Year: 1874




As general thing, it is wrong to lay the
robberes, and evil deeds that are committed
by men in high official positions, to any par
ticular party. For majority of all parties
are honest and good men, and the honest
Democrat, Or Independent, desires no more
earnestly to see thieving official rings bro
ken up than does the honest Republican.
1t is and we think no honest man will dis
pute our assertion, our adherence to party,
after party leaders have become corrupt,
that causes, and has caused, the evils Of
which we, as a people have, or ever had.
cause to complain. There are always, in
all communities, certain men who make
politics business, and who expect to live
from the fat of public positions. AS class
these men are more dishonest, and have less
regard for the real interests of the people
and country than any other. They seek the
office solely for the money, and when elect
ed, lend their official influence to those who
will pay the most for it. Thus it is that it
so often happens the people are sold by
the men who should protect them. We
have often noticed, and we suppose all men
have, that when individuals of this class
are nominated for Office there is generally
feeling of dissatisfaction among the good
men Of the party-an inward conviction
that they are not the men. But do they
expose them? No. DO they say, "We
will not support them because we know
they are not honest and capable men p
No. DO they discard them for better men
on the opposite ticket? By no means.
They say, cob, well, they are on our ticket,
and we will have to vote for them, and
vote for them they do, to a man. They are
elected, and palmed off as the choice of the
people; when, in reality, they are only the
choice of about dozen men, who manipu-
lated the convention and secured their NOM
nation. Thus our party fealty is brought
to work against us, and by this means the
meanest man, by simply procuring few
active delegates in convention, can secure
his election to an important Office of trust,
where his party have a majority. We vote for
men, lot because they are what we think
they ought to be, but becaus they are on
our ticket. We can imagine every man
who reads this, silently breathe "that's
So" That is SO, but is it right? Is it
safe? Is it not this care!cs, Indifference
called "party fealty," that has brought up
on us the burdens of taxation, under which
we groan to-day? But, then, you say, "if
we bolt our ticket and refuse to support our
party nominees, we are dubbed traitors,
turn coats etc. If we openly express
dissatisfaction, and seek the nomination OF
better men, they call us 'bolters. " Sup
pose you are called "bolters." 1t is the
lack of independence enoagh to bolt, that
give parties, and party leaders, such power
over the masses. When party leaders,
who in great melsure, control the nomi-
nations, refuse to sanction the choice of good
and trusty men, then the people ought to
bolt, and if they don't, they will suffer for
their indifference, Rest assured 1t is far
more honorable to be botcr in an honest
cause, than serve follower of tyrants
and hypocrites If the people felt under
less obligations to party nominations, parties
would be more careful who they nominated,
and better men would rule our country.