New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-04-25
THREE BROOKLYN TRAITORS.

I Forester and Jacob A. Livingston, OF Brook
lyn. were Republican candidates for Assembly
men, The consolidation measure. when IL WAS
generally understood would come before the
legislature then about TO be elected. was an
important factor among the issues presented TO
the electors The Brooklyn League OF Loyal
Citizens" so called an organization composed
of citizens Of both parties, considered IL OF so
much Importance that they made 1t the leading
Issue and addressed to each Of these candidates
specific inquiries on the subject which called Tor
categorical answers few days before the
November election Mr.. Hughes replied, saying
IL am in favor Of the resubmsson OF the ques-
'tion OF consolidation to the voters. VIII OPP
pose other legislative action on consohdation
unit. after resubmission." That certainly was
a committal and promise without the slightest
appearance Of reservation Mr.. Forester, an
swerng the same Inquiry, said: Il am IN favor
"of the resubmissiOn Of the question or con-
oscillation to the voters disapproye OF other
Legislative action on consolidation until after
resubmisson." This, too, was an explicit COM
initial, leaving no lOOphole for possible evasion.
Mr. Livingston's answer was no less straight
forward, square and frank. He said IN almost
the precise language Of the other two: Il am
"in favor Of a resubmissOn OF the question OF
consolidation, and do not favor consolidation
until such resubmission." No one could have
any doubt of his position after this announce
nlent without questioning his personal honesty
The same may be said Of the other two
Let us look at this situation a little more
closely We have quoted above the precise IAN
guage Of these three Assemblymen. Upon the
strength Of the promises they made before cleo
ton they undoubtedly received many votes which
they would have lost but for the assurance they
gave to voters as TO their position on the con-
solidation question. Indeed 1t Is quite probable
that without such assurance they could not have
been elected, and almost certain that If they
had taken a stand in favor Of consolidation with
out resubmisson they would have been defeat
ed 1t may be truly said that they owe their
election to the promises and pledges they each
made voluntarily to the League OF Loyal Ciu-
zens" Had any voter in the Brooklyn districts
represented by these three Assemblymen said
on the day Of the election that no dependence
could be placed on these pledges, that every one
of the three candidates named would consider
himself free to vote directly contrary to his
written pledge, SO direct an Impeachment OF
their veracty would have been met with an
outburst Of Indignation from the candidates
themselves and all their friends. They would
in the category, not only Of the ingenious class
| Of swindlers who obtain goods-and votes-on
| false pretences but Of common, everyday liars,
| who have no conception Of truth or veracity.
But all three Of these trusted Assembymen
| did vote for consolidation without resubmis-
sion That Is, they voted in April, 1896, for pre-
cisely what they promised In October, 1895, they
would not vote for Had any one said to either
Of these Assemblymen in November, 1895, II
have read your letter. but you will not do as
you promise. You will vote for consolidation
without resubmission," the Assemblyman so
addressed would have considered himself insult
| ed He would have said, Then you call me a
| liar" and, II quick tempered, might have re-
sented the insult with a blow. Hghspirited
| men sometimes do such things upon passionate
| impulse when their veracity Is impugned, and
| much is pardoned to ebullitions Of temper upon
such prOvocation But now? Any one may say
to any one Of these three: Here's the letter
| you wrote, and here's the vote you cast The
| man who wrote one and did the other is-well,
what do you say he is? truth-teller or lar?"
And there's but one answer to 1t, with no 0cca-
| sion for resentment Local political history Is
full Of instances Of regeneration, treachery and
all manner Of doubledealing and deception, but
we recall none In which absolute falsehood, with
| out disguise or cOncealment, was so apparent
Can these men excuse themselves? Certainly
! not No excuse suffces for men who, having
secured an Office upon deliberate PROMISE de-
liberately break the promise and betray the
voters who trusted them. Can they explain
their action? They try to. How? Why, each
Of them says, at greater or less length, that 1t
somehow became party measure and that he
voted for it because "the organization" or per-
sons controlling 1.-The organization" demanded
It, This Is not true either, for 1t was never a
party measure, and the Boss never dared under
take to make 1t such by caucus action. Let us
have done, then, with lying. One thing Is GER
tain. These men are not such fools as to sup
pose that after this betrayal Of written pledges
they can ever so much as show their heads for
an elective Office. They must be expecting COM
pensation for their political suicide In some
other direction They may be dismissed from
consideration as having any possibility In them
for ever hereafter being named for an elective
Office. But 1t may be well to keep an eye on
them, just to see precisely how the Boss TO
whom they have surrendered their personal
honor and their political future intends to COM
pensate them for the great sacrifice they have
made. And they being dismissed 1t may be
well for thoughtful voters to consider whether,
on the whole, 1t is worth while for great party
! to be ruled absolutely by one man, who does
not hesitate to command the elected represent