office or other political favor as a reward for his vote. They all knew perfectly well that immediately after your party had accepted and been benefited by their help, Republican politicians like yourself would turn around and call them “traitors,” and “renegades,” and “political hermaphrodites” and what not. Even such a prospect could not deter them from voting as they did. If this was not voting “as a matter of political principle”—voting to the end of promoting not their personal interests, but the public good—what in the world was it? Would you say that he votes “as a matter of political principle” who steadily votes his party ticket, no matter whether he approves of the principles and policies of the party or not—perhaps merely to get an office? That this is really your conception of “political principle” can hardly be doubted by any fairminded reader of your letter.
Why do you seek to defame the character of the officers of the Civil Service Reform League? Your purpose is evident. You wish your constituency to understand that the civil service law has been framed and is now mainly supported only by enemies of the Republican party, by “worshipers of Grover Cleveland,” by “traitors,” “renegades,” “political hermaphrodites”—in one word, by persons utterly unworthy of respect, and that, therefore, this law, “modeled,” as you say, “after India, China and Great Britain,” should not only not be supported, but should speedily be thrown overboard.
I ask you, Senator, are you not insulting your New Hampshire constituents by speculating upon their supposed ignorance? Have you so mean an opinion of their intelligence and education as to believe that they have never read the Republican platform? That platform, solemnly adopted last year by the National Convention of the Republican party as the proclamation of its faith, speaks thus:
