The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-03-03

of non-partizanship.
OF course we have our own opinion
about il, assuming that there is such a
thing, which, maybe, there is not, after
all. But we should like well considered
and thoroughly diges cd opinion OF non
partizanship from non-partizans shem-
selves assuming that there are such
things, material aud in the flesh, as non-
partizans, beings possessed by nature or
training OF non-partizanship, assuming
that there is such a thing of which to be
possessed. Perhaps persons so seized and
possessed might get together in conven-
tion assembled and establish such
definition for all time, or some time, or
any time, just as our Prohibition parti-
zans got together yesterday and gave an
authoritative exposition OF what the
Prohibition party was for, not, be 1t
noted, without much pain in the labor.
The City Council, in considering the
election OF a member of the board Of can
vassers and registration, resolved itself
into a debating club to discuss this mat
ter of what constitutes -partizanship,
and the opinions as to what most consti-
tuted 1t were so diverse as to confirm sus-
picions as to its mythical nature. At all
events gentlemen who claim to be non
partizans expressed their faith and cast
their vo!es in widely scattering fashion,
one from the other. The opinions of the
blind men of ncient story who described
an elephant from the sensation of feel
ing OF his various parts were no more di-
verse and unsatisfactory than were the
salient points OF -partizanship as
defined by non-partizans IN the debate
for instance, held that on-partizanship
consisted of retaining in public Office a
good man and true, irrespective of what
his politics might be, although Mr..
GARDNER owes his own election to a
violation of this very principle. Council
man WEST, who is past grand master
of non-partizanship as it maintains In
Ward Ten, was strong in the belief that
non n-partizanship meant the representa-
tion OF the Democratic party in every
office Alderman NICHOLS declared that
one OF the fundamental principles OF our
free national government was the recog-
milton of the minority. The inference
from this view Of n-partizanship is, Of
course, that the board should be enlarged
to accommodate representation from all
the minority parties as well as the DEM
ocratic-for there are Others, notably the
Prohibitionists, and the Socialists. We
suppose, too, that this view of non-parti-
zanship would demand that we have at
least two Mayors, two city clerks, even
two Aldermen from Ward One-just like
an "Uncle Toms Cabin" show with two
Uncle TOMS and two ToPsYs. 1t Is evil
IDENTIFY impracticable to split up tho indi-
vidual city officials into Republican and
Democratic parts with the facility that
is possible to beard composed OF three
or more gentlemen. And it is evidently
altogether impracticab'e to split our es-
teemed friend, Alderman NICHOLS, into
anything but two thin slices. Council
man TRUMAN believed that non-par-
tizanship consisted OF "treating both
parties fairly" and OF course his idea of
fairness was to elect Democrat to office
at the first opportunity.
1t will be noted from all this that the
idea OF -partizanship that prevailed
among the non-partizans in the debate,
but not in the election, was that nonpar-
tlzanship has to do with political parties.
In other words, that the spirit of nonpar-
tizanship should move the non-partizsn
to treat this or that POLITICAL party fairly,
to "recognize" this or that minority, and
to have more than one party "represent-
ed" in each and every public Office. This
is something quite different from what
we have been asked to believe was meant
by non -partizanship which we have been
Informed really meant the conservation OF
the public interests without any regard to
any party interests, minority or otherwise,
or fny concern as to such merely senti-
meutal ideas as representation" or 're-
cognition." "fairness" or "unfairness. !"
In word, the rohtios OF a public official
was not TO he questioned when claims for
office holding were under consideration,
as we understood the earlier definition OF
on-partizauship. What should it matter
TO Alderman NICHOLS or Councilman