Page:The autobiography of a Pennsylvanian.djvu/203

REFORMER

In order that the views of those who advocate the right of separate and independent political action should have weight with their fellowmen, it is important that this right should only be invoked in cases of well-ascertained necessity. They who take an interest in watching the political fold become wearied with the cry of "wolf," if it be uttered lightly or with too much frequency. The greatest wrong of which the Independents have had in the past to complain has been the use of the party machinery in such a way as to thwart the wishes of the people. Time and again has the public preference been set aside by men who were able to manipulate conventions and to utilize the various devices known to the skilled politician. The Independents of Pennsylvania have felt that they could justify their action in opposing a nomination even for so high an office as that of Governor of the State, if able to show plainly that it was the outcome of the schemes of the few, successful at the expense of the many. To a great extent this wrong has been remedied, and very largely through their exertions. By the overthrow of the unit rule and the establishment of district representation, it became possible to hold a National Convention that was representative in the true sense. The expression of the will of the members of the Republican party, and they were enabled to express their will because of the exertions of the Independents, has resulted in the nomination of Mr. Blaine.

It cannot be gainsaid that Mr. Blaine is the choice of the masses of the dominant party in the United States, and that the late convention, better than most of its predecessors, gave heed to the demands of its constitutents. It is an evidence of the personal strength of Mr. Blaine that his support came from the farthest East and the farthest West, from Iowa, with her agriculturists, and from Pennsylvania, with her manufacturers—and in these widely separated localities, with their diverse interests, was exceptionally earnest and enthusiastic. To oppose his election would then seem to be an attack upon the results of independent work. It would seem to be an acceptance of the theory against which we have been contending, that the few are more entitled to consideration than the many, and to differ from the principle and practice of the machine men, mainly in respect to the personality of the individuals who participate in the effort. It assumes a very assailable, if not an indefensible position in that it enables opponents to charge that Independents are never content unless their own preferences as to candidates have been successful. Such an opposition would not only be difficult to defend upon theory but would, we conceive, be most disastrous in its results, since