The Democrats of Massachusetts are perplexed in regard to the choice of
a candidate for gubernatorial honors. In their dilemma they seem
indisposed to heed the counsel of the venerable Dutchman who, on a
certain critical occasion, asserted that it was not wise to "swap horses
while crossing a stream."
It so happens that in this present year the Democratic party throughout
the country is crossing a stream, a deep and muddy one which divides its
former prestige from its future hopes and prospects. The wise and
foolish members of the party are at loggerheads. Both have taken into
their confidence an anomalous contingent which is neither in sympathy,
nor even in alliance with them as regards principles. The Mugwumps, so
called, whose only recommendation in politics is, that they have a
well-filled purse and know how to use it to bolster up what they are
pleased to designate as _their_ "independence," after having
bitterly opposed the Democratic party, in season and out of season, now
join hands with their deluded brethren for a grand all hands round. By
their help a President of the United States has been elected, by their
dictation his policy has been mapped out, and by their threatening
attitude the entire administration is controlled. A similar condition of
affairs was never before known in the history of American politics.
Now, the Independent Republican will always be a Republican in
principles. The same honest motives which impelled him to oppose the
chosen candidates of a majority of the Republican party, at the last
national canvass, will again and always prompt him to oppose a
Simon-pure Democrat of the Democrats. So long as he can have his own
way, he will deny an equal right to his political neighbor. One thing is
very evident, and that is, in Massachusetts the Independents are bound
to rule so long as the Democratic party will continue to let them; and
that the administration encourages this state of affairs is alike
evident to all careful observers. It would be easy to make some very
interesting disclosures on this theme, and it is not improbable that
they will be made very shortly.
But we began by asserting that the party in the old Bay State is in a
quandary. It has reached a point when one of two alternatives must be
chosen,--either to force an issue with its allies, as well as with its
Republican opponents, by nominating a downright, old-fashioned Democrat
for the governorship; or, acquiescing with the wishes of its allies, to
attempt a quasi victory over its opponents. In the former case defeat
would be honorable, though defeat is by no means a foregone conclusion;
in the latter case a victory is probable which would be worse than a
defeat for the Democrats. We may not presume to give any advice in this
matter; and yet it would seem that some well-intentioned and honest
advice is needed. If there is to-day a true-blue, a frank and out-spoken
Democratic newspaper in the city of Boston, we do not know its name. Our
esteemed contemporaries of so-called Democratic persuasion, in this
cultured city, are either bridled by the administration or are timid in
expressing their convictions. Why has it never occurred to any one of
them to urge the selection of a candidate that has _not_ allied
himself with the new gods in Israel,--a stanch, dyed-in-the-wool,
old-fashioned Jackson Democrat, such for example as the HONORABLE
CHARLES LEVI WOODBURY? He has always been an ornament to his party, wise
and prudent in his counsels, broad in his scholarship and still broader
in his views, untrammelled in his profession of honest principles, and
true to the faith. He was never known to wander after strange gods: he
has never paraded before the eyes of the public, clad in a Joseph's coat
of many colors; he has never sought the emolument or the honor of public
office, and yet, if we are not greatly mistaken, his scrupulous fidelity
to party principles, his unswerving integrity, and the confidence which
men of all parties repose in him, have merited for him as high an honor
as lies within the gift of the people. There are but few such men in
Massachusetts, and their worth is only comprehended when they are
compared with that of the aristocratic dudes whom President Cleveland
has thus far smiled upon in this state.
The Massachusetts Democrats have this year a grand opportunity to assert
their independence, and to set a wholesome example to the party in other
states. They can do no safer, wiser, or more honorable thing than to
nominate Judge Woodbury, a Democrat of Democrats, as their
standard bearer.
The Boston _Evening Record_ is a sample of daily journalism that is
getting to be rather common nowadays. Like many other of its
contemporaries, it seems to be impressed with the idea that the province
of a newspaper is to _coin_ facts rather than to chronicle them;
and that editorial ability consists in getting away from the truth as
far as possible.
In a recent issue, it comments on General Butler's article in
the _North American Review,_ and more particularly upon the reason
why the General did not desire the Republican nomination for the Vice
Presidency in 1864, expressed by him as follows:--
Being made to sit as presiding officer over the senate, to listen for
four years to debates more or less stupid, in which I can take no part
or say a word, nor even be allowed a vote upon any subject which
concerns the welfare of the country, except when my enemies might think
my vote would injure me in the estimation of the people, and therefore,
by some parliamentary trick, make a tie on such question, so I should be
compelled to vote; and then, at the end of four years (as nowadays no
Vice President is ever elected President), and because of the dignity of
the position I had held, not to be permitted to go on with my
profession, and therefore with nothing left for me to do save to
ornament my lot in the cemetery tastefully, and get into it gracefully
and respectably, as a Vice President should do.
The _Record_ asserts that, "this is about as near the truth as
Butler ever gets," and then goes on to make some additional statements
which, to say the least, are exceedingly interesting, and _proofs_
of which the Editor's Table respectfully requests.
