Chairman
Taggart or Judge Parker let him understand
that the national platforms denunciation OF
protection as "a robbery OF the many TO enrich
the few" does not apply 10 the protective duties
laid on soft cOalf is Mr. Davis TO be safe
guarded in advance against another outcry for
free raw materials: against another Wilson bill
with coal on the free list?
NJ August Belmont IS understood 10 he a
liberal contributor TO the Parker campaign
fund Can there be no other explanation of his
hberality than that he holds pledge" 10 be
fOreclOsed when Judge Parker enters the White
HOusel Has be then only 70 produce his bond
70 satisfy III To David B. HIn more than 70
any Other political ally Judge Parker owes his
nomination. On william J. Bryan more than
on any other living Democrat he counts FOR
success n States where success is essential.
But have Mr.. Hill and Mr.. Bryan also exacted
implied pleGges"f Is Judge Parker logically
bound % reward them Il he Is elected. by giv-
ing them ths chief places in his Cabinet7 Mr..
Gornan Is doing what be can 20 advance Judge
ParEer's interests. Is be entitled 20 demand
from me Democratic candidate, should be be
successful. immunity and cooperation In the
Efforts now afoot 10 nullisy the federal Consti-
tuuon N Maryland by DISTINGUISHING the
neagre colored element in that State simply
because Il Is e0lored?
These propositions have only 70 be stated 20
make the implied pledge" argument OF our con-
teMporaFies disastrous TO their case. They do
rot think-2s we do not fhln1-tbat Judge Par.
hsr y logically or morally bound 20 orrer a
quo pro quo return FOR every dollar OF every
vote given him. Such an idea Is grotesqus ana