Year: 1878

The point upOn which the two parties are
most definitely at odds seems to be with regard
to the disposition of what is described, Ill the
rhetoric of platforms and stump speeches, as
"Thc Past" We have for years accepted the
great truth proclaimed by Mr.. Webster that
''the past at least is secure" 1t is not now
disputed by either party. But there is wide
difference as TO what to do with it what use
to put it to III present politics. One party
seems exceedingly anxious to bury it out Of
sight, and the other equally anxious TO have 1t
held up to the public gaze constantly, to be
pointed at with pride. few years ago, when
a Republican Administration was doing
some mighty queer things in one way
and another, and giving great dis5atis-
faction to the people by its management OF
public affairs, the thing that conventions did
with the most persistcncy, and party organs
and orators gave themselves to most devOtedly,
was pointing to the past with pride. The
whole party seemed to be standing with face
avert and n far-away look, in rapt admiration
of what it had already accomplished, to the
total neglect of present issues and responsible
tiles. They pointed to the past with so much
pride and kept at it so constantly, that lHE
TRIBUNE felt constrained to eXpOstulate. 1t
grew to be ridiculOusly, almost painfully mo-
notonous. Through constant repetition the
party itself finally wearicd of it, and now for
two or three years we have scarcely heard the
phrase in platforms or stump speeches.


In place of it another party-the Democracy
has set another phrase going which they
promise to make as common and even more
ludicrous. They too have Past But not one
Al ,,CirtiDe, at wit nI1Hp hv
means. Anything but that. What they want
is to have their Past buried Yesterday is
about as far back rs they care to see, and they
don't sit up nights to point that far with
pride; they jerk their thumbs over their
shoulders when historical illusions are made,
and say, LET bygOnes be bygones" The con-
trast in the treatment Of the past by the two
parties Is very marked Formerly, when
some such Republican say as Mr. But
Ter was defending delinquent or over
reaching officials, or carrying through
some speculative measure or questionable
scheme. he disarmed opposition and
secured sympathy and support by re-
calling the events of history, and pointing to
the past with pride. Nowadays when Mr.
Cox. or some other Democrat leads up a no.


BILE band of patriots to be put on the pay


rolls of the Doorkecpcrs or some other de-


partmcnt, and the question Is casually asked /:


''By the way where were these men during


" the war p the Democratic member answers
briskly: ooh, never mind that. We have


"buried the past. Let bygOnes be bygOnes."
And these gentlemen are as constant and as
earnest in their cxhOrtatiOns to bury the past
AS ever the other people were in pointing at


il with pride. Here, then, is one point upon


which the two parties are definitely and de-


cidedly at odds what to do with the past.


We submit that it may rs well be treated as


history. There's something to be done besides


pointing at it with pride; and it may as well


be confessed that it can't be buried. No Re-


publican can turn public attention from his


present misdoing by pointing to his previous
record, and no Democrat, Northern or South


ern, engaged now in advancing in the forum


the cause lost in the field, can blind the pub


lie to his real purpose by considering the past


buried and forbdding all reference to it.