Year: 1879

The humiliating position in which the
Democracy have been placed by the veto
has provoked, as Democratic humiliations
in times past have provoked, angry criticism
of the leaders of the party by the rank and
file. 1t is not violating confidence to say
that Democrats have long been dissatisfied
with their representative men and have fall
slight provocation.


The cursing is usually undeserved. The
leaders of the Democratic party are no
worse than the rank and file, if they are no
better. 1t is true that for many years the
party has not bred statesmen. The stock
seems to have run out. 1t has not even
brought forth shrewd politicians. And it
has got into the way of depending for lead
ership upon deserters from the Republicans.
But its prominent men are not to blame for
its wrong-headednes and peryersity. The
fault is with the party itself Naturally
enough it does not like to own that it has
been or is in the wrong and seeks to throw
the blame for its misfortunes upon the bad
management of its chiefs. There it is at
fault. The wrong is of its own doing.
Since 1850 it has been defying the better
sentiment, the philanthropy, the feeling OF
Justice and the sound and practical common
sense of the country 1t is only within the
last four or five years that it has won any
successes of consequence. And these sue
cesses are due to the hasty and absurd,
though perhaps charitable belief that it had
abandoned its old errors and forsaken the
paths of unrighteousness, and to that UNI
reasonable though not uncommon impa-
tience with good rule and discreet conduct
which once led the people of Athens to BAN
ish the most eminent and deserving of its
citizens because they were tired of hearing
him called ''the just" The country, absurdly
enough, became tired of government by the
best and sought the rule of the unworthy
for change and relaxation.


Evidently the country has had enough of
the experiment and is minded to return to
safe and well tried ways. The change
of sentiment is profound and widespread.
The people see that the Democratic profess
sions of repentance are insincere, that the
old Democrats hold to their heresies and
cling to their old practices, and that mis-
taking popular restlessness and aimless
discomfort for approval of their former
courses, they are taking up public affairs
where they dropped them nineteen years
ago, and are attempting to conduct the gov
ernment in submission to the mischievous
theory of State Rights, the supremacy OF the
States over the Nation.


This return to unsound theories and vi
cious practices has, naturally enough, alarmed
the people, and they listen with unconcealede
dissatisfaction to the advocacy of the heresy
of Calhounism made by Democratic repre-
sentatives on the floors of Congress. But it
is unjust for the Democracy to throw the
responsibility for this revulsion in popular
sentiment upon their leaders The leaders
have been forced to take the course they
have taken by the pressure from be-
low. The party has demanded of them
that they should do as they have done;
and the more violent the threats made
or the more revolutionary the measures pro-
posed the louder have been the expressions
of approval. The Democratic party has it
self to blame, not its leaders, if the element
which gave it temporary success has become
disgusted and terrified by its reactionary
course, and now seeks to take from it the
power it is so mischievously using. The
leaders have not led the way. They have
simply been pushed on.