The St. Louis Republic., 1900-11-28

two clerks are to be selected by the board.
and as one of the board is necessarily Re-
publican. my statement that the Republic
an party has representation Is correct and
do not. as :ou say. omit the vital fact tint
the Democrats pick oct the representatives.
They cannot pick them out any more ttan
they did under the old law. Under the Nes-
bit law one of the board Is necessarily Re-
publican: under the cd law there never
could ha.e been more than one Republican
upon the board unless there had been Z Re-
publican Governor of Missouri The Only
way in which the Democratic Commissioners
could ''pick out the representatives. under
the Nesbit law would be by connivance of
the Republican Commissioner. or by the
Democrat: majority overruling the minor
ity Commissioner. and this brings us to the
only real point of Importance in your crit
icism of the law. viz: that no appeal Hes
from the decisions of the board, and that the
Republican minority may be overwhelmed
by the Democratic majority. I readily
ccncedc that this H. Il defect. very serious
one. Bot do not see how any election law
can be framed so that II will absolutely pre-
vent tine domination of one party or the
other.
Your frequent editorial references TO the
association of our committee with MIR. But
Ter is unfair In that you do not state the
purpose for which that association existed.
We have no objection to the publication OF
r!le charge as often as you please. pro-
vided you always state that the motive on
our part was solely for the purpose of Sc
curing good municipal officers. Upon this
proposition we challenge the criticism OF all
fair-n,!nded men. and | assert, without fear
of successful contradiction, that the only
way under our system In which good Of
fic;als can be secured is by coalition with
party machine managers 1t is the vice
of our political system that 50 many men
consider themselves too good for such as
th.l Catap fNf 20 NJ
didates is left entirely to the machine, and
the machine manager thus becomes the sole
agent of the public in electing its officers:
In this connection l beg to say that this
criticism comes with Ill grace from a news
paper which actively supported the whole
Republican ticket at the recent election-.a
and his machine associates. Now, what
ever the political record of Ed Butter may
be. think it will compare fairly we'll with
that of MIR. ZieSenhein. IL any doubt
exists In your mind on this proposition. 1
will he glad tn try the issue with YOU with
the public aa jury. and will call defendant
In my humble opinion. and in this II would
seem that more than half the voters of ST.
Louis concur. the city of st. Louis has
D!e. Il more infamous, more detestable
partisan machine than that which was or
sanized by Mr.. Henry Ziegenhein.. and
which has held this people in its clutch
for the last four years: Yet the Globe
Democrat. with all its power has upheld
his administration. has advocated the e!ec-
ton of a ticket many OF whom were
ramed by him and his machine, and If we
may judge from its present attitude Is pre-
pared to advocate the election of whatever
ticket this debauched crowd of political
thugs may choose to nominate next April.
One word more. You attempt to connect
the. nomination and election of James ].
Butler with the action of our committee
relative to nominations for city offices.
There was absolutely no connection what
ever between the two things. Whilst IT may
have been one of Ed Buffers motives in
coming to US to secure a reputable local
ticket SO as to strengthen the chances of
his son, that was no concern of ours, and
1t is begging the question to assume that
such association added one iOta to his
chances of election. The attempt to couple
the two things Is unfair and he who does
so xantonly and unjustly impugns the mo-
tives and conduct of men whose purposes
were absolutely pure and whose devotion to
the public good was unimpeachable.