Thc Case of the People vs. the Ring. good, is a prayer hitherto unanswered. If this be our line of activity, let it be said once for all that such a time will never come. No matter what may be true elsewhere, we are certainly not justified in expecting faithcures in this field. The application of the laissez-faire principle to politics does noth ing to- eradicate the evils against which all essayists inveigh. Some things may im prove by letting them absolutely alone; but if the writer reads history aright, govern ment has never exhibited any such pleasing tendency. On the contrary, reformers tell us that something must be done, and that speedily, if democratic government is to be preserved. Surely no observant person, conversant with the subject, will either deny or challenge the statement. But when we come to speak of remedies, they are so multifarious as to be confusing. There is one, however, I would strongly advocate for municipal politics. It is some what similar to that adopted in several foreign countries. In England, for instance, slips of paper are left at the various houses in a ward, and the voter, when he has the necessary leisure, writes down the name of a person he prefers as a candidate, and drops the paper thus marked into a letter box, or other convenient receptacle. These pieces are then collected, counted; and the person whose name occurs most frequently is the nominee for the office in question. The incontestable advantage of this method is that it emancipates nominations from the cast-iron fetters superimposed upon them by ring rule. Of course, however, this suggestion will participate in the fate of all other attempts at improvement. No doubt it too will be stigmatized as Utopian, and other adjectives in the same uncomplimentary category will be applied to it. But whether this particu lar device be practicable or not on this side of the Atlantic, is comparatively of minor
377
significance. The only point to be em phasized in this connection is the vital importance of nominations, — of selecting competent, qualified men to fill offices of public trust, be they high or low. Under our present methods the very men whose influence is recognized as prejudicial to good government declare who shall rule. Now, it is a well-established principle that like begets like. Never yet has the fountain risen higher than its source. Light has no fellowship with darkness. And if our offi cials prove recreant to their trusts, what more can be expected? They faithfully serve their masters in the ways marked out by these masters. What is imperatively demanded is that some method should be contrived to take nominations from the rings composed of professional politicians, men bent on their own selfish purposes, and vest them where they properly belong, in the people. To this end all loyal citizens should shake off the strange apathy that seems to chain them. They should rise in their conscious majesty, and declare, " We will not have such men to rule over us." When this determination is reached, then will come purity in politics. Never before. By substantially adopting the suggestions contained in these pages, it seems to the writer that sentinels of such a character would be placed at the portals of office that in the future only the clean would be per mitted to enter therein. In politics, as in everything else, the maxim holds true that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. And if our freedom is to be preserved, if our country is to continue its prosperous career, then these matters which lie at the very foundation of all good government must be guarded with the most assiduous care; for to the reflecting mind it surely will not be deemed a mere figure of speech when the statement is made that herein truly lies the issue of politics.
