to me most important. I have never favored high tariff protection. I regard that policy as, in the long run, economically as well as morally injurious—morally still more than economically. The more the Republican party became wedded to that policy, the less I agreed with it; and, therefore, when high protection became the main issue before the people, as in 1888 and 1892, I opposed it. When the question of public morals in government seemed to me the main issue before the country, as in 1884, I supported the candidate whose victory seemed to me to serve the public good best in that respect. When the main issue was between honest money and free-silver coinage, as in 1896, I put my dislike for tariff protection aside and helped the party supporting the cause of sound money.
If there were a political party standing for all the objects of high importance I have mentioned, I should stand faithfully by that party so long as it faithfully served those public ends. But in the absence of such a national organization, I and others of the same way of thinking must do the best we can to serve the public ends we have in view. And when I say “we,” I mean a very large and constantly increasing number of citizens who care more for the public good than for any political organization and who, therefore, have helped now one party and then another as in their honest opinion the public interest demanded. You say that such citizens are “traitors” to their party. But are they not faithful to their convictions of duty to the public good, and is not this fidelity, in the moral aspect, worth more than mere fidelity to an organization?
From your point of view you may find all this very foolish. You may call it “Sunday-school politics” or whatever you like. But if those independent citizens are conscientious in their opinions and their conduct, you have to respect them all the more as they follow their course,
