The Irish standard., 1904-05-14


right to dictate to the party in advance
of its national convention. Cleveland
does not own the Democratic party,
neither does Bryan, but according to
the promoters Of factionalism every
Democrat must be either Bryan Dem
ocrat or Cleveland Democrat. The
promoters of the interests of a Demo-
cratic candidate for the presidency
have been sending letters and circulars
broadcast throughout the state, in
which statements are made to the eff
feet that Democrats who are opposed
to that particular candidate are bent
upon betraying the party into the
hands of Wall street. To one of these
letters Mr.. Ira X. Lewis, a Democrat
of Mcleod county, has replied in Ian
guage which should meet the approval
Of all Democrats who are interested
in party success. His reply was pub
lished in the Duluth Herald on May
9th and is in part as follows:
"As you ask for statement of opin-
ion relative to the subject discussed
in your communication, and, as it is
also a subject upon which Democrats
may honestly agree or disagree, wish
to state that there are a great many
statements made in said letters which
l cannot agree to. do not believe
that there are, or that there should
be, two branches of Democracy, one
styled cleveland Democracy" Nei-
ther Cleveland nor Bryan ever owned
the Democratic party, or ever had any
right, inherent or otherwise, to own
or use any personal brand or stamp
which each could place upon persons
Of their liking, and call them their
own. The rank and file of the Demo-
cratic party are usually capable of do
ing their own thinking and can usually
be trusted to arrive at reasonably
fair conclusion, without the need of
ready-made opinions Of the "boiler
plate" variety. l do not believe that
any Democrat favoring the nomination
of Judge Parker is necessarily Of a
different brand of Democracy than one
who favors the nomination of Hearst.
believe, as you say, that all Demo
Gratis should study the conditions that
confront u.s." but wish to add that all
Democrats should act upon those con,
ditions, and not turn their backs to
the enemy to face and fight for some
thing that has passed to the rear so
long ago-and so far-that it can never
be brought up to the front for service
again. The conditions that confront
u.s. are largely new ones, but it is the
same old enemy that also confronts
us. Any Democrat who favors the
nomination of Parker is not in duty
bound, nor is he justified, in calling
any person who favors the nomination
of Hearst anything but plain, hon
est Democrat, and vice versa. Each
individuals judgment is not infallible,
by any means, but each has the un-
doubted moral and legal right to act
upon that judgment in trying to better
his own condition, as we'll as that Of
his fellowmen, Conditions change
sometimes very rapidly every day,
and if there is any element in the DEM
ocratic party which is "reactionary,"
believe it is that element which in
sists in staying in the rear (regardless
of reason or conseqences) to guard and
protect the relics of by-gone days
which, under present conditions, are
judged to be unfit for present service.
That element. if it exists, should be
making forced marches to get to the
front where there is fighting to do,
shoulder to shoulder with the Demo-
Gratis who are facing the enemy, on the
battle ground, regardless who the COM
mander is, so long as he commands
with good judgment, and fights. Mr..
dAutremont and Mr.. Hudson are GER
tainly of sufficient good judgment to
know that Judge Parker's fitness for
the presidency is unquestioned. His
qualifications, reputation and position
for a long period Of public life is such
that the assertion that he is in the
hands of, and is controlled by, the
trusts, subsidized press, etc., is of very
doubtful force indeed, for his whole
life, conduct, character and history are
such that they give the lie to such an
assertion"
The sentiments expressed we in
dorse fully and without reservation
They have the true ring. 1t may
tickle the vanity of some people to
make the claim that they are the only
true eXponents of Democratic prin.
ciples, but the habit of making such
claims is a bad one. Democrats should
not be misled by those trouble makers
who are intent upon either ruling OF
running. We have no quarrel with
Democrats who honestly differ with us
in opinion as to who ought to be nom
mated at st. Louis. Democrats may
reasonably differ on that question. But
it is not necessary in order to differ
to assume that Democrats who favor
Il different are disloyal to the party
The Democratic party has never beer
Il one-man party. To maintain that the
existence of the party depends upor