Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1900-04-04
PARTY VS.. INDIVIDUALS.

The present discussion of the Porto
Rican question has led to a discus
sion concerning how far a public Off
Ger is bound to stand by his party.
We have touched somewhat on the
question before, but will now try to
establish our position more clearly.
When a political party in conven-
tion assembled has adopted certain
tenet of faith that becomes binding on
all who stand as candidates on that
party's ticket. In accepting any such
candidacy man tacitly subscribes to
the platform. For instance, the re-
publican party in 1896 had three main
planks in it's platform, namely, the re-
establishment of the Mckinley tariff,
international bimetalism, and the tenn
porary maintenance of the gold stand
ard till International bimetalism had
been established. All candidates for
congressional honors who received
their nomination from the republican
party were in duty bound to stand by
those three propositions, and McKin-
ley was bound to do all in his power
to bring about those results. Itwould
have been folly for any man who be-
lieved in those tenets to vote for Nc
Kinley and then vote for a congress-
man opposed to his platform. The
same holds good in state politics.
For instance, John Lind was NOM
mated on a platform limited almost
exclusively to state issues. Every
for the legislature nominated
by the fusion forces was bound to
stand by that platform. It was folly
for man to vote for John Lind and
then vote for legislative members who
would oppose him in his work.
But whenever new question comes
up during a mans incumbency of an
Office he must exercise his judgment
as to what is right or wrong and vote
accordingly. The president or the
governor has no right to lay down
rules as to what shall be the party be-
lief on the new issue. The president
or governor is entitled to his opinion
and to advocating the adoption there
of, but he has no right to crack the
party whip and say to the congress-
men or legislative members: II am
the boss, and what I say is party
law" Nor has the majority of the
members of that party in congress or
the Legislature moral right to say
what shall be the party's position.
That must be left to representatives
Of the people sent to a convention to
establish platform in accordance
with the wishes of the rank and file of
the party. Till that is done each
member is entitled to use his own
judgment. There are also numerous
questions coming up in a legislature,
not important enough to to be made
party issues, that require good judy
ment to decide. On such occasions a
member must rely on his sense of right
or wrong. Take for instance in the
last legislature when the question of
pardoning the Younger brothers came
up. That could not be made a party
question. Mems ideas of the treat
ment of criminals differ widely. It
was only question of whether quar-
ter of century of Imprisonment was
sufficient punishment. The senate
thought it was, the house did not
Each member voted according to his
personal convictions; it was the only
thing he could 60 by. Or take the
sugar bounty veto, about which q GER
tain political ghost made such an ado
last summer. The bill had been pas
sed as a routine appropriation bill.
It came back with a message pointing
out the dangers Of having no limits
to the bounty law. The, legislature
saw the point. 1t acted upon it,
adopting the suggested limits. It was
only q question Of whether to pass the
bill over the governors veto first,
and adopt the suggestions afterwards,
or to amend the bill in conformity