The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-06-18
THE LAW OP LIBERTY.

and the existence of society. But with this,
there is also the law of association as the
fundamental law of its own existence. Indi-
vidual freedom in the state does not mean the
right of any man to do as he pleases, unless
he pleases to do right So with liberty in the
party. The party is a voluntary association
of honorable men, aligned together for the ac-
complishment of common object through
common organization. The obligation is en-
tirely voluntary and moral, and, therefore,
may not be broken lightly or for any cause
less than that of conscience, without dishonor
The right to "bolt the right to Scratch"
the right to oppose nominations, when unfair
ly made or when in themselves palpably OPP
posed to the spirit of the party, cannot be
gainsaid, and the Republican party does not
gainsay these individual rights. What it does
say is, that they must be exercised within the
law of conscience, and that the reasons for
their exercise must be clear and pungent to
acquit the individual of disloyalty before the
bar of his party and of the country The
protested independent is another individual
"a horse of another color The above re-
marks apply only to the recognized party man.
The Independent" who holds himself aloof
from all parties, using the one or the other at
his will, but attaching himself to neither, has no
responsibility and can be held to no account
ability. But independents are not "bolters"
or "scratchers," for there is nothing for them
to "bolt7 from, nothing of their own for
them to scratch"
Now, what is the attitude of the few Repu b.
lcan "bolters, who falsely call themselves
independents They are not 'independ-
ents, for if they were truly such, they would
not have been found in the Republican con-
vention participating in the primary work Of
the party. They were Republicans; they are
"bolters." Can they justify their bolt under
the law of conscience, either to their
party OF to their country Let us,
for convenience sake, take the case of
Mr.. George William Curtis, the chiefest and,
undoubtedly the most conscientious of them.
Mr.. Blaine has been prominently before the
country as presidential candidate since 1876.
In the preliminary canvass of that year every
charge affecting his personal honor that is now
brought against him was urged with most ma
lgnant persistence. In the House of Repre-
sentatives Mr.. Blaine made statement re-
specting the principal SANDER, which Mr.. Cur
It's in Harper's Weekly, of May ID, 1876, de
clared to be ''as thorough a REPUTATION as was
ever made denounced it as "a reckless polit
charge against Mr.. Blaine would be worthy
any attention unless accompanied by the most
weighty evidence" Of course any man, even
Mr. Curtis, can change his mind; but no hon
est, conscientious man can arbitrarily change
his Judgment upon a question, after he has
made careful examination of the evidence,
and arrived at conclusion deliberately, as
Mr. Curtis affected to have done, being the
conductor of q great journal, in 1876. But if
himself and the public that ''the weighty evil
dence' should be made known. Rhetorical
clap-trap about the disappearing por-
trait of Mr. Lincoln will not answer.
The use of such an ad captandum
argument" not only shows that Mr.. Curtis
has desperate cause, but it reveals a state of
mental weakness and obtuseness that dis
counts in advance anything he is likely to
say.
Der of the national convention. He acted as
chairman of the New York delegation. He
held an honored position in the convention.
He was treated with great distinction and
courtesy. When he left his New York home
he knew, if he knew anything, that one of the
most probable results of the week at Chicago
was the nomination of Mr.. Blaine. He could
not have been in Chicago a day without hay
ing it borne in upon him from every direction
that there was a decided probability Of the
nomination of Mr.. Blaine. With this proba-
bility staring him in the face, he continued to
sit as a member of the convention and par
ticipate in its proceedings. More than that;
he had the possibility of the nomination of
Mr.. Blaine most Extensively thrust in his
face by the resolution advocated by Mr..
Knight, of California, aimed directly at
him, almost by name. In reply to this,
Mr.. Curtis said ''the presentation of such a
resolution in such a convention as this is a
stigma an insult upon every man who stands
here" If that meant anything at all, it
meant, and was so understood, that it was an
insult to presume that any delegate acting in