The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-01-24
IS m rARrY rREACHERYs

ton that Is causing considerable com ment in connection with the election of United States Senate in Missouri. The Republican members held caucus or an election in each house and nomina- ted Niedringhaus as their candidate Ordinarily, when the two houses meet in joint convention they ratify the ac- ton of the caucus and the two houses. If that had been done in Missouri Med ringhaus would have been elected on the first ballot. but this was not done. A number of Republicans bolted the caucus action and 1t now looks as If the nominee will fail. Is this action treachery to the Party? The Kansas City Journal has this to say about it:
 It is a principle of law that fraud vitiates any contract. Duplicity is a species of fraud. If those who partici- pate in caucus In good faith discover afterward that their opponents had de- termined to bolt If they were outvoted. then a case is presented .w..ere the ob- ligation to abide by the caucus d. cisior is removed. Men who are not dealing fairly themselves cannot reasonably ask that others deal fairly with them. Or. if it is shown by disclosures after the caucus that the nominee is not d fit man to represent his State. then the obliga- ton to elect him is superseded by the higher obligation to serve the interests of the State. A promise by honorable men is not binding when they see that It's fulfillment would be aiding q fraud and wronging the public.
 This is the position taken by those Republicans who bolted the Niedring- hat ,fr,a
 porting MT. Kerens. They claim that evidence has been produced which shows that the nominee is not a fit man to be Senator, and argue that these discoveries absolve them from all obli- gation to support him In view of some events of the recent past we are a little surprised at this It Is claimed that Niedringhaus has been guilty of bribery, corruption. grating, or some- thing of the kind, and that this was not known to them when they nomin- ated him in the caucus, and when that nomination was ratified by each house. Therefore. the bolters say they are ab- solved from their obligations to sup port him.
 We repeat that we are somewhat sur prised at this statement Looking at the course pursued by Republicans in Delaware. Pennsylvania, Connecticut and some other States, and at the kind of men they support in those States, we are led to wonder that the brethren is Missouri should balk at little things like their nominee is charged with; but there is a reason which is worth considering. Tn those States which have for years been the property of the Republicans, they have, to a great extent. ceased to be particular as to the character of man they support If he has the price and the pull, they line up for him with cheerful unanimity. It Is different in Missouri. There they came into power by something of a revolution. and it is to their interest to pay some regard to political decency, else their lease of power will be short It may also be a fact that they have a better brand of Republicans there than they have in some of the older States We can't say about that, without fur ther evidence.
 The fact remains. however, that a number of Republicans have bolted Niedringhaus, and the question that Is up. Is whether that bolt is justifable. In ordinary cases, the action of a Party cancus, especially when 1t has an hNr rtr fr oNh house, would be binding, and should be ratified and sustained by all Party men, but there may be exceptions to this rule. The verdict of a jury. or the action of a court is very often reversed on the ground of newly discovered evil dence, otherwise great injustice might be done.
 Should We not apply the same rule in politics? If. for example, a man has been nominated for an important of flee and before the election it is made known that he is not eligible, the voters are not bound to support him. So, if the Republicans supported Niedring- haus in good faith in their preliminary
 
 is an unfit man to be Senator, refusal to support him is not only justifable but entirely creditable to them as men and as members of the Legislature. If they have discovered that he Is not an honorable man. we commend them for refusing to support him. In the lam guage of the great Virginian they may say: If this be treason, make the worst of it."
 After all, would 1t not be a some what singular turn of affairs If Repub- lican dissension should result in the reelection of Cockrell?
 It was our own Chauncey. we believe, who said something about foreign atAN