The Penn's Grove record., 1906-11-23
A Prophet.
New York World

With the pa~tronizing complacency of
the "stand-pat" politician, Joseph
Benson Foraker, of Ohio. tells the
New York Tribune that-The Poop,
have gone as far in the di Erection O.
radical POpulistic propositions as the
will go. The next swing of The pend
ulum will be back in the other direct
ion, and by the time 1908 comes around
| do not think there will. be much
chance for the election, whatever
chance there may be for the nominat-
the views of either Mr.. Hearst OF MI.
Bryan.
There NeIe Senator FolakeIs as ia
back as the deluge, and it is credibly
reported that ID of them believed
it was going to be much of a shower.
On the heels of the overwhelming Re-
publican victory Of 1904 all the Forak-
ers would have hooted at a prediction
that in one year a William r. Hearst
would come within $500 votes of being
elected Mayor of New York on an in
dependent ticket, and that within two
years he would have both the regular
Democratic and an independent NOM
ination for Governor and give the Re-
publican party in New Yolk the hard
est fight it had known since 1892.
When Senator Foraker says s'the
next swing of the pendulum will be
back in the other direction" he is talk
ing nonsense if he means the socalled
conservative, stand-pat, safe-and-sane
direction.
The American people are naturally
radical. 1t is in their blood. Every
political party which has made a fetis
OF conservatism has been scourged
from power. The Federalist party was
annihilated by the Jefferson radicals.
The Wing party in turn was destroyed
by the Jackson radicals.
When the Democratic party be
came the protector of human slavery
the radical Republican party obtained
possession of the Government and kept
81 tu,s WlCE"o. yn4~N .EsnerN. great
from LOCO to 1872 was radical. Its
strength did not begin to decline until
1t had sacrificed its true principles to
accustodian of vested interests and
special privileges. When it was finally
beaten it was beaten by a radical.
The elections of 1896 and 1900 was
hailed as victories for conservative
principles. They were not. MI.
Bryan was defeated by his financial the
cries, which had nothing in common
with healthy radicalism.
In Roosevelt's case his tremendous
majority was due almost wholly to his
radical principles, which he had mani.
rested In his attitude toward corporat-
Ion abuses. And the greatest political
asset the Republican party has to, dav
is MI. Roosevelt's radical policies. In
The New York election there was no
contest between radicals and reaction
aries. Mr.. Hearst was not defeated
because he denounced corporation
abuses, and MI. Hughes was not elect
ed TO protect vested interests. He foo
was elected as a radical; he was elected
10 protect vested interes. He too was
elected to do the work Nj. Hearst
wished 10 90, because IA najolI,, be-
lleVed he would do il better.
L understand what Senator Foraker
means b, radical POI ulistic pronosit.
ions" IL IS necessary TO remember that
he was one Of the United States Ses.at-
ors who voted against the RaiE oad
Kate bill. If a majority of Congress-
had agreed with the Senator from Ohio
MI Hearst would be the next Govern
of OF New York. 1t was Mr.. Roose-
Velt's radical administration that saved
the Governorship of this State to Tho
Republicans.
folltlcans of the Foraker school are
likely to regard any interference with
privilege and organized wealth as ra-
p~rehenslble and Populistic. But if the
Ohlo senator thinks the pendulum is
swinging back toward corporation pow
eminent and tarlff-fattened mononolies
ne is greatly mistaken. And as for
MI. Bryan and Mr. Hearst. Senate,
Z ofaker should not forget that h
hlhu Oh conservative politics which
ne represents is the most profile brendan
OF Organism and Heartism.