The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-10-18
The Tammany Sachens and the
Democratic State Ticket.

/
whether it be pugilistic, or merely athletic,
or political, it is the province of the intelli-
gent part of the bystanders or invited
spectators TO see that there is fair play
between the contestants and that the
accepted rules of the game be honorably
observed. 1t is always desirable to
have spectators; even in a trial be-
fore a court of justice, where the judges
are bound by the law and the jurors by
their oaths, the popular sense of justice re-
quires the trial to be open. From court
of Justice down to boat race, from boat
race down to q cock fight, the presence and
judgment OF lookers-on is the surest guaran-
tee Of fair play among the par
Elephants, or, if they violate the
rules, the surest and promptest means of
holding them amenable to the tribunal OF
public opinion. Without this kind of
supervision there would be no guarantee
of fairness in any description of popular
| contests.
Now, the attitude of Tammany toward the
regular democratic State ticket is so un-
usual and extraordinary as to challenge
general attention and to compel observing
men of both parties and OF no party
to judge whether the political code, as &C
cepted by all parties, has been complied
with or violated by Mr. Kelly and his sup
porters. If Mr.. Kelly should maintain
that there is no such code if he should
contend that in politics there are no set
tied rules Of the game that no mans
honor is bound, when he enters his
yacht or his horse, to comply with
any regulations or to follow any rule
other than his individual will or caprice
if Mr.. Kelly should take this extreme ground
we could not deny that such a course is pro-
tected by the law of the land. But if the
law Of the land be the only rule, what be-
comes of the rule of fair play? What becomes
of the social equities whose operation
is inside the law and which are governed
by code of their own? Is there no law of
fair play in politics? Is it permissible for
man to go into political convention and
participate in its proceedings and then or
ganize bolt if he is outvoted?
In the whole history of American politics
no party ever recognized this kind Of kick
ing as legitimate. The universally ac-
cepted rule of political morals is that all
who 60 into caucus or convention and
share in it's deliberations take the chances
of being outvoted and are bound by the
will OF the majority. Had it SO happened
at Syracuse that Mr.. Kelly and his friends
were strong enough to dictate the ticket it
is easy to see with what indignant fer
vor they would have denounced a Robin
son bolt against the action of the
Convention. In homely phrase, what
is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander. AS Mr. Kelly and his adherents
would have denounced q Robinson bolt if
Mr.. Kelly had been able to control the
Convention it is mere equity and COM
mon sense to make this rule reciprocal If
the supporters Of Robinson would have
been bound by the action of the
Convention if Mr.. Kelly had had
al majority, it necessarily follows
that the supporters of Kelly were
bound by the action of the Convention
when the Robinson men found themselves
in the ascendant. Otherwise there would
have been no equality of rights between the
majority and the minority. When the con-
testants 60 into convention nobody can
tell which contesting faction is to gain
control. If each is at liberty to
bolt as soon as it finds that
it is to be outvoted, there is no fairness in
the game. 1t is merely 'heads I win and
tails you lose," unless both sides are
equally bound by the decision of the major
ity. All political parties have always acted
on this principle, and indeed there would
be no possibility of organizing political
parties on any other theory. If the
minority is justified in boiling from
the moment it sees it is to be
outvoted there are no longer any rules of
the game, and the participants in polit-
ical convention are as free to follow their
individual caprices as the merest outsiders.
On this theory political parties would be as
impossible as regular army would be if
every commander of a brigade were at lib
erty to fire into his comrades if he happens
to be overruled in council Of war.
If Mr.. Kelly did not intend to be bound
by the action of the Syracuse Convention
he should not have gone near the Conven-
ton. BY keeping aloof he would have pre-
served full liberty Of action without any
impeachment of his honor. But it is
fragrant violation of the rules to go into
o convention in the hope OF con-
trolling it and thereby binding his
adversaries and then refuse to be bound
himself by the decision of the majority.
Mr.. Kelly's action is not only subversive Of
party discipline, but it violates those prin-
ciples of personal honor without which reg
ular parties are impossible. If nobody is
bound by the action of political conven-
ton political conventions are a farce, and
party discipline and party organization are