Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 35, Number 80, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 June 1903 — POLITICAL COMMENT [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

POLITICAL COMMENT

As to Democratic Harmony. The Democratic brethren are having a hard time getting together and reorganizing the party. They are all in favor of harmony, but they cannot agree on terms. They all want the lion and the lamb to lie down together, but whether it shall be side by side or the lamb inside of the lion—there’s the rub. The latest promulgation on the subject is in the shape of a letter from Richard L. Metcalfe, editor of Mr. Bryan’s old newspaper, the Omaha World-Herald, and a close friend of Mr. Bryan, to Norman E. Mack, editor of the Buffalo Times. A recent issue of the Times contained an editorial in which it was argued that it would be suicidal for the Democratic party' to make a nomination that would Invite the hostility of either Mr. Cleveland or Mr. Bryan and their followers, and that the friends of both should eliminate their individual preferences and join hands for the good of the party. To this Editor Metcalfe replies that it is all right to ask Democrats to eliminate individual preferences as to candidates, but he wants to know what is to become of the Kansas City platform and whether, in order not to incur the hostility of Mr. Cleveland and his followers, the party must nominate some man who did not support the ticket in 1896 or in 1900. Here are some of the bristling questions he puts: \V hat would you have Democrats do in the construction of their platform in order to avoid incurring the hostility, of Mr. Cleveland and his followers? How many of the principles and the policies in which we believe must we surrender in order to avoid incurring the hostility of Mr. Cleveland and his followers? Do you think that a Democratic platform that failed to make explicit refer-

enee to the money question could comm.iud the respect either of bimetallists or of single gold standard advocates? Shall the Democrats abandon their position on the Philippine question, wherein they promised not to make the Filipinos either Citizens or subjects and favored a declaration of the nation’s purpose to give these people, first, a stable form of government; recoud, independence, and, third, protection from outside interference? What change would you make in the Democratic platform with respect to trusts? What alteration would you make in Hie plank relating to national buuk currency? Would you declare in favor of the income tax? The question, then, is how many of their! principles must Democrats surrender, permanently or temporarily, in order to avert incurring the hostility of men who during two presidential campaigns deserted the party with which they claimed allegiance and gave open and boastful aid to the enemy? On the day after these questions were sent Editor Metcalfe published an editorial serving notice that if the so-called reorganizers in the Democratic party obtain control the Bryan wing will support Mr. Roosevelt in the next campaign. This editorial is ltelleved to have had Mr. Bryan’s approval and to contain his ultimatum. As Mr. Roosevelt bates Bryanlsm anil all the heresies of the Kansas City platform even more Intensely than Mr. Cleveland does, the threat of the Rvyautles to support him in case they are compelled to choose between him and a Democrat of the Cleveland wlug shows that the probability of getting the two wings to “flop together” is very remote. It Is expected that before replying to Editor Metcalfe's letter Editor Mack will consult with the Cleveland lenders In New York and tlmt his reply will contain their ultimatum. Meanwhile the Brooklyn Eagle, which Is booming Mr. Cleveland every day, affects to sympathize with Mr. Roosevelt on the alarming prospect of his • receiving the support of the Bryanltes next year. It says the main body of Bryan’s followers In 1800 and 1900 would not get any further away from the true Democratic principles If they support Mr. Roosevelt in 1904 than they did in 1890 and In IQOO. The Eagle adds: nr* not entirely certain that the present friends of Mr. Roosevelt will relish the hies of these re-enforcements, but that is thetr concern and their ctse. A min was once told that milk punches and lobster salads, which he wee together taking in large quantities, would not agree with one another. His reply j&m.-uK. * m

was: “That is none of my business. I have brought them together, and if they cannot get along with one another they will have to take the consequences.” If the discussion in'favor of the return of the Democratic party to Democratic principles and to Democratic leadership should have the effect of bringing the Republicanism of Roosevelt and the Populism of Mr. Bryan together in 1904, or at any other time, the question of their ability to "getaTong wiffioheanother would be their concern atid the concern of—or at least the solicitude—of no others. The New York World is even more outspoken. It tells Editor Metcalfe that a reorganized party and harmony can only be reached by an abandonment of Bryanlsm and a return to Democracy. It says: To secure harmony it is only necessary to remove the cause of discord. The Democratic party was united and victorious when its platforms and candidates were Democratic. Dissension, division and defeat came when Democracy was abandoned for something else. What the organizers of suicide and the architects of ruin in 1896 and 1900 must give up, if they wish the Democratic party to become again united and trusted, are the Populistic and free silver Republican doctrines which they incorporated in the Chicago platform. And if they are not prepared to abnndon these fatally unDemocratic doctrines they will certainly find the party in a mood next year to pitch the heresies overboard with as little compunction as sailors feel in casting a corpse into the sea. A party with that kind of a Kilkenny cat fight going on “in its midst” is not likely to prove a dangerous political antagonist in 1904. jy.„ .' - Montana Would Suffer. The people of Montana are interested in the question. They have experienced the benefits of protection and have seen nothing to convince them

that the trusts are so dangerous and damaging as to demand that the protective policy should l»e interfered with upon the excuse that the abolition of duties would destroy, trusts. As to reciprocity, among the treaties hung up In the Sennte is one' with the Argentine Republic, opening t>ur markets for Argentine wool and hides in return for opening the markets of that country to the manufactures of the United States. This would mean ruin for the wool and cattle growers of the West in return for something to be gained by the Eastern manufacturers. Fortunately, the people of Montana and the West can depend upon a Republican Congress to protect their interests and to consent to no changes in the tariff that would tend to make larger prosperity for one class at the expense of other classes of Americans.—Helena (Mont.) Record. Tariff Making bjr Treaty. Tariff making by treaty Is not only apparently a violation of the constitution, and certainly of its evident intent that the House of Representatives shall initiate all revenue measures, but destructive of the theory of fair piny and equal opportunity to all citizens, which has been held to be the crowning glory of America, as It must be the foundation of nil popular jjpvernmeut. When a tariff measure Is discussed lu the House it is discussed in the open and every Igterest has an opportunity to be heard. When It Is arranged In the secret cabinets of crafty diplomatists, the most deserving of Industries may lie condemned unheard. It Is monstrous, and, one would suppose, unthinkable by the honored representatives of a freedom-loving people. Still more, every reciprocity treaty is nn “entangling alliance’’, inevitably Involving more entangling alliances to untangle the first. American traditions and American Interests Imperatively demand that we maintain the American attitude of absolutely impartial trading with ail the nations of the world.—San Francasco Chronicle. 1