Address of Thomas M. Osborne, before the
Convention of the National Party, New
York City, September 5,

Headquarters: 63 William St. (Room 37), New York, N. Y.

Gentlemen, Members of the National Party :
Twelve years ago, James Russell Lowell delivered an address before the Reform
Club in New York City, on " The Place of the Independent in Politics."
"It is, for the interest of the best men in both parties," he said, " that there
should be a neutral body, not large enough to form a party by itself, nay, which
would lose its power for good if it attempted to form such a party, and yet large
enough -to moderate between both and to make both more cautious in their choice'
of candidates and in their connivance with evil practices. If the politicians must
look after the parties, there should be somebody to look after the politicians. "
" It has been proved, I think," he added, " that the old parties are not to be re
formed from within. It is from without that the attempt must be made, and it is
the independents who must make it. If the attempt should fail, the failure of the
experiment of democracy would inevitably follow."
1. Failure of Reform. There are many men who in the face of all ex
perience still cling to the idea that political parties can be reformed from within ;
that if only good men would attend the caucuses with sufficient regularity that all
would be well. It may not be undesirable, therefore, in outlining our position, to
begin at the beginning.
While it might be conceivably possible, as a mere matter of theory, for good
men to get good results out of the present caucus system ; yet, as a matter of fact,
the effort has been conscientiously made time and again, and. it has failed. The
drift of the parties is over worse and worse. Why is this so ? Because you cannot
get decent men to sit down to play against loaded dice, no matter how much they
may wish to reform the gambler. The chief result of reform within the party so
far, has been to render the decent men silently co-responsible for political iniquity,
while they battle in vain against corruption in the ranks.
Finding this course to be a failure, the reformer has tried the plan laid down in
the address from which I have quoted. This is reform from without the party. A
compact body of independents tries to act as a corrective force by throwing its
weight now to this side and now to that, giving victory to the party that shows
itself the most deserving.
Lowell was a shrewd and scholarly observer, looking at our politics and history
with a breadth of mind and knowledge seldom equalled ; and it seems a little
strange, especially in view of his experience of politics before the war, that he
should have laid such stress on this plan as to prophesy failure for the Republic in
case it was not successful. As a matter of fact, we must now confess that, like the
attempts at reform within the party which it superseded, his plan of political salva
tion is also a failure ; and the reason is not far to seek. The success of the method
depended upon the desire of the politicians above all things to win the election.
When, therefore, one party put up an unfit candidate, the obvious plan to win the
independent vote was for the other party to put up a fit one. But the political
bosses know a game worth two of that ; and we now find the doctrine openly
acknowledged that defeat for the party is better than success with the aid of the
Independents. So that it becomes the policy of our bosses to present us with two
subservient or otherwise unfit candidates, and we have as a regular and formulated
political system— the choice of evils.
Now, men do not like to choose between evils ; but in politics where one natur-

