Year: 1870

being united on important questions OF public
policy. In fact there are two well defined
parties and several little factions or rings
under the same political organization making
war upon one another. Even the administra-
ton OF General Grant, which all combined to
bring into power and which has held the reins
OF government less than year, fails TO unite
or control the party. While there is desire
to hold the party together and to make the ad-
ministration the bond Of union there are really
no cohesion and no general principles of public
policy upon which the factions and cliques can
unite. This is seen on the very important
questionable greatest political question
Of the day--the restoration of tho
Southern States. The debate and votes
in both houses of Congress on the
question of restoring Virginia show
that the prominent leaders as well
as the republican members generally
are widely divided. There is fierce struggle
between those who advocate q moderate and
conservative policy who would admit Virginia
as she presents herself for admission, and who
wish to see reconstruction promptly COM
pleted-and those who are for imposing more
disabilities and restrictions upon the Southern
States. 1t is fight between the extreme radi-
Gals, of which Sumner in the Senate and
Butler in the House are leaders, and the con-
servative republicans. This difference is exag-
gerated, too, no doubt, by the personal rivalry
and feeling of leading members. The admins
tration is with the conservatives on the question
of restoring Virginia and the other Southern
States. In fact the President proclaimed this
policy in his message to Congress, and thus
laid it down as the platform of the party. Yet
we see the radical division of the party ignor-
ing the views or wish Of the President, and
showing strength in Congress which the ad-
ministration and conservative republicans COM
bined may find it hard to overcome.


Then, again, we see one of the most prom-
nent republicans in Congress, aud the chair
man of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr..
Dawes, attacking the administration for its
extravaganza and for breaking its promises to
to the country in the matter of economy. His
speech in the House on Tuesday on this sub
ject was most damaging. He was fearless
enough to say the truth, however much it
might hurt the administration or the party to
which he belongs. He denounced all the
members of the Cabinet for violating pledges
to the people and for reckless extravaganza,
except Attorney General Hoar. This excep-
ton of Mr. Hoar, however, amounts to
nothing, as the Attorney Generals Office has
little to do with the expenditure Of the public
money, and does not require much to carry on
its operations. Mr.. Dawes paid particular
attention to the large and reckless estimates
Of the Secretary Of the Navy and of the Post
master General, and his censures were well
sustained by figures. The book of estimates, he
said, for the next fiscal year contained appro-
priati0ns for public works of 1924, ,625, l73,
against appropriations for the same objects
last year of So, 493. 900. He showed that the
republican party had come into power by its
assaults upon the profigate expenditures Of
Andrew Johns0n's administration and upon
its professions of reform and economy;
yet, he said, the estimate to carry
on the government for the next year
was an increase of $2S, 200 over the
amount required by Andrew johnson. and
of $49, 628, 537 over the amount appropriated
for the present year. All this shows that the
professions Of economy by the republican party
in Congress and republican administration
were insincere, and were only used as political
capital to get the votes Of credulous and
victimized public.


I. Looking at the division in the dominant
party ON vital questions of public policy, at its
violated promises and shortcomings, at its
reckless extravaganza, at its want Of defined
principles in the management Of public affairs
and at its Indifference with regard to support
ing the administration it has chosen, we are
naturally led to inquire what prospect there is
for perpetuating its power, and what chance
there may be for the opposition party. There
was positive issue on the slavery question.
the one, in fact, which brought the republicans
into pOwer-as there was, too, in the prosecu-
ton Of the war; but neither exists any longer
The republicans, however, have used the
slavery agitation and the war for political
capital long after the questions were settled
and until they are worn out. The
people are tired Of them, and look for other
questions or issues that bear upon the present
and future. In this respect the dominant
party does not meet the wants and expecta-
tions of the country; for, as was said, it has
no positive policy, no platform Of principles,
and no unity or cohesveness beyond that
which the spoils of Office give. Who, then, Is
to govern this great country? What party can
take the place of the one in power? Are we
to drift along in this negative way without
principles and statesmen, or shall We have
party with defined policy, that will represent
the sentiment of the country and the living
issues Of the day!


The democrats have good prospect before
them if they know how to use their 0pportl-
nity-if they will leave the dead past and take