Newspaper Page Text
PAGE TWO
I Public Opinion Throughout the Union
BELLIGERENT BISHOPS.
Have not the bishop of London
and other occupants o fthe Episco
pal bench ({forgotten their Prayer
Book? Notwithstanding the promise
made on behalf of the Church of
England by the Archbishop of Can
terbury to the effect that he would
facilitate the smooth working of the
deceased wife’s sister bill if it be
came law, Dr. Ingram and other
bishops have forbidden their clergy
to officiate at any such marriage as
the new law authorizes.
These rebellious prelates should
look up their catechism, and espe
cially that section which defines a
man’s duty to his neighbor. 'One
part of that definition runs: “To
honor and obey the king, and all
that are put in authority under him. ’ ’
Now, King Edward has given his as
sent to the new marriage bill and
has accorded it his special approval,
and if the bishops are not willing to
obey the law their only course is
Jto tear up their Prayer Book or
resign. The situation must be afford
ing a large amount of malicious de
light to the Non-conformists of Great
Britain, for they could hardly have
anticipated the companionship of
Episcopal bishops in their campaign
of ‘‘ passive resistance. ’ ’ —Bost on
Herald.
WICKHAM’S DEFEAT.
For months The Journal has been
urging the voters of this state to de
feat every candidate for a seat in the
next General Assembly who occupies
the position of counsel of any rail
road. We have given unanswerable
reasons why this should be done. The
least of these is the equivocal posi
tion of the attorney himself; the
greatest is the utter impossibility of
serving two masters. This implied
no reflection upon the integrity of
the attorney. It imputed, to him no
conscious wrong-doing. It simply de
nied him miraculous powers; the ca
pacity to be in two places at one and
the same time. He could not be in
the place, -which ought to be occupied
by ! a faithful counsel, of whole
hearted devotion to the interests of
his clients, and at the same time work
with an eye single to the welfare
of his constituents. When the time
came, as ccme it must, that the in
terests of client and constituent met
in head-on collision, the corporation
counsel must be in a position of
great embarrassment and tom by
conflicting views. It is sheer non
sense, if not arrant hypocrisy, to pre
tend to unbiased fair-mindedness
when vital questions balance between
the good of the railroads and the pub
lic good, when in one pocket is a
huge salary and in the other merely
a mandate from the voter. The man
was never created with so judicial
a temperament and so oblivious of
the side of the slice the butter was
on, to whom with restful, implicit
confidence the people could look under
such circumstances. It is not in hu
man nature.
The fight of the future is for su
premacy between the railroads and
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
their cognate influences and the rule
of the people. So titanic are the
powers of the former that while the
ultimate issue is sure, the struggle
will be severe and long contested.
Strange as it may appear, it will
take the whole force of government,
exerted through years,.to show those
who now dominate the country, that
it was not for their behoof and glory
and fattening the fathers established
this republic. They shall have the
lesson driven into their heads that
the taxing power of traffic rates,
which can levy a toll upon everything
a man and his family use, and hence
regulate that man’s life, is no longer
a sovereign prerogative of a handful
of Wall Street tyrants.
This is the way the people of Vir
ginia are now thinking. This is the
way the people of the Thirty-second
Senatorial District thought last week
when they defeated for re-nomination
Hon. Henry T. Wickham. Seldom
in the history of politics has there
been set before a people a question
of principle more clearly defined
and divested of diverting and entang
ling accessories. With nothing against
the ability or integrity of either
Wickham or Gravatt, with everything
in favor of the former, so far as ex
perience in public affairs goes, he
went down to defeat because the
people were determined to speak with
no uncertain sound upon the question,
the burning question of railroad dom
ination.
It is needless to add the congrat
ulations of The Journal to the sturdy
voters of the Thirty-second Senato
rial District of Virginia. They de
serve, and will receive, the applause
of the entire state. —Richmond Jour
nal.
SHALL PARTY OR PRINCIPLE
RULE?
In this section of the country there
is in politics no more picturesque and
interesting figure than Tom Watson.
When Hoke {Smith was elected Gov
ernor of Georgia it was said that
Tom Watson elected him. In Missis
sippi Tom Watson supported Vai da
man for the senate against John
Sharpe Williams. Williams won,
though the contest was sharp. The
power of Watson is admitted by Wil
liams, who claims that between fifteen
and twenty thousand votes in Missis
sippi were directly influenced by
Watson against him in favor of Var
daman. Though Watson is the best
Democrat of them all, there is a dis
tinct inclination among editors and
other public men to sneer at Watson.
The correctness of the principles he
stands for is not confessed, his in
fluence is discounted and he is be
littled at every turn, but all of this
fails to fease the Georgia Cracker,
and when it comes to a show-down he
doesn’t fail to demonstrate that liv
ing principles are more lasting than
hollow misrepresentations.