Cxi 35
ISO

ally cannot get all one wants, and where compromise of ?P™onis ^equeirtand
entirelyjustifiable,menareaptto confound compromise of opinion and compro
mise of conscience Where it is simply a question of getting someth ng^ although
not everything you want, and where you do nothing wrong to get it, where thq
choice is between the more and the less desirable, everyone is Rifled m compro
mising. But when the question becomes one between two things which we teel
are both wrong ; when the choice is between a greater and a lesser evil ; where one
must compromise, not opinion, but conscience, then to choose at all is immoral.
So as we stand hesitating as to our political duty in the present campaign, and
trying to make om-selves believe that one or the other candidate is not as bad as he
seems, comes the mocking echo of Tweed's time-worn question, "Well ! what are
you going to do about it ? " . __, ,
The question is in truth a pertinent as well as an impertinent one. What are
we going to do about it ? Obviously the easiest course is the one that first suggests
itself: "Do the practical thing, accept the inevitable and submit, choose the less
of two evils and bide your time." ,,.».,
If it were an isolated case, if this election were the last, if there were no to
morrow's reckoning as to duties done and undone, such advice would be perhaps
politically wise, although hardly morally heroic; but since each election is not an
isolated fact, but one of a long series, it is our duty to look ahead and see where
such political action will land us ; to see what is the effect of compromise with evil;
to make sure that, as in battling with any ordinary temptation, the course of action
which appears to be the least trouble is not in the end the most troublesome.
Fadlis descensus Avemi. If we tamely submit this time shall we not see our
politics continue to go from bad to worse? Are we to be forever confined to a
selection of this ignoble kind ? We were called upon to choose between two evils
four years ago, they are worse evils this year, and four years hence shall we not
have still worse? And if there is any chance of this being so, what is to be gained
by submitting to the humiliating choice now ?
Reform from within, and reform from without the party have both failed:
what then remains ? We can not accept Lowell's too hasty conclusions that the
failure of Democracy will inevitably follow. That would surely not be his own
position where he with us to-day ; but the situation is in truth a dangerous one,
and it is high time some new course of action is adopted. Fortunately the right
of revolt still remains to us ; and by that I mean the formation of a new political
party. 2. A New Party Needed. It is indeed a hard and thankless task that
lies before us ; one to be entered upon in no trifling spirit, but with prayers for
light and guidance ; with no underrating of the difficulties, but with faith in the
outcome and patience to endure. We must deal with the present, with a view to the
future ; we must see the glow upon the distant hills, and forget the hard stones
under our feet. Difficult as the task is, it is the one which Logic, Ethics and His
tory all point out as the true way to deal with the evils that confront us. Charles
Sumner, more than fifty years ago, taught us that between two evils, the honest
man should choose neither, and now the whirl-i-gig of time has brought around
again a condition of things in many respects strikingly similar to that with which
he battled. Just as those who wished to fight effectively against the corrupting
influences of slavery were forced to found a new party, just so we, who wish to free
our country from the influences of the organized corruption of our day, must take
pattern by these older patriots. We all dread and dislike the toil, worry and strain
of the task. I say we dread and dislike iU Perhaps it would be more correct to
say that we should dread and dislike it, were we not buoyed up by that priceless
sense of right that makes our pathway clear and our burdens light. Ridicule us as
they will, I feel sure that every man, if he could so express what he really felt,
would say : "I honor the man who is ready to sink
Half his present repute for the freedom to think ;
And whea he has thought, be his cause strong or weak,
Will risk 't other half for the freedom to speak,
Caring naught for what vengeance the mob has in store,
Let that mob be the upper ten thousand or lower."
3. Objections. In most of the slovenly political talk and argument, one
finds it constantly assumed that to vote for candidates whom you do not expect to
elect, is one of the worst forms of political foolishness. We never find in these
quarters any question raised as to the wisdom of running a Democratic ticket in

The National party would call your attention to the enclosed
pasters to be used in the coming election over the names of elec
tors of President and Vice-President.
The party's intent in nominating but a single elector, is that
his name may be written beside, or pasted over, that of one elector
on any ticket where the voter feels that it is necessary to vote
for either the Democratic or Republican candidate, but desires at
the same time to protest against the necessity of choosing the les
ser of two evils. When the voter cannot consent to endorse either
of these candidates he may erase all the names on the ballot
if he so chooses, and by using one of these pasters, or writing in
the name Leonard Woolsey Bacon, vote for a presidential elector
who stands, without compromise, for the principles set forth in
the following platform: PLATFORM.
We, citizens of the United States of America, assembled for the purpose of
defending the wise and conservative principles which underlie our Government,
thus declare our aims and purposes:
We find our country threatened with alternative perils. On the one hand is a
public opinion misled by organized forces of commercialism that have pervert
ed a war intended by the people to be a war of humanity into a war of con
quest. On the other is a public opinion swayed by demagogic appeals to fac
tional and class passions, the most fatal of diseases to republics. We believe
that either of these influences, if unchecked, would ultimately compass the
downfall of our country, but we also believe that neither represents the sober
conviction of our countrymen.
Convinced that the extension of the United States for the purpose of holding
foreign people as colonial dependencies is an innovation dangerous to our liber
ties and repugnant to the principles upon which our Government is founded, we
pledge our honest effort through all constitutional means:
First — To procure the renunciation of all imperial or colonial pretensions with
regard to foreign countries claimed to have been acquired through or in conse
quence of naval or military operations of the last two years.
Second — We further pledge our efforts to secure a single gold standard and a
sound banking system.
Third — To secure a public service based on merit only.
Fourth — To secure the abolition of all corrupting special privileges, whether
under the guise of subsidies, bounties, undeserved pensions, or trust-breeding
tariffs. You are urged to paste Mr. Bacon's name over that of the first
elector on either of the other tickets, in order that your vote may
be the more conspicuous and readily counted.
It will further be a great favor to the committee if you will send
us the names of as many persons in your town or city (or in other
parts of the State) as you know are interested in the movement,
since we have not the funds nor is there the time to distribute
pasters or literature broadcast.
Pasters can be obtained from Dr. W. Allen Johnson, of Mid-
dletown, Walter Learned, of New London, or of the Secretary.
Small contributions are solicited to cover the expense of mail
ing and printing.
CHARLES G. MORRIS, SECY. AND TREAS.
139 Orange St., New Haven.

