Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1905-10-05
THE PARTY PLEDGE.

It is time for the voter to think for
himself. To quit voting on prejudices
excited by politicians that they may
slip into Office and get greedy hand
into the public treasury. OF course,
the politician will say, as he has been
saying, that an Independent voter is a
Republican. Let him say so. Like
many another thing the politician says,
there is no truth in it.-Fredericksburg
Journal.
This is free country and every voter
has the right to cast his ballot to suit
himself. But when voter has deliber-
ately gone into primary and taken a
gentleman's pledge to support the NOM
nees in the general election to follow,
it is then too late to talk about voting
Independently" in that election.
Democrats who voted in the August
primary cannot honorably vote the Re-
publican ticket in November, nor for
any of the Republican candidates. Nor
can they in duty stay away from the
polls on election day, unless unavoidably
prevented from going. The ballot
which they cast in the primary was in
itself pledge to cast another ballot in
the regular election; not merely to re-
frain from voting for the Republican
candidates, but to vote for all the Dem
ocratic candidates.
Of course, there is no way for the
party to enforce compliance, but that
makes the moral obligation only so
much the more binding. 1t becomes a
question of honor. A Democrat may
d,dge and shirk, but he cannot escape
the responsibility of this self-assumed
obligation. Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Our Richmond contemporary is very
emphatic in its assertions that individ-
ual Democrats should be bound by any
pledge they may have been compelled
to make at Democratic primary. No
matter whether the individual is after
wards convinced that the candidates
nominated are unworthy and the con-
Quoting of the primary dishonest the
votershould sacredly keep the enforced
pledge. The Times-Dispatch says he
cannot escape the responsibility of this
"self-assumed obligation. If he
lodges or shirks he is a dishonest man,
according to the ethics Of the Times
Dispatch.
Our Richmond contemporary is not
emphatic and earnest in its views as to
the sacredness and inviolability of
pledges made by its party in platforms
and by its party leaders on the hustings.
The Times Dispatch not only approves
Of the violation by the Democratic party
of it's pledge to give free books to thefree
schools but it denounces that pledge as
demagogic and socialistic. The Dis
patch didn't treat the pledge that way
when it was made in 1885. Nor does
the Times-Dispatch make any objection
to the perfdious conduct Of its party in
violating the repeated pledge to submit
the new constitution to the people for
ratification or rejection and of its SOL
emn pledge that white men should not
be disfranchised. According to the
very convenient ethics of the Times |
Dispatch it is hideously immoral for an
honest man to break pledge given at
a Democratic primary, even after ne
has become Disguised with the princi-
pies and practices of that party. But
it does not consider it immoral and dis
honest for the Democratic party to re-
peatedly break its most solemn pledges
to the people. How can any honest
man accept such teachings in political
morality?