Independent Statesman

A 'Convert.'

The Democratic papers in this state are just now in high glee. They announce a 'convert.' He is Hon. Chas. J. Amidon of Hinsdale. We would respectfully suggest that they have several other converts. Among such may be mentioned Col. Henry O. Kent, Hon. E. B. S. Sanborn, Hon. Charles F. Stone, and Hon. Bainbridge Wadleigh. Are these deserving of no notice? Mr. Amidon is well known in political and business circles in New Hampshire. He is a very worthy gentleman and a good citizen. He is a successful manufacturer and has accumulated a large fortune. Like many other worthy gentlemen and good citizens he is opposed to the protective policy of the Republican party. We do not know how complete this opposition is, or just when it began, but we do know that several years ago he expressed himself heartily in favor of freetrade in 'raw materials,' especially in wool, which he uses. We do not know how he has voted of late in state and local elections, but he has not been actively identified with the Republican state organization for several years. We think that the last time he took a prominent part in the party councils was at the state convention for the election of delegates to the Chicago convention in April, 1884 when he made himself conspicuous and somewhat offensive by his violent and intemperate denunciations of Mr. Blaine. In the following autumn he worked and voted for Mr. Cleveland. If the Democratic candidate and platform suited him then, it is natural that the same candidate and an even worse platform should suit him now. We will add that there is good reason for believing that the other 'converts' referred to, Messrs. Kent, Sanborn, Stone, and Wadleigh, will also vote for Mr. Cleveland and freetrade again this year, and we really do not see why, if ancient Democratic conversions are to be rehearsed to revive the party's drooping courage, these distinguished gentlemen are not as fully entitled to notice as is Mr. Amidon.

In an interview copied in the Union, Mr. Amidon's son and partner is represented as saying that 'they are for free wool because they believe it would help their business materially and harm no one in particular.' Whenever a Democratic manufacturer declares against the Mills bill, he is denounced by the Union and the Democratic press in general as a selfish monopolist. We will not follow their example. If Mr. Amidon favors freetrade in wool, with the certainty that it will be followed later on, by freetrade in the goods which he manufactures, if the Democratic party is kept in power, because he thinks that it will 'help his business materially' and 'harm no one in particular,' then he is justified in supporting the party which will give him free wool immediately and free manufactures in the near future. At the same time, we do not see how a regard for one's own interests is culpable selfishness in the one case and commendable liberality in the other. We do not understand why Mr. Busiel who is opposed to the Mills bill, not only on general principles, but also because it would seriously cripple his particular branch of industry, should be attacked as a 'grasping monopolist' while Mr. Amidon, who says that he wants free wool because it will 'help his business materially' is praised for his unselfishness and independence of party dictation. Perhaps, some freetrade friend will explain?