Vermont, or a Republican ticket in South Carolina ; yet a vote for McKinley in
Charlestown, or for Bryan in Brattlehoro, will be just as much thrown away as a
vote for the candidate of the National Party. The idea that votes are intended
merely to elect certain persons to office instead of primarily as a means to express
sincere political convictions, is one of the signs of political degeneracy. Moreover,
I have yet to find anyone, no matter how loud he might be in scouting the idea of
a third ticket and reviling its promoters, who would not confess that he, too, would
be a third ticket man under certain conditions which he would recognize as evil.
There is no need, therefore, to waste time in maintaining the propriety of third
tickets in general ; it always comes down to a question of individual judgment as
to whether certain given circumstances warrant a third ticket as a matter of
political morals ; and after this comes the second question as to whether there are
enough men who believe in the ticket as a matter of political morality to make the
putting forth of one an act of political wisdom.
Taking up the latter question, we find at first a wide difference of opinion.
There are those who are always in favor of a third ticket on principle, but who
never find the present time right to try it. They are like the White Queen in the
nursery classic, who proposed to give her maid jam every other day ; that is, jam
yesterday and jam to-morrow, butnever jam to-day; because to-day is not any other
day. _ To these we may answer that there has never been a time within a genera
tion in which the situation so imperatively called for action. More conscientious
voters throughout the land are perplexed and distressed as to their political duty
than at any election that we can remember. If there ever was a time, therefore,
in which to bring relief in the field of national politics, it is to-day.
There are some who will admit the correctness of the principle of third tickets,
but who deny that it can ever be put in practice. Like those people we used to
hear of who believed in the theory of free trade some day or other, but who always
wanted the tariff raised in the meantime. "There have always been two great
parties," it is claimed, "and there will never be more than two. It is hopeless to
battle against human nature." This looks plausible until we begin to inquire how
the republican party came into existence when the field was already occupied by
two great parties. But perhaps a shorter answer is to reply, " If there can only be
two great parties, we do not object, only we want to become one of the two."
But seriously, as between Republican paternalism and Populistic radicalism, we
believe the country needs, and must have sooner or later, a strong conservative
party, which will take up some of the life giving principles which the others have
laid down.
"All forms of human government," said Machiavelli, " have, like men, their
natural term, and those only are long-lived which possess in themselves the power
of returning to the principles on which they were originally founded." It is be
cause we wish to bring our country back to the principles of the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution, that our party has been founded.
There are those who believe in a third party, who want it for themselves, but
who fail to see enough demand for it from others to justify putting it in the field,
to whom the difficulties and expense seem to preclude any great success and who
do not wish to undertake a campaign without prospect of great success. To these
I would say that one has only to look about him, to listen to the talk in the streetSj
the cars, wherever men congregate, to realize the deep disgust that has come over
the voters of the land. Was there ever a campaign in which apathy was so
apparent ; ever one in which such a speech as Mr. Bryan made in Indianapolis,
could fall, after a brief galvanic spasm, so entirely flat ? What is the meaning of
it? It means that the people are morally tired and politically discouraged.
Republicans are coming out for Bryan, Democrats for McKinley, each driven to the
support of the other party through disgust with his own. Others are voting sul
lenly for their own party despite the pricking of their consciences from distrust of
the other. " Yes I feel all you say about the folly and wickedness of this Phillipine
business— but I will not endorse Bryan"— " I have no confidence in populistic vaga
ries, the Democratic party is hopelessly adrift — but I can not vote to uphold
McKinley " — and so it goes. Letter after letter comes to our temporary headquar
ters upon the mere rumour that a third party movement is being considered, urging
and sometimes well-nigh imploring us to provide means of relief. It would be
wrong in us not to heed these appeals. If a third ticket is morally right, it is polit
ically wise ; and I do not myself see how any one, admitting the conditions, can fail,
if he is an honest man, to adopt the remedy. 3

