St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-09-27

GUS examination, compared with all the phases
of practical life. The Newark, N. j., Sm-
day Gail, giving fair statement of President
Seelye's premises, and reasoning, proceeds
with the calmness Of clear discernment, to
to knock away the fallacious foundation OF
the false reasoning of the learned college
President.
The Call says:
1t was Edmund Burke who sneered at the
government OF philosophers. Professor Seelye,
who is philosopher, contributes to the North
american RegieaU for October an article on
''Moral Character in Politics. in which he con-
tends that no self-respecting man can vote for
either Blaine or Cleveland. He says nothing of
Butler, whose candidacy, with New England hdW-
tear, he contemptuously ignores. Professor
Seelye says that the Republican and Democratic
parties no longer offer a real issue, their two
platforms being essentially the same, and there
is no longer any great political principle which
Enthusiastically distinguishes either from the
other. For this reason the party lines are broken
everywhere, party ties have ceased to hold great
masses of voters, and there is not that interest in
the presidential election which is usually shown
at this stage in the canvass.
The opposing parties, having no
real principles at issue, are contending for
the Patronage and power of the government.
Prof. Seelye states truth here that was evident
TO the most careless student of politics four years
ago. He goes on to discuss the moral character
OF the principal candidates, and philosopherlike.
he first lays down his premises. These are in
ferentiay that Blaine is dishonest and Cleve-
land impure. 1t is never safe, says Professor
Seelye, to commit great interests of state to q
man who Is only polite and who is not capable
of surrendering his own advantage to the public
good Netheris it safe to confer a trust on an
impure man. Apart from Professor SELVES
premises his propositions do not accord with
human experience. The best rulers in history
were neither pure nor unsellsh. Diogenes with
his lantern could hardly find either an absolutely
pure or wholly unselfsh man in the whole
arena of American politics day. But tits absurd
for any philosopher to hold that only such a
man could be trusted with important public
duties. Cashiers of financial institutions are
not appointed because they are morally pure
men or because they are not polite men. The
most earnest and incorruptible public men in
all ages were not free from the faint of immor-
ality. Mirabeau was notorious profigate
Henry Clay and many other eminent men whose
names adorn the pages af American history
could not have stood an inquiry into their pri-
vate lives. And how many men of mature age
are there in any station of life who are morally
lit to "cast the first stone?' On the
other hand, who is entirely free
from the dominion of self interest
Opportunity is the test of character
How many censors of the s'polite''
man could themselves withstand the temptation
or great opportunities of self-enrichment? Pro-
| lessor Seelye's ideal President is demigod,
something which human nature has never evolved
since the death of the Christ Matured human
character is not formed without moral hurts and
bruises. No mans life is an uninterrupted car
eer of goodness and virtue 1t is only in alb
stract philosophy that we behold the perfect
man. Professor Seelye is right in demanding
the highest moral attributes in President, ont
he is unreasonable in expecting the candidate to
be saint and eremite. These unworthy char
acters, when they do exist, abide only in caves
very desirable persons either to intrust with the
and sequestered places, where they wot not OF
politics and candidates. And they would not be
powers of government