St. Paul daily globe., 1896-03-30
REPUBLICAN PARTY ETHICS.

John J. ingalls, gave the moral sense
Of the nation severe shock when, a
few years ago, he declared that purity
in politics was an iridescent dream,
and that the decalogue had no place in
1T. Mr.. ingalls, spoke out Of the depths
of a long and intimate association with
the policies Of his party, distinguishing
himself from his fellow statesmen by
his frankness in publicly stating what
the others realized, but kept behind
closed lips. We are having now, in the
initial stages Of another presidential
contest a striking illustration Of the
ethics Of politics in the party in which
Mr. ingalls, was so long a picturesque
figure. There yet remains in the minds
Of probably majority of the voters Of
this country a distinct conviction that
honor and purity and sincerity are not
1rreconcilable with party tactics; and
that dishonesty, fraud and corruption
are quite as certain to work out their
legitimate results in the life Of politi-
the individuals composing the party.
In spite Of equivocating denials there
remains no doubt that Mr.. Hanna, as
an ardent advocate of Mr.. Mckinley,
has been asking the benef1ciaries of the
policy impersonated in Mr.. Mckinley to
contribute a portion of their past bene-
fits to be used in his ante-convention
campaign. This drew from Senator
''BilI' Chandler, Of New Hampshire,
a protest and rejoinder that furnish
the country with a fine illustration of
the ethical notions Of the Republican
leaders in these the days of its fullest
and ripest development. We gather,
from his charge, that Mr.. Hanna had
invaded "Mr. Quay's state;" that some
thing of feudalism survives in the code
of Republicanism, and that our states
are a sort of baronies with the boss for
the baron, to whom only the service
of his subjects is due, and whose pro-
prietary rights must be held inviolate
by the barons Of other feudatories. IT
subjects of Quay that constituted the
offense. Furthermore, Mr.. Chandler
feared that it would be Injurious to
the party" especially should Mr. Nc
Kinley be nominated. "The issue will
be made by our opponents whether
we are to have president who was
nominated by the fat-frying' money of
millionaire manufacturers and is to be
elected by similar corrupt methods ap-
piled to the suffrage in the states"
This pointed criticism drew forth.
naturally, protests from eminent Re-
publicans. Some, like Grosvenor.
denied the charges hotly; but others,
aware Of their truthfulness, deprecat-
ed Mr.. Chandler's want of discretion in
thus affirming them, because it would
hurt the party" Here again we have
another sidelight on what are considered
the ethics of party. Mr.. Chandler's Of
fense was in corroborating statements
that might injure the party. Such
things should be either denied or
ignored. If a candidate were buying
his way to the nomination and election.
the conduct should not be exposed or
denounced, but silently blinked. In
his rejoinder Mr.. Chandler reiterates
his statement and expands his refiec
TONS To raise money from the bene-
ficiaries of protection for MCKINLEY was
unfair to the other candidates who
were as good protectionists as he. and
would be a most unjust and unfair
proceeding" Not essentially wrong:
perfectly right were it for the use Of
all, but wrong when diverted to the
use of one. However justifiable may
be the fat-frying after nominations
are made, to secure the election, ''using
money to control nominations would be
scandalous in the highest degree and
fatal to all attempts to maintain the
purity and honesty of party organiza-
ton" The levy upon Representatives
OF protected interests" may be justified
sfter nominations are made, but they
must not spend their money to secure
the nomination OF a man from whose