There is one other tvpe who must be dealt with here > although the i .not. con
sciously an element of difficulty. On the contrary he is friendly, but he wants a
third ticket-not to vote it himself-but for someone else to vote. He himself is
strong in opposition-he does not vote for anything but against something , and it
he can pull some of his friends but half way out of the hostile camp, he feels that
even that is worthwhile. I do not mean to jest at these good men for they
are very serious themselves, but it seems to me as though they were looking
at matters always through either one end or other of their opera glasses and
never through their own eyes alone. I do not believe that people, as a luie,
trust the high moral principle of anyone who seems to be moved by .mere neg
ative opposition to a man's personality. If the opposition comes naturally through
devotion to some affirmative principle, they can understand it ; but they found it
hard to believe in the sincerity of the gold democrat with his hatred ot Bryan and
they find it even harder to believe in the Anti-Imperialist with his hatred ot
McKinley. When the Anti-Imperialist in the ardor of his devotion begins to mag
nify Mr. McKinley's vices and Mr. Bryan's charms, people say, not unnaturally,
'¦This does not look like genuine and clear-headed devotion to principle or they
would also see the holes in Mr. Bryan's armor. This is only unreasoning dislike ot
Mr McKinley, and as such we do not believe in it nor trust the men who so bitterly
avow it."
Now, we feel naturally near the Anti-Imperialist. We do not quite agree with
him, for we believe that the fight must be made on broader lines than he is willing
to make it, and with a wider outlook. We recognize Imperialism as only a symptom
of the disease which has been for years undermining the health of our body politic.
The disease has assumed a violent form in that direction and we intend to fight it
so far as we are able, and to fight it to the end ; but we believe the fight can be
made under the flag of a new party, far better than under Mr. Bryan's tarnished
banner. Above all it is important, so we think, that the new party, if it is started
at all, should be a genuine and sincere movement; that it should not be directed
against either candidate in particular, but against both. If both candidates do not
stand for evils there is no justification for a third party at all. If there is such
justification, it is because both parties are bad— both should be attacked and neither
should be favored. REASONS FOR THE TICKET.
I have taken up the question as to the wisdom of the ticket and answered briefly
and imperfectly the objections ; let me now say a few words as to the reasons for it.
In the first place we may say that our object is to fight with all the strength
that in us lies that force of corrupt and degrading commercialism which has under
mined our public life and which finds various expressions. It prostitutes public
office by making it the vehicle of private gain, it spreads pauperism among our
people by scattering governmental favors broadcast —here an improper tariff, there
an undeserved pension, elsewhere a subsidy or bounty from some River and Harbor
bill. It debauches the public service by scandalous appointments. And to crown
its iniquities it has turned a war which the people of this country intended as a war
for the liberation of Cuba from misgovernment, into a war of conquest in the
Philippines. But this spirit could not have gained such headway if it had not found a weak
ened resistance among those who should have opposed it. Imperialism comes not
alone from the arrogant exercise of corrupt power. If I remember my ancient his
tory correctly it was not only that the Roman Republic assumed control of distant
peoples ; it was the breaking up of the social bonds of the state, it was after the
evil passions of the mob had been fed by flatterers, and class hatred had been
aroused by demagogues that the way was paved for civil war, the dictatorships of
Marius and Sulla, and thence by a natural transition to the Empire of the Caesars.
If therefore we fear danger to our country from the President's brutal and sel
fish colonial policy (if anything so invertebrate can be called a policy) we fear also
the weakening of the social bonds which may result from the teachings of Mr.
Bryan. Against the gross materialism of the Republican we set the vagaries of
Populism and we find both things detestable and dangerous.
We have found by experience both parties willing enough to talk about some
" paramount issue " during the campaign— but unwilling to do anything to redeem
their pledges after election. We have not forgotten the splendid victory for tariff
reform which the Democrats won in 1892, but we are still waiting for the reform
i

