The Middlebury register. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1850-1882, 1873-10-14
Mliooleburp 8tsister.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER IA, 1879.
King Caucus.

jcct OF the bindirg authority of party
conventions. During the heat OF an ac-
tive campaign, il is difficult to get an
audience for caudd discussions upon the
ethics of political measures. The party
whip must then he untrammeled by ex
pressions Of dissent, and il anyone has
the temerity at such times to make re-
marks which Indicate any loosness Of
party discipline, he is at once read out Of
the party and dsgraced if not squelched
for all future time. But now we arc
free from all political oxcitements. We
can reasonably expect unprejudiced con-
sideration by the people in general, if
not by professional politicians. And it
is a source of congratulation that the
public interest is awakened upon this i'm
portaut matter. Mr.. Butler, at the
Worcester Convention, brought the sub.
ject to the attention Of the public by
calling for the expulsion Of member
who had declared his intention to bolt
the nomination if General Butler was
selected as its exponent. From that
time it has been fruitful theme of news.
paper comment directly, and pulpit ora
Tory, covertly, to determine the rightful
authority Of King Caucus over its mem.
bers and the members of the party for
which it acts.
IF some had not already taken the
ground that 80 far as the natural phil
osophy OF the thing is concerned, General
Butler was quite right" we should have
supposed that to the average American
there could be but one side to the ques>
tiou. What view may be taken, upon
mature reflection, by the masses Of the
people, we do not know. But there is a
widespread feeling through the country
to support party nominations. We admit
that the sanctions of custom are for the
caucus, and so far as they can make law,
the rule is obedience. But we apprehend
~. All ourIgaron TO support the nomi.
nations of party caucusses, rests solely
uF on the rule of expediency. The dis
advantages Of lack of harmony and ill
feeling make it the duty of the good citi-
zen to yield personal preferences for the
public good If there is any moral prin.
ciple to be commended for, any question Of
fitness of candidates, then personal and
private judgment should never be sur
rendered. 1t is only when candidates
are equal, when both stand upon equally
commendable bases of public action, that
we have right to surrender personal
preferences. And then, without question,
it also becomes duty. We have no
right to allow personal preferences not
based upon fitness Of candidates for the
position, to influence our action. But the
caucus, in that case, has no other birding
force than as the expression of prefer
ence by number of citizens and the pub.
lie veal. Our first obligation in the
exercise of the privilege and duty of the
ballot is to promote the hig CHEST public
interest. Personal interests ought not to
be considered Party interests should
not be taken into account. Party in
politics, is only proper when promotive
Of the best good of the whole people.
There is another phase of this subject
on which there will be wider differences
of opinion among honest thinkers. This
was the original question suggested by
General Buffers resolution. 1t is the
one so many Of the Massachusetts, moral
lists have been talking at, with so much
earnestness, for a week or two. 1t is
whether one who participates in con.
vention is bound by the principles Of
morality to support its nominee. The
Congregationalist says, No because there
is usually an opportunity to assert that
the underlying basis Of good faith in
agreement as TO the fundamental princi-
pies Of policy, on which convention
stands, is violated by its majority and the
minority is released from its obligation.
This seems to be an evasion of the real
question, Is there any''agreement as to
the fundamental principles of policy" in
a convention to which all who participate
necessarily subscribe If SO there, is no
question as to the obligation. The same
position is taken by the Hartford Coarant,
which asserts directly that "when man
goes into party convention he agrees to
abide its result if the result is a decent
one, but not otherwise" Perhaps Gus.
tom has brought our caucus system to
this, but it is wrong principle. If SO,
we have drifted from the original design
of conventions. The theory as first adop-
ted, we apprehend, to be, that a caucus
is only a preliminary canvass of prefer.
ences and opinions so that the elections
need not be impeded. Accepting the
theory ofthe Courant las above expressed,
and we must either stay away from the
primary meeting, or, under some circum.
stances seek for new Interpretation of
the oath Of citizenship. The ireeman's
oath, in this state, does not bind us to
vote as will most conduce to the party
good, but as we shall Judge will most con-
duce to the best good of the state, that
is the general good of the people. In
order to adopt the theory of the binding
obligation Of party decisions we must
surrender personal judgment to the ag-
gregate judgment of the party to which
we belong. To do this and maintain our
integrity, we must get behind the misera-
BILE suoterfuge Of asserting that the sue.
cess of party is essential to the highest
good of the country, and only make the
exception Of result which is not ode
cent" A result only tolcrably decent
cannot be excepted. Rev. james Free
man Clark in his electric utterance of
"a bolt is always in order" has given a
watchword which, though needing quail.
fication,or at least explanation, is certain.
ly a bold push in the right direction.
The hearty assent it gains all over the
country proves that partyism is not much
longer TO "silence responsibility with
brute force" or as the Missouri RepuH-
can puts it, at is the long pent up out.
cry Of the popular selfesteem."
The Springfield ReDublicau illustrates