St. Paul daily globe., 1895-11-24
A QUESTION I'M MORALS.

ueHlldl timber. IHe senator cOnIlrmS
what was then the unauthenticated
statement that sundry of his colored
delegates from the South were bought
away from him by Mr.. Alger's lieu
tenants, a charge that gained Gre
dence from precedent in conventions
of that party as well as from the
well-known commercial proclivities
of the head of the Diamond Match
trust. A prominent delegate from
this state to the convention of 'S4,
on his return, said that the Blaine
men went out cooning Sunday night
and bagged the game" that nominat-
ed Blaine. The nomination of the
Minneapolis convention was notori-
ously made by delegates who had
received an Office, the implied, if
not the expressed, obligation being
a delegate vote for the appointer.
Gen. Alger promptly denies the i'm
parchment. He says that he was
distressed when the rumors were
flying around just after the conven-
ton, not because of any sense of
moral turpitude, evidently, but be-
cause he feared it might break off
the friendly relations he held with
Gen. w. T. Sherman. So to the lat
ter he unburdened his soul in de-
NAL of the rumors, and in response
received from the old warrior a let
ter which he gives to the public now.
Sherman regrets that Alger should
have stopped to the level of poll.
tician," above which he exalted SOL.
diers of repute, gentlemen and men
of family and business. Sherman
was consistent. When the Republic
an party, in dire straits for a taking
candidate, offered him the presi-.
dency, he said he would refuse the
nomination, and, if a certificate Off
election were brought him on -aS
gold platter, he would refuse the;
certificate and keep the platter. But
the further remark in this letter
to Alger is the pertinent one to the
present topic. "You made a good
show of votes" he says, land if
you bought some according to uni
versal usage, surely I do not blame
you."
Does this remark show moral OBJ
tuseness in the general, or is it legit-
innate and not immoral to buy dele
gate votes in a convention? That
Alger, or Sherman, the senator, or
Quay, or men of that stripe should
regard it as proper is not strange.
They are trained in a school that
finds affinities between war and pol
itics, and treats everything as fair
means in their estimation. But here
is a soldier, a trained one, graduate
of a. school where a fine edge is put
on honor, to whom politics were so
distasteful that he resolutely put
aside the presidency, and this man
finds nothing to blame in his friend
if he did buy some Of the delegates.
He had merely followed the "univer-
sal usage" Evidently Sherman, the
soldier, saw nothing immoral or
wrong in it.
Then why should Sherman, the SEN
ator, find in the act anything for
which to upbraid the Michigan as
pirant? Why, if there is nothing de-
serving of public censure in buying
votes in a convention, does Alger feel
it incumbent on him to rush into
print with denial of having bought
any? This indicates that somewhere
the purchase is reprobated as wrong.
Evidently not among politicians, for
Sherman, the soldier, says it is a
universal custom. Then it must be
in the great forum Of public opinion.
When Sherman, the senator, charges
Alger with buying away his dele
gates it is easy to believe that he is
not charging him with an offense in
the domain of morals, but merely with
depriving himself of the nomination.
It is the wrong against the person
| that stirs him. But, if this were the
| universal custom, operating with the
universal approval, then there is no
more cause for denials or eXplana-
| ton by Alger than there would be
for any other approved move in the
| tactics of politics. 1t is evident that
! Alger thinks that the public opin-
ion is that such methods are immoral.
Are they? Is Sherman, the soldier,
| right or is public opinion? What is
| involved in a national conventions
| choice of it's candidate? On matters
of principle and policies it is pre-
sumed the candidates and delegates,
all members of the same party, are at
one. Whoever is chosen, these will
be unchanged. 1t is merely a ques-
ton of preference among individuals.
| Where delegate is equally indiffer4
| ent as to which of these are chosen.
what is to determine his choice? 1t
is a personal matter with the candi-
dates. Each seeks high honor with
comfortable salary attached. The
| individual, not the party, is the gain
| er. Why should he not buy the
| votes that will gain him the dis
| tinction, and why should not the in
different delegate sell him his vote?
Do men expect to ride for nothing?