The Ouachita Telegraph

THE WORK AHEAD.

The time approaches when preparations for the election next Fall become necessary, and, properly enough, the President of the Democratic State Central Committee has called a meeting of that body for the 1st day of May next. Members of the committee may, meanwhile, take counsel of the people and individually make up their minds what is best to be done to secure a victory for the Democracy in November.

A Democratic State Convention will, of course, be called to determine upon a platform of principles and to nominate a candidate for State Treasurer, but much, in the way of a send-off, will depend upon the action of the State Central Committee.

As one who has taken some small part in what of success or failure has characterized the history of the Democratic party in this State since the war and as one who will reasonably be expected to bear a share of the labors of the approaching campaign, we may be excused for offering some suggestions pertinent to the task which the State Central Committee has in hand.

And first, it must be recognized as a fact that the people are not satisfied with the achievements of the present Democratic administration. Possibly they have expected too much, but certainly not more than was promised.

The conspicuous feature in the failure is the lack of reform. What offices have been abolished? What relief has been afforded the distressed tax-payer? In what does our State government, as it now exists, differ from that under Radical rule, except that there are better men in office? These questions bring us back to the promises made in 1876 by our party through its organs and its public speakers. Foremost among these promises was one to redeem Louisiana, once and for all, from Radical misrule. This promise has not been fulfilled. Every attempt made to abrogate the Constitution of 1868, which is the source of all our troubles and still threatens the State with woes unnumbered, has been met by a Democratic legislature with rebuke. Painful as has been the progress of the Democracy to power, nothing in the tiresome march is so much to be lamented as the failure to complete the victory of 1876 and to assure the State of a permanent government in the interests of intelligence and virtue.

For these failures the people are not responsible. They have never compromised their unalterable opposition to Radicalism, and even now only ask to be led to an open assault upon the strongholds of the enemy. The State Central Committee should recognize this fact. We must come back to first principles—draw the line of distinction between a Democrat and Republican, as it was, and not as it now is. In this way, and this only, can an issue be raised upon which the State may be carried by the Democrats in November.

It will not do to begin a canvass with apologies and explanations. If members of the legislature have fallen short of their pledges, let them as individuals account for their shortcomings. If a Democratic administration has not come up to what was promised, let those who are directly responsible be the sufferers. The platform of the party has not changed, nor have the people fallen short in their hopes and expectations. They are resolute, and determined to accomplish the work of thorough reform, and they will enter the next campaign with this determination.

What is needed now is a bold, aggressive campaign—something to arouse the people and to restore confidence. No tame plan of battle will answer. Enthusiasm cannot be aroused to a winning pitch by reference to the present attitude of political parties, but we must go back to the place of beginning and demand a fulfillment of the vows then made.

In an unguarded moment we may have said something about Gen. Anderson, or ex-Gov. Wells, on the hypothesis that one or the other, or both, were guilty of forgery in altering the election returns from Vernon parish. It seems from a decision of the Supreme Court of the State, that if ever such a stupid idea entered our mind that either of these gentlemen were guilty of forgery, or of uttering a forged document, we were mistaken. No such thing was done, at all. If we have been guilty of the indiscretion of charging either of these gentlemen with crime, we trust that our words will not be repeated. It is well known that newspapers are made up hurriedly and are unreliable. Thus, here is an instance where the newspapers have libeled a great and good man—charged him with a felony of which he was entirely innocent. We hope that neither Gen. Anderson nor ex-Gov. Wells will bear us any malice in the future.