which was promised, we remember the sound monev campaign of four years ago
which has produced nothing but a feeble currency bill intended and now admitted
to be so imperfect that it protects the country only if " the right man " is elected
president. We believe that both parties have lost the power or the inclination, or
both, to carry out their promises.
This being the condition of things we see little to hope from Mr. Bryan's
election. The first act of Mr. McKinley, pledged to give us sound money, was to
increase the tariff; who will guarantee that if we elect Mr. Bryan on the issue of
Imperialism he will not give us free silver instead? To be sure Mr. Bryan has
given a pledge to call Congress together— but will it do anything ? Granting Mr.
Bryan's sincerity, can he be any more powerful with his party than Mr. Cleveland
was in 1892, after one of the most splendid political victories in our history. A
successful anti-imperial policy requires a statesman : a cool head, a great and well
balanced mind, a firm hand, honest and fearless, a man to command the love of
friends and the respect of foes. It is no easy task to undo the mischief which has
been done. Did the ratification of the treaty with Spain show statesmanship on
the part of Mr. Bryan? Will he give freedom and self-government to Hawaii and
Porto Rico as well as to Cuba and the Phillipines? His platform does not so state
nor does he so promise ; yet true anti-imperialism demands it. In fact he used the
votes of Hawaii in convention to rivet the shackles of free silver once more upon
the party. Will he give sell -government to the islands? He has not promised nor
does his platform call for it.
We recognize in neither candidate a man of the type and calibre that should
stand at the head of this Republic. Let me read the admirable definition of a
statesman given by Mr. Lowell in the same essay from which I began my quoting.
" The statesman applies himself to the observation and recording of certain causes
which lead constantly to certain effects, and is thus able to formulate general laws
for the guidance of his own judgment, and for the conduct of affairs. He is not so
much interested in the devices by which men may be influenced, as about how they
ought to be influenced; not so much about how men's passions and prejudices may
be utilized for a momentary advantage to himself or his party, as about how they
may be hindered from doing a permanent harm to the commonwealth. He trains
himself to discern evils in their causes, that he may forewarn, if he cannot prevent,
and that he may not be taken unawares by the long bill of damages they are sure
to bring in, and always at the least convenient moment. He seeks and finds in the
moral world the weather signs of the actual world. He strives to see and know
things as they really are, and as they are related to each other, as they really are
and therefore always must be; his vision undeflected by the cross-lights of transi
tory circumstance, his judgment undisturbed by the clamor of passionate and
changeful opinion."
If you could select any other passage in literature so accurately describing what
both Mr. McKinley and Mr. Bryan are not. I should be greatly surprised. Not
only are these gentlemen not statesmen, but by not a single qualification can they
satisfy the definition.
On the issues about which we care, both candidates fail to satisfy us ; both stand
for some form of political dishonesty.
We believe in an honest public service. But we have in one candidate a presi
dent who has taken the first backward step since Civil Service reform became a
burning question, and many of whose appointments have been most shameful ex
amples of political bargaining. On the other side, is a candidate openly and
unblushingly committed to the spoils system.
We believe in the abolition of special privileges. And we are faced on the one
hand with a party led by men who are not satisfied with exploiting one country for
-their own benefit, but sigh, like Alexander, for new worlds to conquer. Qn the
other hand is the party which believes that special privileges for the few can be
remedied by special privileges for the many ; whose union with Populism is no
longer concealed and deprecated, but is open, complete and dangerous to the safety
of the state.
We believe in a sound currency system based on the standard of commerce,
recognized and adopted by the civilized world.
Four years ago the Republicans won on this paramount issue, but, as I have
already shown, they have been thoroughly false to their pledges. After years of
strenuous agitation by the business men of the country, a measure was passed in
the' last session. As it passed the house, while it was a very imperfect embodiment