The _Record_ says; "It is true that his (Butler's) name was
proposed for the nomination for Vice President in 1864."
Upon whose authority does this assertion rest, and _by whom_ was
General Butler's name thus proposed?
The _Record_ says:--"It is also true that he (Butler) heard of it,
and objected to the plan not for the reasons he now gives, but because
he '_didn't want to run on the ticket with Abe Lincoln.'"_
Intensely interesting this, an important fact it would seem for the
future historian. But,--will the _Record_ please quote its
authority?
The _Record_ says:--"That this was the ground for his (Butler's)
refusal to take the nomination, in case it should be offered to him, was
well known to those who were informed of the exact state of affairs at
the time."
The historian is still incredulous. All this "was well known to those
who were informed," etc.,--undoubtedly, but _who_ were these
persons? Will the _Record_ cite the name of one _living_ man
thus informed? Did General George A. Gordon know anything about it: and
if not, why not?
The _Record_ says:--"Butler, in the last days of the war, uttered
an insult to the President who was shortly to be made a martyr."
Well, this is really a serious charge, and the public certainly will be
interested in knowing what the "insult" was. Will the _Record_
kindly explain? For the present, the subject may rest here. In the name
of truth and justice, however, the Editor's Table humbly requests that
the _Evening Record_ will enlighten its contemporaries.
* * * * *
The Republican newspapers have all been pleased to remark that
President Cleveland has done a very decent thing by refusing to
appoint as post-master at Mr. Blaine's home, in Augusta, the
Democratic editor, who "was virulently active in publishing particularly
unclean falsehoods concerning the Republican candidate last fall." Mr.
Blaine had a perfect right to object, and he exercised the right, to the
appointment of Morton; and likewise, the President had a perfect right
not to heed the objection,--a right, however, which he did not exercise.
The action of the President therefore commends itself to the
right-thinking men of all parties.
So far as the Editor's Table can remember, this is the first opportunity
that the Republican newspapers have improved to say anything good of
President Cleveland, who, it is not forgotten, was a target for
as virulent and uncalled for abuse as was ever heaped upon any known
American citizen. Magnanimity is always in order even in politics.
* * * * *
Civil Service Reform seems to-day to be the mare of the Mugwumps and the
nightmare of everybody else. The eloquence or, if you please, the waste
of words which the minority employ in advocating its deceptive
principles, is only to be contrasted with the almost ludicrous
indifference with which both Republican and Democratic majorities regard
it. Thoughtful people are, at this time, more concerned with the
prospective treatment of the tariff problem.
Now, it is neither our purpose nor desire to add to the literature of
discussion, on this important theme; but one thought which occurs to us
may here be submitted in the form of a question. People who talk much on
tariff topics are supposed to be interested in the same, and to have
some reason, good, bad, or indifferent, for advancing their diverse
arguments.
To all such, the inquiry may be addressed:--Are you sure that you
believe in a "protective" tariff because you think it is a _public_
benefit, or because you think it is a private benefit?
And again:--Does "protective" tariff protect? If it does,--whom?
Last autumn, the cry arose throughout the land that free trade meant the
destruction of home labor, and the "introduction of the pauper labor of
Europe," or at least a competition at home with the pauper labor of
Europe. Well, some very dismal pictures have been drawn of the condition
of the pauper labor of Europe, and when thinking of them, it must be
confessed that one does not like to run any risks.
But suppose that we widen the thought a little. At this very moment, the
iron monopoly of this country is raising a fund to head off a tariff
revision, or to bring about an increased duty. What can be said of the
Iron Monopoly? This, as one fact; that in Pennsylvania, it employs
miners at _fourteen_ dollars a month, charges them _five_
dollars a month each for a tenement in which to live, and charges them
exorbitant prices for the food and provisions which, in spite of a law
prohibiting the system, _must_ be purchased at the Monopoly's
stores. At the end of the month, many of these miners have not only
consumed every dollar of their wages but are actually in debt. It is
stated, further, as an incontestable fact that, "a miner who objects to
the amount of work or wages given to him gets no more of either, for he
is at once dropped from the rolls, and his name is sent to the
neighboring mines as that of a man unlit for employment." These people
subsist--miraculously--on scanty and unwholesome food, and frequently
are subjected to the greatest hardships.
We assert that this is no fanciful picture. It is the absolute truth,
with the worst untold. Monopoly is fond of calling these pitiable men
"Molly Maguires,"--"a dangerous class that must be carefully watched!"
These men are _protected_, and their industry and their entire
living afford a charming picture of the results of the "protective"
system, so far as the Iron Monopoly is concerned. With such facts as
these to ponder over, and with the additional knowledge that there is
not a single person today employed in a cotton or woolen mill in the
United States who is not taxed _in the name of protection_, to
enrich the corporation for whom he labors, it seems almost inexplicable
that _honest_ men should neglect one of the greatest and, as God
knows, one of the most threatening problems of this age and country, and
waste words and precious moments over that most arrant humbug--Civil
Service Reform. The People are more important than the Government: for
to-day the Government is the politicians.
* * * * *