New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-11-17
Comments on the dbore.

l. As we have found no fault with the Repub-
lican Central Committee for making its call, we
may pass lightly over our correspondents justl-
fcatiOn thereof. We do not care how many
iCkcts are presented nor by how many parties:
what we desire is simply that the best men shall
be elected, not because they are Republicans or
Democrats, but because they are the best men.
Ard we do not consider this possible if the sue
cesstul candidates are nominated and supported
as members of this or that party.
,. Our correspondent urges that party tickets
will be run anyhow, and that the Democrats
have large majority Of the popular vote. That
seems to us TO show the madness Of the course
he is bent on pursuing We beese thousands of
Democrats are ready to vote for the best men if
presented distinctly aud only as such; but not if
those same men are supported as Republican
candidates. For instance: Had John Sedgwick
Teen a no-party, citizens candidate for City
Judge at our late election, who believes he
would have been beaten by John II. McCmn? We,
surely do not 1t was not his Repubcanism
that defeated Sedgwick; it was the fact that he
was the disinchyely Republican candidate, so
u
Republican triumph. As it was, he ran five
thousand votes ahead of his ticket; but for his
party badge, We think he would have run ten
thousand.
g. TIE TRIBUNE has twice supported no-party
rcioIm candidates for MayOr-in the first IN
stance, in opposition to the regular candidate of
It's own party In 1854, We urged the election
If Wilson G.. Hunt well known as n Democrat.
against regular Wing candidate; in 1857, we
did cur utmost to elect Daniel +. Tiemann, like
wise a bitter Democrat, over Fernando Wood
We did so upon distinct understanding that the
man favored would know 10 party in the
discharge Of his official duties. We think Mr.
Hunt would have justified our confidence had he
been elected; Mr. Ticmann, it is well known
did not. We told the Committee that first APP
prised us of his nomination that he was one of
the bitterest and blindest partisans in our City,
but we would do our best for him upon their as.
surance and bis public pledge that he would as
Mayor know no party. He disappointed us; but
1itmanns are Eve trust) scarce: and we do not
believe another such failure would occur in four
trials.
4. The Republicans having heartily and unan-
imousiy supported Temann in 1857, it was
but simple justice that the anti Wood Democrats
should have united with us in the support, on
Reform, no-party grounds, of Republican in
1889. This they utterly refused to do: Nay:
they were not willing to unite with us in the
support even Of their own Havemcyer or any
other anti-Wood Democrat on distinctive no.
party grounds. We had elected Temann in 81,
ard he had proved the mere puppet of Tammany
Hall; they now offered us not even the poor
privilege Of being cheated by them. They n-
sisted on cur voting not merely for Democrat
but for the regular Democratic candidate, whose
election would have been trumpeted az proof
That the Republican party of this City was an.
initiated. We respectfully declined, and ran our
own ticket.
5. We want the best men Of all parties ST.
lec,ed aud supported for the Council especially,
and We do not care how small and insignificant
the meetings by which they are nominated for