Year: 1879

M. Thurlow Weed, whose political counsel will always be received with the regard due to long experience, has recently written a letter, in which he says; "Like majority of the Republicans of the State, l was opposed not only to the nomination of MT. Cornell, but to the objectionable methods by which his nom- nation was effected. is true that pers, n- al rather than public considerations swayed the Convention. MT. Cornell was nominated by the enforcement of Senator Conkling, wuose reiterated exactions upon his party are becoming onerous and irksome." Mr. Weed adds that MT. Cornell owes his nomination to his removal from the Naval Office "under an absurd and impracticable scheme of civil ser- vice reform" In other words, it is protest against administrative reform. MT. Weed certainly makes strong case and if a Repub- lican were ever at liberty to decline to follow the recommendation of Convention, it would seem to be when it's action is thus con- fessedly contrary to the will of the party; when it is taken under personal pressure for personal objects, and not for the party or pub- lie welfare; when it is procured by methods which even to SO practiced politician as Mir. Weed seen objectionable; when it Is intended to commit the party to an act of vengeance upon a Republican Administration for carrying out the principles declared by Republican National Convention, and enforced by d Re- lican Executive in persuance of his distinct and emphatic reiteratlon of those principles in hls letter of acceptance and his inaugural address; and when such recommendation can be rejected without detriment to the apparent party strength in the State. Unless Republi- cans are bound always by all the recommen- dations of Convention, these would seem to be the circumstances under which, if ever, they may disregard such of them as are nec- essary to show their opinion of such manage ment.

 I'M.

 gues that the whole recommendation should be accepted upon the extraordinary ground that ''the duty of an elector concerns his par ty, and, as a corollary, his country That duty can only by discharged by voting for the representatives of his party" He states this without qualification, and it is doctrine which is absolutely indefensible The duty of an elector concerns his country, and his party as the means. When, therefore, in his judgment the management of the party or the regular recommendations of the party im- peril the purposes and the supremacy of the party, he must decline to support it. If it be answered that the only practical method of managing politics by party is the rule of the majority, when it can not enforce It's recom- mendations. we reply that the only way in which majority can be taught to recommend what will be always unitedly and vigorously supported, is to refuse to sustain unworthy recommendations

 MT. Beecher agrees with MT. Weed The ''machine" was warmly defended by Mir. Beecher in a recent speech in Brooklyn, With out qualification, and as if he supposed that machine meant merely organization. His words as reported were ''There is no admin istration of Democratic Republican govern. ment possible but by machinery It Is found. ed in nece ssity, and all talk against parties and politics. and machinery and management, is the talk of men who do not care what they say or do not know what they mean, or who do not know anything. You can not have anything in politics without parties and organ lzations, engines and management" Does MT. Reecher know anybody who thinks that parties are useless, or that they can exist with out organization ? We do not. But his un- qualified assertion that all protest against ma chinery and management in politics is mere folly or ignorance, it identical with that of the runners and advocates of the Tweed Ring eight and nine years ago. It is she old deell- ation of the Tammany Hall orator, n.ati, i | the days before Tweed that he would vote for the devil if he were regularly nominated. It is doctrine fatal to manhood and decency and honor in politics and tIinse who deny 1t and reject 1t care quite as much what they say, and know quite as clearly what they mean, as MT. Beecher III his unqualified stir- port of it. Its unchallenged assertion upon

 CONCLUDED ON FOURTH PAGE.