them from their sacred party allegiance? Did you not persuade them to commit “treason” to their party and thus to do a dishonorable thing? And as to the sound-money Democrats, without whose aid Mr. McKinley's election would have been, if not impossible, at least extremely doubtful, should they not, instead of being welcomed as patriotic auxiliaries, have been repelled with disgust as a lot of ignoble renegades, utterly unmindful of the sacred duty “never to vote any other than the straight ticket of their party,” and disgracefully given to “espousing all shades of political opinions”?
Fortunately for the country there are thoughtful Republicans as well as Democrats in constantly increasing multitude, who perceive not only the glaring absurdity of such doctrines but also the mischief of them; who recognize that political parties, to remain instrumentalities of public usefulness, must be confined to their legitimate functions, and that the enjoyment of the spoils is not the most valuable of the fruits of party victory; who are becoming more and more alarmed at the excessive party spirit so solemnly condemned by Washington, and at the demoralizing tyranny of party organization with its multiplying machines and bosses, as one of the greatest dangers to free institutions; and who see in the spoils system, for the full restoration of which politicians of your kind are so arduously working, one of the most baneful agencies ministering to the growing evil. Your “open letter” may well serve as a warning example of the moral effects of your own teachings upon yourself.
It is pleasant to notice that in three columns of personal diatribe you have at least ten lines about the real subject of our controversy. You are compelled actually to admit that the civil service law is not the creature of a set of “traitors” and “political hermaphrodites,” but that the Republican party claims it as its offspring, and has
