Rensselaer Union, Volume 6, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 October 1873 — On Bolting Nominations. [ARTICLE]

On Bolting Nominations.

In a recent article about “Bolting,” the political editor of Harper’s Weekly advances the following sound doctrine, which we commend to the careful- consideration of all honest men, whether they vote the Republican or the Democratic tickit, as the principle applies with equal force every where: A party is a voluntary association of citizens who agree in their general I views of public policy. Its orgauiza- !■ tion is wholly one of good uuderstaudj ing. Those who unite in it elect committees, hold caucusses aud conj ventions, nominate and support can- ; didates. They regard the party with its conditions as the best practicable method of securing the political measures which they approve. It is a convenient and valuable machine. For the common good it is understood that the members will sacrifice mere personal preferences in candidates, and indifferent and minor points in measures. But the limit of such sacrifice is obvious. It does not include their action as moral, honorable, and self-respecting men. The their servant, not their master. Consequently, if a candidate Is nominated whom members of tlie party consider to be a had or a dangerous man, they may justly refuse to support him ou two grounds: one, that the election of such a man would boththteaten the public welfare and demoralize the public conscience; aud tbe other, that

his nomination would properly shake public confidence in the pasty - .- The same kind of reason would" justify «pposhion"to r improper or dishonest legislative measures proposed by the party. This opposition is the unquestionable right and the plain duty of, every honorablesupporierof the party. Are that fight anil that duty different if he bus been a member of the party caucus or convention which proposed the measure or nominated the candidate? Why, should he be honorably “bound” in the latter case to maintain an action which in the former he is morally and therefore honorably hound to oppose? A caucus or a convention is merely a conference of delegates of the party to determine how the organization may at the particular time and under the existing circumstances best procure its ends, if it is not a conference of delegates honestly elected, no one will contend that its members are bound to respect its action. If it be honestly elected, no delegate ought to decline to attend merely because lie fears or suspects tliat its action will be pernicious. It is his plain duty to spare no effort to influence wisely the action of the party. He cannot rightfully surrender his opportunity to prevent an enormous and fatal party blunder, If he knows that liis legislative party caucus will possibly or probably propose a huge theft upon the public treasury, let him as a party man as well as an honest man, warn his associates that neither he nor any other member of the party can honor* ably support it. If his party convention is in danger of nominating candidates who can neither be respected nor trusted, let him in the mime of decency and of the party do what he .can to prevent that result in the convention; and should he fail there, let him openly vote agains them. The convention considers what the party |7 ought to do. .If it decides that tlie | party should do what any delegate bei lieves to be wrong, is he honorably bound to do a dishonorable thing? No, says tlie objector; but he should leave the party. Yes, when he is satisfied that the party ratifies the action, but not before, and not until he has tried to persuade it not to ratify. He will not believe the ship to be already wrecked because there is a gale -blowing.- He need not assume that tlie caucus under such circumstances really speaks for the party. A party organization ioemucli too valuable to surrender upon the first summons of a salary grabber, for instance. It is worth a fight. A dangerous man or a distionorable measure has not conquered a party because it has captured a eetieus or a convention oraCougress, The theory that every party man who participates in a caucus or convention is bound to support its action presupposes that such an assembly vv ill never do anything that ought to be opposed by the party, or that may not decently be supported by it. Unle. s that can be established, it is impossible to prove obligatioil. All that can fairly be claimed or expected is that when members of tlie same party unifo in n caucus, knowing themselves to be honestly present, they shall be bound by the decision, whether as to men or measures, if it does not seem to them necessarily injurious to the public interest. But no member has lost the privilege qf doing right because lie has tried to persuade others not to do wrong. And he takes his appeal to tlie party, leaving it only when he is persuaded it lias ceased to be the organization by which the welfare of tlie country Is best to be served. There is a time in tlie history of every long-dominant party when a contest arises for the ascendency between its better and worse elements. When that time arrives in the Republican ranks, let us who believe it to be the party of the industry, intelligence, and conscience of the country refuse without a resolute struggle at every point to surrender it to a control which would drive from it those who sincerely lio-ld the principles upon ; which it was founded.