The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1900-06-13
oh. CEAMBERLAIN's VIEWS.
South Cardinals Ex Governor Prefers
Bryan to Mckinley.

To the Editor Of the Springfield Repub-
lican:
The Republican has already gener-
ou>ly given place to the expression of
my Impressions convictions yet
or final conclusions-of what will be
the duty ard best policy of opponents
Of Mckinley and what he represents,
in the coming campaign. do not wish
now 10 repeat those impressions or to
attempt further to justify them, but
what / would like to do, especially in
view Of William Everett's letter on
which You cowmen! cd;tcrially today,
is to advert 10 one view often put for
ward aud apparently accepted by some
or maEy a: having great force in con
s!deration Of reXt falls situation. 1t
is this: Conceding or promising that
Mckinley ard Bryan will again be tie
candidates Of their parties, It is urged
that there being much that is o5jec-
jrctiopable in Bryan position AID Me-
kirley being holly iptolerable, it will
be wise ard polite as vel! as accord
ant with conscience aod principle, 10
set up and vote fer third candidate
who shall stand foc exact views and
principles. Judging from general OBJ
servation among my acqpsiutanccs and
correspondents, this seems to be re-
gardeG as real solution tf difficulty;
and 50 it has occurred to me to raise
the question whether the proposed So
lutiun is solution, as well as whether
the suggested course would be in any
degree sagacious.
This is the question, the crux, as |
understand it. The independent says:
cannot vote for Mckinley. Any
thing to beat him. abhor IL to l,
distrust deeply the Democratic parry
aud Bryan's encourage generally. Here
is choice of evils, one qaite intoler-
able, the other nearl y so, but less so.
Cannot avo d making choice of evils
by voting for third candidate; and if
| can, i it not best to do so, it being
also conceded or clear that the inde
pendent vote solidly cast would almost
certainly decide the election as between
Mckinley aud Bryan
My first remark on this is that with
third candidate it still remains true
that the choice lies between Mckinley
and Bryan. Indeed, that fact, however
disagreeable, must be distinctly faced;
namely, the fact that either Mckinley
or Bryan will be elected. By voting
directly for Mckinly or Bryan We di
rectly determine or help to determine,
to the full measure of votes, the choice.
By voting for third candidate we af-
feet only the aggregates Of votes for
Mckinley and Bryan, but do not change
their relative votes. The result, there
fore, remains the same ss if We had
voted directly for Mckinley or Bryan;
and if this is true, we do in strict fact
make choice Of evils after all. We
do choose, SO far as our votes 60, either
Mckinley or Bryan.
Under this view, what avails it for
independents to seek third candidate
when it appears that no third can be
elected and that our votes if cast solid
ly will determine the choice? We es.
cape from no dilemma; we solve no
crux; we avoid no choice of evils. A
vote cast directly for Bryan counts one
against Mckinley. a vote cast for a
third candidate counts only oue-half Of
a vote against McKialcy. Or to illus
trate copcretely and by figures, suppose
State to have 100 600 voters who cast
their votes. Suppose 5000 Of these
voters are Independents who sincerely
say any body or anything to oeat Nc
Kinley.' If the independent votes
are cast for third candidate, me sue
cessful candidate must have at least
one more than the half Of s., 800, that
is Il, ,50l.
Ii. on the other hand, there in no
third candidate, the successful can
didate must have at least one more
than the half of leo, 600 votes, that is,
80 00l, while if the independent vote is
cast soiidIy fcr one Of the two leading
candidates. that candidate will need
only Is, ,00l other votes, instead Of H.,
sol, TO carry the State repeat, then,
vote for third candidate when one
Of two other candidates is certain to
be elected has only one-half the value
or effect Of a vote given directly to
the least Objectionable Of the TWO lead
ing candidates, while the choice Of one
of the two leading candidates is just
as certain in the one case as in the
other.
If, in reply to all this, it is said that
with some or many independents It is
a matter of principle or conscience; in
other words, that they cannot con-
scientiously vote for Bryan, though
preferriug him to Mckinley; my sug-
ges,ion would be that the scruple is
mere sticking in the bark, aud not
a well-fouuded objection. | should re-
mark somewhat thus: You say you
cannot conscientiously vote for Bryan,
though preferring him to Mckinley,
and so you will vote for third candi-
date; but you see on reflection, do you
not, that by voting for third candi-
date you not only do actually make a
choice between Mckinley and Bryan,
but you contribute only half vote,
instead of whole vote, toward elect
ing Bryan and defeating Mckinley
result which you admit is the more
desirable one, if not the only tolerable
result possible?"
As well as | can reason out the mat
Ssr, it is fallacy ard illusion, how
ever conscientlously held or warmly
cherished, to think that under the con-
ditions supposed there is any escape
for the Independent, who sincerely
counts it, as | do, his foremost duty