of personal ambitions—to represent such things David B. Hill, of all others, is your man. But to say that David B. Hill truly represents what the Democratic party has fought for these last ten years, is far worse than anything the bitterest enemies of the Democratic party can say against it. The Democratic party may be able to endure much obloquy. But as soon as the people generally believe that, good Heavens! what will become of the Democracy then? And David B. Hill's election now would go very far to make the people believe it.
Look the situation squarely in the face. There is an anti-Democratic current sweeping over the land. We all know it. Democratic defeats crowd one another. What is the trouble? No doubt the hard times have something to do with it. But in spite of the hard times the Democracy would have a good fighting chance did it stand before the country with a character commanding respect and confidence. Why does it not? Because of its professed principles and its leading measure? No. If the choice between the McKinley tariff and the Wilson tariff were, purely on their merits, submitted to a popular vote, I am confident the McKinley tariff would be voted down by a decisive majority. Even thousands of Republicans would vote against it. What, then, is the trouble? It is corrupt and treacherous leadership. It is your Tammany, your Hills, your Gormans, your Murphys, your Brices, your Smiths, that have disgusted decent men and made them doubtful whether the Democratic party is capable of conducting the Government honestly and for the general good. This is the trouble.
What, then, would David B. Hill's defeat in this election signify? He himself tries to frighten Democratic children with the pretense that it would mean the adoption of the apportionment amendment to the State constitution, and the disfranchisement of Democrats. Nonsense.
