"Harmony Or Assured Defeat."

As the time approaches nearer for another presidential campaign it finds the democratic party in anything but a proper fighting condition. One element of the party which believes in the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the alleged God-given ratio of 16 to 1, considers its components as the only simon-pure democrats and holds that those who do non admit this fact should be read out of the party. There are other elements which believe there is more to democracy than any single issue and hold that they are good democrats though they do not admit the divine origin of 16 to 1. They believe there are other issues and that silver should not be the paramount plank of the platform or the standard for determining a voter's democracy. They believe the party should get together on those cardinal principles of democracy on which there is general unanimity. To this end the following editorial from the Chicago Chronicle, under the above caption, is in point. The Chronicle says:

"If William McKinley is to be evicted from the white house at the election of November, 1900, the democratic party cannot afford to make any mistakes. It cannot afford to make enemies instead of friends. It cannot afford to drive from its ranks any man who affirms the principles of democracy formulated by Thomas Jefferson. It cannot afford to fire into its own camp. The friends of Mr. William J. Bryan or of any other aspirant for the democratic presidential nomination will make a mistake if they undertake to read out of the democratic party - to drum out of camp - any man who has entertained or who now entertains ideas at variance to those of the majority of the party respecting some single issue some evanescent question which does not bear directly upon the fundamental principles of the democratic party. That party requires of its members unity in essentials, but it does not prescribe submission of individual opinion in non-essentials. Nor is there lodged in any subordinate body of the party or any individual the power to excommunicate with bell, book and candle, democrats who fail to subscribe unreservedly to doctrines not essentially and fundamentally democratic. The presidential candidate of the democratic party in 1900 will need every vote he can get. If Mr. Bryan is to be the candidate he will stand in especial need of support because the campaign of 1896 evoked discontent and dissension in the democratic ranks which resulted in his defeat. Like causes produce like results. If intolerance and ostracism rather than conciliation and amenity are to characterize the campaign of 1900, that campaign will result like the campaign of 1896. Nothing can be more certain. And it would be idle to ignore the fact that such a danger already threatens. There is a disposition in certain quarters to make the currency plank in the Chicago platform the test of democratic orthodoxy, ignoring the fact that important though the currency issue may be, there are many other infinitely more momentous and infinitely more pressing. Rightly or wrongly the currency question is settled for the present. It could not be reopened though Mr. Bryan were in the white house at this moment. The composition of the senate precludes any hope that silver may be rehabilitated for at least six years to come To harp upon one string, even though it be a silver string, is merely to haunt the grave yard of dead issues while ignoring the questions of the living present. Ex-Governor John P. Altgeld, therefore, displays more devotion to a lost cause than to Mr. Bryan's interests when he undertakes to drive from that gentleman's support everyone who fails unreservedly to subscribe not only to the doctrine of free silver but to the doctrine that John P. Altgeld is the only true and consecrated evangel of orthodox democracy in the state of Illinois. Neither position is true; neither will be subscribed to by thousands of democrats. If persisted in these propositions will alienate from Mr. Bryan support of which he will stand in sore need in the national convention and in supreme need at the polls if he shall secure the nomination. Democrats should get together. Quarreling in the face of the common enemy can result only in disaster.

The death of President Henreaux, of Santo Domingo raises up another muss which Uncle Sam may have to take a hand in. Conditions there are ripe for insurrection and it may break out any moment. The United States may be obliged to take a hand to abate the nuisance. If the island could be submerged for 24 hours it would then make a pretty good possession. It will scarcely ever become anything but a pest at our doors while it remains in present hands.

A conference on combinations and trusts will be held in Chicago from Sept. 13 to 16. The conference will be attended by representatives of the commerce and industrial commissions, the presidents of many national and state commercial, agricultural and labor organizations. The relation of the protective tariff to trusts will be discussed by representatives of the Protective Tariff League, United States Export Association, the Tariff Reform League, the Home Market Club and the New England Free Trade League. The foreign consuls have been asked to contribute information as to combinations in the various countries of Europe. An effort is being made also to secure the presence of E. J. Smith, of Birmingham, England, who has met with phenomenal success in his scheme of combination for the mutual advantage of manufacturers and labor. It will be a notable gathering and will include among its attendants some of the ablest students of the question living. The conference should throw some light on this important question.

The peace conference has completed its work, but war will be war just the same as though it had never met. Each nation voted for what it conceived to be its interests. For example, England wanted expansive bullets but was willing to do away with explosives from balloons. Nevertheless the conference will result in great good and is a long step in advance. The very tact that the various nations representing 60 many conflicting interests, could lay aside their jealousies sufficiently to meet each other face to face and calmly discuss their differences and the great questions of common concern, indicates a hopeful condition. A few years ago such a meeting would have been impossible. That it is now possible, therefore indicates growth and evolution in the right direction. The permanent court of arbitration which is the principal tangible result of the conference is the great accomplishment to the credit of the conference. As time passes this accomplishment will doubtless be considered a milestone in the progress of the race. It required a long time after it was first proposed to submit the differences of private individuals to a hearing before a disinterested court or jury before the principle became thoroughly established and fixed. Individuals were loth to surrender the right to avenge their own wrongs. But there are as many reasons for the submission of national differences to a court of arbitration as for the submission of private quarrels to the courts. The difficulties in the way of the settlement of international differences by such reference are perhaps greater, nevertheless the arbitration method of settling such differences is pretty certain to obtain finally. And the conference at the Hague has made marked progress in that direction.