themselves open to the charge that they vote the party ticket for selfish purposes, and not “as a matter of political principle”?
Or will you pretend that the party pledge concerning the civil service law is not binding, while other pledges are? Why should it be so? The civil service pledge was not a mere accidental, heedless utterance. It has been reiterated with the utmost positiveness in every Republican platform since the enactment of the civil service law—the reiteration being no less regular and emphatic than that with which the protective tariff was endorsed. Upon what ground, then, would you call one pledge less sacred and binding than the other? On the binding force of the civil service pledge you may take lessons from President McKinley.
I know you assert that in some respects the civil service law does not work well. For the sake of argument I will for a moment forget that your allegations have been conclusively shown to be groundless or irrelevant, but assume that they had some foundation in fact—that in the execution of the law really some mistakes had been made and some inconvenience to the service been caused. What would under such circumstances be the course of a true Republican, a faithful party man? Would he not consider it his duty to exert to the utmost his ingenuity and influence to the end of correcting those mistakes and inconveniences in a manner harmonious with the spirit and intent of the civil service law, so that the solemn pledge of the party promising an honest and thorough enforcement of the law might be faithfully redeemed? Would he, instead, think for a moment of acting as you do? Would he denounce the law as an outlandish contrivance “modeled after India, China and Great Britain”? Would he endeavor to create the false impression that it had been enacted, not by the Republican party, but by a dis-
