Jasper County Democrat, Volume 3, Number 17, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 August 1900 — ROOSEVELT IS ROASTED. [ARTICLE]

ROOSEVELT IS ROASTED.

Willis J. Abbot Flays the Rough Rider Moat Unmercifully. If Democrats were well versed in the vocabulary of invective which Theodore Roosevelt habitually employs they might say of that noisy personage, with perfect justice, that he is a ranter, a quibbler, a charlatan, a demagogue and a liar. Unhappily, the Democratic partydoes not furnish an exact parallel to Talkative Teddy. Religion has his mate in the Rev. Sam Jones. Journalism boasted a true Rooseyelt In the late lamented Brann, of the Iconoclast. Among the middle-of-the-road Populists there’s a fellow named Jo Parker who has a really Rooaeveltlan way of calling all who disagree with him thieves, rogues and traitors. Incidentally it may be noted that the last-named person is a protege of Mark Hanna—a further point of resemblance to Roosevelt. Democracy, however, does not furnish his match. Even its most radical leaders—Altgeld, Tillman and the others whom in 1896 Governor Roosevelt said should be set up against a wall and shot dead—fall so far short of the Rooseveltian standard as to habitually prefer argument to Invective. This Inability to answer the Rough Rider In his own vernacular Is unfortunate. When a man calls a whole party—some 7,000,000 people—traitors, repudiators, copperheads and cowards, mere argument is unsatisfactory. The sober sense of the people must be relied upon to discern that a man so prodigal of hard words for his fellows must be exceedingly anxious to divert attention from bis own character and record. It is, perhaps, Roosevelt’s plan to shift the Issue from himself, his egomania, his surrender to boss rule, his charlatanry and bis Innate brutality to a discussion of the purposes and beliefs of his adversaries. Acting upon Nelson's maxim, “The best defense against an enemy’s fire Is a vigorous use of your own guns,” ho has opened Uu» engagement with a broadside of billingsgate. Nothing quite so repugnant to refined senses has been known since with progress in the art of war the Chinese abandoned the use of stink pots. Is he a charlatan? Read the accounts In his own Chicago organ of the way he uses a battered hat as a sort of theatrical property. Every five minutes he is “tossing his old campaign hat In a corner,” “hunting for his old campaign hat." “waving his old campaign hat," or in some other way making capital out of a relic of cheap and boastful “heroism.’* As yet he has not brandished the pistol with which he killed two Spaniards—bragging lustily aboat it afterwards in a book as no real soldier nor true gentleman ever could. Is he a liar? What of a man who opens a speech by declaring himself one who “has come not as a Republican to speak to Republicans, but as an American to speak to Americans,” and thereupon talks nearly two hours in a bitter attack upon all Democrats and Impassioned eulogy of all Republican politicians? What of a man who can say of the one organized body which Is striving for a world-wide pence, charity and amity, “Our opponents represent all the force* of discontent, malice and envy, formed and formless, vague and concrete?" Is he a demagogue? Read bls speech aad see if ever man put out a more

arrant piece of demagogy. It is shameful demagogy to say that against McKinley are arrayed “the forces of chaotic evil,” to describe honorable opponents as "pandering to the worst and most degraded elements in our national life,” as “willing to purchase party success at no matter what cost of ruin to the nation.” Is it short of demagogy to try to excite the jiassions rather than arouse the reason of your audience? Was there a single appeal to reason in the St. Paul speech ? Not one of a higher sort than this: “They (the Democrats) stand for lawlessness and disorder, for dishonesty nnd dishonor, for license and disaster at home, and cowardly shrinking from duty abroad.” Look about you. reader, and consider whether your Democratic neighbors merit this description. To just which Democratic public men, from William Jennings Bryan down, would you apply it? Roosevelt, with crazy self-as-surance. applies it 6 all. What does the Democratic platform declare the paramount issues of this campaign? Imperialism and militarism. How does Roosevelt meet this? “We cannot argue with them on this proposition because no serious man thinks for one moment that they believe what they assert.” That is an easy way out. If your opponent lays down a proposition which you cannot controvert, say you know he doesn’t mean it and clinch your argument by calling him a traitor or a copperhead. If thia doesn’t convince the nation there always remains the Rooseveltian argument of standing him up against a wall and having him shot. But enough! As some of the sentiments in the St. Paul speech are left over since ’96, ft will doubtless do duty all this campaign. Meantime, I recup to my original theorem, Why let Theodore Roosevelt, a “scholar in politics,” retain his long time monopoly of the use of billnlgsgate? Is ho the only man licensed to use hard words and still be petted by the “better classes?”—Willis J. Abbot, in Chicago American. German* Not Stare 1 by Silver. Although the campaign has hardly opened, it has airCady begun to pro duce some Interesting developments. The situation discloses one fact of Importance, which Is that our Jellow citizens of Teutonic birth are not to be scared or clubbed tjils year with silver. Tlieir lenders declare that the currency question Is too thoroughly settled for the next four years to make ft a present issue. On the other hand, they regard the carpetbag Imperialism of tho administration ami its ownership by and subserviency to the oppressive trusts as vital issues.—Washington Times. Democratic Brand ot Expansion. ’ The Democratic party has never been opposed to any measure of expansion that did not involve either a menace to their own liberties or a violation of the rights of other*, but so far no territory has been acquired with the consent of that party without being, incorporated as an integral part of the domain, dlregtly under the joint control of the throe co-ordinate branches of the Federal government, and nil the people of any region thus acquired have been recognized and treated at citizens of the United Bwtes.—New Or* leans Vlcayuu*. .