Hard Or Soft?

The Democratie party is in fot anythin'g to win; that is plain. It cares more for the offices than for consistency. In the Tilden cainpaign it took both sides of the money question, so much so that Masby wrote : " There was wunst a doctor wich hed a bark wich wood either physic or puke, occordin ez he stript off the tree up or dowa Like to this doctor is Tilden and Hendricks. Reed their letters up, and they re hard money physic ; reed em down,and they are soft money vomick. Tbat about described the Democratie method of treating the tariff question in 1884, and last week the National Democsatic convention decided to try a "steaddle" again on the tariff question n the campaign of 18S8. The action of the convention is said by some democrats tobe a fair and honorable compromise between two wings oí the party. It is a most absurd thing. We are accustomed to 6eeing men of widely diverging opinions uniting in a party on one all-important question, or whai they believe to be such. It is right and consistent often that a party ghonld ignore certain questions on which it is not united, providing it has another question of greater weight, on which it can be united. But for a party to effect a compromise and to "straddle" ' on the question which it confesses to be the moBt important is to confess its inability to carry out any plan of governrnent in regard to that question. It acknowledges weakness. It takes away all excuse for the political organization. Of course, if any party were to declare boldly for free trade, it would certainly loae the election. The Democrats know tnis, and so their platform looks toward both protection and free trade, just as in 1876 it was hard and soft on the money question. But if a party cannot win by declaring for free trade, it ought not to if it declares for both free trade and protection. A party has no claim to success unless it acts in a manly way.