The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1904-03-12
MP. FOLKS SPEECH AND THINGS
ADJACENT.

49,
public sentiment remains Just as II
was befOFe-OnlY a little stronger OF
both sides The people who favoI
Mr.. Folk generally consider bis speech
a wonderful efisrt approaching tbs
finest specimens Of platform oratory
Those who donOt favor him generally
regard bis speech as weak. incon.
sistent, ~demagogic and 10 parts posi-.
lively driveling There should be nj
disputing concerning tastes II q
man likes that kind Of speech, why OF
course that is the kind Of speech he
likes Some people like to hear
about 'seething masses Of %putrescence
aud others like to hear about the
liquid laughter Of myriad springs,
Aud why should not every man have
his choice? Some people delight in
Sunday school picnics, some ia county
fairs, some In public sales, aud some
in hog-killing day This is a free
country where equal rights prevail
and if any nan likes or dislikes Mr.
Folks speech, why, it's his privilege
There are however a great many
particulars in which Mr. Folks speeches
do not come within the realm OF taste.
There are particulars in which his
r marks show a lack of ap~positeuess
and a total failure to perceive when a
proposition is proved or disproved.
His comparison Of his "boodIe issue"
with the tariff issue is a case in point.
The tariff is not an issue 7UitktR the
democratic party, or il so, then some
democrats stand positively and ex
pressly for tariff reform and some
against it. Tariff reform is an issue
6~etsoeSH the democratic and republican
parties. Mr.. Folk has been repeated.
ly reported as saying that Doodle is an
issue zOithtn tie democratic 6ayty. He
did not say this last Saturday, but he
followed the general statement with
various remarks ab'ut the people not
showing the white feather in the
battle now going on and about
boodlers being punished by ballots
more effectively than by prosecutions
before the courts The unanimous
sentiment Of the democratic party is
expressed by the laws on our statute
books made by democratic legislatures
and by the very prosecutions which
Mr.. Folk and MIR. Crow have conduct.
ed 10 pursuance Of these statutes
The difference between Mr.. Folk and
Mr.. Crow is that Mr.. Grow has never
pretended that his work is anything
apart from democratic record, has
never claimed to have been hindered
and thwarted 10 his work, has never
discovered any mysterious ring or
gang or clique that is running the
politics Of Missouri and has not
demanded that he be elected to some
other Office 10 order that he NAV
restore official integrity to the dear
plain people.
Another particular illustrative Of
the same trait of mind is to be found
In what he says about Jim Butler.
"Yellow dog" p%artisanship is not as
much in evidence as it once was, and
few people will be found who care
whether Mr.. Folk voted for Jim
Butler or not, though some have
criticised him for speaking from the
same platform and begging his hearers
to vote for his 'dear friend jim, (" in
1900 when he was himself a candidate
and for his refusal to do so In 1902
when be was not a candidate. But
this is not what Mr.. HAYES charged
him with, aud it is Mr.. Halves that
he is answering when be speaks Of
Jim Butler. Mr.. Hawes' charge is
plain, explicit and direct, as all Of
Mr.. Halves utterances are,-that in
1902 when the democratic city ticket
was the best ticket that had been
offered by either party in twenty
years and when Mr.. Folks silence ia
the city campaign a0as an issue in The
campaign, the republican papers
charging night and morning that Mr..
Folk did not approve Of the ticket
and would not support it, he refused
even after entreaty and personal
solicitation to make one brief speech
anywhere in the city, or to stop the
mouth Of the st. Lonis Star, though
he visited the Star office almost every
evening after court to disclose the