Year: 1876

The argus comes to the defence of the
action of the Connecticut Democrats in nom.
mating Mr.. Barnum, but it entirely misap-
prehends the ground of complaint. The OBJ
lection to Mr.. Barnum is, not that he has
money, but that he has nothing else. He is
not man of distinguished ability, he Is not
man of meritorious public service. he is not
man of broad and enlightened views. He
is merely a man who has become very
wealthy and who uses his wealth to buy Of
flee. he would never have been heard of in
politics had he not been millionaire. The
Connecticut Democracy would never have
sent him to Congress had he not contributed
thousands of dollars to their corruption fund.
1t is notorious that in the recent election he
spent money lavshly in all the close towns
that voters were bribed and heavy Demo
cratic majority thus obtained in the legisla-
ture.


Mr.. Barnum represents no principle which
the Democratic party processes to hold. He
is an out-spoken protectionist, and the argus
and other Democratic journals assure us that
free-trade is cardinal Democratic doctrine.
He is a corruptionist, and the Araus and
other Democratic journals assure us that
publication of politics and reform of official
abuses are among the objects for which the
Democracy is striving. He is a notorious
absentee from his seat in the House, and the
argus and other Democratic journals assure
us that strict attention to the discharge of
official duty is Democratic requirement.
He is illiterate and inexperienced in public
affairs, and the Argus and other Democratic
journals assure US that the Democratic partv
insists upon putting the government into the
hands OF statesmen of culture and long expe-
rience. And this man, so inattentiye to
public business that he does not make his an
pearance IN his seat once a month, so litter
ate that he cannot write letter without
blunders in grammar and orthography of
which school boy would be ashamed, is pre-
ferred by the Democrats of Connecticut to
men like Ingersoll and Hubbard, men un-
exceptionable on the score of partisanship,
men OF culture and wealth. 1t is not pre-
tended that Mr. Barnum is in brains the
equal OF these men; perhaps not in purse,
but he is taken up because he is willing to
give money to bribe voters and they are not,
because he is willing to abet corruption and
they are not. because he will contribute
thousands of dollars to campaign fund, and
they will not.


1t is not in point to adduce the elections of
Cameron and Jones and Spencer and Clay
ton. The first two Senators are men of great
mental power, one of whom has served in
the councils Of the nation for years, and they
were chosen to the Senate because they were
by the divine right Of brains, leaders of men,
and not merely because they were rich. For
the carpet bag Senators the Democracy is re.
sponsible. All the eminent men in the South
were guilty of treason, and Senators had to
De made of such poor timber as there was
lett. But whatever has happened in the
South and West, never in New England, un-
I'll this shameful act of the Connecticut Dem
ocrats, was a man chosen to Congress merely
because he was rich and was willing to spend
thousands of dollars to carry his District or
MS State. A party which deliberately passes
by its best men and takes up candidate SIM
ply because he will 'bleed freely" is not a
party to which tho peple can safely look for
The elevation of the public service.