Mugwumpism a Failure. 487 of politics and elections to accomplish what he may have in view. The question would then seem to arise, whether it is good policy for a man to remain independent in order to follow a principle, which must be without result, or whether he might better remain in his party and strive to attain his ends, as has Senator Hoar. No one will question that the Prohibitionist is honest in his endeavor to check, if not prohibit the sale of liquor, and yet when and where has the Prohibition party accomplished its purposes when voting independently? One of the two great parties of necessity more nearly approaches the standard of the Independent than the other, and by throwing his strength with that party he would be more likely to attain his purposes than by throwing away his vote absolutely. This thought leads to one of the great objections made by the Independent to persistent membership with one of the great parties. We are told that it is impossible to obtain anything excepting at the will of the so-called bosses or party leaders: in fact, the boss or party leader may be oftentimes an irksome element to many who remain loyal to party. But party leadership is as necessary as the manager of an industrial concern. Leaders cannot choose themselves and retain their places without unusual strength and the consent of their followers. The majority must and should always rule, and the minority should submit, or else by argument or vote bring to its own side and to its own principles enough of the opposition to further its own desires. A man cannot reform a party by working outside of it. It can only be done by working on the inside. A man may constantly remain with and vote with his party, and at the same time not believe in all of its policies. Perhaps he may not, as Senator Hoar claims, in almost every case in which he differs with his party bring it finally around to his own views, but if he be right and his party be wrong, he will soon be joined by enough of his fellow-voters to correct any evil or injustice that may exist. Party organization and party leadership must and will continue, and the best organization and the best leadership will often win against the better men and better principles. When we can combine with good principles and good candidates the best organization and leadership, there can be no defeat, but at all times overwhelming victory. The Republican party has in a national contest in only one instance-and it is a question whether it has in any instance -been defeated by Independent votes. Had the several distinguished men who have left the party at one time or another, and for one reason or another, remained with the party, there can be no doubt that while in the main the principles and policies of the party would not have been changed, they would have come nearer to accomplishing their wishes instead of accomplishing nothing, or working injury, which has been the result. Mr. Hoar in his Autobiography tells us that ex-Secretary George S. Boutwell commended his course in remaining with his party while differing with it upon one of the main questions at issue during the past few years. One wonders why Mr. Boutwell, who was an honored member of the Republican party for many years, should not have remained with it as has Senator Hoar, whose course he commends. If one might venture an opinion of the true cause of Mugwumpism, it may be said that but few men have the courage to reverse an expressed opinion or an act, even though they may confess to themselves and to their nearest friends that perhaps after all they were unwise and impolitic; and yet some of our greatest statesmen have done that very thing. John C. Calhoun did this when he changed from a Protectionist to a Free Trader; Daniel Webster did it when he changed from an advocate of low tariff to a Protectionist; David A. Wells did it when he changed his economic views concerning the Tariff; and other examples might be cited, but the Mugwump does not seem to have either the courage or the inclination to do this, and therein he confirms the definition which we have quoted from Colonel Ingersoll. There is no doubt that in government by party, when the party in power is continually met by a strong opposition, persistent and consistent, founded upon strong principles and led by strong men, it is not only for the best good of the Party Fealty Best. 489 Such party in power, but for those who are governed by it. opposition coming from a dissatisfied and scolding handful of malcontents, voting first with one party and then with another, has not this corrective element of strength nor can its influence be felt or rendered effective. If the Prohibitionist can check the consumption of liquor more through the Republican party, then he should vote with that party and gain what he may. Should the Protectionist believe that he can do more to maintain a higher Tariff schedule through the Republican party, then he should vote with that party. Should the believer in a gold standard and an honest dollar believe that through the Republican party he can bring about a maintenance of that principle, then he should vote with the Republican party. Should the Independent or Mugwump or Anti believe that he can help to bring about a larger share of what he wishes for his Government through the Republican party than through the Democratic party or by acting alone, then he should vote with that party and work for the attainment of those principles and those policies in which he differs from his party. It is well that Independent party movements have been tried, if for no better reason than to show that they have been and probably ever will be failures. It is now time for all men to line up on one side or the other, and vote with that party which most nearly represents the majority of their principles and ideals. It is time that all men go to their party's caucuses and work for the best men as candidates for office, or as delegates to the convention which shall frame platforms and nominate men for the higher offices of our Government. Then let the majority rule for the time being, and if it rules well the party in power will continue in power. If it does not rule well, the opposition will come into power, to continue as long as it deserves the support of the majority of the voters. APPENDIX. REPUBLICAN PARTY PRESS-NATIONAL REPUBLICAN LEAGUE -AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE-HOME-MAR- TH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PRESS. HE following sketch of Republican journals, founded at or soon after the birth of the party, was prepared for this work by Charles M. Harvey, Associate Editor of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat. Mr. Harvey is the author of a condensed history of the Republican party, a Handbook of American Politics, a History of Missouri, etc., and is a frequent contributor on political and sociological questions to the leading magazines. This was When Horace Greeley, in the New York Tribune of June 16, 1854, said, "some simple name like Republican would more fitly [than Whig, Free Democratic or any other] designate those who have united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of liberty rather than propagandist of Slavery," he made the first suggestion contained in any prominent newspaper of the name which the new party of freedom was to bear. a little over two weeks after President Pierce had placed his signature on Senator Douglas's bill organizing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and giving Slavery an equal chance with Freedom in a locality from which Slavery had been excluded under the Missouri adjustment which had been in operation up to that time. It was nearly three weeks before the first official selection of the designation by any |