Party Allegiance

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

PARTY ALLEGIANCE.

Recent events have surrounded with a great deal of importance the question of how far party fealty extends, and how far an individual may be considered to have renounced his original claims to freedom of action by allying himself with a political organisation. It is insisted by ultra partisans that every member of a party must vote without scruple or hesitation for every one of the party nominees, and that every officer elected by a certain party to office must throw the whole weight of his official influence in favor of the behests and wishes of the organisation to which he is indebted for his position.

The Mayor of New York¹ openly contended, in the last Democratic State Convention, that even the judicial office was not exempt from this demand; and claimed that Judge Denio² should be rejected, because he had decided a question of law contrary to the wishes of his party. The Republicans, in nominating an opponent to Judge Denio, took very similar ground. They alleged that there were certain politico-legal questions likely to come before the Court of Appeals, to decide which in accordance with Republican party views, they wanted a Republican partisan on the bench. But fortunately for the independence of the Judiciary, the people preferred to re-elect Mr. Denio, who had already proved himself superior to partisan feelings in his judicial capacity. In so doing, we understand the people to have decided, that as regards the judiciary at least, they do not wish to see official power exerted for party ends, instead of on behalf of the right, and of the interests of the community.

A similar question with regard to the extent of party obligations arises out of the late New York election. Mr. Sickles,³ and other prominent Democrats, undertook to oppose the regular party nominee on the ground that they conscientiously believed him to be an unfit and dishonest man. We are not now called on to discuss the question of whether Mayor Wood deserved these accusations: suffice it to assume that Mr. Sickles and his co-laborers were sincere in urging them. If so, was Mr. Sickles bound, as a party man, to vote for a regular nominee, whom he believed to be dishonest?

Many good citizens, but strenuous partisans, consider that he was. We think not. The primary object of voters, in forming themselves into parties, is supposed to be, the election of those men, and the adoption of those principles, by which they think the public affairs can be best administered. In order to join any party, a citizen must be convinced that its general principles are correct, and that its selection of candidates is generally discreet. But in isolated cases of local elections, he may surely disapprove of a nomination made by the local branch of his party, and vote against the nominee, without forfeiting his standing as a member of the national party, to whose principles and policy he still firmly adheres.

Strictly speaking, parties, as such, have no business whatever with local government. Judges, and city and county officers, have nothing to do with national politics, and national parties ought to have no control over them or their election. While we have political custom houses, political postmasters, political Mayors, Supervisors, Justices and Aldermen, we cannot escape corruption and inefficiency. As things are now, men are put into local offices, not to serve the public, but the party; and as long as they subscribe liberally to party expenses, and prostitute the influence of their stations to party ends, the party is satisfied with them, and as for the rest of the community, they neither ask nor expect its favor or good opinion.

With such a state of feeling among office-holders (and every one knows that such is the feeling) neither change of parties nor amendments of charters are likely to reduce the ever increasing cost of our inefficient city government. The Legislature have separated our charter elections from those of the State, but this alone will avail us little. Every one of the political parties will come forward in due time with its list of partisan nominations, and partisan feeling and contest will be as strong as ever. The only hope of getting a cheap and efficient city government is for well known citizens of all parties, in each ward, to combine in recommending some proper person for each office, as was done in New York in the case of Mr. Tiemann⁴. It is not enough that a political organisation should put forth a good candidate—for a man who goes to the City Hall goes there hampered with ties and obligations which prevent him from doing his duty to the public faithfully. We must take local nominations altogether out of the hands of political organisations, if we would have a well-governed city.

---