Local Politics

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

LOCAL POLITICS.

The great bane of our local elections is, that there are many persons, and not a few newspapers, which closely ally themselves with one political party, refusing to believe that there can be any evil in that party or any good in another; carrying their predilections and prejudices into local elections, extolling every man on their own ticket, down to assessor or constable, as a pattern of virtue, and denouncing every candidate of the opposite party as a scoundrel. These are the tactics on which the coming State and County elections, it seems, are to be conducted here. Accordingly the Democratic journal of this city, whose approbation is a misfortune and its abuse a credit, to the individual receiving it, asserts, that the fusion which has been effected on local offices by the American and Republican parties, is a swindle on the public, designed solely to place dishonest men in office, to give them an opportunity to deplete the Treasury. The other party paper, the Star,¹ is almost as severe on the motives of the Democratic candidates, though of course it is courteous and decent in its language, which the Eagle² knows not how to be.

Not professing allegiance to any party, the Times does not labor under the same necessity of cursing and blessing by wholesale. We are free to confess that both the candidates who run for Senate in this district are worthy men, and whichever is elected will doubtless do credit to the city. So with most other offices that nominations have been made for. We find on the tickets of both parties some eminently fit men, and we have no hesitation, therefore, in saying so. Most probably it is the advantage we have over a mere party mouthpiece in this respect, that stirs the bile of our restive cotemporary in the Western District, and makes him chafe his bit, kick over the traces, foam at the mouth, and expectorate so foully, every time he looks this way and contrasts our freedom with his tightly-harnessed condition.

The public cannot rely in political matters on these party papers. They are like “professional witnesses”—paid to swear only to those facts which go to make out a case for their employers. It becomes the duty, therefore, of journals occupying an independent position to correct their misstatements and point out their misrepresentations.

Now the statement of the Eagle, that the promoters of the fusion movement are corruptionists, is grossly false. The most active leaders of the movement, now in office, were Auditor Northrup and Comptroller Lewis: and these men are admired by no one more than the best Democrats, for their constant watchfulness over the public treasury. Only on Saturday we reported a decision in the Bond street sewer case, in which these very men have saved the city from paying an expense which rightly belonged to private owners of property. The comments which the Judge made on the action of the Democratic Corporation Counsel, place him in a very different light. This instance would seem to show that Fusionists are not necessarily inefficient officers, nor Democrats necessarily vigilant.

Each candidate [illegible] must an-[illegible] character. Party papers cannot longer delude voters by insisting that their candidates are all saints, and their opponents all sinners. In our reference to Mr. Booth on Saturday, we ridiculed the absurdity of attributing all the honesty and virtue of public officers to one man. We do not question Mr. Booth’s honesty, but his being honest does not prove every one else a rogue. There are honest and dishonest men in all parties; there are good and bad men on all tickets; and he who says otherwise thereby proves himself either a knave or a fool. The best feature about this Fusion movement is, that it is founded on the true assumption that men who do not see eye to eye in Federal politics may yet consistently agree on the merits of candidates for local offices.

---