The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1870-05-12


1 trouble you with one more brief let
ter? Assailed and reproached in the
columns of our own party organ, we
were denied access to those columns
in answer, and hence were obliged to
throw ourselves upon your editorial
courtesey, which was generously
granted, and which on our part, you
may rest assured, is duly appreciated,
and will not be forgotten.
Very respectfully yours,
4 JoHN G. HALL.
Another Letter.
I Mr.. Lyman W. HALL:
Editor of the Portage County Demo
crdt:
My Dear Sir: Since writing you
my last, my eye has incidentally fall
len upon section of the newly adopt
ed Constitution of the State of New
York, which provides for the election
of their CoURT OF APPEALS upon this
very principle of a minority represen-
tation, which our own Legislature, as
alluded to in my last, has put to use
in the election of our Judges OF Elec-
tions. When broached the princi-
pie in my first letter, was not aware
that either Legislature had it under
consideration. In the New York case,
"The new section provides that the
court shall consist of Chief Justice,
and six Associate Justices; but each
voter shall cast his ballot only for the
Chief Justice and four of the Asso-
ciate Justices. The political party
which casts the greater number of
votes, therefore, will elect five judges,
including the President of the Court,
and the other party will elect two
judges. Should any political question
come before the Court, therefore, each
party will have representation in it.
Surely, the world moves. And it is
desirable that such movement as this,
in the right direction, should reach
even Portage County, and that our To-
cal newspaper of the Republican par
ty, being up to the rising spirit of the
times, and not behind it, nor opposed
to it, should lead us, and not hold us
back, in reform so wise and JUST
Our little Ravenna Village world
should not rest, or settle down in qui-
ct again, until this principle of the
minority representation on our Board
of Education is thoroughly and per-
manently adopted. And it would be
well, also, were itadopted throughout
the whole range of our village and
town offices. For, as I before intima-
ted, our Democratic neighbors form a
numerous and highly respectable mi
nority, paying a large share of our
taxes, and hence should not be SO rig
idly, and scornfully, excluded from all
local Offices of trust, as though they
were avowed enemies to the public
veal, and so deservedly outlawed.-
Indeed, now that the plan Of a minor
ity representation has become an ac.
tual birth of time, it would not re-
quire very near-sighted prophet to
foretell period, not very far of, in
our land where it will quite extensive
ly, if not universally, prevail.
But to return, for a movement, to
, the position of your second editorial
: that "the breaking of party lines, in
regard to minor and other offices, is
exceptionable and Irregular" and So
, generally censurab1e !" it has oc.
Cured to me to apply it to a supposed
J case, for illustration. For example
, then, suppose that the Bible question
; had entered into our late Schoo
Board Election; and that the friends
of Bible teaching in school had faileC
; to get, in the caucus, such nomina
ton of candidates as would secure
the prevalence of their views; bu
{ were fairly outvoted;" and there
T upon had gone out and opposed thu
anti-Bible nomination, and had ever
! Joined their Democratic neighbors il
electing ticket in favor OF. the Bible
, Would that have been dishonorabl
, on their part? According to your po
sition, it would. But according t.
my. views, 1t would not. The homo
, rableness, or .dishonorableness, of an,
. such action, depends upon the end il
view. If that end, or object, be hon
+ orable in itself, then such action to Sc
, cure it, is honorable. .s,a ,.s;4 s. ii:
: Or, take the old slavery question, a
q another example. There were time
when the friends of humanity an
freedom deemed it their duty to brea
+ the party lines, and set up nomina
s. tions for themselves, in opposition t
their old party friends and comrades
; and in disregard of what you teri
L "party necessities" Were such Pre-
n ceedings dishonorable? s ..a.t.3
e And in this thing, as have been il
+ formed, you had some personal expe
Il rience yourself. You broke ava
e from your old party lines, and, hay
9, ing failed to get such party nominee
l. as yon desired, you set up, or helpe
'e set up, such as suited you. Did yo
x therein act dishonorably? Accordin
II to your recent editorials, you did. Br
1t according to your own thoughts thel
J. you did not. Aud according to m
IS own views, you did not. 1 will tres
= you better than you have treated mt
= When I broke away from q part
1, nomination, on matter Of much loo,
l. importance, and in all good conscienc,
a you published me as blinded b
passion, or resentment" and charge
= me with having acted "disnonorably.
1T Contrawise, 1 commend that forme
J. action of yours, SO far as I under
9t stand it, on the Liberty Party oues