of genuine currency reform, it was at least respectable ; but the senators mangled
it for political purposes, so as to have the monetary issue in the campaign, and it
leaves us still at the mercy of unsound financiers, who may be placed in oflice. On
the other hand, the Democratic candidate remains pledged to his economical
vagaries, and, although a majority of the party delegates were against the issue,
forced it into the party platform by his personal influence. Between a deceitful
friend and an open enemy there is little to choose.
We come last to the question which we believe is most important, although it
is not the only one of the campaign. We regard the imperialist course of the ad
ministration, which the Republican party has endorsed by renominating the presi
dent, with abhorrence. There are those who feign ignorance or indifference as to
what is Imperialism. We might fairly point to the slaughter by the troops of the
United States, of men fighting for their freedom and the right of self-government,
and say, " This is Imperialism." But it is well to define the word more closely.
Imperialism is a slate of mind, not alone a series of acts. It assumes that
there are two grades of human beings, those who are entitled to rule, and those
who must submit to be ruled, and that the latter may be utilized for the benefit
and profit of the former. It assumes various forms, and sometimes covers itself
with a cloak of religious cant, but at the bottom it is always the same greed of gain.
True Anti-Imperialism denies the right of any set of men or any people to assume
authority over any other people. It denies the right to decide for that people
what shall be its political status in the world until it has reached its political
majority, through the only means a people can reach it — self-government and re
sponsibility. It denies the right of this nation to annex Hawaii, for instance, until
the people of Hawaii, by means of self-government, are fitted to become citizens of
the United States ; and not then, unless both the people of Hawaii and the people
of the United States desire the union. It denies that the question of Hawaii or
Porto Rico has been settled in the court of morals, unless we admit that it is no
part of the law to restore stolen goods to their owner.
Anti-Imperialism holds that self-government, in spite of all its defects, is better
than a tyranny, however benevolent its mask. It holds that the true mission of
this nation is not to go forth and conquer the islands of the earth, and lay them
waste with fire and sword ; but to rule the hearts and consciences of mankind by
showing an example of a Christian nation, strong through good government,
unvexed by envy of its neighbors' goods, but expanding all the time through peace
ful trade with other nations,— a friend to the oppressed, a protector to the weak,
an inspiration and an ideal to all mankind. On this issue, if there were no other,
we decline to support Mr. McKinley.
But neither can we support Mr. Bryan. We have all lately read a fine speech
upon this issue, delivered by him at Indianapolis. The orator of the Chicago plat
form has not forgotten how to put together brave words and telling phrases, and
were we so light-minded as to be swayed by words alone, he might possibly com
mand our suffrages. We cannot so soon, however, forget Mr. Bryan's wild and
reckless words of four years since ; although it is not what he said so much as the
character of the man of which these words were merely the expression, that we dis
trust. The fact stares us in the face that Mr. Bryan is still wedded to a dishonest
scheme of finance, and insisted upon a free silver plank in the platform, when by
dropping it he could have united all opponents of the administration on his so-called
"paramount issue." We find it as impossible to accept dishonesty of one kind as
dishonesty of another, even when it is cloaked by fair phrases and ringing periods.
It is a pretty game of politics which Mr. Bryan is playing to gain the Anti-Imper
ialists, while he holds the Free Silver Populists ; but we must be pardoned if we
cannot quite trust Mr. Bryan's sincerity when he insists upon one paramount issue
in the west, and proclaims another for the east.
To us the fact that Mr. Bryan accepts the Chicago platform and the Populists'
nomination, is of far less importance than that he can accept them. We believe
that in the campaign of 1896 Mr. Bryan showed himself a clever but insincere poli
tician—possessing neither the quiet statemanship nor the reserved power necessary
to handle such a situation as he will find if elected. Are we to suppose that in the
four years that have elapsed he has so changed as to be a suitable candidate for
president ? Had he done anything of value during that four years, made any effort
to learn wisdom or acquire experience, we might be inclined to give him the benefit
of the doubt ; but his career has been that of the political agitator, and such a train
ing is not what is necessary to remedy Mr. Bryan's faults. It is not only his adopt-
6

