Arizona weekly citizen., 1884-07-12
MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE

course of ex-delegate George W. Gurus, .sys the Philadelphia North American, have induced him to make reply. Mir | Curtis says his course is a matter of | This really ought to end the controversy. There is no arguing with a mans conscience. Conscience may be appealed to, and aroused, but it brooks no argument. In this case so Mir. Gurus declares, re- quires that his course shall be as he seems to have marked it out, and as be is a man of intelligence, it is idle for anybody to assail him, and utterly use less to try to convince him that he is in the wrong.
 But this does not preclude discussion of the matters and things of which Mir. Curtis speaks in his defence. His view of the delegate is that he is R perfectly free agent associated with other per fectly free agents for certain political purpose. When a delegate is elected as a perfectly free agent ke is such beyond doubt. But the delegates to the National Convention were elected and sent to Chicago to accomplish some specified thing or things. They under stood heforeband that a majority of the convention would determine its action at last. They were all aware that certain names would be submitted in that con vention, and that in all probability the owner of some one of these names would be selected to bear the party standards. In view of all these facts, could any delegate go there claiming to be free agent unless he had declared beforehand to his constituents that if certain persons were nominated he would oppose them?
 We submit that there could be 20 free agency without such a prior declaration of purpose. Did Mir. Curtis declare such a purpose to his constituents! We do not recollect any declaration of that nature by him or by any other delegate OACNAs VI W AldA 1N all Ao II TUT 1lLA NO now that the authority of the conven- ton was solely the authority of the ma- iority," and that he cannot suppose any body holds that a majority can bind q mans conscience? To say that Is to repudiste the authority of the majority everywhere. It Is true that conscience cannot be bound by anybody in politics or Tn anything else depending upon strictly human action. This government is by the majority, but government Is by no means always a conscientious force. Its policy may offend the consciepces of men, but all good citizens acquiesce IL that policy which for the time being represents the will of the majority.
 But, as before remarked, it is useless to argue to mans conscience, and if government, or anything else determined by majority, offends it, the man can revolt. Except in rare cases, however. such revOlts are not vIndicatory of the right of a man to enjoy his own con- science. When a man consents to par ticipate in convention, he endorses the convention as the agent of the party. If his conscience IS pliable enough to permit him to do that. whatever he may say afterward about conscience will need to be scrutinized closely. We are not to suppose that MT. Curtis poses us the only man of conscience ID the con vention. We cannot for moment as- sume that NIT. Curtis is more con- seisntiOus man than Senator Edmunds, or Senator Hawley. or Senator Sherman. He was eager to secure the nomination of Senator Edmunds, and of course he rated him a man of conscience. But MT. Edmunds has accepted the nomina- tlcns of the convention and will give them his hearty support. If Mir. Curtis IS right, must Senator Edmunds be wrong? If before the nominations MT. was by Mir. Curtis regarded a man of conscience after his own heart, what must he be now to Mir. Curtis? Yet the latter knew that MT. Edmunds would support the nominations when he entered the convention. He knew that, and himself had determined to oppose not wanted by himself Shall we have a new definition of conscience: