and that if restored to power it would let things go just as they are going. Their denunciatory talk about the South is, therefore, more than idle—it is as an incentive to sectional animosities for the benefit of a party, vicious and unpatriotic clap-trap. And the Independents do not desire their support of Mr. Davenport to be construed as approving anything of the sort.
In defining the position of the Independents as every one of them would define it, I do not mean to say that they renounce forever all more permanent party attachments. On the contrary, they look forward to the time when such attachments may be again advisable. But at present we are passing through a period of transition. There are no clearly defined differences of principle or policy between the two great parties. Their platforms, except in their mutual denunciations, read remarkably alike. The question between them which most concerns the public interest is mainly that of good administration. The issue between them in this respect is not made up by their platform declarations, but practically, by their nominations of candidates. These nominations have been on either side sometimes good and sometimes bad, which indicates that they are not made according to a fixed standard. As long as this condition of things prevails we shall render the best service to the public interest by supporting in each case the best men representing the best methods, regardless of party. The more a party identifies itself with the reforms aimed at, the steadier the Independents will be in the support of its candidates. A party, old or new, making itself in its organization, as well as its professed principles, a trustworthy champion of these reforms, would count them among its most faithful members. And when at last these reforms shall have become so firmly rooted in the laws of the Republic and the practices of our political life that they cease to be an issue in our elections, differences
