New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-12-06
",uprDENT INTERFERENCE"

- Anv attempt TO question the doings OF ma
chino politician is regarded as impudence by
him MIR. Plat and Mr.. Quigg are for the mo-
ment irving to smooth down and smile down
opposIton that is getting too formidable to
treat with the usual brutal cynicsm. But that
Is only an expedient. Platt and Croker agree
perfectly-as appeared in their talks before
e]ection-that the duty Of every member OF
marty Is 10 stand by the machine, or, II he
doesn't like It. get out. The objectionable sin
is to stay In and refuse TO take orders. Their
answer to all CRITICS is to call the critics
Mugwumps and ask in triumph what business a
Mugwump has to be meddling with the con-
duct of the Republican or Democratic party
machinery
So long as they can maintain the position that
they are law unto themselves and that the
independent citlzen-even the citizen who makes
no pretence to partisan alliance with them
has no right to call them 10 account, they can
maintain the despotism which they have found
ed and intrenched by law. The ballot law ana
the Court Of Appeals decision giving the ma
chimes absolute right over the procedure OF
nominating have really abolished republican
government In this State and created an alter
native monarchy from which the people have
practically no appeal. For that reason every
citizen, no matter how rank an outsider he may
be- has direct interest In the doings Of the ma
chimes. To say it Is impudent for him to inter
fere is like telling a man on trial for his life
that 1t Is npudent TO inquire into the method
of getting jury. The citizen Is at the mercy
Of the machine. 1t Is going to run over him
unless ne can control 1t, and 1t Is mockery to
tell him to get out Of the way If he doesn't
" mt to be run over when the two machines
together occupy the whole road
Take the election Of local officers for instance
Under the law to-day there are towns In this
State where the unanimous action of the voters
could not secure the selection Of a supervisor
or constable or town clerk except through the
agency Of the machines. The ballot law re-
uuires that independent nominations In towns
must be made by the certificate Of one hun
dred voters Without that certificate no name
can be placed on the ballot. Yet there are
eight towns in the State in which the total
vote at the Presidential election was less than
one hundred These towns are Elko Cattarau-
gus County; Ncwcomb, Essex County; Brighton
and Duane, Franklin County; Arietta, Benson
and MOrehouse, Hamilton County and Claire,
St Lawrence County. An independent nOmina-
ton in those towns is utterly impossible Mr..
Platt through the State Committee, can de-
clare any one OF their caucuses irregular" and
the Court Of Appeals will uphold the machines
right to say who can use the party emblem; he
can put on the ballot any name he wants, and
they have no choice but to take him or vote for
q Democrat who may be nominated with the
same defiance Of local sentiment.
Then there are twenty other towns In which
the total vote was less than two hundred In
1896 In them the letter Of the ballot law does
not forbid independence. but 1t makes It prac-
tically impossible, for with two hundred votes
divided between the two parties a large major
ity Of the voters Of n party would be unable TO
nominate candidate In opposition to some
person named by boiling minority which Sc
cured machine recognition" AS to indcpen-
lent voting by unattached minorties, there are
. hundred towns where there Is no chance for
1t. And as TO an independent nomination for n
State Office. Mr. Plat himself has had a lesson
In Its difficulties. His machine wanted TO nut
up second Democratic candidate for Chief
Judge by petition, and with all its resources
found itself driven to wholesale frauds, which
led the Court to declare 1t illegal.
These are only q few examples Of the help