The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-06-04

answer, There can be no such thing
as a necessary evil in government What
ever is necessary in government to pro-
mote the happiness and well-being of
the governed is not evil. Whatever is
evil is government is not necessary. We
might as correctly speak of a false truth
! as of a necessary evil Sometimes gov
ernments become so corrupt that reyolu-
tion becomes a sacred duty. Sometimes
laws are so unjust that their disregard
is public duty. The history of the
struggle of forefathers is an illustra-
tion of this idea. No dishonor has ever
attached to the memories of the heroes
of 1916, and yet they were violators of
the law. The war of the Revolution was
not a necessary evil. 1t was not an evil
at all. Our ancestors did not fight for
the maintenance of wrong, but for the
vindicaton of right The responsibility
which rested upon the citizen in that
hour of our national life required that he
espouse the cause of Justice and of
liberty.
Now let us see the vicious results
which sprang from the idea that in
dividual responsibility can be shifted. In
almost all civilized countries the agency
through which the citizen expresses his
preference is the political party to
which he belongs. There are almost al
ways two such organizations, sometimes
more. The protest against injustice or
corruption in the political party is more
feeble on the part of the citizen than it
is against the same things in his gov
eminent. He reasons that if the gov
eminent can afford to do wrong his
political party can afford to do still
worse; if his government can afford to be
unjust his political party can afford to
be more unjust; if his government can
afford to receive the fruits of corruption,
his party can afford to act as the cor
/ rupt agency in producing these fruits.
! One great blot upon the civilization of
all enlightened nations is the liberation
OF corrupt practices in politics. 1t is to
De hoped that the politics of our own
, beloved republic are not more corrupt
than the politics of other enlightened ma
tions. For one, l devoutly believe our
methods are as pure in America as they
are anywhere. and yet we cannot close
our eyes to the practice of certain
methods which no man can defend and
of which all political parties are guilty.
The universal liberation of these meth
DDS, the freeble protest against them
surpasses comprehension. An idea is
abroad in our republic, accepted by many
a patriotic good man, that it is actually
necessary for the public man to do
questionable things in order to be sue
cessful. Sad is the plight of the re-
public, if this be true. | deny it. Tt is
not true now and never has been Thank
God the lives of a long line of illustrious
men give the lie to such an idea But
neither you nor can deny that American
politics tolerate entirely too many indie
feasible methods and practices
Without offending the proprieties of
this occasion, | think / can cite the
practice adopted by all political parties
OF using money to effect the results of
elections. The grade of the guilt of any
particular political party is fixed by the
amount of money that party is able to
raise. If one party is more guilty than
another, 1T is because of the ability of
that party to raise more money If
either party is more virtuous than the
other, 1T is poverty enforced virtue
An examination of election figures
since 1876 will serve 60 emphasize the
danger of the use of money to the liberty
OF the American citizen. Generally the
majority which the successful candi-
date receives is a very small per cent.
or the entire vote cast. The average
voter belongs to one party or the other
His political principles and affiliations
are comparatively stable. This NAV be
caused by his Investigations. or by the
traditions of his family. or by contact
with people, in whom he has confidence.
VINO entertain certain fixed opinions But.
unfortunately, there is always a small
margin of voters whose SURFACES can
De purchased and whose ballots generally
determine the result of the election.
Even when there is a political revolu-
ton, as we call it, a comparatively small
number of votes will change the result
entirely. IN order to make this plain
l submit the following statistics. show
ing the majorities in the popular vote
and in the electoral college in the Presi-
Dental elections. commencing with Tat
of 1876:
In 1876 Mr. Hayes received one ma
Jorlty IN the electoral college. He re-
celved one hundred and eighty-five votes.
while Mr. Tilden received one hundred
and eighty-four. In that election the
defeated candidate received a majority
Oh the popular vote. Mr.. Tilden's plur-
atty was 250,S07, or .0297 per cent of the
entire vote cast. A change of 529 votes
in one State would have entirely changed
the result of that election.
In 1880 General Garfield received only
9,464 votes more than his opponent, Gen
eral Hancock. He received nothing like
majority of all the votes cast He re-
ceived majority of SO in the electoral
college. But a change of 1857 votes in
one State alone would have entirely
changed the result.
In 1884 the defeated candidate, Mr.
Blaine, again received triing plurality.
IN the popular vote. He received %
votes more than his opponent. but he
was defeated in the electoral college hy
81 majority. And yet a change of SIS
votes in one States alone would have
changed the result of the election and
conferred the great office of President
upon Mr.. Blaine.
IN 1888 againt the defeated candidate
received plurality of 100, 496 in the pop
u.af vote. This was little less than
one per cent. of the entire vote cast In
the electoral college General Harrison
received majority of &C. But a chance