The cheap references made to Wat
son by demagogic detractors lay to
him the charge of attempting to
wreck the Democratic party. That
such appeals have weight cannot be
doubted, because they catch the dem
agogue, the shallow pate and rattle
brain. It would be interesting to
know in what way the Democratic
party could be wrecked by Tom Wat
son. Watson doesn’t care for the
name, perhaps. And the name is all
that holds the band together. Peo
ple are Democrats without knowing
why or for what..
If any one sticks his head up as
opposing the organization he gets it
thumped because he isn’t pleased
with the organization. It doesn’t
make any difference if he is advo
cating and fighting for better things
than the organization stands for; it
is lese majeste to speak out in meet
ing or to withdraw from the com
munion with the saints in theft in
sensate time-serving.
These are revolutionary times. Men
engaged in the habit of thinking are
beginning to see the folly of staying
in the nominally Democratic camp,
whether the organization be right or
wrong, whether it be pledged to right
eous principles or sold to selfish ends
of leaders.
Henry Watterson, the veteran ob
server of Kentucky, has recently de
clared, “I do not dare say that party
government is a failure, but I do say
that party government, claiming to
be the representative of public opin
ion, is a humbug. It is a mischiev
ous humbug.”
“What are we to think?” asks the
Atlanta Constitution, “when such ex
pressions come from such an ancient
and arch Democrat?”
Whatever may be the result of the
operation it is time to think. The
comment of the Constitution is not in
line with Mr. Watterson’s declara
tion, but continues interestingly as
follows: •
“In other words, according to Mi.
Watterson’s view, party government
no longer represents the people, nor
have the people any longer any party
government. What is it, then? It
is an .assumption of the reins by all
the people, regardless cf party lines,
of party principles and party plat
forms.
“Let’s look for a moment over in
Mississippi. Following the Senatorial
primary we find the successful candi
date, John Sharp Williams, charge
ing that Vardaman was in league with
the former antagonists of organized
Democracy in the state, and admon
ishing the people that the closeness
us the contest indicated that the old
line Democracy had better look out,
or ‘the goblins would get it.’ At
Yazoo City, following his nomination,
Mr. Williams said he first looked up
on the contest as a friendly competi
tion between two Democrats, but ‘I
soon began to be undeceived and to
discover that there was an effort be
ing made by my competitor to play
to the Populists.’
“Continuing, Mr. Williams said:
“ ‘This was shown by his introduc
tion of Tom Watson as a man “easier
to criticize than to answer.” I did
not hear his introduction, but I have
been told that was substantially the
language of it. This was followed
by a letter of eulogy to Watson,
which was published by Watson in
his magazine, and then by words of
euloey written concerning my com
petitor by Watson.
“ ‘The intent of all this was ob
vious, but I continued to hope until
after the primary that it would fail
of results, believing that the men who
had come back to the Democratic par
ty to participate in its party election
had come in good faith, and would
decline 1o be led by Tom Watson,
the leader of the national Populists,
or the leader of any other party.
The result, however, showed that I
was mistaken. My competitor re
ceived the fifteen or twenty thousand
Populist votes of this state almost en
masse. They took theft marching or
ders from Thomas Watson.
“ ‘There is one great benefit that
has been attained by this lesson taught
by the late primary. The plan of
Tom- Watson and his adherents to
capture the Democratic organization
in this state by holding the balance
of power between Democrats came
so very near being successful that the
plan itself has been exposed and the
eyes of Democrats vho love their
party have been opened. They will
not be caught napping again.’
“Yet, further on, there is just a
suspicion of doubt in what he says:
“ ‘Yet here are fifteen or twenty
thousand men participating in a Dem
ocratic primary in the state of Mis
sissippi who receive and acknowledge
marching orders from Tom Watson.
What are they going to do when the
presidential election comes and Mr.
Bryan is nominated by the Democrats
and Mr. Watson by the Populists?
From whom are they going to take
their marching orders then?’ ”
Tallahassee Sun.
WHY TAFT IS THE ADMINIS
TRATION CANDIDATE.
Since Secretary Taft has been talk
ing it is apparent why he has been
selected by the present government
to become the government that is to
be.
If Mr. Taft has any original ideas
or sentiments he keeps them careful
ly to himself. His speeches all say
in effect:
“If you like what I say, reserve
your applause. I’m only the hum
ble phonograph which delivers to you
the Great Voice. If you want me
for president, you won’t get me; you
will get the owner of the Voice, of
which 1 am the meek and lowly
echo.”
A candidate for the highest office
in the land who will thus bemean
himself is not the sort of candidate
that the people want.
The president of the United States
ought to represent the people, not
any individual; and an aspirant for
that office must make his canvass as
a man, and not as a phonograph.
If Taft is willing to be Mr. Roose
velt ’s man before the people, he would
never be his own man or the people’s
man in the White House.—>N. Y.
American.