Year: 1875

One of our Democratic contemporaries
has christened the party bearing that name
in this state in the year of grace, 1875, the
New Democracy" This implies the exist
ence of an ''Old Democracy which like the
bad cold man with his deeds, has been put
off," Evidently such Democrats as use the
term New Democracy have come to the con-
clusion that the old man Democracy is too
disreputable an individual to carry any long
er. Now that they admit by this change of
name that the Democracy which existed
prior to 1875 was a very bad lot, we will not
spare any time in reminding our readers of
its sins. But how is it about the new man
Democracy-is there any evidence that he
has been renewed? We admit that he talks
better in his articles of faith because there
is quite difference between declaration to
the effect that this is "whte mans govern
ment" and one setting forth belief in equal
and exact justice to all men irrespective of
color. There is quite difference, too,
between the endorsement of Pendleton's
scheme in 1868 for the payment of the nation
al debt in greenbacks, and that of 1875 (fn
Maine not Ohio) declaring against the infla.
ton which the former scheme implied. The
so called New Democracy has been taught by
repeated defeats that it cannot openly preach
the heresies which the party has so tena-
ciously defended the past fifteen years unless
they desire continuance of these defeats.
No one supposes that the leaders desire de-
feat, for if there is one thing for which the
average Democratic leader will give up all
else, it is an Office.


Now what about the "New Democracy?"
Does it bring forth fruits meet for repent
ance? Has the party dropped its wicked
practices? Have the bad men who have led
it into its past folly, disgrace and dishonor.
been discarded? These certainly are peril
nent enquiries. Let us proceed to canvass
the practice of this 'snew man" Democracy
the present year. If he is better person
than during the past decade we shall be
most happy to proclaim the fact.


First we find that Marcellus Emery and
Eben F. Pillsbury are the acknowledged Off
cial managers of the party-the one as chair
man of the State Committee and the other as
leading manager on the special Executive
Committee. We also find DR.. Jordan, fabri-
cator-in-chief of campaign documents. Now
we do not say that these three political prof
ligates are beyond the reach of political re-
generation. Still we have not held the belief
that the present is the age of miracles.
We can only express the apprehension that
the permanent conversion of this trio to po-
litical decency would nearly exhaust the stock
of political salvation. But there is no danger.
These men are not changed. Calumny. abuse
and Misrepresentation are still their only po-
litical weapons. During the war and the re-
construction period, they welded them more
potently than now, but at no time have they
so recklessly slandered and so foolshly mis-
represented as at the present time.


In the next place, has the party generally
dropped its bad practices? We can only
judge in this state from the average tone of
the party papers. Have they been more
truthful, fair and any the less abusive than
in years past? Let us see. DIR. Jordan pre-
pared a baseless falsehood about the Agricul-
tural College land sale, charging that leading
Republicans had combined to purchase it at
a low price, thus robbing the state of more
than million dollars. All of the Demo-
cratic papers that we have seen, except the
Machias Union, repeated this story, regard
less of the fact that DR.. Jordan is utterly
without character and utterly unworthy of
public confidence More than this; when
the utter baseness and falsity of DR.. Jordan's
story had been made as clear as the day by
the publication OF every official fact, with the
names of the bidders and the prices affixed,
these papers refused to give the proper ex-
PLANTATION, but on the other hand published
Jordan's reiteration of the story. Nothing
could be more false than was this story, and
nothing more malicious In partisan jour-
nalism than to reiterate the base lie when IL
was disproved. The party nominated Gen.
Roberts as ''patriot soldier.'' The record
of that gentleman was fairly examined by bis


political opponents in an entirely courteous
| manner. Instead of attemptings to refute
the statements, the Democratic press set it.
self to stating in the most violent terms that