Jasper Republican, Volume 1, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 October 1874 — No-Party Men. [ARTICLE]

No-Party Men.

A few newspapers, with some following, are just now very lachrymose and despondent on the subject of parties. With modi sourness they declare that neither of the two great national parties should have the administration of the Government. It is evident, they say, that the party in power cannot be reformed, and that the party striving for power cannot be trusted with it. If this be true, it leaves the grumblers in an awkward dilemma. They do not propose any adequate remedy. We have scanned with great care the complaints that are made by discontented people and the newspapers that represent them. Not one has yet suggested any way out of the quagmire in which they profess to find themselves. Of so-called “ independent” journals we seem to have great plenty; but while we affirm that independence in political journalism is essential to real influence, we must say that these independents are only neutral. Their strength u to sit still and growl at all the world. It is so much easier to tear down than build up that they find great comfort in lazily pulling things to pieces. Somehow they fail to give us anything that shall take the place of that which they would bring down to the dust. If it is true that both the great political parties are dead and buried, as the Fentons and Cochranes declare, what is to become of us all on election day? We must have parties of some sort. In a republican government especially we do need active and dominant political organization. It would appear that the criticism of the no-party men is aimed at deterring men altogether from voting; it is not designed to reform anything. We have great respect for small and earnest political organizations. Though they may be mistaken in their general aims their honesty of purpose and devotion to a central idea may be heroic. But where is the reputable nucleus of any third party in this country to-day? It is easy to say that such a rallying point is found in reform. But what is to be reformed and who are the reformers? So far as any national reform organization is concerned there is not even the pretense of one; and the cry of “ reform” is so vague and general that we are reminded of the plight of some New England strikers, who, when asked to state the grievance for which they tumultuously demanded redress, were at a loss what to say until one ingenious fellow raised a laugh by declaring that they wanted rum with their water. To be sure, we have innumerable “ indictments of this corrupt Government,” a£ neutrals phrase it; but when people look at the morals and manners of the men who are so noisy on the subject of public honesty they are moved to mirth. Fancy, if you can, the leaders in the latest reform movemefit—that at Cincinnati—reforming the Government of the United States! Whatever may have been the motives of the original agitators of that ill-starred expedition it is notorious that it was burdened with all the political adventurers and riff-raff that had been sifted out of the other living organizations. Yet the no-party men keep up their jeremiad, continually complaining that there is no party worth the having; and they insist that somehow there should be a new organization for them. We do not see 'how they can be gratified unless they choose to form some sort of an unpatriotic association which shall be pledged to sit still and find fault. The history of parties in this and other countries shows

that the great mass of voters must be divided on vital questions. No party ever came into existence on a mere generality ; none was ever borne to power on the abstract proposition that a new party would be a good thing to have in the country. Very clearly it is the duty of every good citizen to exercise his privilege of casting a ballot for elective officers. As republican institutions are managed; it is necessary that parties with complete and widely-ramifying machinery should be organized to bring forward and support candidates. Nobody has seriously proposed a disbanding or all parties with voluntary, individual and unconcerted action by all voters as a substitute therefor. If the present political ills are so great as represented there ought to be some means of reading them from the body politic, which is, after all, the source of all power, corrupted or uncorrupted. With the people ultimately rests the responsibility for the evils complained of. If, ior example, there is a Jarge element in the Republican party, as alleged,.which is disgusted with the management of affairs, can it not more effectually bring to pass a salutary change in affairs by insisting upon a reformation in their party than by folding hands and finding fault? The party now in power has the means, ability and disposition to reform itself whenever necessary. It is not possible for any political organization to be long in existence without abuses creeping into i{. But no party in this Republic since the foundation of the Government has ever exhibited such sensitiveness to criticism as the Republican party. It was founded upon moral ideas; it has conducted the Government mainly by a policy of national and international honesty. Its peculiar pride to-day is that it is the sole defender of the nation’s credit and the nation’s honor, and that it stands by the nation’s pledge to protect in their political rights all classes of citizens. There is nothing vague about this. If these objects are not worthy of the devotion of the voters of the Republic, we fail to see any that are more worthy. If any other organization, whether proposed by partisans or by no-party men, has any more definite or more vital purpose, we would like to hear of it. —New York Times.