ing and clinging to the wrong side of a bad issue ; it is his dropping the tariff issue
just as it was about to reappear in its most selfish and subtle form as the new
Imperialism, his bringing about the ratification of the Spanish treaty, which could
easily have been amended, his absolute lack of training in any business, his ignor
ance of affairs— in short, his whole make-up as a brilliant, but shifty, rhetorican—
that makes Mr.. Bryan the undesirable candidate that we declined to support in
1896, and that we again decline to support to-day.
POSITION OF THE INDEPENDENTS.
If any other reason were needed as to the wisdom of putting a third ticket in
the field, it could be found in the ludicrous position of the Independents in this
campaign. Where is the compact body which was to give victory on this side or
that, and ensure good government by looking after the politicians ? The compact
body has scattered into fragments, and he is a clever person who can find any two
Independents taking the same view.
I have been making a collection in a humble way by correspondence and
observation, and I have so far procured five different varieties of the Independent
voter. I do not maintain that my collection is complete and I will be glad to ex
change with anyone who will furnish me with a new variety. There is First : he
who will deliver himself to the Republicans on the ground that they are less evil
than the Democrats. Second : he who yields himself to the Democrats because they
are less evil than the Republicans. Third : he who will vote for McKinley but
otherwise for the Democrats, because while the president is all powerful on the
money question he cannot do much damage imperially without the help of Con
gress. Fourth : he who will vote for Bryan and the Republicans because while the
President can do much mischief imperially, he cannot do any damage on the money
question without the support of Congress. Fifth : is the gentleman who declines to
vote at all but announces his belief that the fishing will be good the first week in
November, and of all seasons that is just the one for vacation.
Seriously, such differences of opinion among men whose every interest it is to
act together would be ludicrous if it were not so pathetic ; when such an easy,
natural and satisfying way out of the difficulty is right before them, and all they
have to do is to do it. And it is really the one and only way in which they can cast
such a vote as they owe to their country. A man owes it to himself, to posterity,
as well as to his country, to cast a vote which shall register his honest political con
victions. If a man truly believes in McKinley and all he stands for, by all means
let him vote the Republican ticket. If he believes in Bryan and what he stands
for, let him so record his vote. And I for one will say in either case "Well done I "
But if a man believes in neither candidate nor in what he represents, then I say
he is doing what no man has a right to do when on election day he casts a ballot
which is a lie. Let us then put up a third ticket which shall embody what we all
believe in, and for which we can vote with the certainty that our votes will be
counted for what we intend, and not for what somebody else chooses to construe
them. A ticket by means of which we can vote for anti-Imperialism without en
dorsing Populism, for sound money without upholding war in the Philippines, for
civil service reform upon which both parties turn their backs, and which lies at the
heart of all good government. A ticket which shall be truly anti-imperialist urging
freedom, not for some, but for all the territory where we are governing without
the consent of the governed. Let us have the courage of our convictions — let us
put our ticket boldly in the field trusting to the future, and in the faith that means
and organization will arise as occasion serves. Not one of us believes that we can
poll a great vote ; it would be folly to claim it. Difficult political conditions, un
just ballot laws, the contempt of the press, all the silent forces of corruption will
reduce our vote to a minimum. In many states we shall not be able to put an
elector on the ballot at all. But what then? Is not the moral necessity of our
action rather increased thereby than diminished? Is our duty any the less clear?
It merely means harder work and longer fighting to secure a hearing ; it does not
exempt us from following our consciences. It means that the true measure of the
success of this movement must be looked for not in the number of our votes but in
their quality. If we find among our supporters not the men of political reputation
but the quiet citizens of lofty moral nature, of tried and true independence of
thought and action, of high resolve and noble ambition to live an upright and use
ful life, — if such men are with us, then our party can no more fail than Christianity
itself can fail because mankind still refuses to abide by the Golden Rule.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08937 3550

PLATFORM

OF THE

NATIONAL PARTY,
ADOPTED SEPT. 5, 1900.

We, citizens of the United States of America, assembled
for the purpose of defending the wise and conservative princi
ples which underlie our Government, thus declare our aims
and purposes :
We find our country threatened with alternative perils.
On the one hand is a public opinion misled by organized
forces of commercialism which have perverted a war intended
by the people to be a war of humanity into a war for conquest.
On the other hand is a public opinion swayed by demagogic
appeals to factional and class passions, the most fatal of dis
eases to a republic. We believe that either of these influences,
if unchecked, would ultimately compass the downfall of our
country, but we also believe that neither represents the sober
conviction of our countrymen.
Convinced that the extension of the United States for the
purpose of holding foreign peoples as colonial dependencies is
an innovation dangerous to our liberties and repugnant to the
principles upon which our Government is founded, we pledge
our earnest efforts through all Constitutional means,
First — To procure the renunciation of all imperial or col
onial pretensions with regard to foreign countries claimed to
have been acquired through or in consequence of naval or mil
itary operations of the last two years.
Second — We further pledge our efforts to secure a single
gold standard and a sound banking system.
Third — To secure a public service based on merit only.
Fourth — To secure the abolition of all corrupting special
privileges, whether under the guise of subsidies, bounties, un
deserved pensions, or trust- breeding tariffs.