Constitutional as well as moral principles, which drove the independents into opposition; and I will frankly confess to you that my own personal observations during my service in the Senate, as well as the terrible disclosures made since, from the whisky trials down to the jobbery revealed in recent investigations, have not seldom made me seriously doubt whether a thorough cleaning out of the influences now in power, by any means and at any cost, should not be considered the first thing necessary. I know that thousands of old Republicans arrived at such a conclusion.
The new Cincinnati platform promises civil service reform, but the platform of 1872 did the same, and it cannot be denied that public confidence in the mere paper promises of political parties is fatally shaken. The Republican reformers as well as the independents favored the nomination of Mr. Bristow, not on account of any personal attachment—for most of them were not at all, or like myself, but slightly acquainted with him—but because Mr. Bristow, in his official position, had vigorously used his opportunities for practical reform, thereby giving guarantees of honest government far more valuable than ever so many platforms. The platform alone will leave the party in a defensive position. It would be interpreted by the recent record of the party, and there is but too much in that record which cannot be explained away or defended by honest men. But the candidate can give life and certain meaning to it and thus revive all that ardor, part of which the defeat of Mr. Bristow threatened to transform into silent indifference. And here is the suggestion I desire to submit. In your letter of acceptance you can, if you choose, give your own construction of the platform and your own understanding of your duties if elected. You can substitute for the vague and discredited promises of a platform the frank
