Year: 1879

The so-called Independents have cursed
what they stigmatize as the ''machine" so
frequently and so loud that they have really
succeeded in persuading good many intel
ligent people into believing that certain men
In various parts of the country had sue
ceeded in constructing piece OF mechanism
so powerful and efficient that by means of it
they were able to secure nominations for
themselves and their friends, in spite of the
opposition of the majority of the voters of
their party. The appearance of Simmons
and Usher in their ranks ought to effectually
dispel this notion. No better machine was
ever constructed than the one they owned.
The Independents all testified to its eff
cheney when it was running and pretended
to think that it was invulnerable. Yet the
men who owned it acknowledge now that it
was failure. They admit that it could
only be run by permission of the Republicans
of Massachusetts, and that when they said
it must stop it stopped.


The fact is that these Independents have
greatly exaggerated the power of the ''ma-
chine.' There must be leaders in every
party. Parties cannot exist without them.
But to say that these leaders are ordinarily
not selected by the party, but are the prod
uct of what is contemptuously styled 'ma-
chine'' is absurd. 1t is substantially con-
fession that popular government is failure,
for if the people can be deprived of their
right to select candidates for Office they can
be shorn Of great part of their power.
Now we do not believe the Independents are
readylo admit that. We believe that large
part of their talk about the machine" is
simply to conceal the chagrin they feel be-
cause the party has preferred other leaders
to themselves.


Their insincerity is shown pretty con-
clusively by the fact that they seldom adopt
the method of attack upon the machine most
likely to be successful. That is to say, they
neglect to go into the primaries and vote
against the Objectionable candidates. If the
New York Independents believed that Mr..
Conkling was bent on nominating candi-
date in opposition to the wishes OF major
ity of the Republicans, the best place to have
ulcI dllu ONcIbuIOWn 4ui. OouhllAS "OUiu
have been in the caucuses which selected
delegates to the convention. If Messrs.
Simmons and Usher really believed that
clique in the Republican party in Massachu-
setts was plotting to nominate a candidate
whom the majority did not want, they ought
to have reused the opposition and defeated
him in the caucuses. They hesitated to
adopt this method probably for fear of dem
onstrating that the machine they are fight
ing is the popular will.


We do not mean to be understood that
there is no place for the independent voter
in politics. There are times when independ-
ent voting may be productive of much good.
If, as sometimes may happen, the candidate
is Objectionable ou the score of morals or
unfitness, then it is the right and duty of
the voter to cut his name. The kind OF in
dependent voting that we object to is the
kind that cuts names from the ticket simply
from caprice and not for any substantial
reason. 1t is the kind that proposes to cut
Mr.. Cornell in New York, not because Mr.
Cornell is not proper man for Governor
but because he is a friend of Mr.. Conkling
who is supposed to control machine"