146
DEBATE.
ty to friends, even my opponent will admit. So, it only remains to prove that party fealty is loyalty to one's country, and my point is established beyond controversy.
The origin of all parties is in the fact that different men have different ideas as to what is best for the country at large. In the United States this has given rise to two leading parties, each based upon what it defines to be best for public welfare. If this is true, and a moment's thought will convince you that it is, it is patriotism that creates parties, and to be loyal to the party is to be patriotic. Party fealty then, is loyalty to country and friend, therefore, no matter what definition is given considerations of character, the former is the better motive. True, parties, at present, seem to have forgotten the need that gave them birth. They have fallen from their high estate; and what is the cause? They are no longer led by the loyalty to party principles, but by personal considerations.
Again, the whole of anything is greater than one of its parts. Considerations of character is a part of party fealty, and therefore cannot outweigh it.
When a young lady or gentleman enters the University is it not consideration of the character of certain persons that causes him to take them into his confidence and make friends of them? Is it not so everywhere? But considerations of character is directly a part of party fealty. For when a boy reaches mature years it is considerations of character that influence his choice of a party; and when the choice is made it is consideration of character among other things that causes him to be faithful, therefore considerations of character is a part of party fealty, and cannot outweigh it.
My opponent may say, however, that party fealty means a blind following of the
party leaders. But that would be man fealty. For the so-called leaders do not constitute the party. The gentleman himself will hardly claim that. If he is a republican he will say that the party at large is not to blame for the Star Route frauds, nor will he, if a democrat, admit that he is responsible for the Ku-klux outrages. And, if a leader shows himself unworthy of the trust of his party, it is party fealty that requires his removal.
Or he may say, "party fealty requires one to vote for the man who is on the party ticket regardless of his moral character." For the sake of argument I will admit that it is true. Calling your attention, however, to the fact that regardless of moral character does not mean, as he would infer, that the character of every candidate is bad until proven good, but the contrary. The gentleman seems to have forgotten that we have primaries and conventions at which, if there are sufficient objections to a man on account of his character, it is an easy matter to prevent his nomination: provided the moral men of the party are present, and it is party fealty that compels their attendance.
The farmer, who wishes to rid his field forever of sprouts, strikes at their roots. He does not wait till they become saplings and then trim them.
When honest men, led by party fealty, do their duty before as well as at elections, when politicians are sure of the support of their whole party, when men cease to be led by prejudice, under the name of consideration of character, then, and not till then, can there, or will there, be such reforms as are necessary.
Can considerations of character ever accomplish this work? No; for, according to my opponent's definition, consideration of character means, simply, refusing to vote at elections for very many whom we do not